---

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
 
14 May 2004 : Column 623
 
quote such a quango in favour of the Bill, and that 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.

12.59 pm

The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on introducing the Bill, which the Government support. We hope it makes progress. As he rightly outlined, he follows a proud tradition of Members who have also tried to make progress in this area: the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr.
 
14 May 2004 : Column 624
 
Dhanda) and, of course, my noble Friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in another place. I therefore very much welcome the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Telford and several other Members have made a strong case for bringing private clubs within the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. We have heard some concerns, understandably, from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I hope I can reassure him on the nature of the Sex Discrimination Act.

First, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about how the original Act, I suspect, and the Bill were drafted. Of course, the Sex Discrimination Act was drafted as a particular exception to the usual use in legislation of the term "man" to cover both sexes. That acknowledged the fact that women were normally the victims of sex discrimination, although as is made clear in section 2—I am sure he is an assiduous reader of the legislation and knowledgeable on this point—references to the discrimination against women apply equally to discrimination against men.

Clearly, the Sex Discrimination Act is about pursuing equality of opportunity between men and women. However, it is also about identifying where that discrimination happens and taking action. I welcome many of the points made by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who referred to his family and how they prompted his concern to ensure that there is equality. I can tell him that I consider myself fortunate to live in a house with three men, including two small men whom I want to grow up in a society where people are judged on the basis of their talent, not one in which people are discriminated against because of their gender, whether they are men or women. I am sure he agrees, and I think we share that objective.

The other important point made by the hon. Gentleman was his reference to how the treatment of private clubs in respect of the Sex Discrimination Act is in many ways out of step with the position under the Race Relations Act 1976. Discrimination on the basis of race goes against that Act, and of course the draft disability Bill will also tackle discrimination on the basis of disability. It seems timely and appropriate that today we are considering the extension of tackling this particular discrimination to the Sex Discrimination Act.

May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for what was just about a welcome for the Government's announcement on a single commission for equality and human rights? I very much agree that it needs to be far more than simply a bureaucratic quango. As we have made very clear, its ability to promote good practice with respect to diversity and to work in partnership with employers in the public and private sectors, as well as service providers, will be very important to how it operates, notwithstanding the fact that, when it needs to take enforcement action to achieve its objective of ensuring that we have a society that is fair for all and based on equality of opportunity, it can and should take such action.

The Bill gives us a valuable opportunity to examine and debate once again the issue of continuing sex discrimination in private clubs. This is an issue of some resonance for many of us; arguably, it affects us all. Clubs form an important part of the social, political and recreational landscape of many British communities.
 
14 May 2004 : Column 625
 

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is concerned that the proposals would mean an invasion of private space, in which there is no public interest or for which the public have no responsibility. Although described as "private clubs", many of them regulate the means by which the public gain access to leisure facilities, resources and sporting opportunities. It is only right that those opportunities are open to women and men, rather than restricting access as a result of the outmoded and discriminatory traditions of certain clubs. The Bill does not simply deal with the private sphere. In many cases, it tackles discrimination in the access to many facilities that most of us think should be open to all.

The right hon. Gentleman also argued that those who are discriminated against by the clubs should argue for change from within, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford rightly said, the precise nature of the discrimination in some clubs means that that is not possible. Some organisations in which a strong majority of members support changing an outmoded discriminatory practice have had that pressure for change blocked by a minority because of the requirement for a high threshold in any vote to change, for example, an organisation's constitution.

At the recent annual general meeting of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union—the umbrella body to which most working men's clubs belong—61.7 per cent. of delegates favoured equal access to associate membership for men and women, but a two thirds majority was required to change the organisation's rules. So despite a clear majority wanting to make progress, it was not possible. Given that the right hon. Gentleman called for organisations to represent their views to those of us who are considering the Bill, he will pleased to know that the national executive of the CIU supports it.

There is also an argument that somehow or other the Bill would impinge on an individual's right to freedom of association. No one mentioned human rights, an argument that is often used in such cases. We do not think that the Bill has any major human rights implications. Introducing this non-discrimination rule is justifiable on the grounds of public interest. However, we need to be sure that its implementation satisfies the principle of proportionality—for example, by ensuring that we give clubs adequate time to make the changes necessary for them to comply with the law. The regulatory impact assessment is available in the Library. I do not subscribe to the right hon. Gentleman's use of the traditional "There aren't enough toilets" argument as a reason why it would be difficult for most clubs to make progress on equality. However, we will look in detail at the transitional arrangements needed if the Bill makes progress.

There are more than 160,000 private clubs in the UK, offering a rich variety of function, interest and organisation, some of which we heard about today. What they all share is that they were formed for a common purpose, as defined by their members. That can be anything from enjoying golf to exploring the history of a local town. Whatever the interests of the club, I do not accept that discrimination on the grounds of sex can be justified in any club that admits both men
 
14 May 2004 : Column 626
 
and women members. As Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, I regularly receive letters from women complaining about sex discrimination in the clubs to which they belong. They speak of the injustice and humiliation of being treated as second-class citizens in their own clubs.

Although I think that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said that he supported the Bill, there was a suggestion in his intervention on the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that we should be thinking about continuing to pursue a voluntary approach. That has brought some progress in tackling this sort of discrimination in private clubs but, quite clearly, it has not brought it about quickly enough to overcome some of the considerable discrimination that exists.

For example, 47 per cent. of the 2,700 working men's clubs that belong to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union still deny their female members full rights. Those clubs often restrict women in the use of certain facilities, give them restricted voting rights and deny them access to the annual general meeting. The rules of the union stipulate that associate and pass cards may not be issued to lady members, but those are the cards that allow a member of one CIU club to visit another and to enjoy its facilities as a guest. Many golf clubs, as has been touched on today, still restrict playing times for women members, making if difficult for working women to play during peak hours at weekends. The assumption on which that policy is based, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said—that women do not work—perpetuates the archaic notions about women's lives that we know are out of step with reality.

I agree, as hon. Members have already identified, that clubs should be afforded the autonomy to decide for themselves whom they permit to join as a member, and on what terms. Several hon. Members have made it clear that the Bill does not seek to make all-male clubs open their doors to women or force women's clubs to be open to men. The hon. Member for East Devon may remain in his male-only clubs and those people who benefit from, and want to be in, women-only clubs may remain in those. However, I do not agree that a club's autonomy should stretch so far as to override the rights and dignity of those whom it has accepted into membership or those whom, in the case of guests, it invites in to use its facilities—then, in some cases, discriminating between them solely on the basis of their sex.

---