The House of Lords considered Commons amendments to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill yesterday.
Lord McKenzie of Luton, under-secretary of state for communities and local government, moved an amendment to introduce a new clause relating to local freedoms.
"The amendment will mean that the daughter of a freeman can claim to be admitted as a freeman on the same terms as the son of a freeman," Lord McKenzie said.
The son or daughter of a freeman can request that they are admitted to a guild whether or not their parent had been admitted as a freeman at the time of their birth and whether or not they were born in the town or city in which the guild exists, the amendment adds.
He added: "My noble friend Lady Andrews stated that traditions needed to work in a non-discriminatory way and we attach great importance to seeking equality between men and women.
"We believe that the amendment laid by my noble friend strengthens the Bill by allowing admission rights to be changed more easily and flexibility for the guilds to amend their rules to meet any challenges that may arise in the future."
Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab/Coop) argued that there was no reason or necessity for the new clause.
"The original clause perfectly conveyed the essence of the fact that the Freedom is differently constructed and operated in each place and is restricted there by differing customs and legal constraints by either charter or statute," he said.
Opposition spokesman for communities and local government, Lord Bates said:
"This measure draws to everybody’s attention the difficulties that arise when we open up these ancient bodies to scrutiny in the modern day.
"It seems to me that the guild in Newcastle has the opportunity to appoint females and males to the position of honorary freeman."
He added: "We approve of the idea of local people determining the terms of their area and we would very much like to see maximum flexibility given to local guilds—and, indeed, to the freemen of the City of Newcastle—to determine the composition and the order of succession of hereditary freemen in a way that they would see fit."
Lord McKenzie of Luton stated that he did not propose to withdraw this clause.
He also clarified that it would not be mandatory for daughters to be admitted if sons could be admitted but added: "If the daughter should seek admission, it is mandatory to allow her to become a freeman. That is absolutely what this amendment enshrines".
Responding to Lord Bates, Lord McKenzie stated that there were different arrangements for honorary freeman, which were covered by Clause 28.
The motion was agreed.
