| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right when he says that the language has been borrowed from the Race Relations Act 1976. One can see the attraction of doing so to the extent that that
uses tried and tested wording that is generally understood. But we would certainly interpret the Bill to include the "essential character" element. That would accurately provide a rubric into which single-sex clubs would fall. We consider that that matter could be clarified in the drafting. However, there is some attraction in retaining the phrases "main object" and "essential character" because of the way in which they have been identified in the past 30-plus years. They are terms of art that are well understood in a legal framework.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I need not detain the Committee long. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that the matter can be best sorted out with some skilful drafting before Report. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 3A:
- Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3A, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 5. The object of the amendments is to respect personal privacy and to extend to private clubs the privacy safeguards in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that relate to bodies that provide services and facilities to the public.
I have in mind, as a good example, the Turkish baths in the RAC in Pall Mall. We do not live in Hungary or the Soviet Union where they were accustomed to males and females undressing in Turkish baths rather more freely than inhibited northern Europeans are used to. In the RAC, there are separate Turkish bath facilities for men and women but on unequal terms. My amendments would ensure that a club providing such personal, private services and facilities in which serious embarrassment might be caused if there were mingling of both sexes would not be guilty of any unlawful conduct.
Members of this House always particularly enjoy it when lawyers make mistakes. I must now say that I have made mistakes in my amendments that need to be rectified by Report. Amendment No. 3A says:
I beg to move the amendment, so as to enable debate, but both amendments, I am afraid, are congenitally deformed.
Baroness Buscombe: We support Amendments Nos. 3A and 5 in principle and look forward to the amendment of the noble Lord's amendments.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We too support the amendments in principle but look forward to the perfected versions that will, in due course, be submitted.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am also happy to accept in principle what the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendments. I can reassure him that my faith in his infallibility has not been shaken by the minor drafting errors. The amendments are helpful, and they will improve the Bill. We look forward to considering them properly on Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I thank noble Lords for not making me blush more than I am. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the definition of a liberal is someone who recognises human fallibility. Therefore, he is always aware that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. I am not at all sure that I am right and, therefore, I shall try and do better the second time. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 seeks to delete all of new Section 29C from the Bill. As currently drafted new Section 29C contains somewhat complex and, if I may say with respect, unclear and unhelpful provisions governing when a club may and may not hold single-sex sporting events. Those provisions are inconsistent with Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act, both in prohibiting single-sex
I believe that it would be helpful to Members of the Committee if I read out Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It states:
As the Sex Discrimination Act's general provision on single-sex events in Section 44 would apply in any case, we believe that there is no reason to depart from its tested and tried approach of permitting such events—only where there is an inherent advantage to men in consequence of their strength, stamina or, perhaps I should add, physique.
I hope that Members of the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I agree with her amendment entirely, but I would like to take the opportunity, since she has read out Section 44, to say how unfair I find it as an extremely bad golfer. The average male golfer is meant to be able to drive a golf ball further than the average female golfer. Unfortunately, I find myself playing with extremely able female golfers who seem to be teeing off 100 yards nearer the hole than I am able to. I find it very hard even to reach the female tee, still less to get beyond it.
I remember that when Chief Justice Taft who, while President of the United States, made the mistake himself of being about to tee off from the ladies' tee, the captain of the club came up to him and said, "Mr President, you realise that you are not allowed to play off that tee?". The President turned and said, "It is my second shot". I find it a great handicap and I wish that equality would enable me to beat women golfers. However, I am afraid that on any terms I am unable to. I fully support the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government, too, would support the amendment. This is an area in which the Sex Discrimination Act has always recognised that the differences of treatment may be justified. The existing Section 44 of the Act therefore permits single-sex competitions in circumstances where men would enjoy an advantage as a result of their physical strength, stamina or physique. I say that irrespective of the beguiling statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I am sure that with greater application he, too, will reach the goal to which he strives.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: This is the last amendment that we shall debate today and I want to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for the support she has given to the Bill not only today but on Second Reading. It cannot have been easy for her given the views which may exist behind her on her Benches, but her support is very much appreciated by me and by other supporters of the Bill.
The provision which she seeks to delete was originally included in order to meet the objections of the promoters of larger sporting events while at the same time securing some elements of equality in smaller club competitions, which were defined as those with prize money below £1,000. In view of the fact that it is a complicated area and is perhaps outside the mainstream of what we seek to do in the rest of the Bill, I am happy to accept the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved.
"29BA EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTION 29A IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
Nothing in section 29A shall render unlawful the provision of facilities or services restricted to men if the facilities or services are provided for, or are likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and—
(i) the facilities or services are such, or those persons are such, that male users are likely to suffer serious embarrassment at the presence of a woman,
(ii) the facilities or services are such that a user is likely to be in a state of undress and a male user might reasonably object to the presence of a female user, or
(iii) the facilities or services are such that physical contact between the user and any other person is likely, and that other person might reasonably object if the user were a woman."
"Nothing in Section 29A shall render unlawful the provision of facilities or services restricted to men if"—
and the rest is set out. The problem is that I have gone too far. I have wholly exempted Turkish baths from the scope of the Bill, whereas I had intended the amendment to say:
"render unlawful the provision of separate facilities or services for men and women".
In other words, I intended to say that someone providing Turkish baths must do so on equal terms, but can do so separately. I failed to do that. For good measure, I must confess that, in my haste to get the amendments in, I referred in Amendment No. 5 to Section 34(3), when it should have been Section 35(3).
Page 3, leave out lines 10 to 32.
"Nothing in Parts II to IV"—
which relate to discrimination in the employment field and other unlawful acts—
"shall, in relation to any sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature where the physical strength, stamina or physique of the average woman puts her at a disadvantage to the average man, render unlawful any act related to the participation of a person as a competitor in events involving that activity which are confined to competitors of one sex".
9.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page