---

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [HL]

8.3 p.m.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975]:

Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 8, leave out "25" and insert "2000"

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and myself. It seeks to question how far my noble

8 May 2002 : Column 1230

friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester wants to go in bringing the law into the affairs of small and medium-sized private clubs and associations. As I did on Second Reading, perhaps I may declare an interest as a member of the Reform Club, which admits men and women members on equal terms, and as a member of the Garrick Club, whose members consist of men only.

The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that where a club offers membership or associate membership to women, it must do so on equal terms with men. Women must not be excluded from certain parts of the club or any facilities that are available to men, or from taking part in the governance of the club. The same rules would apply to clubs that are basically or primarily women's clubs, but which offer some sort of membership to men.

In the debate on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Faulkner made it clear that the Bill, through new Clause 29B, would allow for the continuance of single-sex clubs such as the Garrick Club or Women's Institutes. In the Second Reading debate, many noble Lords pointed out that where in golf clubs, working men's clubs and so forth, clubs admit women as members but do so only on unequal terms, there is often a strong feeling of resentment among the women members, a feeling of injustice and, sometimes, one of humiliation. Over recent years, just as there have been considerable changes in social behaviour in society generally, so there have been moves towards greater equality in the running and membership of private clubs and associations. However, the Bill's proponents say that those changes have not gone far enough and that a law is now necessary to give those changes a necessary further push.

I believe that there is a big question mark over how far the law should intervene to enforce equality of treatment between the sexes. Freedom of association is one of the great freedoms for which many have fought, both literally and metaphorically, over centuries. It is the freedom to associate for any legitimate purpose with like-minded people with whom one wishes to associate, to the exclusion of others. Clubs are private associations (with or without their own premises) which people establish, run, and then invite and elect others to join. Given that, I believe that a very strong case indeed has to be made before the law should intrude in order to enforce equal association between men and women.

The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to tease out how far my noble friend Lord Faulkner will be prepared to go in pushing the law into the private domain. Let us contrast certain scenarios. In one particular geographical area, A, there is only one golf club. No publicly-owned golf club is available for miles around. If there was such a club, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 would already apply, requiring men and women to be treated at all times on equal terms. But the golf club in area A is, in effect, a monopoly supplier of golfing services. Not surprisingly, it has several thousand members and a huge waiting list. I suggest that perhaps it ought to be treated like a public supplier of services to the public,

8 May 2002 : Column 1231

or a section of the public; namely, people who want to play golf. Perhaps it ought to be bound by the Sex Discrimination Act.

But let me take another scenario. In town B, some 30 or 40 men comprise the local darts team. They meet regularly in various pubs and village halls to play against similar darts teams. Recently, a number of women have become interested in playing darts and now women have been elected as associate members. They are welcome to join in and to play on ladies' evenings. They are welcome only on those evenings, because on other evenings the men wish to have a bibulous evening playing darts with men only.

In town C there is a university wives club comprising several hundred members who are thinking of allowing into membership—but not with full rights—men who are spouses of local female university staff. Apparently the women like some of their social occasions to be women only nights out. Does my noble friend Lord Faulkner really think that there is an overriding justification for the law to intervene in these small or medium scale social activities in towns B and C?

Why should not people associate with others for social purposes in ways that they choose, mixing the sexes to the extent that they choose? As it stands, the Bill will make unlawful all of these kinds of restrictions on membership that attach to one sex only whenever the total numbers in the club are 25 or more. How can that be justified?

My noble friend Lord Faulkner may also wish to consider that if the Bill becomes law those male or female clubs that have begun to admit, or started out on the road of admitting, the opposite sex to some kind of membership might decide to go back to square one and revert to exclusive male or female membership so as to avoid the effect of new Section 29A. Would my noble friend Lord Faulkner regard that as progress? I beg to move.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Henley: I have added my name to the amendment. I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. In doing so, I offer my thanks to him. He spotted that the Bill may have slightly wider implications than its promoters and many noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading thought. I was somewhat remiss not to speak at Second Reading. I may have to say a few words at this stage, without making a Second Reading speech—I have no intention of making a Second Reading speech—to set out my position on the Bill.

Before I do so, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I presume will be speaking for the Government on the Bill—her noble friend Lady Farrington spoke on the previous occasion—whether she can help on this issue. On 13th March, the day of the Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Blatch put down a Question for Written Answer asking Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to bring in a Bill to ban all clubs from

8 May 2002 : Column 1232

excluding female membership. That Question was put down on 13th March and I gather from the Companion that it is recommended that the Government normally answer Questions within a fortnight of them being put down. One would therefore have hoped that the Question would have been answered by 27th March. As far as I am aware, the Question has not yet been answered.

It seems to be a fairly straightforward Question. It was dealt with to some extent by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, at Second Reading when she said:

"The Government have made no criticism of genuine"—

I stress the word "genuine"—

"single-sex clubs".

She then went on to discuss what she thought were single-sex clubs, which seemed to include the Women's Institute, the Girl Guides or Business and Professional Women UK. She went on to state:

"Nor would one expect to hear complaints about support groups for male single parents or for men who are the primary carers of pre-school children within a family".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col. 934.]

She did not mention any other kinds of clubs. I would be interested to know what are "genuine single-sex clubs". Perhaps the noble Baroness will address that issue and tell the Committee when the Question put down on 13th March is likely to be answered.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I declare an interest. I am a member of two clubs in St James's, one of which, I understand, possibly will be affected and the other possibly not. It depends very much on the interpretation of the Bill. That is a difficult matter which we will discuss when we get to later amendments or at a later stage of the Bill.

Interpretation is very important. I sat down with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and another, equally eminent, QC. We discussed the Bill for an hour or more. As I understood it, the views of those two eminent lawyers seemed to change during the course of that hour, then changed back and then changed again. If eminent Silks such as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and his colleague could change their views, I suspect that the whole Bill will need to be looked at further.

As I said, I am currently a member of two clubs in St James's. I was also a member of the Carlton Club, which was mentioned on a number of occasions at Second Reading. I was an honorary member of the Carlton during my time as Chief Whip. I understand that as I am no longer Chief Whip I am no longer an honorary member of that club. But in my time as a member of the Carlton I took part in the vote as to whether or not women should become members. I can assist the Committee by saying that I voted for women to become members, as did the then Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr William Hague. Sadly, we were unsuccessful. But that is a matter for the Carlton Club and the Conservative Party. It is not a matter on which legislation should necessarily impinge.

I should make it clear that I have no terribly strong views about whether any club of which I am a member should or should not admit women, or whether it

8 May 2002 : Column 1233

should discriminate on the grounds of what is now called "gender" but which the Bill still seems to refer to as "sex". However, I do have strong views about being told what to do by other people or by Parliament on matters that are not necessarily matters in which Parliament or the state should involve themselves.

Having said that that should apply to clubs of which I am a member, it should also apply to golf clubs, with the possible distinction of the kind of golf club referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, which is the only club in an isolated area and the only way that one could play golf is by being a member of that club. But I do not have strong views about golf clubs, working men's clubs and so on. I believe it is a matter for private associations to decide what their membership should be—and only for those private associations.

Perhaps I may give a small analogy. I seem to remember being told years ago that one should try absolutely everything except incest and morris dancing. Quite rightly, we have laws against incest, but we can leave people to decide for themselves what they wish to do about morris dancing. I have not yet taken up morris dancing—I have no intention of doing so—but it is not a matter on which we need to legislate.

For those reasons the Bill is a deeply illiberal measure. I hope that its creators will think again, very carefully, before taking it any further.

As to the amendment itself, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has set out very clearly what we wish to know from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. Exactly what kind of club is he trying to get at? He has arbitrarily chosen a limit of 25; the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has, quite rightly, suggested another figure. After discussions, we chose our figure—again quite arbitrarily—of 2,000. Where does one draw the line? At what stage does a genuinely private club become so large that it becomes something public in which the state or Parliament ought to intervene? For myself, even 2,000 may not be the right figure and we may need to come back to it at a later stage.

But, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, this is a probing amendment. I hope that when he comes to respond to it the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will let us know why he proposes a limit of 25. If, in the light of the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, he considers that the figure of 25 is too small, will he consider raising that limit to make the Bill marginally less pernicious than it is at the moment?

---