§ "—.(1) This section applies to any appointment by a Minister of the Crown or government department to an office or post where section 6 does not apply in relation to the appointment.
§ (2) In making the appointment, and in making the arrangements for determining who should be offered the office or post, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful under section 6 if the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.")
§ Schedule 1, page 58, line 15, leave out from ("to") to end of line 22 and insert—
§ ("(a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office, or
§ (b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body.")
§ Schedule 1, page 58, line 25, at end insert—
§ ("(9) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to service in—
- (a) the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, or
- (b) any women's service administered by the Defence Council.
§ (10) In this section "statutory body" means a body set up by or in pursuance of an enactment, and "statutory office" means an office so set up; and service "for purposes of" a Minister of the Crown or government department does not include service in any office in Schedule 2 (Ministerial offices) to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as for the time being in force.")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if I explain the object of this group of Amendments, and also speak to Nos. 56 and 57. They arise from a point made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner, who dealt with the position of public appointments. They spring from our desire to include 1280 in the Bill a clause creating a duty on Ministers and Government Departments not to discriminate in considering persons for public appointments. My noble and learned friend raised this point after an Amendment had been moved by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, not with his accustomed vigour on that occasion, but with some hesitation, which indicated to the Committee where he was suggesting there could in some circumstances be some form of quota for public appointments. He told the Committee that he was not an enthusiast for this proposition and he did not press his Amendment.
§ But in response to my noble and learned friend, we have thought it right to introduce an Amendment of this character and I hope it will do something to deal with the problem of the statutory woman. For far too long, a totally inadequate number of women have been appointed to boards and committees by Ministers of all Governments, and I very much hope that, as a result of this new provision in the Bill, there will be greater likelihood that Governments of all political Parties will take their responsibilities in this matter a great deal more seriously.
§ Secondly, this group of Amendments deals with a rather different point, that is, the position of cadet forces. The purpose is to permit discrimination to be exercised in regard to the number of girls who might in future be admitted to the Armed Services cadet forces. Clause 34 would permit the Air Training Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Sea Cadet Corps and the Combined Cadet Force to retain their single sex character, but consideration is now being given to permitting a limited number of girls to enter the Combined Cadet Force. Because of the contribution which the cadet forces make to male recruitment to the Regular Forces of the Crown, the Ministry of Defence would not think it right to open the Combined Cadet Force to girls without some control over numbers. It is on that basis that we are proposing this group of Amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, may wish to say something on these Amendments. If he would forgive my coming in at this stage, I 1281 should like him to apply his mind to a point that concerns me a little. Also, if I might, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what is the Government's intention. Is the new clause, put in here as Amendment No. 52, supposed to be enforceable? I am entirely in favour of this clause being in the Bill, but if it is put in after Clause 85 in Part VIII of the Bill, it will not be enforceable because it does not appear in Part II or Part III, and the effect of Clause 62 is to prevent anybody doing anything about it. It seems to me odd that if we lay a duty on a Government Department in the terms of this new clause then, if there is a breach of it, it may be that it should be the subject of proceedings, or the subject of investigation by the Equal Opportunities Commission, or that there should be some other remedy. At the present time, I think there is no remedy at all.
While I welcome this group of Amendments, both on this subject and on the subject of the cadet forces, I should not like this point to leave the House without some consideration about enforcement. Although we are short of time, there is always the possibility that when these Amendments go back to another place they can be altered there by a procedure which is sometimes used. I suggest that it is not entirely satisfactory, when we are applying the rest of this Bill to the Crown as an employer and in other capacities, that the duty to make appointments should be wholly unenforceable in any forum at all. It may be that the noble Lord is going to tell me that the Parliamentary forum is the right way to do it and, if so, that will be fine. But at the moment it is most obscure and I should be grateful for guidance on it from the noble Lord, or from any other of your Lordships.
§ Lord GARDINERI warmly welcome these Amendments. Many of us have thought for a long time that Ministers—though I am sure they have not done so deliberately—have sadly neglected the quota of women appointed to Government boards and I hope that these Amendments will enable that situation to be ended. I do not know the position about enforcement. Ordinarily, I should have thought that a Minister was answerable to Parliament and that one did not need to start impeachment or any other legal proceedings.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy noble and learned friend is quite right. In our view, this kind of duty is not capable of enforcement under Part II of the Bill, but there is a possibility of enforcement by prerogative writ under Clause 62. As my noble and learned friend rightly says, this matter will have to be dealt with in the Parliamentary forum. On this basis most Governments, I am sure, will take their responsibility in this matter seriously—not least some Ministers who are less progressive in matters of this sort—because they know they will be brought to account in Parliament if they do not take their responsibilities in this way.
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ 7.57 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURY moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 58:
§ Page 59, line 12, at end insert—
§ ("2A. In section 3 after "women only" there is inserted "such provision shall be unlawful; but".")
§ Page 63, line 5, after ("women only") insert ("such provision shall be unlawful; but").
§
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 58 refers to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, on page 63,
Where a collective agreement made before or after the commencement of this Act, contains any provision applying specifically to men only or to women only…
and the situation at the moment in such collective agreement may be referred by the Secretary of State to Industrial Arbitration Board, constituted under Part I of the 1919 Act.
§ In this Amendment we are suggesting that, in addition, such collective agreements as are mentioned will become unlawful after the passing of the Bill. When this matter was dealt with in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that the collective agreement had no legal status until its provisions were incorporated in a contract of employment with an individual employee, but if after that the collective agreement itself was unlawful, any contract of employment based on it would obviously be unenforceable. I am not sure whether the noble Lord wants to stick by that explanation. Lawyers whom I have consulted do not take the same view. They believe that a woman would be able not only to enforce all the other terms of the contract, but also to claim 1283 amendment of the terms of the contract in her favour, where it can be shown that those terms are inferior by reason of the fact that they follow an unlawful provision in the collective agreement.
§ As my noble friend pointed out, the Government's proposal requires the Secretary of State to refer collective agreements to the Arbitration Board and for the Board to amend the agreement if it is found to be discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, appeared to accept my noble friend's contention that this might be a very long-winded process, when he remarked that direction in this Bill is far more important than speed. In other words, contrary to the general impression, women are not going to get equal pay on 29th December 1975, as has been imagined up to now; that is to say, not all women will have equal pay if their collective agreement does not already provide for that, because then they will have to wait until the matter is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in turn has referred it to the Arbitration Board, who have considered whether or not discrimination has taken place. My noble friend, with her wide experience in these matters, does not believe that all the smaller agreements which are discriminatory in character will be dealt with automatically. Meanwhile, the employers concerned will be entitled to pay less to women than to men in the same occupation.
§ In conclusion, I should like to say that collective agreements must have a legal status after these provisions have been incorporated into the contract of employment, if one follows the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who says that they do not have legal status until that point in time. But unless we say plainly that they are unlawful, collective agreements which have been made before the passing of the Act and which contain some provision which is contrary to the Act may continue in being notwithstanding the fact that the contracts of employment which are based on those collective agreements may be referred to the courts. Therefore, one could have the ridiculous situation of a contract of employment with a woman being found to be wrong in law, and yet the collective agreement on which the contract of employment is based continues to be lawful. Therefore I believe 1284 that the addition of these words is a necessary protection and will ensure that these collective agreements do not persist long after the passing of the Act, thus enabling discrimination in pay to continue. I beg to move.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, this is an Amendment with which we have the greatest sympathy. I can assure the noble Lord that it was very carefully considered when the Bill was being drafted, and if we had thought that a draft which included the Amendment would have done more good than harm, the Bill would have been drafted in that way. We are absolutely satisfied that this Amendment would do more harm than good and thus it is for me to show how that occurs. Quite clearly, if a collective agreement is made unlawful, then clearly any woman's contract of employment which relates to that unlawful agreement, so far as that part of the agreement is concerned, is also unlawful. That, at the very least, would make the woman's employment agreement uncertain. She would certainly not be able to enforce her contract in those terms; that is to say, in the terms of the unlawful agreement; and because it would create that element of uncertainty, we believe that it would do considerable harm to the woman's cause.
Let me turn now to the good that the Amendment would do. It does not propose any sanction or any remedy. Therefore there is no penalty, as it were, for enforcing it; and we think it could do very little good. I am not criticising the Amendment because it does not propose some method of enforcement, since I happen to believe that to insert an enforcement—something in the nature of a fine, for example—would do more harm than good to labour relations. Consequently, we feel that this would do some harm and no good.
Let us look at the Bill itself. It provides that the agreement can be referred by the Secretary of State to the tribunal for correction, in order that it may be made non-discriminatory. We believe that that is a positive thing and the best way of dealing with this. I would also point out that considerable progress has been made since the passing of the original Act; that is, the Equal Pay Act. Perhaps I may give some figures here to show what progress has been made. In 1970, discriminatory agreements which 1285 were monitored by the Department showed that only 6 per cent. of them were within 10 per cent. of the difference between men and women; that is, that there was 10 per cent. difference between the lowest male rate and the lowest female rate. Yet five years later in 1975, 90 per cent. of the agreements came within the 10 per cent. as against the original 6 per cent.
Therefore, it will be seen that considerable progress has been made over the last five years in bringing men's and women's rates together. Furthermore, even the Bill we considered earlier today, the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill, contained one exception. That concerned the fact that progress could be made with equal pay despite the £6 maximum increase. We are reasonably confident, therefore, that discrimination will be removed from all these discriminatory agreements by the end of this year. We feel that the method we have adopted is a sound and positive one, and is the method most likely to give the best results. I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I am very happy to hear of the progress which has been made at arriving at equal pay in collective agreements, but the fact is that in 1975, according to these figures, there are still 10 per cent. of agreements where the lowest rate for women is outside the margin of 10 per cent. from the lowest rate for men. One must assume that even with the remaining 90 per cent. there is still some differential and the women have not come up entirely to the men's rates.
I wish I could share the noble Lord's confidence that discrimination in collective agreements will be entirely eliminated by the 29th December 1975; but I wonder how the Government will react if they find after 29th December that discriminatory provisions still exist in collective agreements. In such an event, there will be no weapons to be deployed other than the reference of such agreements to the Arbitration Board and their subsequent amendment by the Board following consideration of all the facts. However, there will be no remedy then for all the women whose wages or salaries have been lower than the corresponding rate for men for the period between 29th December 1975 1286 and the putting into effect of the findings of the Arbitration Board.
I should like to have seen—and the noble Lord rightly pointed out that there are no sanctions in the Amendment—some provision whereby, if the Board discovered a discriminatory clause in a collective agreement, any adjustment of that collective agreement could be back-dated to 29th December 1975 when, as he says, the vast majority of women will have obtained equal pay. It is only in a fairly small number of minor agreements (which may nevertheless be of great significance to the women concerned) that some adjustment may be made later on. I realise it is very late in the passage of this Bill to discuss that, and perhaps the noble Lord may not be able to think of a way round it. Otherwise, there will be an element of inequity here, in that women are not covered by non-discriminatory collective agreements in the period between 29th December next and the discovery of that discrimination by the Secretary of State and its amendment by the Board. This would be most unfair and inequitable on the women concerned, and I hope that the noble Lord and his Department will think of some way around it. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
§ Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood)Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 have already been spoken to. I shall put them together to the House.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 61, line 39, leave out from ("to") to end of line 45 and insert—
§ ("(a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office, or
§ (b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body.")
§ Page 61, line 48, at end insert—
§ ("(9) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to service in—
- (a) the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, or
- (b) any women's service administered by the Defence Council.
§ (10) In this section "statutory body" means a body set up by or in pursuance of an enactment, and "statutory office" means an office so set up; and service "for purposes of" a Minister of the Crown or government department does not include service in any office in Schedule 2 (Ministerial offices) to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as for the time being in force.")
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Schedule 3 [Equal Opportunities Commission]:
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, Amendment No. 59 arose from one which was tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in Committee. It has exactly the same effect as that tabled by the noble Viscount. It enables the Commission to set up committees and, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to delegate functions to them. Previously the Bill was silent on this point. This Amendment effects an improvement in the Bill and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having drawn it to our attention, and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 71, line 24, at end insert—
§ ("Proceedings and business
§ 10A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and may vary or revoke those arrangements.
§ (2) The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by a committee of the Commission, or by two or more Commissioners.
§ (3) Anything done by or in relation to a committee, or Commissioners, in the discharge of the Commission's functions shall have the same effect as if done by or in relation to the Commission.")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The other advantage of his Amendment is that it is about half as long as mine was.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions]:
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNTMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60A which I covered when I spoke to Amendment No. 21 for which I have 1288 already had fulsome thanks from all parts of the House. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 72, line 24, at end insert—
§ ("1A. Until 1st January 1978, section 12(2) does not apply to any organisation of members of the teaching profession where at the passing of this Act—
- (a) the organisation is an incorporated company with articles of association, and
- (b) the articles of association restrict membership to persons of one sex (disregarding any minor exceptions), and
- (c) there exists another organisation within paragraphs (a) and (b) which is for persons of the opposite sex and has objects, as set out in the memorandum of association, which are substantially the same as those of the first mentioned organisation, subject only to differences consequential on the difference of sex.")—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question on this Amendment as I did not have a chance to speak to Amendment No. 21. Would he not agree that this Amendment, which effectively makes single-sex unions in the teaching profession illegal after 1st January 1978, has everything to do with social engineering—that is to say, forcing people to mingle together, whether they wish to do so or not—and absolutely nothing to do with equality of opportunity which exists already?
§ Lord CROWTHER-HUNTMy Lords, I do not think that is true. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide a transitional period so far as these four single-sex unions are concerned, and after that they will have to admit men or women, as the case may be, to membership. This is part of the purpose of the Bill: to prevent discrimination against people of either sex.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 8.13 p.m.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 60B:
§ Page 72, line 24, at end insert—
§ ("1B.—(1) Until a date specified by order made by the Secretary of State the courses of training to be undergone by men as a condition of the issue of certificates to them under the Midwives Act 1951 or the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951 (as amended by section 20) must be courses approved in writing by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
§
(2) Until the date specified under subparagraph (1), section 9 of the Midwives Act 1951 and section 10 of the Midwives (Scotland)
1289
Act 1951 (regulation of persons other than certified midwives attending women in childbirth) shall have effect as if for the words from the beginning to (but not including) "attends a woman in childbirth" where they first occur there were substituted the words—
If a person other than—
§ The amendment made by this sub-paragraph shall be read without regard to the sections 35A and 37A inserted in the said Acts of 1951 by section 20(4) and (5).
§
(3) On and after the said date the words to be substituted for those, in the said sections 9 and 10, mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) are—
If a person who is not a certified midwife".
§ (4) An order under this paragraph shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, and section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Parliamentary control by negative resolution of draft instruments) shall apply accordingly.")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are once again concerned with the problem of the opening of the midwifery profession to men. I would say at the beginning that the Amendment which I am moving on behalf of the Government is proposed as a result of a promise I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, when we were considering this matter in Committee. It would be fair for me to say that, although he was good enough to withdraw his Amendment on that occasion, there was not much between us. The Amendment I am moving now is more to the credit of the noble Viscount than, perhaps, to the Government. Again, it is fair to say that since the Committee stage the noble Viscount and I have spent a number of hours pursuing this matter. I am hoping that the noble Viscount will feel able to say that the Amendment which I am moving is one with which he can agree. I would take this opportunity, even if there is an attendant risk, of thanking him for his help, because it has been very real help, and his courtesy and understanding which has resulted in this Amendment.
§ Perhaps I ought to say a little more about the Amendment. As I said, there is a great deal of common ground here, despite the differences of opinion which have appeared in our debates and elsewhere. The Government are now proposing what we hope will be generally an 1290 acceptable solution. There appears to be general acceptance that in principle this aspect of discrimination against men should some day be removed. I understand that the Royal College of Midwives accept this, although they argue—I think I must say this in fairness to them—that the time is not yet quite ripe. There is also a broad measure of agreement that it is essential to provide adequate safeguards for patients, in particular to ensure that there is freedom of choice for the patient who wishes to be attended by a female midwife.
§ One of the problems we have all faced on this matter is the lack of hard evidence, as distinct from opinion, as to what exactly will be the problems in admitting men to midwifery while providing full safeguards for the patients concerned; and the question how patients and their husbands will react to male midwives, as distinct from how they say they will react in a hypothetical situation.
§ May I explain, without taking up too much time, what the Amendment seeks to do. The Government propose to obtain such evidence by making a transitional provision for a limited entry of men into midwifery under carefully controlled conditions—I want to emphasise this point—before a more general relaxation of the present barriers to men entering the profession. The purpose of the present Amendments is to enable this to be done. Briefly, the effect of these Amendments is to allow the present legal barriers to male midwives to be removed on the coming into force of the Statute, but at the same time to impose fresh transitional restrictions which could be removed only by a Statutory Instrument which would be laid before Parliament in draft. The effect of the transitional restrictions would be to confine training of men to courses approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State; and secondly, to continue the present restrictions on men attending women in childbirth, other than in an emergency, to places approved by the Secretary of State.
§ The intention is to approve courses initially at only two midwifery training schools—which point I want to emphasise. These would be selected for the purpose in consultation with the Central Midwives Board and the health authorities concerned wherever it was decided to establish those two training schools. 1291 Approval would be given to the employment of male midwives once they had qualified at hospitals associated only with the training schools. I want to make that point clear, too. Progress would be carefully monitored to ensure that the needs of training and the rights of patients were properly reconciled, and to ascertain what provision is needed by way of chaperonage and additional staff in order to provide firm evidence on which to base decisions for the more general removal of the restrictions in time.
§ As I have said, the intention is to start with only two centres, and not until experience was gained of the problems involved at these centres would there be any extension whatsoever. This would not, however, preclude a possible decision that, in the light of this experience, an extension to additional centres still under the same controlled conditions might be desirable before more general removal of restrictions by Statutory Instrument is made. The Government are proposing to move into this field with all due caution and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is reasonable to proceed in this way. I do not think I need to say any more because I am hoping that the noble Viscount himself will cross my t's and dot my i's. May I conclude where I began by thanking him very warmly for his help and co-operation in this matter. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has been extraordinarily generous. I do not think that the House should overlook the very considerable degree of trouble to which he himself has gone to reach what is in my view an extremely happy outcome. On the face of it, this was a comparatively insignificant point, but it has created a very great deal of trouble and a lot of heat in the course of the passage of this Bill through both Houses. We have now reached what seems to me to be a wholly acceptable compromise. It allows the principle which I always supported to be incorporated in the Bill; it allows the transition to be as long as turns out to be required; it allows Parliament to exercise a certain amount of control; and it also allows some experiments to be made upon which we can all base our future opinions of this matter.
1292 In accepting and welcoming all this I think I need not make another speech, because it seems to me that if one casts one's mind back to what was said by everybody in Committee, there cannot be a single point which has been left uncovered by this Amendment. I should have thought that everybody would have been happy. I certainly am. I consider this to be an extraordinarily fruitful piece of negotiation which will pave the way to a satisfactory and sensible solution to what everybody thought was going to be a very tiresome problem.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, I put down this Amendment No. 61, because when we discussed it in Committee I made various remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and he wrote to me a highly satisfactory letter. I can see no method of getting it on to the public record other than by again putting down the Amendment so that for the purposes of the Official Record and anybody who chooses to read it, he can explain why it is that we do not need the Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 73, line 5, at end insert—
1A. In section 20 (Cleaning of machinery by women and young persons) the words "woman or" shall be omitted in both places in which they occur."—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, in Committee I explained that the Government would prefer a "root and branch" amendment to Section 20 of the Factories Act which would extend the protection to men but which would avoid any unfortunate consequences and would also take into account any consequential amendment to other sections of the Factories Act. I was asked whether the Government had power to do this by order rather than by Statute. I can now tell the House that the Secretary of State has this power under Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
In conclusion, I will repeat the declaration which I made earlier; namely, that it is the Government's intention to request the Health and Safety Commission to arrange for an early review of Section 20 1293 of the Factories Act so that what we have in mind can be achieved. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, in fact the noble Lord does not beg to move. What I do is beg leave to withdraw!
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 6—[Further repeals]:
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 63A and 63B are consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 73, line 25, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63B.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 73, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
§ 8.28 p.m.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It is appropriate that I should end the proceedings of the Bill in almost as great a state of confusion as I began by dealing with the wrong Amendment! However, in moving the Third Reading, I express on my own behalf and that of my colleagues our gratitude to the House as a whole for the work they have done on this Bill. It is a notable example of inter-Party and inter-Member co-operation in this House, and the Bill emerges from our proceedings as a substantially more effective tool in our struggle to remove discriminatory practices in this country.
In thanking the House, it would be inappropriate to mention too many names, but I think it is only right to mention a few. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner who throughout has played a most significant part in this entire campaign, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I 1294 never succeeded in persuading her of the merits of a number of the arguments that I did my best to address to her. In particular, may I thank the noble Viscount who, if he will forgive me for saying so, has played a central role in the proceedings. A number of the Amendments which the Government have accepted arose from his own close consideration of the Bill. I think it is right to say this today, and to thank him on behalf of the entire membership of the House. In conclusion, may I thank my colleagues who have also clone a great deal of work on this Bill. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, I want to take up only a moment of your Lordships' time. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said so generously just now, it is worth saying that most of us would have picked out this Bill, in the same way as he has, as a particularly notable piece of co-operation. All three of the other noble Lords who have taken part in this Bill have been just as helpful as he has. He and his colleagues have taken away the points we have made and looked at them on their merits. I am glad that the noble Lord agrees, as do I, that the Bill has been substantially improved in this place.
I have one regret—that my beautiful new Schedule has had to be abandoned. Never before having drafted a complete Schedule like that, I was very proud of it; but I am comforted because to me the experience has been unique in that every single point that I have raised on this Bill has been met either by Government Amendment or by an entirely satisfactory answer showing why the Amendment was not necessary. It has never happened to me before and I strongly suspect that it will never happen again, but I am enormously grateful for its having happened this time. Therefore, I echo the welcome to this Bill.
Finally, I hope that the sensible remarks which have been made in various quarters of this House by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, about how we want to use a common sense, 1295 rational and fairly quiet approach to this subject without missing our opportunities to get rid of discrimination, and about how we wish to approach this matter with care, subtlety and tact, will be borne in mind by everybody who has anything to do with the operation of this Statute when it reaches the Statute Book. With those remarks I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that it will become law before we rise for the Summer Recess, and that subsequently it will be found to work just as satisfactorily as everybody wishes.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.