1097
15 DECEMBER 1969
Factory Night Work [MR. WALKER.] reached. Any major change would re- quire legislation, and it would not, there- fore, be in order for me to pursue that question now. I am bound to say, how- ever, that my right hon. Friend believes that the disappearance of the special re- strictions on women is perhaps an in- evitable part of the general and irrever- sible advance towards complete equality between the sexes, of which the advance towards equal pay is another limb.
But whatever the future may hold, what we have to consider is the situa- tion that exists today. The House will want to be satisfied, and is entitled to be satisfied, that the law as it stands is being faithfully and impartially admin- istered, and that we are exercising our powers of exemption within the law reasonably, responsibly and honestly. How then, do we exercise the power to make special exemption orders under Section 117 of the Act?
The number of women at present allowed to do night work in factories under special exemption orders is about 15,000, which is less than 1 per cent. of the number of women we estimate are covered by the restrictions. Some of the 15,000 are doing night work only for a short period, or perhaps every second or third week. In every single case the women have agreed to work at nights.
An application for a special exemp- tion order is made on a standard form which the employer sends to the district. inspector of factories. The form asks for a good deal of detail, and where a night shift is proposed the employer has to say what arrangements are to be made for the women's supervision, what facilities will be available for preparing and taking meals, including early morn- ing hot refreshment where appropriate, and what transport facilities are avail- able where the workers have to travel in the early morning or late evening.
When an employer first applies for an order a factory inspector visits the pre- mises and investigates the circumstances. He completes a detailed report, includ- ing his comments on the supervision, refreshment, and transport arrangements, the results of his consultations, and his recommendation whether an exemption order should be made. He sends the application form with his report to my
8 H 20
(Women)
1098
Department's Headquarters, where the final decision is taken.
The Act does not specify who had to be consulted before making an exemption order. All it says is that the order may be made after such consultations as the Secretary of State may think appropriate. However, we have given precise instruc- tions to factory inspectors, and I do not think I can do better than quote them verbatim. They say that when investi- gating a first application,
"During his visit to the factory the Inspec- tor should obtain the views of the workers concerned about the scheme of hours pro- posed. Where the workers are not members of any union a representative number of the employees should be consulted. Where any of them are union members the inspector, in addition to consulting the workers, should also seek the views of the union representative at the works. If there is no union representative, or if he is not available, the inspector should use his discretion as to whether to consult the local branch secretary, but where a substan- tial proportion of the workpeople concerned are members of a trade union, a representa- tive of the union at factory or higher level should always be consulted."
In the Shuresta case none of the nine women concerned was a member of a union, but, nonetheless, the inspector con- sulted the District Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers by telephone. He had also seen the A.E.F. night shop steward and obtained his views, too. In his report to headquarters the inspector referred to the fact that the union opposed the appli- cation on the ground that the work ought to be given to men.
It is very seldom that a trade union opposes an application for an exemption order permitting night work for women. It does not follow, of course, that when it does object, the objection, regardless of its merits, must be regarded as an auto- matic bar to the making of an exemption order. A trade union's objection might well be decisive if, for instance, it were based upon the safety, health and welfare of the women at work or brought into question their willingness to do the work.
However, very occasionally a trade union objects on grounds which we do not feel can be accepted and obviously the ultimate responsibility for the decision on the application must remain with the Secretary of State. If it happens that a decision is taken contrary to the trade union's views, this certainly does not mean that the union's views have been