| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Monson: I support the amendment, moved most effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. First, I declare a non-interest. As it happens, I do not belong to any of the kinds of clubs against which the Bill is aimed. I am a member of a couple of small dining clubs which meet once a year and whose dinners I attend perhaps two years out three at most. But these clubs are not the subject of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I believe that the Bill is illiberal in the true sense of the word, and that it is a threat to freedom of choice, freedom of contract and freedom of association. I would have said as much
at Second Reading, but there is a limit to the number of evenings one is prepared to sacrifice in discussion of Private Members' Bills.A club is not a public place; it is a private place. Existing members should, therefore, have the right to be as perverse and eccentric as they like in the rules that they apply. If people do not like those rules—and I fully understand why quite a few do not; although, equally, quite a few women members, I understand, are happy with the status quo, especially if it means substantially reduced subscriptions—they have a simple remedy: to resign forthwith and go elsewhere, or possibly start up a club more to their liking. This amendment would at least reduce the scope and impact of the Bill, and I support it for that reason.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of this moderate Bill, but I am delighted now to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on having introduced it and to add my support to the great support given by the many noble Lords who have spoken in its favour. I shall make only one speech: I shall speak to the first three amendments, all standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley, so that Members of the Committee do not have to hear me again and again.
I begin by declaring my interest. I am a member of the RAC, which admits members of both sexes, but some of whose activities may be affected by the Bill if it becomes law. I refer, for example, to the exclusion of women members from using overnight accommodation or providing equal access to the Turkish baths in the club. Men and women are members of the RAC but there are still those elements of the past.
I have other antecedents which I shall declare presently, including the fact that I was an architect of the Sex Discrimination Act and of the Race Relations Act, both of which—if the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will forgive my saying so—were greeted with similar arguments: in respect, for example, of the small employers' exemption and of the fact that we outlawed colour bars in clubs of more than 25 members. I have heard those arguments for 30 years and I am slightly surprised to be hearing them from the noble Lord. I remember, when I was younger, reading some of the great works that he wrote, including The Consumer, Society and the Law, which we regarded as a most progressive and reforming work. However, I fully respect the view that he and others have expressed.
Since the beginning of the year, the Equal Opportunities Commission has received some 70 complaints about sex discrimination in private clubs, many of them relating to the practices of golf clubs. I should also mention that I am a member of a golf club in Ireland which cannot any longer, I am glad to say, discriminate against women because the Irish Government would cut off funds. That has had a tonic effect on the other side of the Irish Sea.
The EOC's consultation found overwhelming support among the public for a measure on the lines of this Bill. One of those who responded to the
consultation commented that she had entered a business golf day to discover that the organisers had planned for registration to take place in the men-only lounge. She was not allowed to register, but had to shout her details from the doorway.Like many Members of this House, for many years I was also a member of an all-male London social club, which I greatly enjoyed; namely, the Garrick Club, which excludes women from its membership, although not as guests of members. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, revealed at Second Reading, one day when she and I lunched together at the Garrick we naughtily protested against the archaic rule that forbade women from walking up the main staircase by climbing the stairs together without requiring the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to use the back stairs and to meet me on the landing above. Together with others, I tried to change the club's rules by opening membership to both sexes.
The Garrick Club is not only a private social club; it is a social club for members of the literary, theatrical and legal professions: writers, actors, judges and lawyers—distinguished lawyers such as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It seemed to the minority of reformers to be unfair and absurd to bar from membership the likes of Dame Antonia Byatt, Dame Judi Dench, and Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss solely because of their gender.
Among the judges and lawyers belonging to the Garrick Club there was overwhelming support for the removal of the gender bar. Only one disagreed. But our attempt to change the rule was rejected by the great majority of the membership as a whole, by no means all of whom were misogynists or male chauvinists. I resigned, not because of some grand principle but simply because I no longer felt comfortable in a club whose membership had voted in that way. I should not dream of criticising those who feel happy to remain as members, enjoying their freedom of association, and to exclude the other sex from membership.
When he spoke in general opposition to the Bill at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, suggested that legislation was unnecessary because so-called gentlemen's clubs had a "come a long way over the past 20 or 30 years". That is true of some of them, but I am not aware that many, including the Garrick, have modified their rules or practices since I resigned more than a decade ago, although I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, if invited by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, could now walk up the main staircase.
The Equal Opportunities Commission found, on the basis of the evidence obtained in the consultation, that there had been "very little voluntary change" and that there are a,
- "variety of discriminatory rules and arrangements which seek to perpetuate stereotypical images of men and women; and which limit women's participation in club activities in a number of ways".
The Bill is much less far-reaching than, for example, the Hong Kong Sex Discrimination Ordinance, which for several years has forbidden sex discrimination
against non-members as well as members of almost all clubs—there is not even a 25 member cut-off. The Bill is also much less far-reaching than New York City's human rights law, which, since 1984, has forbidden sex discrimination in any club with more than 400 members that provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment, directly or indirectly, from or on behalf of non-members for the furtherance of trade or business—rather as the Garrick Club used to take money, for example, from my chambers through me to organise a Christmas party for chambers as part of its important revenue.For those who say that the New York measure is a violation of fundamental rights, I point out that, in the land of liberty itself, the United States, it was unanimously upheld by the American Supreme Court in 1988 as being entirely proper under the constitution of the United States. Interestingly, the preamble to that New York law explains that,
- "one barrier to the advancement of women and minorities in the business and professional life of the city of New York is the discriminatory practices of certain membership organisations where business deals are often made and personal contacts valuable for business purposes, employment and professional advancement are formed".
The Bill before the Committee is not intended to forbid single-sex clubs, but to provide that clubs whose membership is open to both sexes must treat applicants and members equally without sex discrimination; and that clubs that admit women as well as men as guests must again treat them equally without sex discrimination.
In my view the drafting of proposed new Section 29B is imperfect. It is rather ambiguous, and I am sure that that is what has led to some agitation in this Chamber. It may well call for clarification at a later stage to make it absolutely clear that a club like the Garrick is not caught in terms of membership by this Bill.
If the probing amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has fairly put forward for debate were to be pressed and accepted, women would continue to face sex discrimination as guests—and not only as guests—in medium-sized and small clubs, whether a club had male and female members or only members of one sex. I find it difficult to understand the justification for perpetuating sex discrimination against, for example, a woman who comes to the Garrick with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, but who cannot go up the same staircase, if that was the rule, or cannot have a drink with him at the bar at the top of the stairs. The same applies to a woman golfer who is a guest at a golf club, but cannot enjoy the club's facilities together with her host.
I greatly cherish personal privacy. Objections on those grounds can be dealt with by amending the Bill along the lines of the exemption already in the Sex Discrimination Act for other bodies. I have tried to do that in amendments that we shall come to later. They are not ideal amendments, but they are an attempt to deal with personal privacy.
I very much hope that noble Lords will not divide the Committee and will not press the amendments in the light of the debate.
I shall say a word or two about some of the arguments that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley. Equality has to be balanced with liberty. That is not an issue. It has to respect freedom of association and personal privacy. That is not an issue. The question is where the line should be drawn. What exceptions are needed to respect those other important rights and interests? The Bill does not interfere unduly with freedom of association. If it is amended, it will not interfere unduly with personal privacy.
The members of single-sex clubs can enjoy their freedom of association if they wish by maintaining them as exclusive clubs. However, if they choose—and this is their choice as members—to admit members or guests of both sexes, the Bill says that, having made that choice, they should do so on equal terms. If, on the other hand, they choose to revert to being exclusive all-male preserves, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated, that is their right.
However, I do not understand how it can be right to distinguish between working men's clubs, which have more than 1 million members throughout the country, and clubs such as Brooks's, the Garrick or any other social club, which in form are exactly the same and are regulated as private clubs. I can see no argument, except a class-based one, for the view that it is impermissible for working men's clubs or golf clubs to discriminate against women or black people, but it is permissible for Pall Mall social clubs to do so. I see no practical distinction between the two. The only justification is that Members of this House do not belong to working men's clubs, but they belong to Pall Mall social clubs. To that extent, we are self-interested. That is not a justification for the distinction.
As long as we do not legislate to prohibit virtually all single-sex clubs, as happened in Hong Kong, we are respecting the other fundamental rights that need to be respected and maintaining a fair balance. In doing so, we are advancing the position of women as well as men. As someone who joined an all-male set of chambers, I reassure those who belong to all-male clubs that it is ever so much more enjoyable when both sexes are members on equal terms than when we go on as our fathers and grandfathers did.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord accept that the Irish Government's withdrawal of financial support to golf clubs that discriminate against women, to which he referred, is not unreasonable? It is no doubt reasonable to exert financial pressure on people who discriminate, but the Bill is much more draconian than that, by imposing an outright ban.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page