---

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, say that his was a probing amendment. I hope that he has heard, from wiser heads and tongues than mine, a good many arguments that he finds very reassuring. His three amendments, if taken together, would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. He will be aware that I support the Bill. I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear that I oppose his amendments. I hope that they will not be agreed to and that he will be reassured by this debate and that which will follow it.

I am desolated to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. For the whole time that I have been in politics, he has been a shining light of rationality and liberalism for myself and many others. However, I disagree with him in this regard. I concur entirely in his attitude to hunting and I have voted consistently in that regard. However, we are talking not about hunting but about the treatment of different sexes within the same establishment. I am fairly certain that the Act covers private schools, for example, which can be single sex. However, if they are

8 May 2002 : Column 1242

not single sex, they must treat boys and girls equally. That is all that the Bill will do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, the Bill applies the principles of the Act to a new area—that in which goods and services are provided. That extension is logical within the terms of the Act.

It has been suggested that the voluntary system is working. I shall give one example of where it does not work. When the EOC did a consultation a couple of years ago on equal membership—on what that meant and on women's rights as members—one person wrote saying that she bitterly resented the fact that, being a fully paid up, voting member of a golf club, she still was not allowed to use the same dining room, bar or lounge as the men. That is a perfect example of the sort of discrimination that this little and useful Bill is designed to eliminate.

Baroness Buscombe: I shall be extremely brief. I follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in speaking, in effect, to the first three amendments, which stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and my noble friend Lord Henley.

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that there is a strong case to be made before the law intervenes in the private domain. I entirely agree. Indeed, I said on Second Reading that there is a limit to how much we should interfere with the rights of individuals who are acting in a private capacity. However, I also agree that there is a very strong case for equal treatment between the sexes when both sexes are invited or are able to join a club.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the Bill was somewhat illiberal. As a woman, I find it liberating. That said, my noble friend Lord Henley referred to difficulties of interpretation. That is important, particularly with regard to Amendment No. 3 and the proposed Section 29B. There is a need for further clarity in order to give the objectives of the Bill legal certainty.

In contrast, Amendment No. 1 is clear—it is a wrecking amendment. On that basis, we oppose it. I, too, am pleased to learn that the amendments are probing amendments. We are therefore confident that the noble Lord will not pursue them. I hope that he will give the Committee the time to amend somewhat the way in which some of the clauses are interpreted. There is still a certain amount of disquiet outside your Lordships' House because there is a strong belief that the Bill will affect single-sex clubs. That is not the case.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I find myself in agreement with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Buscombe and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood. Perhaps it is not entirely surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, finds himself in such good female company.

The effect of the amendment would be to limit considerably the impact of the Bill by reducing the number of clubs to which it would apply. As my noble

8 May 2002 : Column 1243

friend Lady Lockwood rightly said, a threshold of 25 members reflects a similar provision in other legislation. Members of the Committee will recognise that figure from the Race Relations Act. They will also recognise the need to draw a line at the level of very small private groups. We would be reluctant to depart from that figure without further reasons for doing so and without further consideration. It would be even more artificial to choose a number that was different from that used in the Race Relations Act.

Moreover, while no one knows the typical size of clubs, a figure of 2,000 seems to be so high as to reduce significantly the effect of the legislation. All those Members of the Committee who made that point did so wisely. While some clubs may be above that figure—for example, some golf clubs—many other clubs will fall far below it. It might also encourage the introduction of arbitrary limits on membership. We see no reason to depart from the current figure.

I shall answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I apologise for the fact that the Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has not been answered.

Lord Henley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The Question was put in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch and not in that of my noble friend Lady Miller.

9 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I apologise for the failure to answer that Question. I shall certainly make inquiries and ensure that it is answered speedily. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that the Sex Discrimination Act defines "sex clubs" as those which can show their main object and essential character to be for the benefit of one sex only. The Government have no intention of removing the exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act which permits single sex clubs. I endorse all that has been said by Members of the Committee in this debate with regard to the fact that single sex clubs need not be imperilled by the proposed Act.

Lord Henley: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can again address the first part of her answer. She said that she would hope to produce an Answer to my noble friend's Question speedily. I remember on many occasions when speaking from that Dispatch Box using words such as "soon" or "speedily" or some other adverb. Often "soon" or "speedily" could be stretched quite some way.

I believe it is important that we all know exactly what the Government's intentions are, particularly in relation to this Bill. Therefore, I consider it important that we have an Answer to that Question before we reach the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps I may have an assurance from the noble Baroness that we shall have an Answer to that Question before the Bill reaches its Report stage.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am very happy to give that assurance. But I should have thought that the

8 May 2002 : Column 1244

comment that I just made was the answer that the noble Lord required. I am quite clear that a Written Answer to the Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, needs to be given and then recorded.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I find myself in the position of replying to a debate in which many of the questions raised by Members of the Committee at the beginning have been answered by subsequent speakers. I am conscious that I am in the presence of some extraordinary experts in the fields of both race relations legislation and sex discrimination legislation, together with former commissioners and chairs of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope that my noble friends and other noble Lords who have raised questions will feel that many of them have already been answered.

I believe that the question raised by my noble friend Lord Borrie in relation to the figure of 25 has been answered on a number of occasions. That figure has been proposed because the purpose of this Bill, which I am also pleased to regard as a modest little Bill which is a tidying-up operation rather than a massive piece of social legislation, is to bring the law as it relates to sex discrimination into line with that of race relations legislation. The figure of 25 as a threshold appears in Section 25(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who referred to single sex clubs and the drafting of Section 29B. I am happy to give an assurance that we shall look at the drafting of that, and if I have the help of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in doing so, that will be of immense assistance. I am willing to accept that the drafting may not be perfect and can certainly be improved at a later stage to make the intentions of the Bill absolutely clear.

The main question asked by my noble friend Lord Borrie, which he also asked at Second Reading, was: is it really necessary to have the Bill at all? I believe that one needs to go no further than to look at the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Equality in the 21st Century—A new sex equality law for Britain. In that report the commission says that the evidence available to the EOC indicates very little voluntary change in the sector. It also states that complaints reinforce the view that the exclusion of such clubs results in 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. A number of speakers—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood—referred to the evidence that the EOC has gathered in relation to golf clubs. There is much more that can be said about that along much the same lines.

The one area of private clubs which has not been addressed in the debate but where the need for change is probably greater than in any other is working men's clubs. I suppose that that is the third leg of the Bill. It is here that the proposal to raise the threshold from 25 to 2,000 would have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, a completely wrecking effect. More than 99 per cent of the 2,700 CIU clubs have fewer

8 May 2002 : Column 1245

than 2,000 members. Only 15 to 20 in the country have more than 2,000. The average membership of CIU clubs is approximately 900. Therefore, my noble friend's amendment would exempt virtually all the working men's clubs from the provisions of the Bill.

The lack of voluntary reform has been illustrated by the failure of working men's clubs to implement the internal reforms which the people who run the CIU—the executive and the full-time officers—have been desperately trying to push through at successive annual general meetings. They tried most recently on 6th April at their last annual general meeting. A motion to delete the infamous Rule 12(e) was tabled for the fifth time. That rule states that:

"Associate and Pass Cards may not be issued to lady members".

If that had been passed, it would have allowed the female members to enjoy the same use of facilities as guests in other clubs. For the fifth time it failed even to get a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds majority which it needed to pass under the rules of the CIU.

Another motion was put to amend Rule 12(e) to read:

"Associate and Pass Cards may only be issued to members who have full and equal rights".

Thus, women who already enjoyed full and equal rights in their own clubs would be able to obtain an associate pass card allowing them to use the facilities in other clubs which gave women full membership rights. But that motion also failed to get a majority. They even failed to pass a motion which would have changed the name of the CIU from the "Working Mens Club and Institute Union" to the "Club and Institute Union Limited".

Therefore, I believe that we have waited long enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, talked at Second Reading and again tonight about her frustration when she was chair of the EOC and about how she expected change to take place. She was amazed that neither the law nor the clubs had changed. The truth is that they have not. Indeed, if some people have their way, some of the changes which have taken place may be reversed. A piece in the Daily Telegraph today, for example, says:

"A group of renegade traditionalists"—

I quote from the Diary piece—

"is attempting to regain control of the Oxford and Cambridge Club, with the specific aim of reversing recent 'improvements'. To this end, eight senior members are standing for election to the club's ruling committee next month".

In the article the traditionalists are quoted as saying:

"'Women were allowed in here five years ago and standards have been slipping ever since', chunters one moustache. 'Not only do these new female members wander round the place in trouser suits, chatting on mobile telephones, but the committee has also seen fit to revamp the club with non-gender-specific furniture. As a result, the bar looks like a Holiday Inn'",

and so forth.

It is time that the law was changed. I shall happily listen to suggestions for change at later stages, but in the mean time I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

---