QUALIFYING BODIES (Hansard, 18 June 1975)

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 13. leave out 'or facilities'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With it we shall also consider Amendment No. 25, in page 11. line 22, leave out subsection (2).

§ Mr. Bell
The clause applies the provisions of the Bill to bodies which give a qualification or confer an authorisation which is needed for, or facilitates, engagement in a particular profession. I am not on this occasion objecting to the words "which is needed for", but seeking to omit the words "or facilitates". That term extends the prohibition in the clause to a whole range of bodies which almost by definition are private unofficial bodies conferring a qualification or certificate which is not needed for any occupation but which someone thinks would facilitate the getting of a job or employment.
It seems wrong in principle that private bodies offering qualifications, if that is the right word, which are purely optional and are not needed as an entry qualification for any occupation should be subject to the provisions of the Bill. There are many private bodies and clubs which have during the years established such a reputation and acquired such esteem that to have the cachet of their approval would be helpful in many aspirations.
Such a body, which is purely a private body, owes no public duty. Examples of such a body are the Marylebone Cricket Club and the Jockey Club. There are a great many such clubs, and people think very highly of them. The qualifications or certificates which they confer are 1532 prized. Anyone who is not licensed by the Jockey Club, for example, cannot, understandably, take part in race meetings organised by that club. By a sort of convention the team which the Marylebone Cricket Club selects is often considered to be of peculiar efficacy in a representative capacity. However, it is simply a cricket club, just as the other is simply a jockey club. All these private bodies owe no public responsibility. They are members' clubs and they should be totally free to act in any way they think appropriate which commends itself to them.
The general attitude of the community may be to attach importance to the cachet which the private clubs give, but the law should not crystallise that into an official status nor subject the clubs to statutory discipline. We should keep a clear distinction between bodies whose qualifications are needed to enter an occupation and bodies, however eminent, however highly thought of, which are private clubs whose approval is purely optional and should be conferred in their own caprice and without answerability to the law or to the public

§ Mr. John Fraser
The example of the Jockey Club given by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is a good one. On the whole, the Bill does not include personal and private relationships, and it does not affect private clubs. That is not to say that some private clubs do not have a public responsibility. The Jockey Club has a public responsibility. It can influence the employment of a woman as a jockey by withholding its recognition or its cachet, and, in doing so, it is not merely regulating its internal private affairs but is going outside its private domain and affecting someone's opportunity of employment.
For that reason we believe that bodies that can give licences, certificates, diplomas, permits. registrations or other forms of cachet should not be able to influence adversely the employment prospects of a person in the public area of employment. That is why we believe the words to be necessary and why they are inserted in the Bill. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.