Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Randall: The Minister might have the answer to my question about subscriptions. Will the Bill outlaw differences between the subscriptions paid to private clubs by men and those paid by women?

4.45 pm

Jacqui Smith: My understanding is that the Bill would make it illegal for a club to have two different subscription levels and to differentiate solely on the basis of gender. It would, however, be quite reasonable

Column Number: 7

and legitimate for, say, a golf club to have two different forms of membership such as off-peak membership and full membership. Indeed, it would be quite legitimate for a club to continue to have a whole range of different subscription levels provided that none of them discriminated on the basis of gender—for example, the club not offer one type of membership that was open only to women and another that was open only to men. The Bill will enable clubs to continue to be fairly flexible and offer different types of subscription.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister is leading us to an example of fairness benefiting men who are members of a club. A club may fear that it will lose money if it offers restricted membership to men who want only partial benefits, but the other side of the coin is that the those men will get what they pay for, as will the women who choose restricted membership, and women who opt for full membership will receive the full benefit. Clubs face that problem, but that should not be affected by the fairness of legislation.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. One of the aims of a transition period is to enable clubs to plan their forms of subscription so that they can earn the necessary income. It is arguable that men are currently discriminated against in some clubs because they do not have access to some of the off-peak or lower priced memberships.

As I said, there is useful consensus on the Bill. Sex discrimination in the workplace, in education and in the provision of goods and services was outlawed nearly 30 years ago by the Sex Discrimination Act. As we heard today, no one would defend some of the behaviour that was commonplace before 1975. A whole generation of young women and young men have grown up expecting, rightly, to be treated as equals and to be judged on merit, not according to gender. However, some private clubs do not take that approach. Time seems to have stood still for them and, unfortunately, not enough clubs have taken the opportunity to make the sort of progress that the Government hoped that they would make voluntarily. That means that women in some clubs are still stereotyped, marginalised and treated as second-class citizens.

Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): I ask my right hon. Friend for reassurance. A club in my constituency does not allow women to play snooker, although there is nothing about that in the rules. When ask why, the answer—which was far too complicated to detail in an intervention—was backed up by the phrase, ''It's just customary in here that women can't play snooker.'' May I take it as read that new section 29A(4)(a) will outlaw any such unofficial rules, as well as the official ones?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, my hon. and learned Friend can take it as read that the Bill will outlaw such discrimination. It is precisely that archaic approach to

Column Number: 8

the participation of men and women in our private clubs that the Bill is designed to outlaw. Such behaviour is simply unacceptable in the 21st century.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on promoting this excellent Bill and on the assured way in which he has piloted it thus far. I am sure that he will continue to steer its progress in the same assured manner. I very much hope that it will shortly complete its progress in the House and that it will reach the statute book by the end of the Session. He will deserve great congratulation when that happens.

David Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. She has covered most of the points that were raised by hon. and right hon. Members during the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Worthing, West in particular for his support, both in formal proceedings on the Bill and in our conversations outside the House's official proceedings. He mentioned the letter from the Royal and Ancient. I am due to meet representatives from the golf unions on Thursday to discuss the Bill's general impact, and last week, I spoke on the telephone to Peter Dawson, who is the secretary of the R and A—in fact, we are in constant dialogue.

If the Bill is successful, there will be issues about transitional arrangements. I welcome what the Minister said about those potential arrangements. One of the problems relates to the different types of membership offered by golf clubs. Men might not be allowed to benefit from reduced membership fees—they might have to apply for full membership, even though there are other membership criteria and other forms of membership available. Some men might like to pay a reduced fee and therefore have limited access to the course. The Bill would allow men and women to apply for and receive the same types of membership, whether full, associate or restricted, in terms of playing times. That would be acceptable, but such choices would have to be open to men and women.

Peter Bottomley: In the same way, in some golf clubs I might be able to enjoy full rights playing off 24, yet Babe Zaharias, playing off scratch, would not. It would be perfectly legal for a club to say that to play during peak time, one must have a certain handicap. That could apply equally to men and women, which keeps things fair, but keeps the bad players such as myself out of the way when it matters.

David Wright: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would be sitting in the bar with him, because my golf is appalling. One of my friends told me that I spend more time digging additional bunkers on courses than completing rounds of golf. The hon. Gentleman and I would be sharing a dram in the club house, while those who could play, be they men or women, progressed round the course.

Column Number: 9

The CIU has written to me and we have met to discuss the Bill. The CIU supports the Bill wholeheartedly and I welcome the progress that the union has made. I look forward to seeing the Bill come forward, if we continue to pilot it through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Exceptions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wright: Clause 1 brings clubs within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, whereas clause 2 provides for a number of exceptions for special circumstances in which it is right to allow different treatment of men and women.

The Sex Discrimination Act does not prevent political parties from making special provision for one sex in their constitution, organisation or administration, such as, for example, by having women's sections or reserving some seats on committees for women. Voluntary bodies whose main purpose is to provide benefits for only one sex are not thereby in breach of the Act, and nothing in the Bill affects that provision.

Section 35 of the Sex Discrimination Act contains a number of exceptions to allow for the provision of single-sex facilities or services where they are established for people who require special care, supervision or attention, or in a place used for organised religion, where such provision is required by that religion's doctrine or is done to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of a significant number of its followers. Such provision is also allowed where the facilities are likely to be used by two or more persons at the same time and users of one sex are likely to be embarrassed by the presence of members of the opposite sex or to be in a state of undress, and therefore reasonably able to object to the presence of the opposite sex. Finally, such provision is available where there is likely to be physical contact between the user and another person who might reasonably object if the user were a member of the opposite sex: I think of sessions for one sex only in a leisure club or swimming pool, which would be allowed to continue under the proposals. The clause extends each of those exceptions, so that they can also apply to private clubs.

The clause also adds two new exceptions to the Sex Discrimination Act for private clubs. The first provides that a club such a drama society or choir does not discriminate if, for reasons of authenticity, it selects people of the appropriate sex for roles in a dramatic performance or other entertainment. That mirrors a provision in the Sex Discrimination Act that deals with employment.

Peter Bottomley: To help those who read the Committee's proceedings will the hon. Gentleman say to which subsection he is referring?

Column Number: 10

David Wright: Clause 2(5), paragraph (4) relates to authenticity in a dramatic performance or other entertainment. That part of the Bill relates to how drama societies perform.

Mr. Randall: I think I understand the reasons for the proposal, but presumably, it would be unacceptable if it were in race relations legislation, because normally we would assume that there can be, for example, a white ''Othello'' or a black ''Mikado'' in productions. I wonder whether the proposal mirrors the Race Relations Act 1976.

David Wright: I understand that it does. I believe that such performances are allowed to proceed, but I will have to check the details.

Mr. Randall: It is not so much whether the clause allows a dramatic performance to discriminate, but whether it would be allowed to do so in regard to race.

David Wright: As far as I can understand, in relation to race, no one can have genuine occupational qualifications. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. Clearly, people would be allowed to take an authentic role in a dramatic production.

 

---

Prepared 14 June 2004