The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
†
Mrs.
Janet
Dean
†
Betts,
Mr. Clive
(Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab)
†
Blackman,
Liz
(Erewash)
(Lab)
†
Boswell,
Mr. Tim
(Daventry)
(Con)
†
Bryant,
Chris
(Rhondda)
(Lab)
†
Burrowes,
Mr. David
(Enfield, Southgate)
(Con)
†
Burt,
Lorely
(Solihull)
(LD)
†
Corbyn,
Jeremy
(Islington, North)
(Lab)
†
Eagle,
Angela
(Wallasey)
(Lab)
†
Fabricant,
Michael
(Lichfield)
(Con)
†
Follett,
Barbara
(Stevenage)
(Lab)
†
Harris,
Dr. Evan
(Oxford, West and Abingdon)
(LD)
†
Laing,
Mrs. Eleanor
(Epping Forest)
(Con)
†
Munn,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local
Government)
†
Norris,
Dan
(Wansdyke)
(Lab)
†
Palmer,
Dr. Nick
(Broxtowe)
(Lab)
†
Skinner,
Mr. Dennis
(Bolsover)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
David
Doig, Mark Oxborough, Committee
Clerk
s
†
attended the
Committee
The following
also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Bercow,
John
(Buckingham)
(Con)
Binley,
Mr. Brian
(Northampton, South)
(Con)
Bone,
Mr. Peter
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
Brazier,
Mr. Julian
(Canterbury)
(Con)
Burt,
Alistair
(North-East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Cash,
Mr. William
(Stone)
(Con)
Chope,
Mr. Christopher
(Christchurch)
(Con)
Davies, Mr. David T.C.
(Monmouth)
(Con)
Duncan
Smith, Mr. Iain
(Chingford and Woodford Green)
(Con)
Grieve,
Mr. Dominic
(Beaconsfield)
(Con)
Hayes,
Mr. John
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
Hollobone,
Mr. Philip
(Kettering)
(Con)
Howarth,
Mr. Gerald
(Aldershot)
(Con)
Jenkin,
Mr. Bernard
(North Essex)
(Con)
Leigh,
Mr. Edward
(Gainsborough)
(Con)
Paterson,
Mr. Owen
(North Shropshire)
(Con)
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew
(Croydon, Central)
(Con)
Randall,
Mr. John
(Uxbridge)
(Con)
Redwood,
Mr. John
(Wokingham)
(Con)
Scott,
Mr. Lee
(Ilford, North)
(Con)
Selous,
Andrew
(South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Smith,
Sir Robert
(West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
(LD)
Swayne,
Mr. Desmond
(New Forest, West)
(Con)
Watkinson,
Angela
(Upminster)
(Con)
Winterton,
Sir Nicholas
(Macclesfield) (Con)
Twelfth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday 15
March
2007
[Mrs.
Janet Dean
in the
Chair]
Draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
8.55
am
Mr.
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): On a point of
order, Mrs. Dean. May I be the first to welcome you to the
Chair? I do not know whether you are Chairman by choice or by
sufferance, or when you were notified that you would be in the Chair,
but I was formally notified that I had to attend at 5.49 pm yesterday.
That puts my point of order in context.
To put it in wider context, the
Secretary of State said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for
Buckingham that there was a need for proper debate on this important
issue. That is reflected by the attendance of many hon. Members this
morning. I seek your guidance, Mrs. Dean, on moving a
dilatory motion for the adjournment of the Committee, given the unusual
processes that have led to our being hastily convened to meet today, at
this hour, to debate the regulations. As I understand it, the
regulations have changed three times since publication last Wednesday
and have been unavailable for periods of time—not least, they
have not been online and available to the public and to hon. Members
and my hon. Friends.
We are dealing with an issue
that causes much concern on all sides, which has to be dealt with
carefully and properly. In the words of the Secretary of State, we
should deal with it
“openly and honestly with each
other.”—[Official Report, 19 October
2006; Vol. 450, c. 1015.]
There is a concern.
There is a sensitivity about dealing with such a matter by way of
delegated legislation. We should be dealing with it with care, due
diligence and proper process. The Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments has had little time to consider and report on the
regulations. I seek your advice, Mrs. Dean, on whether now
is the time to move such a dilatory motion.
The
Chairman:
In order to move a dilatory motion, the hon.
Member has to be called by me to speak; at that point, I would make a
decision. At the moment, it is purely hypothetical and I cannot make a
decision at this time.
Mr.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. My point of order is perhaps more of a practical
matter. This Committee was summoned less than 17 hours ago, and yet
close to 60 or 70 Members are in the room. Officials are sitting on the
floor. This is a completely inappropriate room for a debate of this
magnitude. Given the circumstances, I suggest that we adjourn now and
reconvene at a later stage in a much more appropriate
room.
The
Chairman:
The choice of room is not a matter for the
Chair. As hon. Members will see, there are spare seats on the
Government side of the room. I remind hon. Members that any time taken
up by points of order will be taken out of the amount of time that we
have for debate.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chairman:
Order. I am still on my feet. Since many hon.
Members want to get in on the debate, I suggest that we limit points of
order.
Mr.
William Cash (Stone) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. Have you had the opportunity to take advice on
whether the regulations are ultra vires on the grounds that they do not
comply with the framework of the law? There are strong grounds for
believing that they are ultra vires, including, surprisingly, the
European Communities Act
1972.
The
Chairman:
I can say that the Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments met yesterday and gave the regulations a clean bill of
health.
Mr.
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Further to that point
of order, Mrs. Dean. Is that correct? One of the issues
raised by the Committee was whether the regulations covered the school
curriculum. My understanding is—although I stand to be
corrected—that counsel advising the Joint Committee has a
completely different view from that of the Government about whether the
school curriculum is covered. That also, indeed, affects devolved
institutions in Scotland, and the question of any impact on the
devolution settlement, because the curriculum in Scotland is the
responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I flag that up because an
issue seems to have
arisen.
The
Chairman:
May I point out that we have not begun the
debate yet. Although the Joint Committee has not made any
recommendation to the House on the regulations, the issue mentioned by
the hon. Gentleman could be raised during the
debate.
Mr.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. Given the enormous public interest in the matter
and the short notice that we have all had of the Committee’s
sitting, am I right in thinking, following Mr.
Speaker’s response to a point of order yesterday, and
representations made by hon. Members to the Public Bill Office, that
you have the power to adjourn the Committee? The obvious solution is to
debate the order on the Floor of the House. That is what the country
wants and demands, so that we can have a proper debate in which all
sides of the issue can be
heard.
The
Chairman:
My power is to accept or not to accept a
dilatory motion, and it is then up to the Committee to decide on
that.
Mr.
Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. May I put it to you that the Committee may well
have been convened in full order according to House of Commons
procedures, but that the manner in which it has been done brings the
House
into disrepute and it is therefore in your power to adjourn the
Committee to protect the reputation of this place? Otherwise, the
powers in this House will be seen to have sought to limit proper
scrutiny of a very controversial measure, which, incidentally, I may
well support—I would attend carefully to the debate. I do not
think that the Opposition Members who are raising points of order are
united on the question of the statutory instrument itself, but there is
great concern that the matter will not be properly considered because
of the very short time horizon that has been
given.
The
Chairman:
I remind hon. Members that by making points of
order they are taking time from what is allowed for the debate. I have
answered the point about my powers. The timing of the Committee is not
solely a matter for the Chair. As usual, the time was proposed by the
Government and I was able to agree to chair it at this
time.
Mr.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Further to that point of
order, Mrs. Dean. We have not had time to get the papers; we
had very little notice of where the sitting was to be held, and we find
that the Room is far too small. I must join my hon. Friends in saying
that there is huge interest in the issue among Christian communities,
and that huge numbers of those who want a more open and tolerant
society are interested. Very powerful issues are involved which need to
be debated in full on the Floor of the House so, with my hon. Friends,
I urge you to adjourn the Committee and ask for the order to be taken
on the Floor of the House.
The
Chairman:
I have already answered that
point.
Mr.
Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con): On
a point of order, Mrs. Dean. Mr. Speaker made it
clear yesterday, including in private discussions, that if an hon.
Member made representations to the Public Bill Office and, at the same
time, a point of order was raised here, it would be within your power
to postpone the Committee at least until further consideration had been
given. The grounds for that are twofold. First, Mr. Speaker
understood that, given the nature of the debate, the notice of the
sitting was very short, particularly in the light of what the House was
debating yesterday and the degree to which most hon. Members would have
been involved in that; secondly, as I discovered yesterday evening,
more than one member of the Labour party was given an assurance by the
Secretary of State that the matters would be brought to the Floor of
the House. That guarantee has now been breached. I put it to you
Mrs. Dean that you have the power to postpone the
Committee—to suspend it and to take consideration of where and
when the matters should be deliberated on, with reference to
Mr.
Speaker.
The
Chairman:
On the last point, it is not in my power to do
what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Now that we have started the
proceedings the only way of adjourning them is through a dilatory
motion.
Mr.
Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Further to that point of
order, Mrs. Dean. May I support my right hon. and hon.
Friends who have called on you to
postpone consideration of the matter? The regulations before us
represent an assault on the freedom of conscience of millions of our
fellow citizens. At a time when the House of Commons is telling the
other place how to behave, it will send out to the people of this
country the most abysmal message that the House is not prepared to give
its Members and those whom we represent the opportunity to place before
it the deep concerns of the Christian community throughout these
islands.
Therefore,
the onus is on you, Mrs. Dean. This is an opportunity for
you to cover yourself with glory by asserting the power of the Chair in
order to ensure that the traditions of the House are upheld, and that
we have not only freedom of conscience on the streets but freedom of
expression here in the House of Commons.
The
Chairman:
I have been using the power of the Chair to
allow as many points of order as I have. The subject that was just
raised is a matter for debate. I am prepared to accept further points
of order, but only if they raise new
matters.
David
T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. Is it not the case that you have the power to
reconvene this Committee at another time? Do you not think that it
would be a good thing to do, given that so many hon. Members feel very
strongly about the issue and wish to have the chance to comment on it,
but are unable to do so because they are sitting on other Committees?
As far as the public are concerned, it will look as if we have been
well and truly—to use the vernacular—tucked up, so that
open debate cannot take place on a matter about which people feel very
strongly.
The
Chairman:
That is not a new point of order. I have already
said—
Mr.
Leigh: It is a different point of
order.
The
Chairman:
Order. I am still on my feet. Since we have
started the proceedings, as I have said before, they can be adjourned
only by a dilatory motion.
Mr.
Leigh:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean. You have
made your decision, which, of course, must be accepted. However, for
the record, it should be noted that, because all Front-Bench spokesmen
will, naturally, speak first, and all three parties support the motion,
it is possible that in this hour-and-a-half sitting, there will be not
a single speech against the motion. That is an outrage as far as
democracy is concerned.
The
Chairman:
The sooner we get into the debate, the more
chance there is of people who are not members of the Committee taking
part. I urge hon. Members, including the Minister, to keep their
speeches short, and I shall endeavour to take as many
speakers—first, members of the Committee, and afterwards,
non-members—as possible. With that, I call the Minister to move
the motion.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Meg Munn):
rose—
Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): On a point of
order, Mrs. Dean. I am a new Member and I seek your advice
and guidance. I came to this place from local government, so I know how
keen the Government were on the concept of proper scrutiny in local
government. However, the truth is that the body scrutinising this
matter ceased its work only yesterday, and the body of its work has not
been published, so how can we possibly carry on the work of the House
properly when we do not have that report and we are not able to
scrutinise the matter properly?
The
Chairman:
Again, that is a point about the
Committee’s timing, to which I have already
responded.
9.8
am
Meg
Munn
:
I beg to move,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
2007.
The
regulations fulfil the Government’s commitment to bring forward
protections against sexual orientation discrimination alongside similar
protections for religion or belief, which are set out in part 2 of the
Equality Act 2006. During the passage of the Act, the
Government accepted amendments to provide order-making powers for such
protections in order to allow for public consultation and a proper
assessment of the impact of the measures. I have found this
morning’s interventions quite extraordinary, because the
decision to debate the regulations in Committee was agreed between all
three parties, including the official Opposition and the Government.
Therefore, I suggest that hon. Members from the official Opposition
need to debate the matter within their own party, and not in this
Committee.
Mr.
Grieve: Will the Minister give
way?
Northern Ireland, which has its
own equality framework, made its regulations under a separate
order-making power. The regulations came into force on 1 January, and
motions to annul them were roundly defeated in a Delegated Legislation
Committee and in the other place.
Mr.
Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
I shall not. I am taking seriously the
Chair’s request to make some progress so that hon. Members will
have an opportunity to
speak.
Mr.
Burrowes:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean.
Further to your advice about the moving of the motion and its timing, I
seek to move a dilatory
motion.
The
Chairman:
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. A Member,
who must be a member of the
Committee—
Mr.
Bone:
My hon. Friend is a member of the
Committee.
The
Chairman:
I have not finished. An hon. Member can move a
dilatory motion only when speaking to the main
motion.
Meg
Munn:
The regulations broadly follow the approach set out
in the Northern Ireland
regulations—
Mr.
Redwood:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
I shall not. The regulations follow that approach,
allowing for some differences in line with the different legal and
social contexts
—[Interruption.] I understood that hon.
Members wanted to debate this issue. If I am not even permitted to get
through a few paragraphs of notes in order to set out the issues, I
fail to see how we can have a proper debate.
Our
consultation on these issues has been extensive; almost 3,000 responses
to the formal public consultation exercise were
received—[Interruption.] I am finding it difficult to
understand hon. Members’ concerns, given that many hon. Members
appear to be talking and not listening.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): Will
the Minister give way?
The Government recognised the
potential for rights to clash in this area, and we have taken
additional time to consider the strong and sincere opinions held on all
sides of this complex issue.
Mr.
Cash:
Will the Minister give way on that
point?
Mr.
Howarth:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean. You
have made it perfectly clear that we must proceed to discuss this
matter. If there is to be any genuine debate on this issue, this is the
only forum in which it can take place. If the Minister is not going to
give way, no debate will take place and there will simply be a
monologue from the Minister. That would be an
outrage.
The
Chairman:
It is a matter for the Minister to decide
whether or not she gives way.
Meg
Munn:
This is extraordinary, is it not, Mrs.
Dean? I am trying to set out the Government position, but before I have
even done so, hon. Members are seeking to
intervene
—[Interruption.]
Meg
Munn:
I shall happily take interventions when I have had
an opportunity to set out at least some of the proposals and the
reasons for them. I think that hon. Members will find that I am
reasonable, although I do not find their current behaviour
reasonable.
Mr.
Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): It is the
Government who are being unreasonable.
Meg
Munn:
I shall commence my paragraph again, so that we can
have some continuity and people can understand what I was
saying.
Our
consultation on these issues has been extensive, with almost 3,000
responses to the formal public consultation exercise received. The
Government recognised the potential for rights to clash in this area
and we have taken additional time to consider the different strong and
sincere opinions on this complex issue. These proposals have been
subject to extensive scrutiny, both as part of the consultation process
and within Parliament. Included in that is the recent Westminster Hall
debate on the future of the voluntary adoption agency sector. The
Government have taken serious account of all
views.
Mr.
Grieve:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
Will the hon. Gentleman please allow me to make a
little more progress?
The case for
new protections on grounds of sexual orientation was made during the
passage of the Equality Act 2006, and the process by which the
regulations would be brought into force was agreed. As a result of the
strong response to the consultation, we postponed the introduction of
the regulations, but committed to bringing them into force this April,
alongside similar provisions on grounds of religion or
belief.
The
sensitivity of the issues raised by this legislation and the need to
weigh up all of the arguments made in response to the
Government’s consultation carefully meant that 7 March was the
earliest possible date for the introduction of the regulations. Prompt
consideration of the regulations by both Houses will now provide those
organisations that have expressed concern with greater certainty and
preparation time in advance of the regulations coming into
force.
As I have said,
the regulations follow broadly the same approach as the Northern
Ireland regulations, which came into force on 1 January. Therefore, the
content of these regulations will be well known to hon. Members. There
are some differences, and I will come to
those.
Mr.
Jenkin:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
I wish to make slightly more progress and then I
shall happily give way.
The
regulations broadly follow that similar approach, and motions to annul
them were soundly defeated in both Houses. The Joint Committee on Human
Rights has endorsed the approach set out in the Great Britain
regulations and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has given
the regulations the all-clear.
The Government have an
excellent record in legislating to improve the rights of lesbian, gay
and bisexual people while respecting people from all faiths and those
of none. Since 1997 the Government have equalised the age of consent,
repealed section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, enabled same-sex
couples to apply to adopt jointly, prohibited sexual-orientation
discrimination in the workplace and introduced the Civil Partnership
Act 2004. In parallel, we have brought forward new laws tackling
religious hatred and
employment discrimination on grounds of religion or
belief. Later this year we will provide protection from discrimination
on grounds of gender reassignment when we implement the EU gender
directive on goods and
services.
The
consultation has provided evidence of the need to extend protection
beyond the workplace. Lesbians, gay men and bisexual people continue to
face prejudice and discrimination when seeking to access goods,
facilities and services, including basic protection that the rest of us
take for granted. It is beyond belief that same-sex couples can still
be asked to leave a restaurant for holding hands, that some schools
continue to turn a blind eye to homophobic bullying or that young
homeless people can be asked to leave sheltered accommodation on
revealing that they are gay or
lesbian.
Mr.
Leigh:
We all agree with the Minister that
discrimination is wrong, but would she accept the statement of
Archbishop Vincent Nichols? He said
that
“those who are
elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors.
They have no mandate or competence to be
so.”
Everybody
is opposed to discrimination, but surely everybody is also opposed to
the state imposing its own moral code on a religious organisation.
Nobody is forced to go to a Catholic adoption agency. Therefore, what
is the current nature of negotiations with the Catholic Church? I hope
that there is there some compromise that the Minister can offer to the
dedicated people who run those agencies, dealing with the most
difficult cases, so that they can carry on their work and yet remain
true to their deepest religious
beliefs?
Meg
Munn:
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall deal
with Catholic adoption agencies
later.
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Will the Minister
give
way?
Mr.
Pelling:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
If hon. Gentlemen bear with me, I will make a little
more progress, because I will be covering the issues that they probably
seek to
raise.
Mr.
Jenkin:
Will the Minister give way? There are some points
that I wish to address
now.
Meg
Munn:
I shall give way
then.
Mr.
Jenkin:
The Minister mentioned that the Government were
anxious to deal with the matter “promptly”—I think
she used that word, or the phrase “prompt deliberation”.
Does she not understand that the Government urging of “prompt
deliberation” means not giving proper deliberation, nor allowing
Parliament to have proper deliberation? Why did the Government publish
the amended regulations only on Friday, bringing the issue forward with
such untimely speed? That is causing a great deal of offence and not
raising the reputation of the House as a body that gives proper
consideration, in a proper manner, to controversial pieces of
legislation. Does the Minister think that she has done the House a good
service?
Meg
Munn:
The hon. Gentleman was searching for the words I
used; they were “prompt consideration”. The issues have
been aired over a number of months. The consultation document was sent
out, and there have been many responses. There have been many
opportunities in the House to ask questions, as indeed hon. Members
have done. There have been the Northern Ireland regulations, which, as
I said, these regulations broadly follow—I will be coming to the
differences and the reasons for those shortly—so there are no
surprises. The decision to have the debate in Committee was taken
between all
parties.
Mr.
Grieve:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
Not until I have finished responding to the previous
point. I am asking for a little basic politeness, which is not too much
to
request.
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. I am sorry to raise this, not least because I
respect the Minister’s wish to explain the situation, but she
has shown a disinclination to give way to the shadow Attorney-General.
As a non-lawyer, it seems to me that the whole nature of the discussion
is whether or not the Government’s procedure is reasonable.
Would it be reasonable for the Committee to adjourn in order to invite
the Attorney-General to attend and to advise as to whether the
proceedings of the Committee are compliant with the proper
procedures?
The
Chairman:
That is not a matter for
me.
Mr.
Grieve:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean. The
Minister is in danger of forgetting that she has had representations
from the official Opposition that this matter is not suitable to be
dealt with by means of statutory instruments, and that it should be
dealt with instead as primary legislation. We offered to facilitate
that task and to help the Government deal with it in a smooth and
sensible fashion. As she has repeated for the second time that
everybody is happy with the procedure, it has to be placed on the
record that she knows that the reason why we said that the matter had
to be dealt with in primary legislation was that the regulations
contain complex legal issues and create inconsistency and difficulty,
even to those who wish to see an outcome that removes
discrimination.
The
Chairman:
That is not a matter for the Chairman; it is a
matter of
debate.
Meg
Munn:
I repeat that it seems only sensible that if hon.
Members intervene on me, I should have the opportunity to complete my
response to them. I have lost track of what I was saying, so I will
continue my speech. I repeat that these matters have been agreed
between Members on the Front Benches; if Opposition hon. Members do not
like that, they should take it up with those on their Front
Bench.
The
regulations will tackle real, everyday problems. The principle of
legislating in this area was supported by the overwhelming majority of
responses to consultation. There was a divided opinion on how to
safeguard freedom of conscience and expression,
however. We believe that we have reached the right balance, which
follows the approach in Northern Ireland. It has been welcomed by the
Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government respect people’s
right to their core religious beliefs, and maintain that an exemption
for religious or belief organisations is necessary to protect
practices—
[Interruption.]
Angela
Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. We have a big Committee whose members are meant
to be listening. They are meant to be interested in this important
subject, yet they are all talking among themselves. I have never known
a group of Conservative MPs who have been so
rude.
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): You should come to one of our
dinners.
The
Chairman:
That point of order is a matter for the
Chair. I was about to say that hon. Members should listen to what is
being said rather than talk among
themselves.
Meg
Munn:
Thank you, Mrs. Dean. Perhaps I will take
up the hon. Gentleman’s
offer.
Where religious
organisations enter into an agreement to provide social or welfare
services to the wider community on behalf of, and under contract to, a
public authority, the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals to have
equal access to those services must come first. In many respects, the
regulations follow the approach taken in the Northern Ireland
regulations, to ensure consistency throughout the United
Kingdom.
Mr.
Brazier:
The Minister will remember that when we served
together on the long, worthwhile process of the Children and Adoption
Act 2006, at every stage it was not the rights of the parents that were
put first, but the rights of the children. Given that the regulations
will mean that by far the most effective adoption agency in the
country, which takes the most difficult mix of the most damaged
children and still has the lowest failure rate, will have to close
because it cannot operate within conscience within the regulations, do
the regulations really put the children
first?
Meg
Munn:
If hon. Members can contain themselves, I will get
to the issue of adoption and fostering agencies. I know that it is an
interest of both the hon. Gentleman’s and mine. I do not believe
that any adoption agency will have to close unless it wants to continue
to discriminate.
In
many respects, the regulations follow the approach taken in the
Northern Ireland regulations, to ensure consistency throughout the
United
Kingdom.
Mr.
Bone:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
No, I should like to make some progress. In a number
of areas, we have taken a different approach from that in Northern
Ireland to reflect the different equality framework and
policy—
Mr.
Bone:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean. I do not
want the Minister inadvertently to mislead the Committee. The Northern
Ireland regulations, which I know are different, were reported after
they came into practice as being defective in seven areas by the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments. To imply that they had a clean bill
of health would inadvertently mislead.
The
Chairman:
Again, that is a matter for
debate.
Meg
Munn:
Thank you, Mrs. Dean.
We have, however, taken a
different approach in several areas to reflect the different equality
framework and policy considerations in Great Britain, and I shall
briefly explain the differences. First, we have made it clear in the
regulations that a civil partner may bring a discrimination claim on
the grounds of sexual orientation against a provider of goods or
services who denies them access to a benefit or service that was being
offered to a married person in a similar situation. That is in line
with the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
2003.
Mr.
Cash:
As the Minister knows, the Equality Act
2006 is based on the European directive. In the context of human rights
legislation, there is the issue of freedom of conscience on the one
hand and the importance of maintaining family life on the other. On
what basis do the Government take the view that a ruling should be made
through the regulations in favour of anti-discrimination? There is a
clear conflict on this matter in the human rights legislation framework
and the EU directive, so why do the Government take one position as
opposed to another?
Meg
Munn:
If the hon. Gentleman lets me get to the end of my
speech, he will hear my explanation of why we have taken the views that
we have.
On the
National Blood Service, we have provided a targeted exemption to allow
differential treatment only where supported by sound epidemiological
evidence. We have done that on the advice of the Department of
Health.
Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): On the point
about civil partnerships, will the Minister explain the difference from
the Northern Ireland regulations? On blood donation, is it the view of
the Minister and the Department that giving blood is receiving a
service? If it is, and it therefore needs to be covered, why was it not
covered in Northern Ireland? Could people choose to travel to Northern
Ireland to give blood so that they are protected from
discriminatory
questioning?
Meg
Munn:
On civil partnerships, we took the view that the
issue needed clarity. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a significant number
of civil partnerships have been formed since the legislation came into
force just over a year ago. On the National Blood Service, we
introduced the provision on the advice of the Department of Health. I
am not able to answer for the Northern Ireland
regulations.
The
Government take the view that there should be no exemption for
faith-based adoption or adoption
agencies. Specific concerns about the adoption and fostering sector were
addressed by the Prime Minister’s statement of 29 January 2007,
which announced a transition period lasting until the end of 2008 for
such agencies. In the interim, agencies wishing to take advantage of
the transitional arrangement will have to refer gay, lesbian and
bisexual people to agencies that are able to assist. In addition, the
Prime Minister will commission an ongoing independent assessment of the
issues that agencies would need to address in the transition
period.
The Government
have worked to find a pragmatic way to ensure that faith-based adoption
agencies carry on their excellent work, while ensuring that there is no
watering down of the right of same-sex couples to apply to adopt. As
the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) knows, that
point was made many times during the passage of the adoption
legislation. People do not have a right to adopt, only a right to apply
to adopt, and their suitability as prospective adoptive parents is what
the assessment process is about. That approach will help to prevent any
abrupt disruption and give faith-based agencies time to adjust to the
new
regime.
Mr.
Brazier:
The Minister referred to the right to
apply to adopt, but the principal right is surely the child’s,
as she, I and everyone one else on the Committee that considered the
legislation agreed. How can it be in children’s best interests
for organisations and social workers whose ethos is that marriage is
best for the child to be allowed to continue only if they reject that
ethos for
assessment?
Meg
Munn:
The most important thing in placing a child is that
they have suitable parents who are able to provide a loving and
supportive home.
Jeremy
Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
I am answering the question asked by the hon. Member
for Canterbury. The only thing that should be judged in determining
whether a person is a suitable foster parent or adoptive parent is
whether they provide the right circumstances in a home. That is what
the Government require.
Jeremy
Corbyn:
Will the Minister confirm that an agency’s
adopting a discriminatory practice would damage the rights of the child
and would be illegal under legislation on children, which states that
children should be open to the protection of all equalities
legislation?
Meg
Munn:
Adoption is enormously complex. What is most
important is to ensure that we have the widest range and availability
of adoptive parents. Hon. Members should never lose sight of the fact
that there are children seeking adoptive homes who do not have them. It
is discriminatory to say to certain people that, because of a
particular reason, they are not suitable, or that we will not even
consider whether they are suitable. The Government are not happy to
agree to such a situation.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister says that she wants the widest range
of options in relation to providing children with appropriate parents,
but the agencies are critical to that. If the number of agencies is
limited, there will not be the widest possible source of parents to
match to children—particularly damaged and disadvantaged
children. Will not the Minister agree that there is a paradox at the
heart of her position? She wants the voluntary and faith-based sector
to take a role and responsibility in this sphere, but is prepared to
let them do so only if they do precisely what the Government demand,
even if that is contrary to their ethos, way of being and historical
practice.
Meg
Munn:
I cannot see why allowing people to discriminate
would increase the number of adoption agencies. It seems to me that the
less discrimination there is, the more adoptive parents there will
be.
Mr.
Redwood:
Will the Minister give way on that very
point?
Meg
Munn:
I need to make progress so that the Opposition
Front-Bench spokespeople can have their say. Other hon. Members may
well catch your eye then, Mrs.
Dean.
The
regulations follow part 2 of the Equality Act 2006 in not
providing for statutory protection from harassment. The recent
legislative scrutiny report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
noted complexities in providing statutory protection from harassment
outside the workplace. That echoes concerns raised during the passage
of the 2006 Act. In the consultation, we were clear that that
cross-cutting issue should be considered as part of the discrimination
law review, which we intend to publish
shortly.
The
regulations will include a targeted exemption in respect of insurance
that will have the same effect as provisions in the Sex Discrimination
Act 1975 and regulations made under the Disability Discrimination Act
1995. The insurance industry already has a code on those matters.
According to the existing code, insurers should not ask about
someone’s sexual orientation or negative HIV tests to use as a
factor when considering whether to insure them; however, they may ask
about lifestyles or behaviour, regardless of sexual orientation, that
might put an individual at greater risk. The targeted exemption will
support that evidence-based approach while ensuring that prejudice
against gay people will not be a reason for charging someone
extortionate premiums for their mortgage
insurance.
Our
intention is that the exemption will not apply beyond the end of 2008.
We will work with the insurance industry and others to ensure that, if
any exemption is required beyond 2008, it reflects a genuine need in
the industry and is in line with industry best practice. We will
legislate
accordingly.
Angela
Eagle:
I know that my hon. Friend has just set some of it
out, but I want to ask about the thinking behind the exemption. Some
exemptions are gender-based—actuarial evidence demonstrates that
women live longer, so there are slightly different calculations where
insurance is concerned—but there is no actuarial evidence that
gay men do not live as long as straight
men, for example. The issue is lifestyle choices, which can be made by
heterosexuals or gay and lesbian people. Will the Minister explain a
bit more about why she thought the exemption appropriate? I accept that
it is
time-limited.
Meg
Munn:
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The
subject formed part of the discussions that arose from the
consultation. The Government have listened to people’s views.
She is absolutely right to say that this is a lifestyle issue. We
thought it appropriate to include the exemption because of the
discussions. However, as she rightly pointed out—I want to
reiterate this because it is important—we intend the exemption
not to apply beyond the end of
2008.
Mr.
Redwood:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
I need to make progress. The regulations apply to
the delivery of education and are intended to reinforce the existing
statutory framework for schools. The Government are clear that all
education establishments will be treated equally under the regulations
to provide all children with the opportunity to learn in a safe
environment that is free from discrimination. The regulations will not
require changes in the current curriculum, nor will they force schools
to change how they deliver an education to their
pupils.
Mr.
Cash:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean.
The Minister referred to the legal position. I want to come back to my
point in the earlier point of order. In the context of the European
directive, which is the basis of the order, how can the regulations
create a legal position up to 31 December but an illegal position for
the rest of the time?
The
Chairman:
That is not a point of order for the
Chair.
Meg
Munn:
Let me clarify. The order has nothing to do
with any European directive. The power is in the Equality Act 2006; the
human rights balance has been looked at by the Joint Committee on Human
Rights, which has endorsed our approach.
The regulations will not
require changes in the current curriculum or force schools to change
how they deliver an education to their pupils, provided that they
follow the current statutory and non-statutory
guidelines.
Mr.
Howarth:
Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Munn:
No. The regulations will ensure that no
school or educational establishment will be able to discriminate on the
grounds of sexual orientation when selecting pupils for admission,
providing access to benefits or facilities, or when deciding whether to
exclude a pupil. For example, a school can no longer prevent a student
from becoming head girl on the grounds of her sexual orientation, nor
will a teacher be allowed to single out a child for ridicule or
criticism because they have same-sex parents.
The regulations represent an
historic step forward towards dignity, respect and fairness for all. I
am confident that they strike the right balance between freedom of
expression and the right to live free from discrimination. They will
provide protection on a par with that provided for other grounds and
help tackle the ongoing discrimination still faced by lesbian, gay and
bisexual people in their everyday lives. I beg to move the
order.
9.37
am
Mrs.
Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I ask you,
Mrs. Dean, to forgive my rather inelegant stance. I have a
broken leg, which makes it difficult for me to stand up and sit down
quickly. However, it does not make it difficult for me to think and
reason
quickly.
The
Chairman:
Do you wish to remain
seated?
Mrs.
Laing:
No, thank you, Mrs. Dean. I can
stand up as long as I do not have to jump up and down like a jack in
the box.
Like other
hon. Members, I am pleased at last to have an opportunity to debate
this important and sensitive issue. The number of people in the
Committee Room this morning shows the extent to which these important
regulations are a matter of public interest. They deal with a sensitive
issue and it is disappointing that the short time available for debate
is being further eroded by the argument over procedure which, if the
Government had proceeded in a different way, would not have been
necessary. Such important legislation should have been allocated enough
time and enough notice should have been given to allow proper debate. I
will not raise any further matters with you, Mrs. Dean,
because you have had to deal with a lot of procedural matters this
morning, which have eaten into the time of the debate. That is
unfortunate because this is an important debate and we ought to get on
with the meat of
it.
Mr.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Is it correct that
Her Majesty’s official Opposition were content to have the
regulations dealt with in a Standing Committee rather than on the Floor
of the House? That was certainly the implication of the
Minister’s comment.
Mrs.
Laing:
I will come to that. It is technically
correct that all parties have agreed that this is the only procedure
that is possible, given how the Government introduced this part of the
legislation in the first place. If hon. Members have not followed the
history of the Equality Act 2006, they may not realise that the section
on sexual orientation was added in Committee stage in the House of
Lords.
Mr.
Cash:
It was on Third
Reading.
Mrs.
Laing:
It was added during the passage of the Bill in the
House of Lords by means of an amendment, which the Government accepted.
That part of the Act is therefore rather out of step with the rest of
the Act. That is why some of the anomalies have
arisen.
Angela
Eagle:
Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
In a moment, I will. That is why there could
be a clash between one part of the Act and another. I do not consider
it to be a fatal clash that causes or should cause the Act or a part of
it to fall, but the problem would not have occurred had the Government
planned the legislation properly and in
advance.
John
Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
I will first give way to the hon. Member for
Wallasey.
Angela
Eagle:
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she be
given permission to stay standing when hon. Members intervene,
Mrs. Dean? It is generous of her to allow interventions and
she should not suffer physical pain as a
result.
The hon. Lady
has talked about how the relevant part of the Equality Act developed
and expressed doubt about it, which I can understand. However, will she
confirm my impression that she actually welcomes the development and
sees it as a civilising and good
thing?
The
Chairman:
I am happy for the hon. Lady to remain standing
if someone
intervenes.
Mrs.
Laing:
Thank you, Mrs. Dean. It is good to be
treated with such chivalry this
morning.
I confirm to
the hon. Lady that, yes, I do welcome the development. When the
amendments that were made in the other place came to the House of
Commons, we were happy to accept them. I had always thought that if the
Government were bringing under one umbrella—the new Commission
for Equality and Human Rights—five so-called strands of
inequality discrimination that ought to be put right, there should be a
sixth, namely, sexual orientation. It is absolutely correct that that
should be
done.
John
Bercow:
Pursuant to the intervention made by my hon.
Friend the Member for Christchurch and the reply given my hon. Friend
the Member for Epping Forest, may I take the opportunity to clarify the
procedural position as I understand it because it might elucidate
further
discussion?
The
Minister for Women and Equality said to me approximately a fortnight
ago that the Government were minded to put the matter into a statutory
instrument Committee, but that, if a request came through the usual
channels for it to be debated on the Floor of the House, the Government
would be receptive to such a request. I notified my right hon. Friend
the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of that and asked
whether she would like to make such a request but, after reflection,
she said that the official Opposition would make no such request.
Although a debate on the Floor of the House is preferable, I must
exonerate the Government of some of the malpractice that is being
alleged. It is simply not factually true in terms of the
record.
Mrs.
Laing:
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the
situation. It is not for me to speak for my right hon. Friend the
Member for Maidenhead, but I am sure that whatever she said and did was
absolutely correct.
I
have said on many occasions that we ought to have a wider debate on the
regulations. I shall not address specific procedure this morning,
Mrs. Dean. You have ruled that it has been properly dealt
with and I do not want to take up any more of the Committee’s
time on it because there are matters of substance to be
debated.
The
Minister will confirm that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23
October last year asking her to publish the regulations in draft or at
least to publish the Government’s response to the consultation
in plenty of time so that an informed debate could take place. However,
the Government allowed only one week to elapse between the publication
of their response and the regulations and the proceedings of the
Committee today. However, a bundle of 34 regulations is not much for
anyone to read in a week, so we should proceed with the
argument.
Mr.
Grieve:
I had the pleasure of serving with my hon. Friend
in Committee on the Equality Bill and looking at the other clauses. It
does not matter whether the matter is taken on the Floor of the House
or in Committee. The problem with the procedure is that it is a
completely unsuitable method of considering such a number of complex
clauses of detailed legislation. One look at the regulations is enough
to identify areas of inherent conflict with other parts of the main
legislation which we have been put on the statute book. The problem is
that the House is making a mockery of itself by proceeding in this
fashion. Those, including myself, who wish to see sensible provisions
that protect people from discrimination on the ground of sexual
orientation do not see how we are going to arrive at a sensible
outcome. Instead, we will actually promote a great deal of litigation
and money for lawyers. Although that might be thought to be to my
personal advantage, it is not something that I would wish on anyone.
The procedure is a nonsense—it is not suitable to deal with this
matter by way of statutory instrument. We have written to the
Government to explain that in moderate and sensible
terms.
Mrs.
Laing:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We spent many
hours in good-tempered and well measured debate about other parts of
the Equality Bill, now the Equality Act, and the legislation is better
for it. That is the purpose of the House of Commons and the House of
Lords. Parliament’s purpose is to hold the Government to account
and to amend and improve legislation. It is most unfortunate that,
today, we are unable to amend the regulations or to discuss proposed
amendments in detail, as we did in Committee in relation to other parts
of the Act.
It is
unfortunate that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
considered the regulations yesterday afternoon and that this Committee
was only appointed at 5 pm yesterday. I was going to say that it is a
tribute to Whips Offices of all parties that anyone was here at 5
minutes to 9 this morning. However, I am pleased to note that the Whips
Offices do not control what happens in Parliament. We have a great deal
of free speech, totally unconnected with anything that any Whip will
have asked anyone to do in Parliament today.
Mr.
Cash:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that section 81 of the
Act was introduced at the very last minute on Third Reading in the
House of Lords and that there was no Division on that section in the
House of Commons? Would she also be kind enough to tell me why, if that
is her view, there should be a tipping point in favour of sex
discrimination questions as compared to those on freedom of conscience
and freedom of
religion?
Mrs.
Laing:
On my hon. Friend’s first point, I am
grateful to him for clarifying that. He is absolutely correct. His
second point is a matter for my substantive argument on which I am just
about to embark. Before I do so, I will give way one more
time.
Dr.
Harris:
I want to support the point made by the hon.
Member for Beaconsfield. During the passage of the Equality Bill, I
pointed out—as, I believe, did the hon. Gentleman—that it
was unsatisfactory that these regulations were not amendable primary
legislation, so that such debates could take place, that that would
cause problems for the Government in seeking to explain their position
clearly, and that those of us who support these regulations are in a
difficult position in having to support section 81, while at the same
time registering our protest that these provisions were passed through
statutory instrument.
Finally, my hon. Friend the
Member for Solihull and I signed the early-day motion calling for these
regulations to be taken on the Floor of the House. Although we support
them, we believe that they should be widely debated, so that all
Members who have strong views—in all parties and across all
parties—can express them and show their constituents that they
have done so. Debating the regulations by way of statutory instrument
in a Committee such as this, even one as well attended as this, fails
to give Members that opportunity. I deeply regret
that.
Mrs.
Laing:
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Like him,
I want this legislation to succeed and to work. However, it would have
commanded far more respect from its opponents had they had a better
opportunity to put their arguments. It is always far better to win a
case in open and honest argument than to be made to be quiet because of
a procedural matter and the overuse of government
power.
Chris
Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I, too, signed the early-day
motion that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to,
because I would have preferred to have a full debate on the Floor of
the House after which, most importantly, everyone would have been able
to vote according to their conscience. However, the hon. Lady is
completely misleading herself—and, for that matter, the
Committee—if she really believes that all the Members who have
come to debate this statutory instrument, and who have never gathered
to discuss any other statutory instrument in the morning, would
suddenly have changed their views and had enormous respect for the
legislation—
Chris
Bryant:
Inadvertently misleading the Committee,
Mrs. Dean. The hon. Lady is inadvertently misleading the
Committee by suggesting that those Members would suddenly have changed
their views if the debate had been on the Floor of the House. She knows
that that is not
true.
Mrs.
Laing:
It is not possible, Mrs. Dean, for me to
mislead the House or the Committee, inadvertently or not, as to the
minds of my hon. Friends, as I have no idea what is in their minds. I
take no responsibility whatever for their
content.
Mr.
Redwood:
Many of us want to ban discrimination, but we do
not want to ban the freedoms of conscience and choice at the same time.
The majority of clothes shops in this country discriminate against me,
as a man, because they sell clothes only for women. I see nothing wrong
with that, because, fortunately, there are other shops that sell
clothes only for men—[
Hon. Members:
“Come out, John, and be honest about this.”] We should
not say to all women’s clothes shops that they have to sell
clothes that are suitable for normal
men.
Chris
Bryant:
Ah, normal. You would not stand a
chance.
Mr.
Redwood:
We are banning something that is a necessary
choice for people of a certain faith. I am not a Catholic, but I am
quite happy for there to be Catholic
agencies.
Mrs.
Laing:
I take my right hon. Friend’s point but I am
not sure that it is correct, because it is possible for a man to be a
customer in a ladies clothes shop. There is nothing wrong with a man
buying clothes for a lady. They usually get it wrong and the clothes
have to be taken back and changed for something else, but, technically,
there is nothing wrong with that.
Mr.
Duncan Smith:
I shall not follow up the sedentary comments
that were aimed at my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham; some
closets must remain firmly shut. However, I do want to follow up the
rather specious point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda about people
not changing their opinions.
It is
possible to agree with large sections of proposed legislation while
being concerned about other sections. Many of us have been contacted by
constituents who are concerned about Catholic adoption agencies and
about the impact that the measures will have on education. We want to
make those points in a debate and to tease those matters out. We want
to be able to tell our constituents, “We tried to get this
changed,” or, “We got it changed,” or, “The
Government listened and modified it.” The debate should be about
modifying legislation and making it good, rather than just railroading
it through because it was conceived by the Government—who, by
the way, are not always right, whether they are Conservative or Labour.
We should have that opportunity. That is what is wrong. Will the
Minister please take those sentiments back to her Front-Bench
colleagues? Some of us are particularly unhappy about the position that
Government Front Benchers have taken on this
matter.
Mrs.
Laing:
My right hon. Friend of course makes a
valid and important point. I have taken on board what he said, and I am
sure that others will also have done
so.
Mr.
Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): Will my hon.
Friend acknowledge that although we might be angry—I spoke on
Second Reading and said that the measures are entirely unsuited to
regulations and should be in a Bill—if we were to hold the
debate downstairs in the Chamber we would no more be able to change the
regulations than we can in
Committee?
Chris
Bryant:
So why are you trying to oppose
them?
Mr.
Swayne:
I am making a point sympathetic to the hon.
Gentleman. The reality is that had we held this debate on the Floor of
the House, the same Members would have been present. We would have had
no longer than we have in the Committee and we would no more have been
able to change the regulations than we can
now.
Mrs.
Laing:
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I want to
move on, but the real point of substance is the one that was made by my
hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I during the passage of the
Equality Bill. We said time and again that legislation as important as
this should go through the usual three stages of consideration in the
House. That has not happened. It has now been said that there is a
problem, and we all recognise it. I hope that the defective way in
which the legislation has been brought forward will not mean that it
does not work well when it comes into
force.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Perhaps the
hon. Lady is going to proceed in the direction that I hope she will. We
have just about got the message that the Opposition are not happy with
the procedure, but they have an opportunity to explain their attitudes
towards the principles of the statutory instrument. Is the basic
position of the Opposition that they agree in principle with everything
in it, apart from the issue of faith-based adoption
agencies?
Mrs.
Laing:
It is not quite as simple as that. If the hon.
Gentleman will allow me, I shall continue with what I wish to
say.
One
of my concerns about the timing of the Committee and the fact that it
was appointed only last night is that we all know that there are strong
feelings on the matter. Many interest groups and organisations would
have wished to make representations to members of the Committee in
advance of the debate. That was rather difficult, as we did not know
who would be on the Committee until last night. I consider myself a
fundamental upholder of democracy, and it is important that not only
Members of the House but the people whom we represent throughout the
whole country, on all sides of every argument, should be given the
opportunity to put their arguments to us and therefore to Parliament
and the
legislature.
Mr.
Boswell:
It is already clear from the clock that it will
be impossible for me, albeit empanelled as a member of the Committee,
to make a speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of us who have
supported
equality legislation through thick and thin—I was once memorably
described as a “relentless inclusionist”, and I support
the thrust of the regulations and, in a sense, I am in favour of
them—are faced with the impossible situation of being deeply
worried about the procedure and worried that legal issues may be
involved? In any case, I am unhappy with the way in which the whole
thing is being handled from the point of view of those of my hon.
Friends who take a different view on the substance of this issue. The
only way in which I can register dissent is by voting against the
motion on regulations that, in a sense, I wish to proceed
with.
Mrs.
Laing:
I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point. He
is one of the most reasonable Members of the House and, indeed, a
relentless inclusionist. It is unfortunate that because of the way in
which we are having to deal with the regulations, he is prevented from
registering his true opinions and
concerns.
I wish to
proceed, because I want other members of the Committee to have an
opportunity to speak as well as to intervene. Given that the Lords
amendment that we have mentioned was tabled 16 months ago, it is
unfortunate that we saw these regulations only last week. It is
particularly unfortunate for the people whom we represent, including
the many interest groups who have brought their views and concerns to
our notice, that Members have not had a better opportunity to consider
the legislation.
Mr.
Binley:
Will my hon. Friend give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
I am sorry, I cannot give way, but perhaps my hon.
Friend will have a chance to speak later.
Mr.
Binley:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean, I
object to being told by another member of the Committee that other
members of it cannot take part in the debate. That is the very essence
of the complaint being made today.
The Chairman: That is
not the case.
Mrs.
Laing:
I certainly think that my hon. Friend should take
part. However, I am conscious that it is now 10 o’clock and we
have only 25 minutes of debate left.
We support the principle of
equality and we support the Equality Act
2006.
Mrs.
Laing:
The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised. I have
said that many times, as the Minister knows. It follows from that that
we believe that discrimination on any grounds should be prohibited. We
in the Conservative party truly believe in the freedom of the
individual and in freedom of conscience. We are addressing matters of
individual belief and of conscience, so although I support the
introduction of the regulations and, if a Division is called, I shall
vote for them, I do not require my hon.
Friends to do likewise. I shall, of course, encourage them to vote with
me, but I respect their honestly held points of view and they are free
to vote as they wish. That is the very essence of the matter; we are
discussing tolerance in our society. I would argue that the mark of a
civilised society—and, indeed, of a respected religion—is
that it tolerates those whom it does not like as well as those whom it
likes.
Ironically, it
would have been in the Government’s interests to publish the
regulations sooner because, as a consequence of their failure to allow
proper debate, there have been many months of ill-informed debate in
the media about what the regulations contain, what they mean and what
their consequences will be. In fact, once one has the opportunity to
read them properly and to analyse them, one finds that they are pretty
reasonable. It is a classic case of fear of the unknown, and it is
unfortunate that so much of this morning’s debate has been taken
up with that fear.
Now that we know what is in the
regulations, it is not difficult to support them. However, because
there has been so much misinformation, I must ask the Minister to help
with a few more points in addition to those that she has already
clarified. For example, surely there is no intention—nor should
it be a consequence of the regulations—that a minister of
religion should be required to perform a civil partnership ceremony.
[Interruption.] To save time, the Minister indicates that the
answer is no, of course that will not be required. Likewise, surely
there is no intention, and nor should it be a consequence of the
regulations, that a school teacher should be required to give his or
her pupils books about homosexuality.
Meg
Munn:
indicated assent.
Mrs.
Laing:
Again, the Minister has indicated that the answer
is that there is no such intention. I simply want to illustrate the
fact that there has been much misinformation. Let us get that out of
the way and talk about what the regulations actually mean.
There are many intricate points
that I should like to discuss, but in order to allow others to make
proper speeches rather than interventions, I shall not take up much
more of the Committee’s time. The Minister has already confirmed
that matters relating to insurance will be time-limited. Will she now
confirm by what means that time limit will be enforced, and how we can
monitor it? Likewise, there is enormous concern about the position of
adoption agencies, particularly Catholic adoption agencies, which do
such excellent and important
work.
Mr.
Leigh:
Will my hon. Friend give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
I cannot give way again to my hon. Friend. People
might be misled into thinking that these regulations are about
adoption. They are not. The position of Catholic adoption agencies is a
very small element of the debate, and I want to concentrate on the
other 99 per cent. of what the regulations will mean to people
throughout the United Kingdom.
There is
great concern about adoption agencies. I want the transition period,
which the Government have introduced by means of the regulations, and
the duty to
refer, to work. Will the Minister undertake to
report to the House on how the exemption and the duty to refer are
working, so that adoption agencies can continue their good work, but
there is no
discrimination?
As
to the essence of the balance we are discussing, I have been approached
by many groups who are concerned about this measure and every one has a
valid point; but it has made me think about how we can balance the
honest right of someone who holds a particular religious viewpoint with
those of other groups in society. How will we achieve peace and harmony
in our society if we do not say to people, “Live and let live,
and respect those who are different from you”?
I have thought about my own
brand of Christianity. It is a simple, Church of Scotland brand based
on what I believe, which is what my grandmother taught me: “You
should do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. It is
a very simple outlook on life and there is no place in it for
discrimination. However, I hope that all sides of the argument will be
heard this
morning.
Mr.
Brazier:
Will my hon. Friend give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
I will give way one more time to my hon.
Friend.
Mr.
Brazier:
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has
been generous in giving way. In the case of adoption, we are talking
about several hundred children who go before voluntary agencies, of
which the most successful is the Catholic Children’s Society.
They are the most disadvantaged children in the country, and many of
them are badly damaged and difficult to place. The people who make the
decisions inevitably have to select various factors that they think
will make people good parents. Are we really saying that it should no
longer be possible for those who believe that marriage between a man
and a woman is a key factor in selecting parents to help these
desperately disadvantaged children?
Mrs.
Laing:
No, I do not believe we are saying that. At this
stage, I do not wish to get into the intricacies of adoption law. It is
the case that a child brought up in a stable marriage situation has
certain advantages in life, but it certainly does not mean that a child
brought up in a household that does not contain two parents who are
married to one another has to be disadvantaged. I feel that very, very
strongly.
Angela
Eagle:
Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
I cannot give way again, because other people must
be allowed to speak. I feel very strongly about that point and so do
many, many of my hon. Friends. Marriage is perhaps the best way, but it
does not mean that there are not other ways of bringing up a child that
are equally valid and give a child an equally good start in life. That
is the point of this proposal; it is about balance, not about extremes.
It is not about taking an entrenched point of view; it is about
recognising that in our society today people live in all sorts of
different ways. Instead of trying to discriminate against people who
are different from us, we should be embracing everyone in our society
and living peacefully together.
Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): Will my hon. Friend
give
way?
Mrs.
Laing:
No, I cannot give way again. I recognise that there
is potentially a clash of opinion between one group of people and
another, each of whom argues that the law should protect them and allow
them freely to practise on one hand their sexual orientation, and on
the other hand their religious belief. It is for Parliament to balance
the rights and responsibilities of one group of people with those of
another, and that is the difficult task before us. The legislation is
not perfect. It could have been better, but on balance I shall choose
the lesser of two evils and support it.
In an article from 24 January
about such issues, the Archbishop of Canterbury
said:
“The
rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however
well
meaning.”
He
is of course absolutely right. However, the legislation—now that
we know what is in it—does not do what the archbishop feared
that it might do. That is the important point that we must reflect on
when considering whether to pass the regulations. No one will be
required to change or relinquish their conscience or beliefs as a
result of the regulations; but each of us will be required to moderate
our actions and behaviour in order to accommodate those who are
different from ourselves. That is a good principle on which to make
legislation and I hope that most hon. Members will support the
regulations.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chairman:
Order. We have less than 15 minutes for the rest
of the debate, so I urge hon. Members to be brief. I shall call the
Liberal Front-Bench spokesman in a moment. I hope that other hon.
Members whom I call will try to limit themselves to a couple of
minutes. I want to call all shades of opinions, so please be helpful to
each
other.
10.11
am
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): I will try my absolute best to be as
brief as possible and to confine my remarks to the substance of the
issue, not the process. It would be helpful if any hon. Members who
wish to intervene on me could also confine themselves to that, too.
Having said that, I have great sympathy for the Conservative Members
who are trying to get into this debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member
for Oxford, West and Abingdon, I signed the early-day motion requesting
that the regulations be debated on the Floor of the House.
We have actually had this
debate before, when the Northern Ireland regulations came forward. What
we are discussing this morning is substantially the same as those
regulations. However, I do not recall seeing so many hon. Members
coming along to discuss them. Although the regulations that we are
debating are substantially the same, I should like to discuss two
additions that have been made. Although the Minister alluded to them, I
should be grateful for some further comment.
One addition
concerns the collection of blood by the National Blood Service, where
that is supported by
epidemiological evidence. The Minister said that it had been recommended
that the relevant provisions should be included, but the National Blood
Service is hardly a commercial service, except in so far as it falls
within the internal market that is being created for the NHS, where
blood that is donated for free is sold to the different trusts. Are the
Government seeking to pave the way for a different approach to blood
collection, given that heterosexuals with HIV outnumber homosexuals
with HIV? The epidemiology of HIV is changing. I wonder whether the
Government are contemplating the selection of suitable blood donors
based on individual behaviour rather than broad assumptions relating to
specific groups.
The
second new element relates to the insurance industry. I suspect that
there have been discussions behind the scenes, because the insurance
industry has profited from charging higher life insurance premiums for
gay men, while not reducing premiums for lesbian women. However, there
has been no consultation on that subject. The Government appear to be
using the regulations as an instrument to require the insurance
industry to get its act together by 2008.
It is
important that we address the concerns of some Christians—and
presumably people of other religions, too, although I have received no
submissions from other religions. The majority of Christians accept the
need for the regulations. However, from correspondence that I have
received and discussions that I have had, it is fair to say that some
wings of the Christian Church feel under threat. It appears that
teachings about the supremacy of a family consisting of a father,
mother and children are being challenged. The right to promulgate the
view that homosexuality is sinful or wrong is seen to be threatened. I
understand
that.
Jeremy
Wright:
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems
with such legislation is not that the rights that they express are
wrong, but that they might come into conflict with other rights? For
example, the assumption that orientation regulations are purely
concerned with orientation is not borne out by the Government’s
examples. In a legal context, problems might arise because the
regulations are not just about orientation but about the practice and
expression of a person’s sexuality, which could create a
conflict. A person may be permitted to express their religious beliefs,
but not to act on them. That is where the legal conflict might
arise.
Lorely
Burt:
I apologise for being insufficiently adept in legal
affairs to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Perhaps the Minister can do better than
me.
With only 4 per
cent. of British people regularly attending church, the Church is
entitled to feel under
threat.
Angela
Eagle:
Public money is involved. We are talking about a
framework of rights that allow equal access to goods and services. We
are talking not about freedom of conscience or expression but about
fair access to goods and services for British citizens—plain and
simple. Why should an individual with a certain
belief be able to use public money to give a service and then to
discriminate against a group of people simply because of their
orientation? Surely, that is what this is
about.
Lorely
Burt:
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her
intervention, which I understood a lot better than that from the hon.
Member for Rugby and
Kenilworth.
Dr.
Harris:
I may be able to help the hon. Member for Rugby
and Kenilworth and my hon. Friend. In its report, the Joint Committee
on Human Rights stated clearly:
“Nobody is required by
the
Regulations”—
these
are the Northern Ireland regulations, but the analogy
applies—
“not to
have beliefs about the morality of different sexual
orientations... In our view, the prohibitions on discrimination in
the Regulations limit the manifestation of those religious beliefs and
that limitation is justifiable in a democratic society for the
protection of the right of gay people not to be discriminated against
in the provision of goods, facilities and
services.”
However, when
gay people sleep with each other—I think that that is what the
hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was referring to—they are
not interfering with the right of the hon. Gentleman to do whatever he
likes in his bedroom with
whomever.
Lorely
Burt:
I am extremely grateful to my hon.
Friend.
John
Bercow:
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe very
reasonably challenged Conservative Members to say where they stood on
this matter. If there is any doubt, I would like to take the
opportunity. I put it to the hon. Member for Solihull that as a result
of widespread discrimination, too many gay, lesbian and bisexual people
in this country have suffered too much for too long and with too little
done about it. I put it to her that in human terms—that is the
most important point in this debate—the regulations will be
welcomed by millions of gay, lesbian and bisexual people as a force for
liberation and a recognition that in a modern civilised society they
should enjoy equality before the
law.
Lorely
Burt:
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I
could not have put it better myself. I agree
totally.
On the point
about free speech, I support entirely the right of any Church to
espouse its beliefs. The Liberal Democrats lobbied the Government to
remove the harassment clauses from the Northern Ireland regulations. I
am not sure how effective that was, but I am delighted to see that they
have now been
removed.
Mr.
Grieve:
The hon. Lady raises an important issue relating
to the question of how far religion or religious belief should
henceforth be carried into the public sphere out of the private sphere.
One of the issues that I would have teased out by tabling an amendment
relates to the following situation. If a website designer who has
Christian principles is asked to design a website promoting gay sexual
relations—about which, I wish to make clear,
there is nothing illegal—and he wishes to say, “Sorry, I
do not want to do that”, the way in which the regulations are
drafted mean that he will be breaking the law. Until this House cottons
on to the extent to which that marks a profound change between
tolerance and enforcing a new form of orthodoxy, we will fail to
grapple properly with the problems that the regulations pose. I can
cite many other examples that cut both
ways.
Lorely
Burt:
Given the example that the hon. Gentleman makes,
that website designer presumably offers a commercial service and if
someone wanted him to design a website promoting heterosexual
relations, because he is offering a public service, he should be
prepared to extend the same service.
I will go on to talk about
schools because I know that many people are concerned about that
issue.
Angela
Eagle:
There are four minutes
left.
Lorely
Burt:
Perhaps I will not talk about schools then other
than to say that the regulations do not cover the actual subjects being
taught in schools or the rights of teachers to express their views on
sexual orientation based on their particular religion, provided that it
is done appropriately, for example, in response to questions in a class
on religious education.
I will forget
about the rest of my speech as it is important that other hon. Members
get an opportunity to speak, except to say that the instrument is very
welcome. It will not end prejudice against non-heterosexuals,
but it will, at least, create fairness in the provision of goods and
services. In 20 years time we will look back and view discrimination
against homosexual men, lesbians and bisexuals in the same way that we
now view discrimination against women and ethnic minorities; as
something that is entirely unacceptable and has no place in a tolerant
and civilised
society.
10.23
am
Mr.
Burrowes:
As we have only seven minutes left, in
accordance with your guidance issued at the beginning of the Committee,
Mrs. Dean, I wish to move a dilatory motion. Considering
that the regulations must be in force by 13 April, there is a suspicion
that timeliness is associated not with getting the regulations on to
the statute book but with the Scottish elections that are just around
the corner. I move the motion and invite hon. Members to divide on
it.
The
Chairman:
I am not prepared to accept that motion. I
remind the hon. Gentleman that we have only until 10.25
am.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I wish to raise the broad principle that if the
Government are protecting individuals in
same-sex relationships from discrimination in the provision of goods and
services, surely the Government should also protect in law those
religious
organisations—
Chris
Bryant:
On a point of order, Mrs. Dean, it
seems extraordinary that we have had a one and a half hour debate and,
although it is not my place to question how you have called people, you
will have called three people from the Opposition and only one from the
Government
side.
The
Chairman:
It is quite normal to call the Front-Bench
spokesmen first, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate is the
first Back-Bench Member whom I have
called.
Mr.
Boswell:
On a further point of order, Mrs.
Dean, I think that the base of the problem is structural. Back Benchers
have had no time to raise issues on behalf of people who may support
the regulations in principle, but have concerns about the details of
their implementation. That is a real worry, and it is terribly
unsatisfactory. I am torn between the substance and the process, and I
must now make a decision on a substantive motion. It is a difficult
situation, and we need to record our
dissatisfaction.
The
Chairman:
I have to put the question now.
It being one and a half
hours after the commencement of the proceedings,
The
Chairman
put the Question necessary to dispose of the
proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(5).
Question
put
accordingly:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes
2.
Division
No.
1
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Equality Act (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations
2007.
Committee
rose at twenty-seven minutes past Ten
o’clock.
