 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Equality Bill |
Equality Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Eliot Wilson,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 2 July 2009(Afternoon)[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]Equality BillClause 188Sport 1
pm Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I beg to
move amendment 309, in clause 188, page 134, line 24, at end
insert— ‘(1A) For the
avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) allows a person to provide
gender-affected activities separately, but does not allow such
activities to be provided to people of one gender but not to the other,
unless it is unreasonable or disproportionate to seek to provide them
for
both.’. This
amendment seeks to prevent, for example, the instance where there is a
sporting competition that is open to men, but there is no equivalent
competition open to
women.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 304, in
clause 188, page 135, line 6, at
end insert— ‘(7) Bodies
responsible for the organisation of international and national-level
sports competitions shall not discriminate on the grounds of gender in
the provision of competition and team membership unless they are able
to demonstrate that it is a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate
aim.’. Sporting
bodies have to demonstrate that discrimination on the grounds of
gender, in the provision of competition and team membership, is a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate
aim.
Dr.
Harris: I apologise for a rather breathless arrival. The
Committee that is considering how the House scrutinises Government
business was meeting in another part of the House and the hon. Member
for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who was due in another Committee
Room, and I had a race over here—he
won. We
are now on sporting issues, and the point of the amendment is to probe
the extent to which the Bill places a duty on sporting bodies,
particularly those in receipt of public money—many are—to
ensure that there is not a historical bias towards male sport. We
frequently see that taking place in respect not just of participation
and organisation, but television and other broadcast coverage of sport.
It is most unfair and regrettable that many participants who enjoy
their sport and would like to watch it find it hard to access it on
television, particularly in relation to women and girls’
sport. Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): As the proud father of three
daughters, perhaps I could remind the Committee that there is, indeed,
often a negative bias in relation to output and achievement? I cite the
example
of the successful England women’s cricket team as exactly a case
in point. There is nothing wrong with female participation in sports
that have been seen, wrongly, as traditionally
male.
Dr.
Harris: Indeed. I think that the hon. Gentleman won the
race to mention that before other hon. Members. Given his athleticism
in Committee, it is not a surprise that he was able to win that race.
He has mentioned just one example—I shall not list all the
examples. My purpose in tabling the amendment is to probe the extent to
which the Minister believes that the Bill will require or strongly
encourage sporting bodies, including those in receipt of public funds,
to do their utmost to promote participation on an equal basis, where no
provision or aspect of the sport prevents it being obviously less
popular or less possible to do so. That seems to be a reasonable basis
on which to go
forward. The
new subsection can clearly only be probing because it states
“for the
avoidance of
doubt”. That
wording should not be put in Bills because they are not supposed to
contain any doubt and where there is doubt, it is deliberate. The
amendment
states, “subsection
(1) allows a person to provide gender-affected activities separately,
but does not allow such activities to be provided to people of one
gender but not to the other, unless it is unreasonable or
disproportionate to seek to provide them for
both.” The
measure is about ensuring that the presumption is for providing
sporting facilities for both genders, rather than simply providing them
for one gender on the basis of history or
laziness. Amendment
304 is similar, but slightly different. Again, it has been tabled to
probe whether the Government have a view on the subject and whether
legislation has any hold on the unfairness that exists in relation to
sports where there is full participation by men and women, but where
international events are organised only for one gender. I shall use the
example of cycling in the Olympic games because it is something that I
and other people feel strongly about. How can it be that the Olympic
games—I know that we do not have direct jurisdiction over the
International Olympic Committee, but we must have some influence over
the 2012 games—has a sport, in which Britain excels, where there
is no way that a woman participant can get as many medals as a male
participant? They have less chance of getting their particular type of
race into the games than a male participant because there are simply
more events for
men. That
means that our superb women athletes such as Victoria Pendleton and
Rebecca Romero can never achieve the status that some of our excellent
male athletes have, because the male athletes are automatically liable
to win more gold medals in events, even though there seems to me to be
no discernible difference between the superb performances of both. I
think that some of the women cyclists could have the accolade of being
triple gold medal winning if they were given an equal chance. Does the
Solicitor-General see any way in which we can in Parliament, by
recognising that it is, to an extent, historical gender-based
discrimination, ensure that at the Olympic games that we host there is
no simple discrimination in that way on the basis of history or custom
and practice?
Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): On the particular
issue of cycling, I seem to remember—I am sure that the
Solicitor-General will be able to furnish us with the
facts—that the Minister for the Olympics updated the House on
progress towards 2012 in relation to that very subject. The hon.
Gentleman is right to say that some of the imbalance is historical. The
International Olympic Committee is wrestling with the question of how
to balance the events from a gender perspective while managing the
overall size of the competition. I think that I am right in saying that
some progress has been or is being made on that subject. I seem to
remember that the Minister for the Olympics updated the House some time
ago, but I am sure that the Solicitor-General will be able to state the
exact
position.
Dr.
Harris: The hon. Gentleman may be right. I certainly
raised the issue in a question that was not reached but was answered
about six weeks ago. It may have been one and the same answer or a
different
one. John
Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): I agree with what the hon.
Gentleman is saying, although I realise that there are forces who would
argue against it. Some of their arguments are along these lines: more
people want to watch such-and-such a sport, or more people want to
watch men performing a particular sport than women. How does the hon.
Gentleman answer those
opponents?
Dr.
Harris: In the end, that is a question for broadcasters.
We have already argued, I think, that broadcast decisions are broadcast
decisions and should not be subject even to the positive duty, but
you’ve got to be in it to win it and it is a chicken-and-egg
situation, if I may use two clichÃ(c)s—I apologise for doing
so. Unless there are women’s events to televise, there is no
opportunity for people to say that they want to watch them. I do not
think that there was any evidence that in relation to the performance
of our cyclists in particular—although that is just one
example—there was any distinction between the astonishing
achievements of the women athletes and those of the male
athletes.
Legislation
is not the best way, the only way or even necessarily an appropriate
way to deal with the issue, but given that we are hosting the Olympic
games in this country and there is that blatant unevenness—which
may be based on custom and practice or history but which is not based
on watchability, participation or any of the physical differences,
because the athletes are doing the same thing in each case—I
just wonder whether we can use this opportunity, along with the efforts
of the Minister for the Olympics, who I know is engaged on this matter,
to make further
progress.
The
Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): Welcome back to the Chair,
Mr. Benton. I can pray in aid my own very considerable
sporting prowess as a member of the Olympics Minister’s
five-a-side football team for women. We played the women’s
national five-a-side football team in our first match. Their average
age was about 30 years younger than ours, and that was about the number
of goals that they scored in the first half as well, but then they
realised that we were not that serious about it, so they started to let
us win and we scored about 10 goals—football is a very good
sport.
I
know exactly what hon. Gentlemen were saying about discrimination in
sport. It is very real. I myself had to get one of the sponsors of the
Redcar half-marathon to threaten to withdraw the sponsorship money
because the prize money was less for women than it was for men, even
though it was the same race. That was, I am sorry to say, when the
Liberal Democrat-led coalition was organising it; I am pleased to say
that it is now back in safe Labour
hands. I
appreciate that these are only probing amendments. The hon. Member for
Oxford, West and Abingdon is really just seizing the opportunity to
debate the issue, which is, I suppose, fair enough. The clause is about
allowing separate sporting competitions where physical strength,
stamina or physique are factors in determining success or failure. It
is to allow for separate competitions where there is a point to that.
Amendment 309 would require any organiser of a single-sex sporting
competition, including, for example, a local pub, to demonstrate, if
challenged, that it was unreasonable or disproportionate for them to
provide an equivalent sporting competition for the opposite sex only.
Amendment 304 is about sport governing
bodies. The
gender directive prohibits discrimination based on sex in the access to
and the supply of goods and services. Article 4(5) provides that this
directive
“shall not
preclude differences in treatment, if the provision of the goods and
services exclusively or primarily to members of one sex is justified by
a legitimate aim”.
That includes
“the
organisation of sporting activities (for example single-sex sports
events).”
Where men and women are
both taking part in the same sport, game or other competitive activity,
clause 188 allows them to compete separately. I do not think that the
hon. Gentleman is really quibbling about the way in which the clause
will work. He is just seeking some assurance that the Government are
doing all they can to ensure that the undoubted imbalance in
availability of sporting opportunities is being combated.
Let me turn
now to the Olympics, which is probably the hon. Gentleman’s real
point. The Minister for the Olympics was also the captain of the
women’s five-a-side football team. She was a master of tactics.
At one point she shouted, “Vera, you are big; go to the back and
stop them scoring.” She made herself centre forward—or
whatever the right term is—and I said to the other teams,
“You do know that she is Secretary of State and is responsible
for grants to sporting organisations?” So she scored a few
goals.
About a third
of the 34 events across the 26 sports in the Olympics reflect some
gender discrepancy. In the Paralympic sports, the figure is nearer to
50 per cent. However, over the past 30 years the IOC has made
considerable strides. In 1980 in Moscow, women represented only 18 per
cent. of athletes, whereas in Beijing it was 42 per cent.
Change to Olympic sports is in the sole gift of the IOC, but the
Minister for the Olympics is lobbying for change. She has asked UK
Sport to work with the British Olympic Association and with national
governing bodies to identify those sports in which gender imbalance
exists.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 3 July 2009 |