---

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I had not intended to take part in this part of the debate having spoken earlier. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has quoted what I said at Second Reading, I should like to take a moment of the Committee's time. The noble Lord is quite right in that I did say that I could have an affection for or an interest in being a member of a club which admitted women only. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents such a club existing. However, if guests are brought into the club, they should be treated the same whether they are men or women. That is all that is provided for in the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is attempting to change. It does not provide that they have necessarily to use the same bar as the members, but if they use a different bar, then they should all do so. It should not be divided by the sex of the guest as it can be at the present time.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I had not intended to speak to this amendment until I heard the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there is a problem in the drafting of new Section 29B. I have already said that as has the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The problem is that it does not clearly state that Brooks's, the Garrick or another single-sex club is outside of the scope of new Section 29A as regards discrimination against applicants for membership or existing members. It needs to do that; otherwise the Bill will not achieve its objective properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made the perfectly fair point that if we are right in saying that new Section 29B is intended to leave out Brooks's then on its face it seems illogical that Brooks's is caught by new Section 29A(4) in relation to guests. The promoters of the Bill

8 May 2002 : Column 1250

need to make it quite clear, as I believe is the intention, that it does cover guests but it does not cover applicants for membership or existing members if it is an exclusive single-sex club.

I do not say this with any irony or sarcasm at all—I am speaking perfectly straight—as regards the argument as to how to encourage the members of Brooks's to move forward to admit women as members. The old members of my chambers gradually got used to the idea of women being members on equal terms. We now have a woman as head of chambers and the practice manager is a woman. The majority of the outstanding members of my chambers are probably women. It took time, but we found that the presence of able women transformed the attitude even of the older generation. So it may be that when women are admitted to Brooks's as guests on equal terms with men in a club which I much enjoy visiting, it will convince the old and young codgers of the club that it is less terrifying to their traditional practices to admit them as members. That is not what this Bill is designed to do. It is not designed to be coercive in that respect. Therefore, while agreeing that we shall have to look at the drafting at Report stage, we would be opposed to the amendment as it stands.

Lord Henley: Following the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, I am now even more confused. Is the noble Lord saying that a club such as Brooks's would be bound by subsection (4) of new Section 29A, and that we would have to treat our guests in the same way? That is what I object to doing. Is it possible that Brooks's would then have to think about giving up lady guests altogether. I do not believe that that would be a step forward.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am saying that that is what the Bill should do; but, at present, it does not do so because it has not been aptly drafted in that respect.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to make a short comment on the amendment. I endorse what has been said about the drafting. Indeed, I associated myself with the comments made in relation to the previous amendment, and I do so again. The drafting is not entirely fortuitous. I hope that we shall be able to cure those difficulties by the time that we return to the matter on Report.

If such legislation is to cover the treatment of members and associate members of mixed sex clubs, the Government see no reason why guests should not also be covered by the Bill. Therefore, we do not support the amendment proposed in the name of my noble friend Lord Borrie, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. However, we are of the view that this amendment will need some very careful crafting.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I believe that I can give my noble friend Lord Borrie some comfort in relation to the drafting of the amendment. However, I do not think that I can give much comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. If the noble Lord is saying that he objects to any club being told that it has to treat guests alike,

8 May 2002 : Column 1251

I am afraid that he and I will have to differ on that issue. Part of the aim of the legislation is to encourage clubs to behave in a civilised way towards everyone. It does not make any difference whether it is men or women, or, indeed, to which race people belong.

The Bill is a civilising measure designed to ensure that clubs should not discriminate against people simply because of their gender. It is certainly my intention that the legislation should clearly state that if people are guests in a single sex club they should be treated similarly. As I said in response to the earlier amendment, I shall be very happy to take away the drafting of new Section 29B in order to make that absolutely clear.

The difficulty with my noble friend Lord Borrie is that we are both at odds on whether or not the legislation is either necessary or desirable. I have no doubt that it is. I am pleased to have received support from my noble friend the Minister, who clearly also wants to see this Bill pass through the House. None the less, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment, because we shall return to the matter on Report.

Lord Borrie: Despite the helpful remarks of my noble friend the Minister, I fear that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Faulkner may result in the Bill being more restrictive when redrafted than it is now. Indeed, it may get at single sex clubs at least as regards the way in which they treat their guests. If that is so, it will be an inhibiting factor that may lead one to be more concerned about the Bill on Report than is the case at present. However, for the time being, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 49, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 5 on page 3.

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Faulkner indicated on Second Reading that new Section 29B to the 1975 Act provides for single sex clubs to remain single sex clubs. I find new Section 29B(1) somewhat opaque as it stands, especially where it refers to,

"the main object of the association [being] to enable the benefits of membership . . . to be enjoyed wholly by men or wholly by women (as the case may be)".

Usually when one considers the main object of a club, a company, or whatever, there is a document, which probably says something about the nature of the objects in specific terms.

However, the main objects of the Garrick Club, which were set out in 1831, say:

"The Garrick Club is instituted for the general patronage of the Drama; for the purpose of combining the use of a club on economical principles, with the advantages of a Literary Society, for bringing together the supporters of the Drama and for the foundation of a Theatrical Society".

I have not read it all out but my point, in part, is that those are its objectives and nothing is said about benefits of membership being for men only—no doubt

8 May 2002 : Column 1252

that was taken for granted in 1831 and all the people who produced the money by providing their fivers, or whatever, to set up the club were in fact men. As is well known, the only candidates for membership elected from that day to this have been men.

I therefore found the "main objects" part of the drafting unhelpful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner if he wants to exclude single-sex clubs. On the other hand, Clause 29B then states that in determining whether it is the main object of a club to enable membership benefits to be enjoyed only by men,

"regard is to be had to the essential character of the association and . . . in particular",

how the affairs of the association are conducted. On that basis—especially the last point—the Garrick is clearly a single-sex club because no one else has a hand in determining how the affairs of the association are conducted.

The purpose of my amendment, which would delete the phrase about the "main objects", and so on, is to help to clarify Clause 29B. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the drafting is defective. I think that the draftsman has borrowed from a provision in the Race Relations Act 1976 that was designed to allow clubs that did not practise a colour bar but promoted, for example, the interests of Bangladeshi elderly people—an old people's home, or something of that kind, a proper and benign ethnic purpose connected with social, welfare or educational purposes—not to be made unlawful. Unfortunately, using such a definition in the clause will expose the Garrick Club to the risk of litigation on precisely the basis that the noble Lord set out.

Indeed, when I was a member of the Garrick Club, it occurred to me when reading the Act that one could have brought a court case to say that, under the rules—the contract of membership—women should be admitted because the rules are not phrased in a way that states that it is an exclusive male club. That is perfectly right.

I suggest that the way to deal with the matter is to clarify on Report exactly what should be the definition—for example, considering Section 34 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which exempts voluntary bodies in a much clearer way—and then to deal separately with the vexed question of guests. In other words, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the Garrick and Brooks's need to be absolutely clear that as regards applicants for members and members they are outside the scope of the Bill. We can then have a no doubt lively debate about guests, but if I may say so, I do not think that it would be right to press the amendment today, as it will not clarify in the way that is needed the right test to be used.

---