DISCRIMINATORY TRAINING BY CERTAIN BODIES

HC Deb 16 October 1975 vol 897 cc1630-2

Lords amendment: No. 29, after Clause 45, in page 28, line 4, at end insert the following Clause B— B.—(1) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in relation to particular work by a training body in or in connection with—

1. (a)affording women only, or men only, access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work, or
2. (b)encouraging women only, or men only, to take advantage of opportunities for doing that work,

where it appears to the training body that at any time within the 12 months immediately preceding the doing of the act there were no persons of the sex in question doing that work in Great Britain or the number of persons of that sex doing the work in Great Britain was comparatively small. (2) Where in relation to particular work it appears to a training body that although the condition for the operation of subsection (1) is not met for the whole of Great Britain it is met for an area within Great Britain, nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by the training body in, or in connection with—

1. (a)affording persons who are of the sex in question, and who appear likely to take up that work in that area, access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work, or
2. (b)encouraging persons of that sex to take advantage of opportunities in the area for doing that work.

(3) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by a training body in, or in connection with, affording persons access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, where it appears to the training body that those persons are in special need of training by reason of the period for which they have been discharging domestic or family responsibilities to the exclusion of regular full time employment. The discrimination in relation to which this subsection applies may result from confining the training to persons who have been discharging domestic or family responsibilities, or from the way persons are selected for training, or both. (4) In this section "training body" means—

1. (a) a person mentioned in section 14(2)(a) or (b), or
2. (b) any other person being a person designated for the purposes of this section in an order made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State,

and a person may be designated under paragraph (b) for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) only, or of subsection (3) only, or for all those subsections.

Mr. John Fraser

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 30, in Clause 46, page 28, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Mr. Fraser

New Clause B consists mainly of provisions from Clause 46 allowing a limited degree of positive discrimination in training which have already been agreed by the House. Only subsection (3) of the new clause is entirely new to the Bill, and it results from the Government's view that there is one more area where training bodies should be able to make special provisions for providing benefit to women without any fear of a breach of the terms of the Bill. This is the area of special training for persons who, for domestic or family reasons, have been out of full-time employment for some considerable time.

A woman—or a man—coming back to the labour market may find that her old skills are no longer in demand or they need modifying. It could be that the ex-housewife could benefit from a more general course which would enable her to readjust to a pattern of working life after a long time away from employment In any case, she will have special problems which result from her absence from the labour market.

Under the Bill as it left this House, a course confined to women returning to the labour market would have been un-lawful, and a training body confining a course to women and men who had been out of the labour market for domestic reasons might have been challenged to show under Clause 1(1)(b) that this was "justifiable".

I hope the House will recognise that there is merit in providing special courses for mothers or fathers who have had family responsibilities to help them train for a return to the world of employment and widen their opportunities. For that reason, I commend the new clause to the House.

Mrs. Millie Miller (Ilford, North)

The worrying thing about the original Bill was the suggestion that there could not be positive discrimination. For that reason, I am sure the House will welcome the introduction of this new clause, which will help considerably in an area where women often find the greatest discrimination, and that is when they return to work after having raised their families or undertaken a domestic responsibility and find that they cannot get a suitable type of training. I am sure that many women will be pleased to see these provisions included in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.