| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, responds to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, perhaps I
may make a point in response to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, implied that I— and, for that matter the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—was interested only in the clubs in St James's and was not interested in working men's clubs. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord that the amendment, should it be passed, will also assist all working men's clubs.I made clear in my remarks that I was speaking not just for the clubs of which I am a member but for golf clubs, working men's clubs and all clubs. It is a point of principle that those clubs must decide what they should do and how they should govern their business and not be told to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner or, for that matter, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that the CIU, the union of working men's clubs throughout the country, was, in the end, made to abolish the outright colour bar that it had only because of the Race Relations Act 1976. Does he not agree that that indicates how hopeless it is to think of voluntarism in that area?
Lord Henley: I believe that race and sex are completely different matters. As regards the voluntary approach, I also believe that this is something that is likely to happen both to working men's clubs and to St James's clubs in due course. I made clear that when I was a member of the Carlton Club I voted for women members. I believe that it is likely that that will happen in due course to a great many other clubs. The noble Lord has only to go into some of them—I could take him—to see how dead some of them are in the evening; whereas the club of which I am a member, which allows women in the evening, is busy and full. The economic forces are beginning to have an effect.
My understanding is that much the same is happening with a great many working men's clubs. This is a matter which is far better left to gradual processes, rather than to interfering busy-bodies in Parliament or wherever else, trying to promote their own views about what is right or wrong.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I must come back on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The official view of the CIU is that it wants this legislation to pass. The general secretary was happy for me to quote at Second Reading:
- "The union's National Executive firmly believes that the future of clubs in our organisation is tied up with giving women full equality".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col.917.]
Lord Henley: That might be the official view of the governing body of the CIU. I am talking about the individual clubs. I believe that it is a matter for the
clubs to decide on their own future and on how they should operate. It will happen in due course, but let them do it without the noble Lord forcing them to do it.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has prayed in aid the Race Relations Act 1976, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I wonder whether he is aware that the Conservative Party totally opposed the inclusion of clubs in the scope of the 1976 legislation. Indeed, Clause 25 was thrown out by this House—I have the Division List in front of me—as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would be able to testify if he were still in his place, as he was a teller in that Division. It was reinstated in the House of Commons, but once again against the wishes of the entire Conservative Party. I thought that I should mention that as a matter of historical record.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: It is also a matter of historical record that the Conservative Party was in power for 18 years after 1979 when presumably it had endless opportunities to take the provision of the private clubs out of the Act and did not do so.
Lord Borrie: I express my thanks to all those who have taken part in a debate which has lasted several times as long as I thought it would or perhaps should. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that some noble Lords were making Second Reading speeches. However, that was justified by their not having been present at Second Reading.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Dahrendorf, for addressing points which others did not concerning the key concept of freedom of association and how far down the line to the very small and medium-sized clubs a new law of this kind should intervene. My noble friend Lord Faulkner has given no indication of an answer to filling the gap between the number 25 and the number 2,000 beyond telling me what I naturally knew; that is, where the number 25 emanated from in the legislation. He has not given any indication that the number 25 could be 250, 500 or whatever. I found that to be an unsatisfactory aspect of the answer given by my noble friend and the Minister. If the Government and the proposer of the Bill intend rigidly to insist that every private association of 24 or more members is to be told how to deal with different classes of membership and so on, then I feel that I must take the matter further at a later stage of the Bill. Clearly, I shall not do that today as no one has been pre-warned. I am happy now to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 2, leave out lines 15 to 26.
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to delete what I may call the "guest" provision of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill provides in subsection (4) that
men and women guests must be treated equally. There must be no question of women guests being allowed in one bar of a club only and not in the other bar where male guests are permitted. I have already spoken in favour, as have other noble Lords, of the key freedom of association which is so disregarded by the proposer of the Bill. Private clubs should be entitled to determine their own rules as to how their guests should be treated in the same way that Members of the Committee determine how guests are treated in their houses.If the assumption is that no man and no woman would ever want or be allowed to associate only with others of the same sex, let me at least appeal to the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who was a little hard-line half an hour ago, at Second Reading said that one day she may want to belong to a club that admits only women and that it is not right,
- "to prevent men or women from enjoying the company of their own sex".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col. 930.]
There is then the question of guests in single sex clubs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, can help us further on this matter. He said at Second Reading that a single sex club that admits male and female guests must do so on equal terms and provide them with equal access to club facilities. He repeated the point when he wound up the debate. If that is the effect of the Bill, that is a gross interference with single sex clubs which he says are otherwise outside the Bill. But is he right?
New Section 29B(2) states that, in the case of an association within new Section 29B—that is a single sex club—
- "nothing in section 29A shall render unlawful any act or omission of the association".
Lord Henley: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to which I have put my name. As I said earlier, I am a member of two clubs. One of those clubs is for men only. Women never come in at all. It would not be affected by this legislation. The other club—Brooks's—is also a men only club but lets in guests on different bases according to gender, as we now must put it. In other words, I can bring in a male guest for luncheon, but in the evening I can bring in men and women. Men and women are therefore treated differently.
Under subsection (4) that would become illegal unless the exceptions in new Section 29B exclude Brooks's. I am unsure as to whether that is the case or whether it excludes working men's clubs, golf clubs and so on. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill can advise me on that in due course.
I make a simple practical point. Earlier I said that I thought that it was likely that a great many clubs—working men's clubs and so on—over the years would gradually move and become mixed in all senses. I think that at Second Reading someone gave the example of the Reform Club. That is now totally mixed. But for a time after it went mixed it reserved one small room for the old reactionaries who had given away much in allowing women in, just so that they could feel at home for a while. After a while it was discovered that that was no longer necessary. If this measure is introduced it would be much harder for any club to take that gradualist approach. Certainly, a club such as Brooks's would have to consider very long and hard as to what it should do. It might be that it and, for that matter, any golf club or working men's club, might want to go in a backward direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would put it, and exclude women as guests entirely. For that reason I suspect that subsection (4) would do absolutely nothing to promote the purposes of this Bill.
Therefore, it is really in a spirit of being helpful, I suspect, that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and myself are promoting this amendment. We shall certainly be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has to say about it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page