From the very introduction of this Bill it was defective in as much as the necessary cover is not provided to protect people applying for equal pay under the Bill. There is no guarantee that they will retain their employment. We felt from its introduction that this was a defect in the Bill. Every Bill must stand on its own feet. It is bad in principle to say that one has to bring in further legislation in order to bolster up the legislation that has gone through the House. This is defective legislation, not fully thought out, not fully comprehensive. The Minister had adequate time to ensure that he would bring in effective legislation. He introduced the Conditions of Employment (Equal Pay) Bill as far back as July, 1973, and after a lapse of eight months this concoction was brought before the House. It took eight months to change the Title of a Bill and to produce defective legislation of this nature. Eight months is a fairly considerable period. We assumed that the Minister would be making substantial progress and would ensure that the legislation he would introduce would be comprehensive. The Bill leaves the way open for many problems to develop.
We have the question of discrimination which is written into the Bill. We must guard now against employers downgrading personnel. This has been applicable in many countries where equal pay legislation has been presented. This is not the be all and end all of equal pay. Women will be discriminated against in the course of application. It is bad enough to have people outside this House endeavouring to discriminate against personnel but when it comes to the House itself discriminating against workers then the position is very bad indeed.
As I have said, there is the question of the downgrading of women. I hope the Minister will ensure that every opportunity is taken to see that women are not downgraded in the period between now and 31st December, 1975, when the Bill comes into operation because it has been the practice in many countries to downgrade women. If we read the various EEC reports on equal pay legislation we find that the Commission found that the problem in the EEC countries was not that member states lacked legislation on the subject of equal pay but that it had not been fully enforced and in particular considered discriminatory job classification as a major obstacle. In most countries the inequality in the average hourly wage was most marked amongst skilled workers. It was found also that a much lower proportion of women than men gained skilled worker status.
It has been fairly clear to the Minister and to those who have examined the equal pay situation throughout Europe and, indeed, throughout the world that legislation in itself is not the end of the line. If a Bill is introduced just to give the appearance of work being done or to give hope to people that they can obtain benefits under it and if that proves not to be the case then the people will lose faith in this House and in our ability to introduce perfect legislation.
The report of the European Community, January/February, 1974 on Britain in Europe 1973 refers to the point the Minister has made, that this Bill is part of a trilogy. Apparently it will take three Bills in future to do the work of one. This will throw an extra burden on the House. There is much useful legislation that the House could be processing rather than have three Bills to do the work of one. We are concerned about the time factor. In some cases the House has not had time to discuss in depth and detail Estimates and Bills which sometimes go through the House in a slipshod manner. This measure, that should be one on which we could look back with pride, has major defects.
I quote from the EEC report to which I have just referred:
Britain's proposed anti-discrimination law, which will be the first of its kind in the EEC, will not go far enough. Firstly, it is restricted only to most employment and some areas of education. So it may lead to the addition of a maximum quota for girls admitted to medical training, but it specifically stops women from being miners and men from being midwives. Why should not women be miners if they choose, or men midwives.... But the examples given in this article—and the list is far from being exhaustive—show why Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome on equal pay and even the first anti-discrimination bill in an EEC country do not do enough. Inequality is not just found on the shop floor, it is a way of life.
All the articles that have been written indicate that much more is required than a Bill. There must be vigilance on the part of the Minister and of the equal pay officer. This piecemeal legislation will not help equal pay officers in their difficult task. If one man is to determine what is equal pay, he will judge the matter on a particular basis. We have expressed the view that there should be a consensus of the views of trade unions and employers or an appeal board in the event of dispute. This is very essential to the equal pay officers. Their job is difficult and will be more difficult after the passing of this Bill because of its defective nature. There are many shortcomings in this particular section of the Bill. We would ask the Minister to be more than vigilant in his efforts to ensure that some justice is done with this defective piece of legislation.
