EXEMPTION OF EMPLOYMENT IN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT (Hansard, 18 June 1975)

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)
With this we are taking Amendment No. 20 in page 8, line 37, leave out Clause 10.

§ Mr. Bell
I made clear at an earlier stage that I regard the Bill as a preposterous measure, and on the whole the attitude I have taken is that it is a waste of time to try to improve it. All I have done is to pick out a few of the more egregious absurdities and draw the attention of the House to them. As I said in the Second Reading debate, we make ourselves foolish when we give our time to the consideration of such proposals as these.
The effect of the clause is to say that the Bill shall not apply to ships and aircraft, although I am concerned primarily with ships. The General Council of British Shipping said that it did not mind the Bill provided that certain amendments were made. The Government are proposing an amendment relating to accommodation on board ship which goes some way to meet the council's case. I speak not for the council but simply on my own behalf in saying that I regard the application of a Bill which prohibits discrimination between men and women as particularly absurd in relation to service on board ship.
Of course, women have for a long time been employed in ships in various capacities, but a ship has different kinds of people in its crew doing different sorts of things. The idea that a woman is just as suitable as a man for doing all tasks is ridiculous. I know that since the days when I served on ships during the war there has been a high degree of mechanisation, but it remains true that deckhands have to do a good deal of hard physical work.
It is obviously sensible that shipowners should discriminate between men and women in choosing crew members to act as seamen. I do not see why there should be a provision in an Act of Parliament to stop them from doing so. If things so change on board ship that it ceases to matter whether members of the crew in all capacities are male or female, I am sure that the shipowners will quickly adopt the position that they do not mind who it is, subject to the question of accommodation, a matter which is dealt with in the Bill.
1484 At the moment the Bill applies in its full rigour, subject to the availability of accommodation, to any employment in a ship or aircraft. That is absurd, and I hope that the House will accept the clause.

§ Mr. John Fraser
I certainly hope that the House does not accept the clause. I shall not deal with the matter at great length and take up all that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has said. The argument that is used against employing women among the crews of ships is exactly the same argument that can be applied to not having women in factories and in other occupations which require some physical strength. It is to dispose of that stereotyped attitude that we bring forward the Bill. It is exactly the same argument, and it is not peculiarly applicable to ships.
Secondly, the proposal to extend the Bill to ships has the full support of the General Council of British Shipping. I have received a letter from the council which says that as employers the council gives an unqualified welcome to this legislation. It is in favour of women being employed at sea to the greatest practicable extent. For a good many years a sizeable number of women have been employed in catering departments on board ships. More recently not a few shipping companies have gone out of their way actively to recruit young women as officer cadets.
As the Bill has the support of the shipowners and the support of the General Council of British Shipping, and of course, since if we accepted the argument behind the clause we would have exceptions running right through the Bill—I ask the House to reject the clause.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
There is nothing unexpected in that answer. The Minister will realise that I was well aware of what was written on behalf of the General Council of British Shipping. Of course, the council wants a particular amendment to the Bill. If that amendment is carried its problems will be met for the time being. Obviously the council felt it wise to go along with the Government and to express airy-fairy sentiments, bearing in mind the amendment which it wants to see passed by the House.
1485 I do not disagree with the Minister in that what I have said would be applicable in some degree to other aspects of life. That is why I made it clear that I am totally opposed to the principle of the Bill. I believe that discrimination is right on all grounds and in all cases. I think that on Second Reading I described it as the informing principle of life itself. We can have too little of it but we cannot have too much.
The crucial point underlying the clause is that in the case of ships the provisions of the Bill are particularly absurd. There has not been employment of women on the deck as seamen. Such work is as yet clearly unsuitable for women. This fact will be represented by there being scarcely any women applicants, if any, for deck duties and duties as seamen on the lower deck. However, that is no excuse for passing a silly section in an Act of Parliament. I hope that the House will accept the clause all the more because of the Minister's speech.