§ Mr. Ronald BellI beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 9, line 37, leave out Clause 11.
This is the clause applying the Bill to partnerships. It is quite unreasonable that so personal a relationship as a partnership should be governed by the Bill. What is more, the clause applies not only to partnerships but to people considering forming themselves into a partnership. Although there is no partnership—and this applies to six or more partners, very 1508 small partnerships—they cannot even decide that they will have a partnership all of men without breaking the law.
Perhaps I cannot say any more than I have already said. I have explained my attitude to the Bill I regard it as wrong and oppressive, and as an interference in the private arrangements of life. One could understand the clause better in relation to large limited companies, but when it is dealing with small partnerships and saying that people cannot decide that they are a men's club, or a women's club for that matter, this again shows the doctrinaire extremism of the Bill.
§ Dr. SummerskillIt was our original proposal in the White Paper that the Bill should make discrimination in professional partnership with eight or more partners unlawful. This proposal to include partnerships in the Bill was welcomed. But in the light of the comments made we decided that the provision should cover all kinds of partnership—not only professional partnerships—and that it should relate to firms with six or more partners.
The personal relationship between partners is of a special kind. That in a small partnership will often be even closer than, for example, that between an employer and the employees of a small firm. It is because of these close personal relationships that we have excluded small partnerships from the scope of the Bill.
Leaving small partnerships aside, I see no reason why the larger partnerships should lawfully be able to turn away a prospective woman partner simply because she is a woman, or should lawfully be able to treat an existing woman partner less favourably than her male partners, again simply because she is a woman. The converse would apply.
In some instances employees in a partnership have a normal career expectation to be considered in due course for the position of a partner. It would be indefensible if the Bill did not give women in such situations the right to be treated equally with men.
Many of the professions, such as accountants, solicitors and chartered surveyors, are largely organised on a partnership basis. Women in those professions should not be denied the protection of the Bill. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
| Division No. 240.] | AYES | [8.54 p.m. |
| Bell, Ronald | McCusker, H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Fry, Peter | Molyneaux, James | Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and |
| Gray, Hamish | Paisley, Rev Ian | Mr. John Biggs-Davison |
| Grist, Ian | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) |
| Anderson, Donald | George, Bruce | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Golding, John | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Gourlay, Harry | Noble, Mike |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Bates, Alf | Hardy, Peter | O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Ovenden, John |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hatton, Frank | Owen, Dr David |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Park, George |
| Boardman, H. | Heffer, Eric S. | Penhaligon, David |
| Booth, Albert | Hooson, Emlyn | Prescott, John |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Horam, John | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Radlce, Giles |
| Campbell, Ian | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Cant, R. B. | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Cohen, Stanley | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Roper, John |
| Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Selby, Harry |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | John, Brynmor | Skinner, Dennis |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Small, William |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Davidson, Arthur | Kaufman, Gerald | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Kilfedder, James | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Stoddart, David |
| de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Lamborn, Harry | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Dempsey, James | Lamond, James | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Doig, Peter | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Tierney, Sydney |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Lipton, Marcus | Tinn, James |
| Dunn, James A. | Litterick, Tom | Tuck, Raphael |
| Edge, Geoff | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | McCartney, Hugh | Wainwriqht, Richard (Colne V) |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | McElhone, Frank | Ward, Michael |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | MacFarquhar, Roderick | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| English, Michael | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | White, James (Pollock) |
| Ennals, David | Mackenzie, Gregor | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Madden, Max | Woodall, Alec |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Magee, Bryan | Woof, Robert |
| Flannery, Martin | Marks, Kenneth | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Marquand, David | |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Ford, Ben | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Forrester, John | Millan, Bruce | Mr. Donald Colman |
| Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. AlisonI beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 8, at end insert:
'(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a firm or partnership in which it is reasonable, having regard to the essential character or declared purpose of the undertaking, that the position should not he held by a woman'.I hope that it may be possible for the Government to give us some hope and encouragement on this amendment. It is
§ The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 142.
§ partly exploratory but it raises a real problem in the matter of firms or partnerships of six or more men or women. The fact that we use "woman" as the last word in the amendment is in the context of the general provisions of the Bill in which "man" is interchangeable with "woman".
§ It is possible to conceive of a situation in which for bona fide reasons a group of women club together, more than six strong, to set up a firm or partnership exclusively of women. They may want to set up a professional all-women choir in 1511 which they are all partners and in which they share the profits from the work they do. They may wish to form an orchestra or a band for the same purpose. They may wish to set up a consultancy service to advise women on the problems of married life or on women's job opportunities. They may wish to set up a consultancy service on household aspects of women's life—for example, to give advice on cooking, shopping, or furnishing and decorating a house.
§ It is conceivable that for perfectly respectable and bona fide reasons a group of women more than six strong should want to set themselves up in partnership as a firm and deliberately make themselves exclusively a firm or partnership of women. They would be able to advance a good case for restricting their membership on the basis that they got on well with one another and that they wanted to impart a feminine slant to the service that they intended to render. There would be good and respectable reasons for their saying at the beginning of a project, venture or enterprise "We shall limit this undertaking to women only as regards partners and the character of the firm because we shall do a job of work which we believe will attract customers if only women are rendering the service."
§ It does not need a lot of imagination to conceive of a whole range of entrepreneurial activities in which groups of women more than six strong could legitimately and properly say that they intended to make it an essential character of the enterprise that only women would render the service. They could well say "We mean to make it a declared purpose of the consultancy service that we are setting up to give advice on a whole range of subjects that we shall have only women in the firm." It seems unreasonable that that kind of freedom of choice and perfectly proper discrimination in favour of their own sex in their project or enterprise should be disallowed by the far-reaching and sweeping provisions of Clause 11.
§ If the hon. Lady cannot accept our amendment I hope that she will be able to reassure the House that the kind of situation which I have described, and the concept of freedom of choice which I have put before the House, will be open to individual groups of women or men and that they will not be inhibited or ruled 1512 out by the clause. If that is not the position there will be an infringement of personal liberty and freedom which I believe the Government did not mean to write into the Bill. Such a situation would be unacceptable.
§ Dr. SummerskillClause 11 already contains two significant exceptions to the requirement that firms or partnerships should not discriminate. First, partnerships of five or fewer persons are not covered by the clause. Secondly, subsection (3) allows discrimination where the position of a partner would meet any of the genuine occupational qualification criteria set out in Clause 7. As the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) knows that is quite a long clause.
I think that the two exceptions go as far as is necessary to safeguard the reasonable requirements of partnerships where there are close personal relationships, as in small partnerships. It will be lawful for membership of a partnership to be restricted to one sex. For example, it will be lawful for three or four women, formerly close friends, to set up in partnership for whatever purpose they have in mind and to exclude men from that partnership. As I have said, when the genuine occupational qualification criteria are met it will be lawful for there to be restriction to one sex.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated particularly on women banding together, but to transfer what he was saying to the other sex, a group of men might need to make it an essential character of their service that they should only be men. It is that situation which is one of the reasons for our having seen fit to introduce legislation so that people can enter partnerships on grounds of merit and not be discriminated against on grounds of sex.
To go beyond the exceptions in the way proposed by the amendment would create a major loophole in Clause 11. The words used in the amendment are capable of immensely wide application, as the hon. Gentleman has illustrated.
The phrase
having regard to the essential character or declared purpose of the undertakingis very wide and would include bodies such as orchestras and other bodies which 1513 for many years have always been the prerogative of men. I can best illustrate this by giving an example. If 20 male solicitors got together to form a partnership and provided that the declared purpose of the undertaking was to run a practice of male solicitors, it would be arguable that the amendment would allow them to take such action lawfully. I believe that the amendment would bring about an unacceptable weakening of Clause 11, and, indeed, of the whole philosophy of the Bill. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
§ Mr. AlisonWith the leave of the House, I would say that I hope the Minister will not skate off with that explanation. I hope that she can at least hold out some hope that this matter will be examined in more detail by those in the other place. I hope they at least will take the view that this provision, Clause 11, is an undesirable and probably unwelcome infringement of personal liberty. If the Bill is passed in this form it will not be possible for a group of women more than six strong to form an all-women's choir, an all-women's orchestra or an all women's consultancy service. The law of the land will say that they must not get together in any larger number.
§ Dr. SummerskillLet me try to help the hon. Gentleman. To take his example of an all women's choir, presumably the purpose of setting up such a choir is to have sounds emitted which are of the feminine voice. Therefore, a man applying to become a member of such a choir, if he so wished—which is not very likely—would be rejected not on grounds of sex, but because his voice would not be of the type required for an all-women's choir. In such a case the Bill would be irrelevant, but if that man could show that he had been kept out of the choir on grounds of sex, he would have a case. One could draw this parallel in many of the examples given by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. LaneHas my hon. Friend, or, indeed, the Minister considered the question of the Dagenham Girl Pipers? I wish to support my hon. Friend's remarks. The matter requires further thought, and I hope that the Government will move 1514 a little way to meet my hon. Friend's point.
§ Mr. AlisonI am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane). He illustrated the point I was making. Perhaps we were on slightly weak ground when talking about choirs, although I can think of some men who could produce a tone or sound that would get close to the sounds emitted by an all-women's choir. Let me move from vocal chords to instruments. Let us consider the Dagenham Girl Pipers, women's jazz bands or women's all-steel orchestras. In other words, when we consider, not the human voice, but sounds emitted by other instruments, it brings other considerations into play.
I am thinking of the situation faced by a number of women who wish to set up a consultancy service to advise women on job opportunities, or to give medical advice, or to give advice on household problems which confront women in their shopping, cooking or decorating. There are a whole range of topics in which women have a special interest and in which it may be commercially advantageous for a group of women to band together.
§ Dr. SummerskillIf a man wanted to join one of those bodies he would have to show, if refused admission, that he was rejected on grounds of sex and not on any other grounds. If he could show that he had the qualifications, qualities and knowledge to make it possible for him to be a member of one of those bodies, that would strengthen his case, but he would still have to show that he had been rejected on grounds of sex. Similarly, a woman applying for an all-male symphony orchestra would have to show that the reason she was not accepted was not on grounds of her musical ability, but that she was a woman.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. AlisonI think the hon. Lady has in a sense proved my point. I am not sure that she meant to do so. I am arguing that there should be in certain circumstances situations in which members of the different sexes should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sex, as with the setting up of what is by definition an all-women band. We only want women of one sex—[Laughter.]—I 1515 am sorry, though I caused a smile to flit across your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant to say we only want human beings of one sex where commercial advantage is seen in a regime of that sort, with discrimination on the ground of sex. The Bill allows this in respect of firms or partners up to the number of six, but it is quite conceivable that larger numbers might be involved.
I hope that the hon. Lady since she has shown such a ready disposition to join in the debate on this, will at least look carefully at what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and others have said, and consider whether something can be done in another place to take account of a situation in which, for proper commercial reasons, and reasons of liberty, men or women should be allowed to discriminate, on grounds of sex, in partnerships or firms.
§ Dr. SummerskillMy readiness to take part in the debate must not be misconstrued as sympathy with the amendment. My last word on this is that I feel very strongly that it would provide an extremely serious loophole in our legislation. If we are to concentrate on the effect on women in particular it would seriously affect the chances of many women joining partnerships in many spheres of life.
§ Amendment negatived.