Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 22 May 2002)

§ Lord Borrie
moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, leave out "25" and insert "1500 The noble Lord said: My Lords, the threshold for the operation of the Bill as it stands is a mere 25 members. Any club of modest size, perhaps a working men's club or a public house darts club with a mere 40 to 50 members which allowed women members to join with some form of membership would be required by law to give women their club memberships on absolutely equal terms with men, entitling them to use the same facilities, the same bars and so forth, at all times.
The proposers of the Bill seem in no way troubled by what I consider to be the gross intervention of the law into freedom of association that members of private clubs and private associations normally enjoy. When we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, I conceded that clubs with a very large membership, such as a substantial golf club set up in an area with no alternative publicly-owned or commercially provided golf links for many miles around, perhaps ought to be required by law to treat men and women equally. The probing amendment tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and myself at that stage sought to increase the threshold to 2,000 members.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the proposer of the Bill, was quite unwilling to compromise or to meet us half way. So we are probing again on Report with an amendment to raise the threshold to 1,500 members. I noted that in Committee my noble friend Lord Faulkner said that the average membership of working men's clubs is 900. I accept that figure.
I state as a matter of principle which I hope will be agreed by many noble Lords, that the law—legislation and statute—has no business telling the men running modest working men's clubs with few resources and small premises that if they accept women into some form of membership, they must provide equal facilities, equal rights in the governance of the club, and so forth. According to the Bill, such clubs must even treat women guests in precisely the same way as they would treat male guests.
849 On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Faulkner gave the facts about working men's clubs which belong to the Club and Institute Union, the CIU. My noble friend told us that 40 per cent of all working men's clubs, some 1,080, give women full membership rights equal to men. A tiny number—only eight clubs—are single-sex clubs that do not admit women at any price, as it were. But the largest proportion of working men's clubs, 60 per cent or 1,612 clubs, allow women to join with a different class of membership and a lower subscription.
I understand that the national executive of the CIU seems to want all clubs to give women full equality, but the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has admitted that the members in local clubs up and down the country in the group comprising 60 per cent of all clubs do not want women to have full and equal rights with men in their clubs.
What moral or other right do we, as legislators, have to impose equality by law contrary to the wishes of members? What is the evil? What is the mischief that calls for such a disproportionate response as to impose by law the requirements of the Bill as it stands? It can only be the mischief of male members setting aside some part of the premises for male only drinking or, perhaps, male only snooker. That must be the mischief against which this heavy-handed Bill is brought to bear.
If the cause for which my noble friend Lord Faulkner fights is equality between the sexes, he is going too far. In any case—I regret repeating what I have said on other occasions—it may be counter productive. It may cause clubs which have agreed to open the doors somewhat to women members and women guests to close their doors firmly shut once more.
I know that many noble Lords, especially women Members of the House, feel that since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, matters in the field of clubs have moved too slowly. There is no doubt that they have moved too slowly in their minds—in all our minds—in other fields, but I still say that clubs and private associations are closer to private life and what one does in one's family and one's private home than what should be done by public and commercial organisations.
I believe that matters should be allowed to evolve—as everyone must admit they have done—irrespective of the speed at which change has taken place—in relation to working men's clubs, golf clubs and St James's clubs which used to be exclusively men only. Big clubs with big memberships—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and myself are suggesting those with memberships of more than 1,500—are difficult to distinguish from public or commercial bodies providing services to the general public. Private clubs, in my view, are not places for legal intervention. I beg to move.

§ Lord Dahrendorf
My Lords, when I went to the Public Bill Office yesterday to add my name to the 850 amendment I was told that I was too late because it had started printing the Marshalled List. I am afraid, therefore, that the House will have to bear with me for 90 seconds.
The amendment is not part of a numbers game but defines the limits of the arrogance of legislation. I believe that smaller, private associations must be allowed to operate within a minimum of legal constraints. Therefore it is right that those with fewer than 1,500 members should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
Indeed, I believe that the strength of civil society in this country rests on the freedom which associations—notably small associations—have to set their rules within the framework of the rule of law. While 1,500 is not a sacrosanct number, it gives an indication of the deep belief that I share that there must be limits to how far we legislate. I strongly support the amendment.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him for clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, "within the limits of the law". Surely sex equality is the law.

§ Lord Dahrendorf
My Lords, I was aware of that when I used that particular phrase. But, as we see, it is only the law if we decide that it should be the law. It is not at this moment, otherwise the Bill would not be necessary. If the Bill becomes an Act, I shall obviously advocate abiding by its provisions. I hope that it will not become an Act.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I find it difficult to reply to the two speeches that we have heard because the language used by both noble Lords is uncharacteristically immoderate. I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, say that the Bill constituted a "gross interference"—those are his words—with freedom of association; and I heard my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf speak of the "arrogance of legislation" and the "strength of civil society" being at risk, and the rule of law as well.
What are we talking about? We shall come to the amendments standing in my name later. They seek to make it crystal clear that the Bill in no way interferes with the fundamental freedom of association of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie, Lord Henley, Lord Dahrendorf, and Lord anyone else, in their members' clubs and their ability to exclude women totally if they wish to do so. That is their fundamental right. It is the fundamental right of women to do the same thing and of gay and lesbian people to do the same.
The only legislative interference there has been with that fundamental right was in 1976 in a Bill for which I was partly responsible. It became the Race Relations Act, which forbade colour bars in private clubs unless they had as few as only 25 members, when it was a kind of extended family. I cannot believe that my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would at that time have taken the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when this House blocked that provision. It was left to the democratic Chamber to 851 restore the policy of the Government and to forbid colour bars in any club—whether a working men's club, which was the main problem throughout the country, or a club to which I then belonged, which did not have a colour bar, the Garrick Club. That is the only way at the moment in which legislation has interfered in clubs.
The Bill, as amended today, will not touch single sex clubs at all. I drafted that amendment in order to meet the legitimate concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Borrie and Lord Dahrendorf in Committee. I thought that having done that and having made it crystal clear, that would be the end of the matter. But, no, what we now have is an amendment that would remove from the scope of the Bill any club with 1,500 members or fewer, even though the club had chosen to admit members of both sexes. In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has in mind a club which is more than double the size of your Lordships' House.
Such a club would continue to be free to treat its women members less favourably than men solely on the grounds of their sex. Women will continue to suffer sex discrimination in some large golf clubs or other sports clubs, for example, by being excluded, as they are at the moment, from full voting rights or equal access to the club's facilities and services. As many mixed clubs would fall outside the scope of the Bill, its central purpose would be frustrated. That is why this is a wrecking amendment.
It is common ground that the Bill will not apply to clubs which exercise their freedom to choose to exclude members of one sex from membership. It is most unfortunate that that does not satisfy the supporters of the amendment.
Where a club chooses to admit members of both sexes, there is surely no justification for permitting the male majority to maintain second-class membership for the female minority. That is the principle. It is one thing to create different categories of membership, such as full membership, family membership, associate membership or country membership; it is quite another to create sex-based categories of members, with men being given rights and privileges that are not enjoyed by women.
The amendment is not based on a notion of fairness or equality for women and men. The only argument advanced is dressed in high constitutional language; namely, that we must protect the fundamental right to freedom of association. That argument was used in this House more than a quarter of a century ago to seek to enable clubs to maintain a colour bar, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, reminded us in Committee.
When I made that point in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, explained that he regarded discrimination based on colour as different in kind from discrimination based on sex. But if the argument based on freedom of association that we have just heard were correct in principle, it would apply to both forms of invidious discrimination—for discrimination on the ground of colour and discrimination on the ground of sex are alike: they are based not on the 852 personal attributes of individual men and woman, but on their innate physical characteristics with which they were born. I see the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, smiling, but it is true that the only basis for differential treatment—

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, does the noble Lord consider—I use the word because he is a human rights lawyer—that it is proportionate to the mischief about which he has been speaking that the law should intervene in this tiny category of clubs which have male and female membership but on a different basis? What are the grounds for interfering with that situation and telling the existing members—from on high, from the House of Lords and the House of Commons—how they should conduct their lives in private clubs?

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I thought that I had answered that point. The principle upon which the Bill depends is the simple principle of equality of treatment without unfair discrimination. The application of that principle to the private sector, whether it be a private school or any other private body, should not be any greater than is genuinely necessary in the public interest. It is in the public interest so far as the supporters of the Bill are concerned—just as it is to stamp out colour bars in private clubs of more than a small family size—where a club chooses to admit members of both sexes, to allow them to maintain different categories of membership but not on the basis of colour or gender. That is the principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is prepared to concede that that principle should apply to clubs whose membership is larger than 1,500. With respect, that is an absurd proposition. A club which has a membership of 1,501 may quickly become a club which is just under that number. There will he shifting membership and shifting categories of membership. So there are practical reasons, quite apart from reasons of principle. But 1,500 is far too high, because most sport clubs and most working men's clubs would not be caught or could easily evade the law.
As the Bill recognises, there are some voluntary associations so small that they are like an extended family. They should be excluded from the scope of the Bill in recognition of the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has strongly expressed namely, that the law should not intrude disproportionately or too far into the private sphere. That is why the exclusion for clubs with fewer than 25 members in the Race Relations Act is matched by the provision in this Bill.
So far as I am aware, the provision has caused no problem in practice. I am not aware that any clubs have found it necessary to make the kind of protests about the anti-colour bar provisions that are now being put forward in relation to a gender bar. I submit that one cannot claim that a club more than twice the size of the House of Lords is an extended family—although some might think it to be such—to be given a zone of privacy in which unfair discrimination may flourish against a minority of women members who have insufficient voting power to secure genuine equality of treatment.
853 We on these Benches therefore strongly oppose the amendment. We await with great interest the position taken by the Conservative Front Bench, especially because of the encouraging statement made yesterday about the Conservative Party, committed as it is to protecting the vulnerable and promoting equality of opportunity. I find it difficult to imagine that the Conservative Front Bench will take a different position on this issue from that taken by these Benches.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, perhaps I should say a word or two, as I have added my name to the amendment. Before I begin, perhaps I may offer my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for answering so speedily the question that I put to her on the previous occasion. My question was: when was she going to respond to the Written Question of my noble friend Lady Blatch, which had been tabled some eight weeks before the Committee stage, about the Government's general attitude to sex discrimination in clubs? The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, announced at the time—at nine o'clock that night—that she would be answering the question "shortly". I then discovered that it had been answered some time earlier and the Written Answer appeared in Hansard the day after. I admire the noble Baroness for the speed with which she offered that Answer—"shortly" was shorter than ever before!
I do not want to add much to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, nor to those of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, other than to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on giving us the genuinely Liberal view from the Liberal Democrat Benches that one expects to hear from the Liberal Democratic party. It is the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is now trying to turn this into a party matter. This is not a party matter. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, are supporting the amendment. No doubt there may be a different view from the Front Bench of my own party, just as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has sadly found that there is a different view from the Front Bench of his own party—and it is not one that could be described by anyone as "liberal". I refer to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am tempted by what he has just said. I wonder whether he appreciates that any true Liberal understands that liberalism embraces also principles of equal treatment and fair dealing, as well as laissez-faire ideas from the 19th century.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I believe that I know as much about liberalism as the noble Lord. My father was a leading member of the Liberal Party, and I was a Liberal myself for a time—before I saw the light and joined another party. But let us leave that matter where it is.
854 I wanted to pick up only one point from the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He seemed to be accusing us of a degree of illogicality in that we had accepted the provision on race discrimination in relation to private member clubs, although at the time we had pointed out that the position was an infringement of people's liberty. Obviously, there was no need to change that later when we were in government. That would have sent out completely the wrong messages. The noble Lord said that the same should therefore apply in relation to sex discrimination. But at the same time, he is prepared— and I am grateful to him for doing so—to make an enormous exemption in relation to sex discrimination in terms of excluding single sex clubs.
I worry that this is merely a first step and that, later, the noble Lord, with his desire to push all forms of so-called anti-discrimination legislation as far as they can be pushed, will return with another Bill—it will no doubt be promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—which will say that even single sex clubs are unlawful. I wait to see that in due course. It depends on what happens to this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has quite sensibly suggested a figure of 1,500. He suggested 2,000 at an earlier stage, but that did not meet with the Committee's approval. We have therefore come forward with the compromise of 1,500. If that does not find the approval of the House, perhaps we will come forward with another figure on Third Reading, when we can argue out the issue. I imagine that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment today.
All I should like to say now, as we are coming on to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that we are very grateful for the fact that, despite his belief that sex discrimination legislation should ultimately be extended to all clubs, he has seen fit to table an amendment which I suspect the entire House can support as it addresses a great many of the problems that have been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.

§ Baroness Crawley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. As he has put his name to Amendment No. 1, he obviously supports the status quo. It is generally agreed that the status quo entails second-class membership—or second-class association, for associate members—for women as opposed to men. Perhaps he will tell us how he can justify supporting an arrangement that makes women second class.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness—as I was to the noble Lord, Lord Lester—for promoting me from the rank of mere Baron to that of Viscount. I shall leave that with the Leader of the House, who no doubt can offer advice to the Government for my promotion in due course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, I do not intend to try to justify this because it is a matter for the clubs themselves to decide. As he also said, it is not proportionate for Parliament itself to seek to tell clubs, 855 "This is what you must do". Why cannot clubs decide these matters for themselves? He also very sensibly made the practical point that the provision would positively discourage some clubs from moving in the direction preferred by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I have no doubt that most clubs will eventually move that way. In one club of which I was a member—the Carlton Club; there is no reason why I should not mention it—I voted for women to come in. I may wish in due course to do the same in other clubs of which I am a member. The sheer economics of clubs pushes them in that way.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
Oh my!

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, this is a matter for clubs themselves to decide. It is not something that Parliament should seek to impose on clubs. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain seemed to say from a sedentary position that this should not be a matter of economics, I shall merely make the point that there are single-sex clubs that are simply dying on their feet. That is why some wish to go along the road of partially extending membership, or possibly allowing women in on certain occasions. Again, however, it is a matter that should be left to the clubs to decide for themselves.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, I apologise for making a sedentary comment. However, it is absolutely outrageous to suggest that a club which is on its uppers and has male members should bring in women to fund the men's fun. Really!

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but I feel that my noble friend has misunderstood my position. She only has to go into certain clubs to see that many clubs have insufficient membership. Social change has made people want to behave differently and many people do not want to stick with a club. That is why some clubs change. They do not change merely to bring women in to spend more money. They change in line with society. However, the clubs themselves must decide that and not busybodies in this House or in another place.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, I should like to finish the point by reminding my noble friend, whom I greatly admire, of the old saying, "When you're in a hole, stop digging".

§ Lord Burnham
My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships that I have not taken part in the various stages of this Bill so far, but I have read very carefully what has appeared in Hansard. I join my noble friend Lord Henley in being extremely shocked by the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to take this as a party matter. I remind him that when he—unsuccessfully, thank goodness—proposed in a London theatre that the Garrick Club should admit women, he and a large number of others were told by Mr Derek Nimmo that he had taken a considerable survey of women as to whether they wanted to join the 856 Garrick Club and they universally said, "Over my dead body". These were the female members of the staff.
I also ask the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Lester, to consider a certain problem. I am terribly sorry, but if their Bill were to be enacted they would get 400 extremely angry women loosed on them. I am a member of a club which I accept has a very expensive subscription. It has 400 wives and unmarried daughters of club members, commonly known as LAMs—lady associate members—who pay one tenth of the subscription paid by male members. Are the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Lester, suggesting that they should pay the other nine tenths, or that they should be chucked out totally, or what? I consulted that club last weekend, and it believes that enactment of this Bill would be a very difficult problem.

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, perhaps I should begin by saying that I have just been advised to be gentle. However, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, started by saying that this is a probing amendment. I very much hope that he will not press it. I also speak very confidently on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in supporting entirely everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said. I shall therefore be brief.
I entirely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, when he says that this Bill goes too far. Indeed, from a personal standpoint, I do not think it goes far enough. This is not a numbers game; surely the numbers are irrelevant. It is a small point, and the Bill affects only a small category of clubs, but it is symbolic. As a matter of principle, I believe that the Bill ought to apply to any club that has a membership of more than one and admits both men and women.
I am nevertheless glad that the remaining amendments clarify an insecure and uncertain situation which was quite rightly debated at length in Committee. This Bill does not apply to single-sex clubs, and nor does it apply to the guests and the wellbeing of the guests of single-sex clubs. I say to my noble friend Lord Henley that, in the event that a Bill were introduced to outlaw—if I may put it that way—single-sex clubs, I would be most hesitant to support it. There are ladies-only clubs, and long may they live.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, I have been exhorted to be very short and I shall try to do so. I am in total sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Not surprisingly, but with great regret, I am totally out of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Borrie. Notwithstanding the very kind comments that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has made about my swift answering of his Question, I also find myself out of sympathy with him. I mast say, however, that the past few moments have given me great enjoyment.
I think that we have heard today echoes of old debates—debates in this House on the freedom of slaves, on women's suffrage and on racial 857 discrimination—and on each of those occasions I think it was said that matters should be allowed to evolve. I should confess an interest, both as a woman and a person of colour, that in relation to suffrage and discrimination matters were not allowed to evolve—hence I give thanks, because otherwise I doubtless would not stand in your Lordships' House.
In the area of discrimination, which still continues, in relation to women's equal rights in clubs, matters were left to evolve. That has lasted a long time. Notwithstanding my intention to be brief, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of something that was said in 1958, since when there have been changes. The Dowager Marchioness of Reading, Baroness Swanborough, said about the House: I have not been to such an interesting school in my life. The House of Lords is a delicious place to be in. People move so slowly, nobody runs down passages, nobody uses used envelopes, nobody does anything for himself if he can ask a gentleman with a gold chain to do it for him". The Baroness Wootton of Abinger said in 1958: There are strongholds that have not yet been breached. We look forward to a far greater distinction than entry into the House of Lords, and that is entry for women into the Athenaeum Club". Historic matters. We cannot wait for very much longer. This is a small, modest Bill. It does not right all the wrongs that need to be righted, but it goes some way towards doing so.
Twenty five is not a number taken at random. It is the number used in the 1964 Licensing Act. In England and Wales in 2001, there were 3,748 commercial private clubs, proprietary clubs, owned by an individual or company, and 22,037 non-profit-making registered clubs, political clubs, working men's clubs, Royal British Legion clubs, sports clubs, and so on. All those have bars. In Scotland, there were 2,556 registered clubs with liquor licences. The figure for licensing is taken at 25. So there is a well-trammelled distinction that 25 is the cut-off point at which private endeavour moves into the public arena. We have heard nothing today to cause us to believe that 25 is not the correct figure.
Notwithstanding the huge joy that I have had listening to this debate, I believe that the fun should stop here. I therefore ask the noble Lords not to press the amendment.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Borrie will not be surprised that I cannot invite the House to accept his amendment. The consequences of doing so would be similar to those described by many of your Lordships in Committee when we considered the amendment, also moved by my noble friend Lord Borrie, to make the threshold 2,000.
In practical terms, the amendment would remove the overwhelming majority of private members' clubs from the scope of the Bill. To be fair to my noble friend, I believe that that is exactly what he wants to do. For example, in the case of working men's clubs affiliated to the Club and Institute Union, it would 858 take 2,539 clubs, with between 25 and 1,500 members, out of the scope of the Bill and leave only 163, with over 1,500 members, within it.
To allow a significant proportion of those clubs—almost 60 per cent—to continue to practise sex discrimination would not only be wrong, but, as the CIU national executive knows only too well and has said on a number of occasions, would also be much against their commercial interests.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment on golf clubs would be even more drastic. The Royal and Ancient Golfer's handbook for 2001 shows that there are 1,764 clubs, of which only six had more than 1,500 members. Thus, virtually every golf club would be removed from the scope of the Bill.
Support for the Bill comes very strongly from the Ladies' Golf Union, which says: The vast network of volunteers and staff promotes, maintains and regulates amateur ladies' golf at all levels throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, as such, welcomes any positive steps to improve the level of services and facilities offered to its members and prospective members". I have received a similar letter of support from the chief executive of the Central Council for Physical Recreation in which, answering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, she comments: Of course, the current situation prevents many men from enjoying the benefits of associate membership (i.e. reduced fees for playing at less popular times), so there are potential benefits for both sexes. There is no sensible reason for different baselines on gender and race". I have received a number of endorsements from other organisations, particularly the Equal Opportunities Commission, that want to see the Bill go through.
However, in view of the lateness of the hour—I know that noble Lords want to progress to other subjects—I shall finish with the question: why 25? My noble friend the Minister referred to the Licensing Act. The much missed and much loved Lord Harris of Greenwich, the senior Home Office Minister who, on behalf of the government, piloted the Race Relations Bill through this House, offered the following definition of why 25 was the right number: I acknowledge at once that it is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, and I would not suggest otherwise. The reason is that 25 is the minimum number of members a club must have in order to qualify for registration under the Licensing Acts". It was the right number for the Race Relations Bill, and it is the right number for the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

§ Lord Burnham
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him how, if the Bill were enacted, he would deal with my lady associate members paying one-tenth of the subscription.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I thought that I had answered that question. The important point about associate membership is that it will continue, if the club and the members wish it to continue. However, both categories of membership 859 must be equally available to both genders. Men should have the right to be associate members and women should have the right to be full members. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify one matter? I had intended to go to the Garrick for dinner, but when I heard of this debate, I thought that I had better come here. Would it be safe for me to go there in the future?

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, the noble Lord may have to wait for the next amendment to be absolutely satisfied on that.

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate in which a number of people who did not take part at earlier stages of the Bill have spoken.
Sex equality is a principle of tremendous importance to all liberal-minded people. Freedom of association is also a liberal principle. The Bill ignores the latter and over-emphasises the former. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who supports my amendment, said, 1,500 is only a probing figure. But, as at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Faulkner has moved not at all.
Because of the application of the threshold of 25 to race discrimination, and perhaps my noble friend the Minister's discovery of the new point relating to the licensing laws, it does not seem to me appropriate that 25 should be the figure. That is because it would involve compelling the members of many working men's clubs—my noble friend mentioned hundreds—whatever their views, to treat male and female members in precisely the same way, not even having a single room, a bar, where men can drink on their own among other men. Is that such a terrible thing for male members to want?

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he appreciate that that is not quite right? A club can have a separate bar for men and a separate bar for women, provided they are equal. That is made clear by the Sex Discrimination Act.

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, in practical terms, with regard to modest sized premises, the noble Lord's point may not be feasible.
My main concern in trying to increase the threshold from 25 to a more reasonable number is to ensure that hundreds of working men's clubs are not required by law to do what this House may think should be done. There is no doubt—my noble friend Lord Faulkner has admitted this point—that, of the hundreds of working men's clubs, some have gone in a certain direction while others have not. Evolution is regarded as taking place too slowly and therefore the law must intervene.
My noble friend the Minister said that this is a small Bill. However, hundreds of clubs, each with dozens or even hundreds of members, will be required to do 860 something ex hypothesi that they do not wish as yet and have not decided as yet to do. Is a Bill justified on that basis? I very much doubt it. As there are views on all sides of the matter, I am tempted to divide the House on this amendment. However, it is only a probing one.

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, I do not know how many noble Lords are present in the House as a whole or what the outcome of that would be. However, I do know that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been comforted by the fact that each of the debates on the Bill so far has taken place on a quiet Wednesday evening. The number of noble Lords who would give a credible total to those voting has not been very great. No one has been Whipped. I do not know when the Third Reading will take place and my noble friend Lord Faulkner does not either. My noble friend nods. He is well in with the Government, as it were, and I am not. It would appear that the noble Lord knows the date of the Third Reading.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, in the interests of accuracy I should make it clear that as the sponsor of the Bill I have been offered a date by the usual channels but it has not yet been confirmed.

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, I am happy on this occasion to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton)
Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords
No!

§ The Deputy Speaker
The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content", to the contrary "Not Content".

Noble Lords
Not Content!

§ The Deputy Speaker
The Not-Contents have it. On Question, amendment negatived.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 11, after "29(1)" insert— () it is not an organisation which restricts membership to persons of one sex; The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can deal with this like greased lightning. This amendment, as I tried to explain, is designed to make it clear beyond argument that an organisation which restricts membership to persons of one sex will not be affected in any way by this Bill. To answer a question that was raised a short time ago, the reason this is entirely symmetrical with the Race Relations Act is as follows. The Race Relations Act draws a distinction between colour bars 861 and clubs which promote the cultural values, for example, of Bangladeshis, Afro-Caribbeans or any other group. In the same way, a distinction is being drawn in this Bill between the single sex clubs and clubs that admit both sexes. I hope that we have the drafting right. The consequential amendment to which I also speak, Amendment No. 4, is designed to do away with the vague and ambiguous provisions in what is now new Section 29B which might bring the Garrick and other clubs within the scope of the Bill. This is designed to make it crystal clear that that will not happen. Provided that the club does in fact exclude women, it may freely do so. Provided that a club excludes men, it may freely do so. That applies to guests as well as to members. I beg to move.

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, it is good to my mind that the proposers of this Bill—my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—have moved away from what was certainly the earlier view of my noble friend Lord Faulkner; that is, that while single sex clubs should generally not be covered by the Bill, they should be bound by the so-called "guest" provision and should treat male and female guests precisely equally. It was unclear from the earlier drafting—I think that that was admitted in Committee—what would be the outcome if the Bill as it originally stood had gone forward.
My belief is that Amendment No. 2 of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has achieved the complete exclusion of single sex clubs from the Bill. I am glad to note that exclusion in his amendment does not turn on the club's constitution or some particular written document. It suffices if, as a matter of fact—I hope that the noble Lord will agree with my interpretation—the club does restrict membership to one sex. I see that the noble Lord nods and therefore I trust that that is the case. I welcome that. I shall at the appropriate moment withdraw Amendment No. 5 in my name which seeks to achieve the same result.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary for me to add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for coming forward with his amendment which I think is probably superior to the amendment put forward by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I have taken some advice from a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is learned in the law. I am assured that it achieves those things that we seek. On that basis, like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I shall not want to press our amendment when we get to it. I shall be more than happy to accept—if the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is happy to accept it, which I take it he is as he has his name to it—the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition I rise to support the whole group of amendments. However, I also have a preference for the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the Government understand the drive towards simplification and the problem that some elderly, indeed, venerable associations have no specific constitution and that many which do have constitutions will not say explicitly that their membership is to be limited solely to men or to women. Therefore, we see the thrust of the amendment that my noble friend puts forward. We now think that the factors which have been mentioned in the debates on the Bill suggest that a more simplified test of whether a club limits its membership exclusively to one sex is likely to provide the way forward. We cannot at this stage specifically endorse the amendment as currently phrased but we certainly endorse its thrust.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I do not think that I need say more than that I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In Committee we gave an undertaking that we would look again at the relevant section to make the situation absolutely clear regarding single sex clubs. Therefore, I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 49, at end insert— "29AA EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTION 29A IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES Nothing in section 29A shall render unlawful—

(a) the provision of separate facilities or services, or the separate use of facilities or services, for men and women, if the facilities or services are provided for, or are likely to be used by two or more persons at the same time, and—

(i) the facilities or services are such, or those persons are such, that male users are likely to suffer serious embarrassment at the presence of a woman, or

(ii) the facilities or services are such that a user is likely to be in a state of undress and a male user might reasonably object to the presence of a female user; or

(iii) the facilities or services are such that physical contact between the user and any other person is likely, and that other person might reasonably object if the user were a woman; or

(b) the provision of facilities or services restricted to men, or of separate facilities or services, or the separate use of facilities or services for men and women, if—

(i) the association exists for the purposes of an organised religion, and

(ii) such restrictions or use are maintained so as to comply with the doctrines of that religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a substantial number of its followers."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 seeks to write into the Bill exceptions which seek to match the exceptions already in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which apply to Section 29 of that Act which concerns the provision of goods, services and facilities to the public. The exceptions are 863 of a similar kind and are similarly worded to those in the proposed new Section 29AA. I shall give your Lordships the relevant cross-references. The analogy with the first part of the proposed new Section 29AA concerns Section 35(1)(i) and (ii) and Section 35(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act. That is what I call the "Turkish bath" exception. Where men and women are going to undress in front of each other and suffer personal embarrassment and so on, there is an exception, provided always that there are separate but equal facilities.
There is an even more obscure provision in proposed Clause 29AA(b), which has an analogy with Section 35(1)(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It deals with bodies about which I know nothing; small religious study groups that for religious dogmatic reasons, good or had, decide to have only women or only men reading Biblical texts or carrying out various religious activities. It aims to preserve freedom of association and freedom of religion and religious practices in legitimate areas where there should be exceptions. I hope that the critics of our work such as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will appreciate that I am doing my best to strike a fair balance in the exceptions between the principle of equality and other principles which have to be recognised, including personal privacy and freedom of religion. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I rise to accept it.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, everyone wants to know the Government's view. We think it is a good idea.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, Amendment No. 4 has been formally spoken to. If it is accepted, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 5.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 12. On Question, amendment agreed to.