| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Malcolm Bruce: I concur with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I, too, was not present when the Bill was considered on Second Reading. I shall try to confine myself to the amendment, and my intervention was relevant to it.
I shall take my example of an all-women's club. If that club felt that it had to conform with the proposed legislation, and there were costs associated with that, the consequence would be increased subscriptions, and male members' subscriptions would increase by more
15 Oct 2004 : Column 592
than the subscriptions of female members. Therefore, a satisfactory arrangement, which both sexes find to their mutual agreement, would be prejudiced. That is a specific example.
I am much in sympathy with the thrust of the Bill. I would like clubs generally to be more relaxed and to be more mixed sex. These are genuine points of issue that a piece of legislation may eventually have to address. In principle, we have always accepted that clubs are entitled to define, within the broader law rather than sex discrimination legislation, their own parameters. It would be a big step if we were to tear that up.
I guess that the Bill's passage has probably shed some light on the difficulties of applying this sort of legislation. However, that is not a case for abandoning it. It may well be a case for accepting that the Bill is not quite the right vehicle.
Mr. Sutcliffe: First, I apologise to the House for not being present at the start of the debate. I was stuck in a lift at the Department of Trade and Industry.
David Wright: Was the lift open to men and to women to be stuck in?
Mr. Sutcliffe: Well, the lift was never open at all in terms of getting into the House.
I shall return to the amendment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) that there is no need for the amendment. Such a provision was not seen as necessary when the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was enacted. That legislation imposed more sweeping demands on employers and providers of goods and services, and very little by way of physical alteration to premises that is likely to be needed in the great majority of these cases. If a compelling need can be demonstrated, provision can be made under the transitional arrangements that are provided for in clause 4.
The Bill relates to clubs that already admit both men and women who are members. The men should not be the subject of discrimination. The Bill is not about making clubs undertake extensive changes to provide for people with disabilities to enable them to access premises. Disability discrimination in relation to private clubs will be dealt with by other means. Through disability legislation, the test of reasonableness already exists.
The purpose behind the Bill is to let women who are already members of clubs use, for example, the snooker room or to vote at the annual general meeting, or to have access to the golf course on different days. There is no change in the way in which single sex clubs are organised.
Members quite rightly like to consider private Member's Bill line by line, but my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on developing the Bill through much consultation, has tried to deliver that. However, clause 4 provides the opportunity to deal with any transitional costs, and we are not attacking the principle
15 Oct 2004 : Column 593
of association. We are saying that when people are legitimate members, they should be given the opportunity to participate fully.
2.15 pm
I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will withdraw the amendment and support the thrust of my hon. Friend's Bill. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was introduced nearly 30 years ago, but we still face a ridiculous situation. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) described what he had tried to do in the clubs that he was a member of, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I am a member of the CIU and hon. Members will be aware of the great debate in which women have been trying to obtain full rights in the CIU. The executive supports that aim, but cannot get the two-thirds majority to have the change accepted at the annual conference.
As my hon. Friend has said, I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will see the issue in the round and withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chope: The best thing to do is put the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 20.
AYES
Bruce, Malcolm
Calton, Mrs Patsy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grieve, Dominic
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Christopher Chope and
Mr. Edward Leigh
NOES
Beard, Nigel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dismore, Andrew
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)
Gerrard, Neil
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
McCabe, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona
Prosser, Gwyn
Quinn, Lawrie
Shipley, Ms Debra
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watson, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:
David Wright and
Mr. Stephen Pound
It appearing on the Report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
15 Oct 2004 : Column 593
15 Oct 2004 : Column 594
Remaining Private Members' Bills
TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Second Reading what day? No day named.
SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT (EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
CHILDREN'S FOOD BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask your advice. Is there is an available date?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady can name a date, but whether it is available is another matter. [Laughter.]
Ms Shipley: Seven days in the future.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 22 October.
LIGHTER EVENINGS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 5 November.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
CINEMAS (RURAL AREAS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 5 November.
15 Oct 2004 : Column 595
MARINE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 5 November.
HARBOURS BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 5 November.
CIVIL SERVICE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |