| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have tried to explain that the Bill does not impose an outright ban. Properly drafted, it will leave untouched the right of private member's clubs to be all male or all female. The only
way in which it intrudes is by saying that if a club chooses to admit members of the other sex, as the RAC does, for example, or to admit guests of the other sex, they must be treated equally, subject to safeguards for matters such as personal privacy.
Lord Moynihan: In speaking to the amendment, I wish to put down a marker that I intend to ensure that a potential flaw in the Bill is addressed on Report. I participated in this afternoon's debate on sport, but I regret that I cannot be with your Lordships throughout this Committee stage, for which I have already apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and for which I sincerely apologise to the Committee.
The amendment covers the point that I wish to make only for clubs with a membership of fewer than 2,000. That depends on the success of my noble friend Lord Henley and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. As I read it, many sports clubs, such as the London Rowing Club, of which I am a member, effectively face the prospect of closure if the legislation as drafted is enacted in the near future. That is not because the club currently objects or has in the past objected to women's membership—on the contrary, at a previous AGM the membership passed a resolution to move that successful, outstanding historic club in the desired direction on women's membership. However, voluntary clubs committed to building necessary and new state of the art facilities, many of which already have a class of women's membership but wish to move to the ideal and clearly defined principles set out in the Bill, face the problem of having to raise substantial funds, agree designs within budgets and implement the necessary development plan. All that takes time, which is not permitted on the face of the Bill. If the Bill is to be enacted, I simply ask noble Lords to recognise the importance of the issue when it is raised on Report. The issue will be all the more serious if the amendment is not carried. We need delays in implementation built into the Bill if it is to proceed further.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Lord aware that Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act contains an exception in relation to sport, which would cover the London Rowing Club in any event? I used to row from the London Rowing Club at school, so I know it well. Nothing in the Bill will compel the London Rowing Club to admit women members.
Lord Moynihan: I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to Section 44 of that Act, which I have yet to read and consider. The noble Lord has clearly benefited from his many years of rowing from that great club on the Thames. If he is right, the provision overcomes the concern held by many clubs in the circumstances that the London Rowing Club currently faces. I shall study that section carefully. If I agree with the noble Lord on the issue, it will not be necessary to raise it in further proceedings on the Bill. I hope that he will allow me to reserve judgment on the issue until I have clarified it further, but I hope that he is right.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I regard this as a very mild and encouraging Bill. The amendment would
exclude almost all the clubs at which the Bill is aimed. I am reliably informed that it will encourage clubs such as the Garrick to move rather quickly to a more liberal approach. Having said that, as long as they allowed the same facilities to men and women guests, there would be no problem.What I like about the Bill is that it makes specific provision for those clubs that have two levels of membership. That is the aspect that needs attention. We have heard that the Equal Opportunities Commission has regularly received—and I know continues to receive—complaints from women with regard to the discrimination they experience at the hands of golf clubs and others.
All that is being asked in the Bill is that both sexes should be treated the same so that if you are willing to be an associate member and be prevented playing golf on a Saturday because it is assumed that you are at home doing nothing all week and able to be on the golf course then, whether male or female, you may opt to apply for the same associate membership. It is up to you, whether male or female, to apply for that associate membership. That is one aspect of what in today's world continues to be a completely unjustifiable use of the exemption that some people believe exists for club activities.
It is particularly sad that having successfully passed the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 which allows political parties to use their discretion to take whatever form of positive action they feel is appropriate to encourage more women to be adopted as parliamentary candidates, nevertheless the Conservative Carlton Club—I argue that this is where the private and the public aspects cross over—is still very much living in the Dark Ages; and it cannot be the only one. That is despite the valiant efforts of the leader of that party and his principled personal refusal to become a club member until it changes its rules to allow equal membership for men and women.
I refer to a female associate member who clearly gave valuable service on that club's political committee and was its deputy chairman. By virtue of her office she was also a member of the Carlton Club's general committee. I believe that she had greater political ambitions, perhaps to become a Member of Parliament. She attended five monthly meetings of the general committee without challenge. Apparently, the general committee is rather grander than the political committee. However, some three weeks ago she was challenged because, apparently, no woman, however capable—and she clearly was capable—is allowed to sit on that all-powerful committee. She was unanimously voted off the committee. What kind of message does that send out to aspiring young women and, indeed, men who want to be part of our democratic process in the modern world in which we live?
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for whom I have, and always have had, enormous respect, will not press his amendment. As I said earlier, it would exempt practically all the clubs that we are considering. The Bill is moderate to a degree and I
hope that it will persuade some clubs to move rather more quickly to adopt a more liberal and modern attitude towards the lives that men and women live.8.45 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: It is rare for me to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and it gives me no pleasure at all to do so. However, I rise to support the amendment which the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley, have tabled. I suppose that we should all declare the interest of membership; but perhaps the fact of leaving membership is at least as much of an interest as being a member. I have the same club membership as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and therefore noble Lords will not be surprised at my view. That view is a simple one and I shall not require more than two or three sentences to explain it. It is important that we draw a line up to which we legislate and beyond which we do not legislate. It is crucial that we do not appear to the public to spend our time legislating on matters which are essentially private.
I do not want to drag in a totally different subject at any length, but I voted as I did on the hunting Bill not because I like hunting—I detest it—but because I believed that it was not a proper subject for legislation as it interfered with areas in which people should be free to pursue their own objectives. In my view, this is a fortiori the case for the Bill which is now before us. It is for that reason that I believe that we should not follow the route recommended to us by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but should follow that recommended by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley.
Baroness Lockwood: Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I did not participate in the Second Reading debate for the simple reason that I could not be in London that evening. However, I greatly welcome the Bill. I did not expect to speak to the Bill at either Committee or Report stages as it seems to me that it is simple and straightforward. It attempts to take one more logical step towards providing equal facilities for men and women. That is the basic provision of the Sex Discrimination Act; namely, that where goods and facilities are available, they should be available on equal terms to both sexes.
As has been said, there is an exception to that; that is, that private clubs can provide facilities for one sex only. That was accepted perhaps as a compromise when the Sex Discrimination Act was passed. Nevertheless, it still provides for single-sex organisations if members of those private organisations so wish. But once they admit both sexes to the club, the underlying principle of the Sex Discrimination Act should apply; namely, that the facilities are available to both sexes.
I was surprised to read the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Borrie. I am sure that he will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was deputy chairman of the commission and I was chairman when we set it up in 1975 and welcomed my noble friend as a member of it. He made a valuable contribution for about a year before he had to move on to another public appointment. I am sure that my
noble friend Lord Borrie will recall the many complaints we received about facilities not being available to both sexes. Sometimes those complaints involved private clubs but very often they involved facilities that were in the public domain which the Bill had stipulated must be made available to both sexes. There was a parallel, which my noble friend Lord Borrie will recall, in the El Vino case. That involved a public house that was covered by the legislation. The rules of that public house were that men could sit down or stand at the bar to enjoy their drink but that women could only sit at the back of the room. They were not able to participate in the full discussions that took place. Those full discussions largely involved a journalist and therefore had some kind of professional importance. The principle was the same as that in this case—that women were not able to enjoy the same facilities.I am surprised by some of the comments that have been made this evening—they were also being made way back in 1975. I thought that we had made tremendous progress since then. In many ways we have done, even with regard to private clubs. I refer to the number of private clubs that are now admitting women to full membership or partial membership. Full membership certainly represents a move forward. If only partial membership is involved, that is not a move forward because it does not provide the same facilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned, if one wants two classes of membership in an organisation, one can have that, but they must be open to both men and women. We must remember the principle that lies behind the Sex Discrimination Act and apply it to the Bill.
I turn to the figures of 25 as opposed to 2,000 members. Using the figure of 25 is logical because it is also used in other parts of the Act in relation to exceptions. That figure involves consistency. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment and ultimately to pass the Bill.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page