| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kevan Jones: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members for their kind words. The debate has been good hearted, as it was on Second Reading. It will ensure that we make a small move towards protecting Christmas day for workers and making it the special family day that it is for people, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
I note with interest the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); he is obviously a loss to the trade union movement. It seems that in selecting the subject for a private Member's Bill and in achieving the consensus to get it to this stage, the more limited the scope, the more chance it has of succeeding. For that reason, I concur with some of his points.
Today's amendments were sensible and passionately argued. I am glad that we can improve the Bill, which is important. I thank all hon. Members who supported it and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make my small contribution to the legislative programme.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
Order for consideration read.
To be considered on Friday 15 October.
18 Jun 2004 : Column 1041
18 Jun 2004 : Column 1043
Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Clause 1
2.12 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35, at end insert—
'29E Unreasonable works and alterations
Nothing in the provisions of sections 29Ato 29D requires unreasonable works or alterations to be carried out on existing buildings.'.
The Bill is well meaning but controversial. Following Second Reading, which was some time ago, I took the opportunity—indeed, the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), almost invited me to do so—to contact some of the primary organisations representing private clubs to find out their views. Those contributions were very helpful. He mentioned the Royal and Ancient golf club of St. Andrews. In fairness to him, he was honest with the House in saying that it was unhappy with the Bill. I contacted the club, which had much to say.
I am sure that we will have the chance to return another day to many of the other issues that the Bill raises, because my modest amendment covers only a very small part of the Bill. Sadly, we have only 17 minutes or so to go, and I suspect that we will not get much past this amendment—or, indeed, past it at all. Happily, that will enable us to consider the Bill further and in more detail another time, when we can try to address other aspects of it.
The Royal and Ancient had something to say about the one part of the Bill that my amendment attempts to highlight. Indeed, it picked up on something that we had spotted on Second Reading. That is covered by proposed new sections 29B, 29C and 29D of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Royal and Ancient says:
"The layout of clubhouse buildings at many golf clubs is a further, significant difficulty. Considerable capital expenditure will be required in many cases to convert clubhouses to dual-sex use throughout. Again, given the poor financial condition of many clubs, the R and A believes that this also makes it desirable for provisions enabling gradual transition to be incorporated into your bill."
2.15 pm
We can return to the issue of transition on a future occasion, but we need to zero in on the difficult question of capital expenditure and the Bill's effect on clubs. So that we can orientate ourselves, proposed new section 29B is entitled, "Guests: discrimination by mixed-sex clubs" and says:
"It is unlawful for an association to which section 29A applies to discriminate against a woman on an occasion when she is its guest—
(a) in the way in which it affords her access to any of the benefits, facilities or services to which other guests are afforded access by it on that or a comparable occasion,
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford her access to any of those benefits, facilities or services, or
(c) by subjecting her to any other detriment."
That has confused some people, including some of the club organisers to whom I wrote. I am advised that when the Bill refers to a woman it also means a man. As we discovered on Second Reading, when I tabled a number of amendments to clarify the issue, provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act stipulate that when legislation refers to a woman it also means a man and vice versa. That is the even-handed and non-discriminatory approach one would expect of such legislation, and it clarifies the position in the Bill.
The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that references to "he" and "man" in every other piece of legislation are also references to "she" and "woman"?
Mr. Forth: In the modern world of gender neutrality, equality and all the rest one would expect to take that for granted. However, the club organisers whom I contacted suggested that the Bill appears to be obsessed with women. An obsession with women is rather healthy in us heterosexuals, but the suggestion was that the Bill was concerned only with the rights of women, not those of men. I am trying to be helpful by clarifying the Bill's provisions and the legislation underpinning them. When I refer to a woman, I also mean a man. I hope that that does not upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you appear to be more than usually perturbed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. All that might be upsetting me is whether the right hon. Gentleman is straying from the exact terms of the amendment into something that is more akin to Second Reading, but I am sure that he has no intention of doing so any longer.
Mr. Forth: Certainly not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are talking about the Sex Discrimination Act, and I should have thought that a bit of chat about sex was entirely in order.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): So that I am not accused of anything, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Will my right hon. Friend address a point that gives me cause for concern? As I understand it, the reference in proposed new section 29B(c) to actions that subject women "to any other detriment" could cover a case where a ladies lavatory is on the first floor and the gents is on the ground floor. The club would then be obliged to construct a new set of lavatories on the ground floor. Would that be considered unreasonable under my right hon. Friend's amendment? He does not make clear in his amendment precisely the scope of the word "unreasonable". I hope that he will deal with that important issue. What does he mean by "unreasonable" in the amendment? Does he envisage certain capital works being necessary or none at all?
Mr. Forth:
My right hon. Friend has me at a disadvantage. He is a distinguished and experienced lawyer, which I am not. I worry quite a lot when a lawyer of his distinction taxes me on the interpretation of the
18 Jun 2004 : Column 1045
word "reasonable", but I have been in the House long enough to know, or think I know, that the word "reasonable" is a term of art in the British legal system—is it not? I am even more worried when I cast my eyes back and see that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is as eminent a lawyer, is sitting beside my right hon. Friend, so I have two eminent legal brains sitting behind me. I should have thought that if my right hon. Friend cannot answer his own question, there is little chance of my being able to answer it.
Mr. Knight: I can see a difficulty in interpretation. Clearly, if a club has several thousand members, carrying out small capital works may not be unreasonable when one looks at the club's accounts, but if a club is very small and because of the passage of the Bill into law it has to carry out capital works, in the light of that club's turnover the very same works may be deemed to be unreasonable. I want to flush out from my right hon. Friend where he sees his amendment playing in all that, if it is accepted by the House.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |