Schedule 12: Further and higher education exceptions
Part 1: Single-sex institutions
Effect
875.Part 1 of this Schedule makes exceptions from the prohibition on sex discrimination by further and higher education institutions to allow for the existence of single-sex colleges and to make transitional provisions for single-sex institutions which are turning co-educational.
Background
876.These provisions are designed to replicate the effect of provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Admission to single-sex institutions: paragraph 1
Effect
877.This paragraph allows a single-sex institution to refuse to admit members of the opposite sex. An institution is defined as single-sex if it admits students of one sex only. An institution which exceptionally admits students of the opposite sex, or which admits a comparatively small number of opposite-sex students to particular courses or classes only, is still regarded as single-sex. Limiting those students to particular courses or classes is permitted. However, other forms of sex discrimination by the institution against its opposite-sex students would still be unlawful.
Examples
A women’s college which admits only female students is not discriminating unlawfully against men.
If the college admits a small number of men to make up the numbers on a particular course of study, it is still regarded as a single-sex college. It is not discriminating unlawfully by refusing to admit men to other courses.
A women’s college which admits men to certain courses but refuses to let them use the student cafeteria would be discriminating unlawfully against them.
Single-sex institutions turning co-educational: paragraphs 2 and 3.
Effect
878.These paragraphs enable a college which is going through the process of changing from a single-sex to a co-educational institution to apply for a transitional exemption order, to enable it to continue restricting admittance to a single sex until the transition from single-sex is complete.
879.Paragraph 3 sets out the procedures for applying for a transitional exemption order.
Background
880.These provisions are designed to replicate the effect of provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Examples
If a transitional exemption order is made in accordance with the arrangements in paragraph 3:
A women’s college which decides to become co-educational by starting to admit a certain number of male undergraduates to the first year of its degree courses will not be discriminating unlawfully by limiting the number of men it admits, or by refusing men access to postgraduate degree courses.
A college in the process of becoming co-educational must treat its male and female students equally once they have been admitted, since the transitional exemption order relates only to discrimination in relation to admissions.
Part 2: Other exceptions.Occupational requirements: paragraph 4
Effect
881.This paragraph enables a higher or further education institution to treat a person differently based on a protected characteristic in relation to providing training which would only fit them for work which, under exceptions in Schedule 9, can lawfully be restricted to people of a particular race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or age, or who are not transgendered or who are not married or in a civil partnership and for which they would therefore be ineligible.
Background
882.This is designed to replicate the effect of provisions in the previous legislation.
Example
A Catholic theological college can refuse to admit a woman to a training course which was designed only to prepare candidates for the Catholic priesthood. However, a Church of England college could not confine training for the priesthood to men since women may also become Anglican priests.
Institutions with a religious ethos: paragraph 5
Effect
883.This paragraph confers on a Minister of the Crown a power to designate an institution if the Minister is satisfied that the institution has a religious ethos. If an institution is designated it may admit students who share the relevant religion or belief in preference to those who do not, but only in relation to admissions to courses which do not constitute vocational training.
Background
884.This is designed to enable the previous position under an exception in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 to be maintained. Schedule 1B to those Regulations modified the prohibition on discrimination for a small number of sixth form colleges with a religious ethos. The intention is that this power will be used to designate those colleges.
Benefits dependent on marital status, etc.: paragraph 6
Effect
885.A higher or further education institution which confines any benefit, facility or service – such as access to residential accommodation – to married people and civil partners will not be discriminating because of sexual orientation against people who are unmarried or not in a civil partnership.
Background
886.This is designed to replicate the effect of a provision in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 so far as it related to higher or further education institutions.
Child care: paragraph 7
Effect
887.This paragraph provides that a higher or further education institution is permitted to provide, or make arrangements for, or facilitate, care for the children of students which is confined to children of a particular age group. This includes all kinds of assistance with child care including paying for or subsidising it, or enabling parents to spend more time caring for the child.
Background
888.The Act makes it unlawful for higher or further education institutions to discriminate because of the age of a person with whom a student is associated, and not the student’s own age. The exception makes it clear that where child care for students’ children who are aged 16 or under is concerned, it is not unlawful for this to be based on the age of the child.
Example
If a college provides a crèche for the pre-school children of students, this will not be unlawful age association discrimination against a student who is the parent of an older child. The college will not have to demonstrate that the provision and the age limits are objectively justified.
