Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill - Second Reading Speech

Speech delivered on Fri 14th May 2004

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) on his success, and on the clearness and lucidity with which he presented his Bill—not least in the light of the anxieties expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about its impenetrability.

The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which has already been introduced in other forms by Members of both Houses. We have supported those attempts to reform the law, and our support will continue. It should be stressed again that the Bill does not in any way compel single-sex organisations to change the way in which they operate. It is not intended to convert them to mixed-sex organisations. It simply provides that organisations purporting to be mixed-sex clubs should operate in a way that ensures equal treatment of all who become members. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on one thing, at least: I think it unfortunate that the Bill's wording suggests that discrimination operates in only one direction—that it is experienced only by women—although in practice it is nearly always the case. It might be useful to deal with that in Committee or on Report, and to make the Bill gender-neutral.

It has been argued, understandably, that—especially when legislating through private Members' Bills—we should be careful not to stray too far into, and interfere too much with, the realm of privacy. That point was made by both the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and we should bear it in mind whenever we consider legislation that extends and redefines that boundary. It is clearly a point that would have been weighed when Parliament first considered issues of equal pay and came to the view that it was appropriate to legislate, extending the boundary so as better to regulate—although not yet successfully in some ways—issues of fair pay for women in the workplace.

It is worth noting that the Bill is born not out of one Member's initiative, but out of a long process of consideration and deliberation, and indeed out of considerable force of complaint by many who feel affronted by the fact that the law does not address the issue. It is therefore worth considering the work done by the Equal Opportunities Commission back in 1998, when it consulted on the matter and published its deliberations, including a recommendation for this measure. It made the point, also made by the hon. Member for Telford, about the unfairness that features in typical complaints, such as those about the restriction of playing times for women in golf clubs, based on the assumption that women are not in paid employment and can therefore cope with restricted playing times.

Mr. Forth: Should we not be even more suspicious if a Bill such as this arises in any way from the activities of quangos such as the one that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned? The measure is, after all, in their interests; they are bureaucrats paid to pursue such an objective. Does he not agree, therefore, that it is somewhat odd to quote such a quango in favour of the Bill, and we should discount a large part of what it says because it is paid to promote such measures?

Mr. Burstow: I certainly think it important that none of us suspends our critical faculties when we are considering legislation and the evidence put to us by a whole range of organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission. Nevertheless, the complaints that the commission receives, which it reports faithfully, ought to be brought to the attention of the House. The complaints about hours of access to golf courses are certainly relevant.

In its 1998 report following consultation, the commission goes on to say:

"The amendment as described below would not, therefore, place any obligation on 'gentlemen's clubs', the Women's Institute, or charities, which confine benefits to one sex, to change their current practices."

It is worth restating that: it is not the Bill's intention to extend equal opportunities legislation to organisations such as those, and that is why we support it.

I said that this is not the first time that the House has considered the matter. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) introduced a Bill in 1999, but unfortunately managed only to utter a couple of sentences on Second Reading. Today, the hon. Member for Telford was able to utter quite a few sentences to make his cogent case. The hon. Member for North Dorset introduced a ten-minute Bill in 2001 and wrote a useful article in The House Magazine, in which he made the point that his measure, which is not dissimilar to the one before us, was about allowing women access to governance of the clubs of which they were members,

"enabling them to take a full part in their chosen club."

There can be no justification for treating people who are members of mixed-sex, private clubs as second-class citizens, solely on the grounds of their gender. That is not acceptable in the 21st century. Things have moved on, and it is appropriate to consider where we should draw those lines today.

The Bill is modest; it applies only to mixed-sex clubs of 25 or more members. The hon. Member for East Devon has reservations about it, and clearly those matters will need to be considered in Committee. He talked about the need for cultural change, and I certainly sign up to that. Simply passing legislation of a declarative or any other nature does not change hearts and minds, but it can play a part in accelerating or kick-starting change. It is for those reasons that, on balance, the Liberal Democrats support the right of the individual to be treated equally, regardless of gender, and we believe that that should apply to mixed-sex clubs.

ENDS

To read the debate in full use the following link:

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040514/debtext/40514-11.htm#40514-11_head0