PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS AND SMALL UNDERTAKINGS AND PARTNERSHIPS (Hansard, 22 October 1986)

§ Ms. Richardson
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete subsection (2). We seek to remove the whole subsection, which deals with the exemption of employment in private households with regard to the degree of physical or social contact and "the knowledge of" intimate details and so on.
We had a long debate about that matter in Committee, and I am sorry that the present Minister was not there. However, I am sure that he will have read our interesting debate. Exemption of private household employment is brought within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by clause 1(1) of the Bill. Section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 already provides for exemption where the job needs to be held by a man to preserve decency or privacy. Clause 1(2) of the Bill is redundant and the Government have failed to produce any arguments in its support which would not already be covered by section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Lord Young's example, which was repeated by the Minister's predecessor in our deliberations in Committee, referred to the washing and ironing of underclothes and bedmaking, even if the employer is absent from the house at the time, and is unacceptable as a genuine occupational qualification for exemption from the Act. The former Minister's example of employing a babysitter previously unknown to the employer can surely be dealt with through rigorous scrutiny of references and is not a matter of the sex of the applicant. The way in which the Government have sought to bring the Sex Discrimination Act in regard to private households into line with other legislation is ludicrous.
Moreover, the type of services which babysitters and companions to elderly people would be expected to perform are satisfactorily covered by section 7(2) (b)(i) and (ii) and section 7(2)(e) of the Sex Discrimination Act and by clause 1(1) of this Bill. I apologise to hon. Members for mentioning so many subsections of measures with which they may not be as familiar as those of us who served on the Committee, but the Minister will understand and I am anxious not to spend too much time on this.
1251 The introduction of the word "social", on which the Government are insisting, introduces a completely new category into the Sex Discrimination Act with regard to exemptions of the Act.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Does the hon. Lady recall that this amendment would have been passed in Committee with my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) had it not been for the regrettable absence of one of her colleagues?

§ Ms. Richardson
With great respect, it is not like the hon. Lady to make such a cheap point.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
It is not. It is very important.

§ Ms. Richardson
It is an important point.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Clause 19.

§ Ms. Richardson
If the hon. Lady will allow me to speak, the hon. Member concerned had an urgent appointment outside. It is perfectly well known that from time to time in Committee hon. Members must be absent. It was unfortunate and we regret it but these things happen. It is no good the hon. Lady trying to take credit for the one and only time when she voted with us. If she voted with us more often, perhaps we would win more often.
Anyway, the word "social", if it is introduced into the Bill, will bring another loophole into an Act which has already proved to be too widely drawn in relation to the standards of the equal treatment directive of the EEC. The Government are in danger of merely complying with one ruling in order not to be found in non-compliance in future.
There was some merit in the Bill and we supported it when it was first introduced. The first two clauses represent the initial reason for the Bill's introduction. However, our support for the Bill has withered because of the other provisions which have been introduced. Our support for the matter of private households has withered because the Government do not seem to understand, or deliberately misunderstand, the intention of the equal treatment directive.
The Government have introduced the Bill in such a ridiculous form that it will have no value. I ask the Minister for the last time to reconsider and remove subsection (2). The amendment seeks to remove that subsection.

§ Mr. Lee
I have listened to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) this evening and I have read the record of the earlier discussions on this clause in Committee. I am somewhat exasperated by the attitude of Opposition Members to this clause. Until now, private households have been completely exempt from the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and there is no evidence of widespread abuse. I thought that all of us here — and in Europe — were agreed that respect for private life is paramount. Yet consider the effect of the amendment. All employment in a private household would be open to both sexes unless it was subject to one of the exemptions currently listed in section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I accept that the hon. Member for Barking acknowledged that. Physical contact would be no reason for seeking an employee of a particular sex unless it involved decency or privacy; social contact would be no reason at all.
1252 I apologise here for giving examples. However, what may be the feelings of an old lady who would be compelled to consider men as well as women when choosing a personal companion? Or consider another old lady. who, perhaps, has been proud to lead an independent life until stricken by the frailties of old age. According to the Opposition, not only must she now swallow her pride and admit to the person who cleans and washes for her that she now needs help—that must be hard enough for her—she must suffer the double indignity of admitting that equally to a man or a woman, knowing that such a person will inevitably learn about her problems. I am not talking about bank statements, to which reference was made in the earlier stages of the Bill. I am not talking about healthy, middle-aged people with a contemporary outlook. I am talking about physical problems like incontinence. I am talking about old people, possibly old fashioned people but nevertheless people who have a right to have their personal feelings respected in the privacy of their homes.
I find it surprising and perhaps incredible that Opposition Members seem prepared to go back to their constituents and tell them that they must ignore the sex of people performing these intimate tasks within their homes. In Committee, we referred to laundries, yet talk of laundries or pre-dinner drinks is an irrelevance, and I hope and believe that that can only be the result of misunderstanding. We are not prepared to allow the invasion of privacy that the amendments seek. I hope that on reflection the hon. Member for Barking will withdraw the amendment.

§ Ms. Richardson
I will not press the amendment to a Division because, in view of what has happened earlier this evening, it would be defeated. However, I remind the Minister that the EEC is unhappy about the matter and does not believe that the provision complies with the equal treatment directive.
The Minister exaggerates the problems which might face elderly people. We all understand the problems which face elderly people and we want to see that they are comfortable—I use the word "comfortable" deliberately — with the people in the house with them. The introduction of the word "social" will add endless complications which will mean that the genuine purpose of the clause will not be fulfilled. I know that my words are falling on deaf ears so I will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.