The council are surely right, in assessing bids for National Lottery funding, to castigate our cricketing authorities on two counts: for failing to have a coherent structure or national development plan for the game, and for refusing to allow women to be members of the MCC.

The second point has drawn much fire, with accusations of ``political correctness'' against the council. Lt Col John Stephenson, the former MCC secretary, describes the decision as ``scandalous''.

In my view, the requirement that Lord's should join the 20th century before the next one arrives is not so much politically correct as simply correct, not to say long overdue. The MCC refusal to allow women members is a stain on their reputation. It is also against the game's best interests. The ban is not only an insult to women in general and to women's cricket, but fails to acknowledge a trend that the game ought to be encouraging: the fast-growing attraction of cricket to female spectators. Many letters I re- ceive about cricket are from women, as are many requests to help them get hold of Test match tickets.

Of course, it is shaming that women like Rachel Heyhoe-Flint, who have done so much for the game, should be rebuffed by Lord's, but the case goes wider than that.

Men do not have to demonstrate any cricketing skills to become ordinary members of the MCC, so why should the debate about women be centred on present and former players? A love of the game is the chief requirement, whether of men or of women.

Cricket is hardly so prosperous that it can afford to discourage any new support, especially from those who enjoy it without getting drunk and behaving badly. A greater female presence in the crowd would have a civilising influence.

This would be desirable for the image of the game, which is suffering badly from the charmless vision of loutish, halfnaked lobsters waving lager cans that often greets one after lunch. Instead of driving women away, Lord's should be launching a publicity campaign to attract more.

I have seen a number of women there. Most of them were waitresses, it is true, and one of them was the Queen, but they hardly spoilt the atmosphere or the enjoyment and comfort of members.

This is where the MCC ban assumes larger symbolic importance. It sends out the wrong signals. It says to women that they are not welcome at cricket, except perhaps to make sandwiches, not because they lack interest in or knowledge of the game, but simply because they are women.

Lord's argue that Lottery funding should not be withheld from the new Grandstand, since women are free to go there and only the Pavilion is off-limits. But this is disingenuous. Women with tickets may not be refused physical entry to the Grandstand, but they do not have an equal chance of buying such tickets if they are denied the privileges of MCC membership.

Rather than be forced grudgingly into admitting women members, the MCC should bow swiftly and graciously to the inevitable and look to the advantages, using the change as an opportunity to market the game to families.

I am not even certain that any formal change in the MCC rules is required, since women are not explicitly excluded. The club should invite women to apply for a limited number of immediate places, to be considered ahead of the current waitinglist. If anyone objects to this positive discrimination, one need only point out that there are about 20,000 male members already.

Implicit in the MCC's defence of their indefensible policy is that presence in the Lord's Pavilion on Test match days is part of a mystique that only men can appreciate, and that this magical spell would be broken if women were around to share it.

But it is a myth anyway that women are not allowed entry to the pavilion on Test match days. I have seen a number of women there. Most of them were waitresses, it is true, and one of them was the Queen, but they hardly spoilt the atmosphere or the enjoyment and comfort of members.

I am less sure about the Queen's own enjoyment. When I saw her, she gave a distinct impression that she would rather be somewhere (probably anywhere) else, such as watching Wimbledon with her feet up and a gin and tonic in her hand.

There was an exquisite moment when a senior committee figure asked the Duke of Edinburgh if he had seen the new Mound Stand. ``Seen it?'' replied HRH tartly. ``I only opened the bloody thing, didn't I?''