---

Mr. Forth: How does the hon. Gentleman know that we are not talking about permanent secretaries? There is a trend now, which may or may not be a good thing, to bring very high level people into the civil service from outside, either to reinvigorate it or to bring a real-world view into government. That is a judgment for another day, but his bland assertion that we are not talking about permanent secretaries might turn out to be entirely untrue. It is quite possible that we might have permanent secretaries of rather interesting origin and provenance in the future.

Mr. Dismore: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that he will develop it further in the later stages of the Bill. I would simply say to him that we are talking about reserving an estimated 10 per cent. of posts, and I think that those will be senior posts.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked why foreign nationals could not become naturalised UK citizens, and that is a fair question. The problem is that our present rules on naturalisation require a significant period of residence before a person can apply, and the procedure takes an awfully long time to go through. In those circumstances, we have to recognise that there are people who have a lot to offer our society who should not have to wait that long before being able to take up a civil service post. In my office I employ an EU national who wishes to become a British national, but it is taking him an awfully long time to achieve that position. In discussing the Civil Service Bill, I gave the example of a Mrs. Martin, a Turkish national whose husband has written to me about this matter. She has a 2.1 degree in public administration and wants to work for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, but is unable to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the certification process and said that it had stood the test of time, but it is in fact a very restrictive and complicated process. I do not agree that it has stood the test of time; I believe that it has been shown to be very outdated. He also made a big song and dance about terrorism and subversion. I am sure that he is aware that I take a particular interest in that issue. Indeed, I have dealings with some of those in the anti-terrorism world, and none of them has raised any objections to the Bill. The hon. Member for Wycombe illustrated the strong point that nationality is not synonymous with involvement in terrorism by saying that several British nationals have been involved in such activities. The suicide bombers of Mike's Place were two examples.

Let us not forget that we train members of other countries' armed forces in our own armed forces. The Government are talking about bringing Libyans over to train at Sandhurst. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rolls his eyes, but I think that that makes my point. It is only the civil service that we are talking about here, not the armed forces. I think that that defeats his point. He thought that I might find his speech a little wimpish. It was a cameo performance, if I may put it that way. I know that he would regard it as wimpish if he were to serve on the Committee, although I would obviously like to invite him to do so.
 
14 May 2004 : Column 611
 

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that I would view the Report stage of the Bill with trepidation, but as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows, I never regard a Report stage with trepidation. I regard it as a great challenge and I look forward to the resumption of our trial of strength on that occasion, should we reach that stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

 
14 May 2004 : Column 612
 

Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.10 pm

David Wright (Telford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am somewhat surprised and delighted to find that we are having a Second Reading debate on this very important Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will join me in the debate, and I will be delighted to joust with him. This is an important Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman has described as riddled with political correctness. I am delighted to receive that accolade.

I follow in the distinguished footsteps of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who was one of the first to try to take such a Bill through the House. He had a number of difficulties with his membership of the Carlton club, and threatened to resign if it did not grant his wife equal treatment on occasions when they could both attend events. True to his word, he resigned from the club six months later. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) attempted to introduce such a Bill, but it did not receive a Second Reading. I am indebted also to Lord Falconer, who has tried to move the issue forward in the other place.

This is a simple and short Bill, whose objective is to remove sex discrimination in clubs and other private associations. The main culprits are often golf clubs, working men's clubs and social clubs that do not allow women members to use their facilities on an equal basis. They purport to offer equal membership in many cases, but fail to deliver. Along the journey of the private Member's Bill, I have heard some terrible stories about the practices employed by a number of clubs. Many golf clubs, for example, offer only restricted membership for women and restrict the times at which they can play, sometimes not allowing them to play at weekends. They also restrict the areas in which women can socialise in clubs. That is totally unacceptable in this day and age.

I wrote to the Royal and Ancient golf club of St. Andrews as part of this process, it being the guiding light in terms of golf and its rules. It has responded to me, saying that the principles behind the Bill are important but that it did not support its provisions. I was somewhat disappointed by that, although it suggested that if the Bill made no further progress, it would have a look at codes of guidance for golf clubs. I will take it up on that offer—although we will not need that, as I am sure that the Bill will pass all its parliamentary stages and reach the statute book. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will agree with me on that.

I have talked to a number of people involved in social clubs throughout the midlands and the north of England, where such clubs are very popular. There are some 3,000 that operate discriminatory practices in relation to women. I have seen some terrible examples: women being excluded from particular parts of the club during parts of the evening; women being asked to leave the club so that men could have a meeting; women being asked to stand silently at the bar on certain evenings so
 
14 May 2004 : Column 613
 
that they could not participate fully in the functions and activities of the club. That is not acceptable practice by clubs that purport to offer equal membership for men and women.

The Bill aims to add to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975—one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed by the Wilson Government—and it is worth looking at how that Act has operated. Section 29 applies to all clubs that are open to

"members of the public or a section of the public",

where a person or a particular group of people can pay their money and enter a club to use its facilities and services. A nightclub or a sports club would be a good example of where people enter the establishment on an equal basis. Such clubs fall within the remit of the 1975 Act, so they cannot discriminate on grounds of sex. Any members of those clubs who have been discriminated against on such grounds can take action under the auspices of the current sex discrimination legislation.

Private members' clubs have been found by the courts not to fall within the scope of section 29, because they provide facilities and services to their own members, not to the public. The Bill is designed to change that by bringing private members' clubs within the scope of sex discrimination legislation. Several clubs have been asked to move in that direction for a very long time. I pay credit to the many clubs that have voluntarily changed their approach and practices by offering equal membership to women. Excluding women from equal treatment as full members of mixed-sex clubs is wholly unfair in this day and age. As I said, it can also involve demeaning and humiliating treatment. The Bill will draw those clubs into the bounds of sex discrimination legislation.

The Bill will not apply to clubs that are exclusively for men or women. Those clubs can continue to operate; there is no suggestion that they would be taken out of existence. I have to say that I doubt whether I would want to be a member of a club that was exclusively for men. I believe that such practices are archaic, but that is a matter of choice.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may want to explore the issue of the obsession with women. Personally, I am rather fond of obsessions with women, but not in the legislative context. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he would not want to belong to an all-male club, but surely he respects the right of women to have all-women clubs. One underlying theme that does not seem to be reflected in the Bill is that we must respect the rights of women to predominate or even to discriminate where they believe that it is appropriate. Is that not preferable to the rather one-sided approach reflected in his Bill?

---