Michael Parkinson: The trouble with Lord's and ladies (31 Aug 1998)

31 August 1998

The trouble with Lord's and ladies

By Michael Parkinson

I EXPERIENCED a new sensation the other day. I almost felt sorry for MCC. When I read the president's heartfelt response to letters from MCC members in this paper on the subject of women entering their hallowed institution, I felt a bit like King Canute's page must have felt watching the old fool getting his feet wet. In other words, I was witnessing a lost cause but there was something noble in its futility.

I quickly pulled myself together and wondered when Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie became president if he imagined his most important task would be to reassure his members they would not have to share toilets with women. This is a major concern, according to the survey of MCC members by MORI.

It found three main reasons for members voting against women. They are 1) MCC were created as an all-male club and no compelling case has been made for change; 2) The argument for change appeared to rest on 'political correctness'; 3) The over-crowding at Lord's and the waiting list would be worsened by the change.

This last concern was illustrated by a quote from a member: "I believe that MCC is a gentleman's club and should remain so. The facilities - such as they are - for gentlemen members are already stretched."

The first two arguments are easily put away, as I shall demonstrate, However, the problem of what do we do with the ladies when we let them in, or rather, where will the ladies do what they have to do when they are admitted, is the knotty problem and a satisfactory solution has been sought by the best brains MCC can muster, although cynics might argue this doesn't add up to much.

I'm not being rude but it does seem to me the problem needs a more thoughtful solution than the current suggestion that a former club office in the basement be turned into a toilet.

It will take a much more grandiose scheme to convince those people at the National Lottery that MCC mean business.

What I would like to suggest for consideration is that the entire pavilion be converted into a public toilet. There would be enough room to accommodate male and female members without embarrassment and it would eradicate that tedious business we suffer at present of having play interrupted by spectators moving when the bowling is coming from the pavilion end.

If there is a problem changing a listed building into a public urinal (although it wouldn't be the first listed building I've been in which would be better off serving the general public in a more 'convenient' way) then I suggest the new media centre should become what the Yanks call 'a comfort station'. Think of the sponsorship you could attract to MCC by creating the first unisex toilet in the sky. Imagine the Brownie points from the Government and the Lottery. Consider a grand opening featuring the Prime Minister and Mystic Meg.

It will need this kind of imaginative planning to convince a sceptical world MCC really mean business. How can we take seriously a group of men who vote against women joining their club because it was created as an all-male club and "no compelling case has been made for change"? Given that the club was founded in 1787, these members must be complimented on their long memories. They will no doubt recall that in their founding year, an English convict ship was on its way to Australia. Had there been no compelling case for change in that situation, we would never have seen Don Bradman, never mind Merv Hughes.

Similarly, it wasn't until 1869 that MCC stopped men on horseback entering the ground. Surely the diehards would concede there was "a compelling case for change", or would they rather sit next to a horse than a woman. If MORI put that in their questionaire, there might have been some revealing answers. However, to argue that in more than 200 years, the argument for equality of the sexes hasn't been debated and successfully concluded to the point where it is now unlawful to discriminate is to demonstrate a depth of prejudice to be found in men who either fear or despise the opposite sex.

Their allegation that the entire issue is being promoted by the media and politicians eager to be seen as 'politically correct' won't wash. The practical issue of MCC being sidelined from any kind of funding from the public purse will be because of a general perception that any club closing their doors to half the human race for no good reason other than they might prove an inconvenience are deserving of ridicule and contempt and not financial reward.

In fact, it is not only women who are discriminated against at Lord's. It is anyone who is not a member of MCC. In other words, the entire population of the world minus the chosen few thousand who bag all the best seats. I am a life member of Middlesex County Cricket Club yet denied access to the pavilion at Lord's on certain days. MCC members, most of whom pay £100 a year or less, have the run of the place. It's a pitiful sum to pay for such a privilege. I don't see why MCC should experience this present hassle to make more money. What they should do is charge upwards of £500 for annual membership. That would bring in an additional £10 million or so, enabling MCC to give back to the England and Wales Cricket Board the money they receive from staging a Test match.

Why MCC, a private members' club, should receive a share from ECB revenue is yet another of those questions to which there is no answer, so long as you are unaware that the two organisations are joined at the hip. Tim Lamb and Roger Knight are interchangable in their roles at the ECB and the former Test and County Cricket Board. Similarly, Lord Maclaurin and Ingleby-Mackenzie find comforting similarity not just in holding the two most prestigious roles in cricket but in the knowledge they are members of the same club.

If the ECB are to fulfill their duty as the governing body of cricket and not be seen as a lickspittle of MCC, they should tell Lord's that unless they sort themselves out pretty quickly, they will move major fixtures to another location. The longer MCC debate the issue of women members, the more they prevaricate, the longer the cavemen are allowed to put their points of view, the more the game of cricket is held up to public scorn and ridicule. This is the worst time for cricket to be associated with a public controversy as offensive as it is unnecessary. It is a game in crisis and it needs to concentrate on how it can improve the quality of the product and how it can attract more people through the gates; and not waste time discussing reasons for keeping them out.

As I write these words, I again find myself feeling a twinge of compassion for MCC. There is a sense in which Ingleby-Mackenzie and his supporters cannot win. If they and the ECB remain supine, then it will be left to the Government to make cricket change. If they win, they will be accused of making a cosmetic rather than a spiritual change.

Their critics will say they did it for the money and the fact it will take 20 years or more before a woman is admitted "through the usual channels" hardly suggests MCC are prepared to atone for the past and make convincing recompense to those they have treated with such contempt.

In fact, a close look at MCC and the present pickle convinces me that a far more important question has been raised. It is: can cricket any longer afford to have anything to do with MCC? Would it not be better if they went their own way as a private members' club with both Middlesex and England fixtures and all the major events being moved to a less contentious and generally more welcoming venue? I know this will be regarded as an outsider's view. But that's what I am. And so are we all - men and women - apart from the chosen few who run the joint. The fact is, we are squatters at the home of cricket.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)