§ 4. Mr. RogersTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses to "Restrictions in Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" have called for the repeal of section 124(1) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and section 21(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which prohibits the employment of women below ground in mines.
§ 6. Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses to "Restrictions in Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" have called for the repeal of section 4 of the Factories Act 1961, which prohibits the employment of women and young persons in certain processes connected wilth lead manufacture in factories.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls)No responses have been received to date concerning section 124(1) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and section 21(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
The relevant section of the Factories Act 1961 is section 74. No responses have been received to date on this either. The closing date for comment on the consultative document is 29 February.
§ Mr. RogersIs the Minister aware that the repeal of those sections, combined with the removal of the protective legislation in the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, could lead to women being employed underground again? We on the Labour Benches have grave fears that that might happen, especially in view of Mrs. Thatcher's espousal of—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We refer to each other by our titles here.
§ Mr. RogersWe have grave fears that that might happen, in view of the Prime Minister's espousal of Victorian values and the obvious support of those wet-necked twits that the Minister has behind him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Not unparliamentary, but I think a sight unnecessary.
§ Mr. NichollsThe hon. Gentleman phrases his question with his usual elegance and charm. I am bound to tell him 840 that we are concerned only to ensure that the available protections are necessary and, fulfil the task that they set themselves to fulfil. If, at the end of the day, the representations that we receive on the consultative document show that there are no grounds, on the basis of health and safety, to prevent women from being employed underground, I would find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman would deny to women the opportunities that he is prepared to concede to men.
§ Ms. WalleyIn view of the Minister's reply to that question, will he give an absolute assurance that women will not be required to work in areas where their health could be substantially put at risk?
§ Mr. NichollsWhen we are considering the representations on the consultative document, what will guide us will be whether the exisiting legislation achieves the effect of protecting women. If we find that in particular cases it is necessary to retain legislation, because of the particular health considerations of women, such legislation will be retained. The point is to keep necessary legislation that does protect, not legislation that simply discriminates against women because they are women.
§ Mr. ForthDoes my hon. Friend agree that we have now smoked out the Opposition? Their posturing in favour of equality for women is simply no longer true, if, indeed, it ever was. Does my hon. Friend also agree that they appear to want to deny to women the opportunities that are available to men? What does he propose to do about that?
§ Mr. NichollsMy hon. Friend asks what I shall do. To try to sort out the inconsistencies of the Labour party's position is beyond any of us. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) set out the position very fairly. I wondered whether he had cleared that line of question with the Valkyrie tendency in his party.
§ Mr. McLoughlinWill my hon. Friend confirm that no females will be required to work underground, unless they apply for the job? Should we assume, from the posturing of Labour Members, that the Labour party is against equal opportunities?
§ Mr. NichollsMy hon. Friend draws attention to a strange position. The Labour party has quite properly demanded that there should not be discrimination against women, but it is quite prepared to say, without advancing any evidence for the proposition, that opportunities to work underground will be an exclusively male preserve. It is extremely difficult to understand its attitude.