We would do that in the same way as we would do it for any other purpose; we would evaluate it, audit it and make an assumption about it. The hypothetical question would be: what if a man were to do this job?
New clause 6 addresses defence of the material factor. Although it is important, I shall discuss it only very briefly, as it is about a legal and highly technical point on which we do not seek to divide the House. The new clause would prevent an employer from using a spurious reason to justify discrimination and thereby avoid the obligations under the Bill.
Finally, I wish to point out that we will be supporting a few new clauses and amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, such as that on mariners. We think that abolishing the exemption in respect of the minimum wage is particularly important. We wish to show our support for that. We cannot understand how discriminating by having two different levels of minimum wage can be right. Why will the Bill not change that? We will support that Labour Back-Bench amendment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asks from the Tory Back Benches whether we will support any of his amendments; I have to tell him that we will not.
Equality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Featherstone
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 December 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Equality Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
501 c1137 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:06:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_598528
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_598528
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_598528