USE OF PUBLIC MONEY (Hansard, 18 June 1975)

§ Miss Richardson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With it we shall also discuss Amendment No. 74, in Clause 65, page 38, line 43, at end insert: '(2) Persons or organisations against whom such an order or injunction is granted shall not be eligible for grants of any kind from public funds or for tendering for any contracts paid out of such funds, notwithstanding any other enactments prior to this Act, for a period to be decided by the Secretary of State.'

§ Miss Richardson
I seem to be speaking yet again and I hope that hon. Members will not get sick of the sound of my voice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] Some of the amendments are in the names of other hon. Ladies who were members of the Standing Committee but who are away on Government business since they were not expecting the Bill to come to the Floor of the House this week.
In effect the clause seeks to give additional enforcement power to the Government, to the Equal Opportunities Commission and to employers and the unions. It would mean that the Government or the commission would have the power not to give contracts to firms which were discriminating against women. Such a provision would bring the treatment 1480 of discrimination on grounds of sex into line with the treatment of discrimination on grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The fair wages resolution was extended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who was the Secretary of State in 1969, to cover race. The inclusion of race in the fair wages resolution as a non-discrimination clause in Government contracts has proved not very effective because of the absence of any provision for monitoring compliance.
Though there is nothing to prevent the Equal Opportunities Commission, as the Bill stands, from investigating any Government contractor, subsection (4) is important because it spells out the commission's duty to do so. It also draws attention to Section 51 powers which will be relevant in such cases.
The effect might be that the EOC would set up a special government contracts department to investigate contractors and, where the law was being breached, recommend the withdrawal of the contract or loan. That is the nub of the matter. When we have legislation, why should we award contracts to firms which are not complying with that legislation? We should use this sanction and examine carefully the firms which are bidding for contracts.
7.30 p.m.
I hope that the House will forgive me for referring once again to United States legislation. In the United States, to be eligible for federal contracts or sub-contracts a firm must show not just that it does not discriminate against women in recruitment, promotion and so on, but that it is taking active steps called affirmative action, to put right the under-representation of women. When a firm is bidding for a large contract in the United States it must produce as part of the bid its affirmative action programme to show that it is putting right any under-representation which may exist. With smaller contracts firms have 120 days in which to produce this programme, and the programme must relate to recruitment, training and access to management positions.
Perhaps in the future we shall need to put a similar provision into this legislation, but I am not asking the Government to go that far, but the least we 1481 can do is to adopt the clause, which provides: It shall be a condition in the award of any contract … that the contractor shall comply with the provisions of this Act". Heaven knows, the Bill is limited enough, and such a provision would do much to assure women that the Government seriously intend the Bill to be obeyed.

§ Mr. Greville Janner
Without the clause the Bill has no teeth. With the clause it will be obeyed. It would take a very strong reason for the House to reject the clause, and I hope that it will be accepted.

§ Dr. Summerskill
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) has given an eloquent explanation of the necessity for the clause. I am particularly struck by subsection (1), which states: that the contractor shall comply with the provisions of this Act and of the Equal Pay Act 1970, and failure so to comply shall result in the withdrawal of the contract, loan, grant or guarantee and the withholding of further contracts". The clause makes no allowance for the other duties and obligations of Government Departments or boards which place contracts or provide finance. It would put the Government in a very difficult, if not impossible, position if they suddenly had to withdraw a major contract placed with a vitally important firm—perhaps a key firm in our economy—or ceased to provide finance to a local authority. It would put everyone in a difficult position if the Government were suddenly to be debarred from paying rate support grant to a local authority. I understand that any of those results might be consequential upon the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
The clause raises several difficult points of principle. Furthermore, it imposes additional statutory penalties on one small group of people who might be found to have broken the law. In effect, it would place in a statutorily enshrined double jeopardy those who tender for contracts from Government Departments or a wide range of public bodies or who rely on finance from public funds. There is no discretion, and on procedure for review. There is no procedure for appeal, and no procedure for clearing up the confusion that would result from the sudden imposition of a procedure of this 1482 kind. There is no procedure for carrying out the other purposes which the Government Department or public body seeks to carry out by means of the contract or by means of the provision of finance.
The use by the Government of their influence as a provider of funds and contracts is more properly covered by administrative action than by statutory sanctions. We think that in using their influence the Government should look both to the positive and to the negative sides of the situation.
The House will be aware that consideration was given to this problem in relation to Government contracts following the passing of the Race Relations Act 1968, and that certain administrative action has already been taken. A requirement has been incorporated in the standard conditions of Government contracts that the contractor should conform to the provisions of the 1968 Act relating to discrimination in employment. My right hon. Friend, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave the assurance that Government Departments would be prepared to withhold contracts from firms practising racial discrimination in employment. We shall consider, once the Bill becomes law, in the light of practice and experience in the race relations field, extending the same condition in Government contracts to sex discrimination. The Equal Opportunities Commission will, of course, have its own powers of investigation and will, we hope, seeks ways of publicising and following up good employment practices.
In the light of these comments, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the clause.