The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Abbott,
Ms Diane
(Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
(Lab)
†
Betts,
Mr. Clive
(Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab)
†
Burt,
Lorely
(Solihull)
(LD)
†
Corbyn,
Jeremy
(Islington, North)
(Lab)
Durkan,
Mark
(Foyle)
(SDLP)
†
Eagle,
Angela
(Wallasey)
(Lab)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
†
Hanson,
Mr. David
(Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office)
†
Harris,
Dr. Evan
(Oxford, West and Abingdon)
(LD)
†
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
†
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
†
McCafferty,
Chris
(Calder Valley)
(Lab)
Mackay,
Mr. Andrew
(Bracknell)
(Con)
†
Mactaggart,
Fiona
(Slough)
(Lab)
Mates,
Mr. Michael
(East Hampshire)
(Con)
†
Norris,
Dan
(Wansdyke)
(Lab)
†
Prentice,
Mr. Gordon
(Pendle)
(Lab)
†
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
Robinson,
Mrs. Iris
(Strangford)
(DUP)
†
Simon,
Mr. Siôn
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
†
Simpson,
David
(Upper Bann)
(DUP)
†
Skinner,
Mr. Dennis
(Bolsover)
(Lab)
†
Snelgrove,
Anne
(South Swindon)
(Lab)
Gordon
Clarke, Jyoti Chandola, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Burrowes,
Mr. David
(Enfield, Southgate)
(Con)
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 17
January
2007
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
2.30
pm
David
Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I beg to move,
That the Committee
has considered the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 2006 (S. R. (N. I.) 2006, No.
439).
Welcome to the
Chair, Mr. Williams. I am sure that we will have an
interesting debate. I watched last Tuesday’s debate on these
regulations in the other House and my noble Friend Lord Morrow made it
clear what we are not saying in opposing them: we are not saying that
homosexual people should be denied all sorts of basic services. If the
regulations were annulled, that would not result in signs outside
hotels and hospitals saying “No Homosexuals”, as some
have claimed. That was not happening last year, before the regulations
came in, and it would not start happening
now.
We are saying
that the regulations are an attack on religious freedom because they
require people to approve of practices that their faith teaches are
morally wrong. If a Christian body, in co-operation with the state,
provides a care home for the elderly, it should not be forced to give a
double room to a couple in a homosexual civil partnership. The
Christian faith teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that sex
outside marriage is wrong. My understanding of the law is that such a
home can continue to refuse double rooms to unmarried heterosexual
couples, but not to civil
partners.
Jeremy
Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Does not the hon.
Gentleman also acknowledge that Christianity teaches tolerance,
understanding, respect for people of different opinions and
co-existence?
David
Simpson:
The hon. Gentleman’s question will be
answered later in my
speech.
Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): The hon.
Gentleman says that people should not be forced to approve of an
activity—for example, by giving a double room in a care home or
hotel to a couple who are not married or are gay—but what is
forcing people to approve of anything? I do not know what he gets up to
in his bedroom. Just because I have no problem with his doing what he
wants, that does not mean that I approve of it. I might not, but it is
none of my business. Why does he think that the regulations will force
people to change their deeply held views on
approval?
David
Simpson:
Again, all being well, those questions will be
answered later in my
speech.
Mr.
Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): Will the
hon. Gentleman give way again on the same
point?
David
Simpson:
Not at this stage. I apologise, but I have only
just turned the first page of my speech, and I hope that as we go along
hon. Members will get a feel of what I am trying to say. I am sure that
others on the other side of the argument will want to speak, too. It
seems that a lot of interventions on a lot of issues will be thrown at
me today.
I would be
grateful if the Minister confirmed my understanding that homes can
continue to refuse double rooms to unmarried heterosexual couples, but
not to civil partners. Of course, the home would want to be
accommodating and may offer single rooms to the people concerned. The
issue is not that someone refuses to have anything to do with
homosexual people, but that they refuse to endorse sin, as the
Christian evangelical faith believes it to be, by providing the means
for
cohabitation.
Mr.
Simon:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
David
Simpson:
I have only just started, so I will not at this
stage, but I will in a few
moments.
Mr.
Simon:
I shall keep
asking.
David
Simpson:
Yes, that is the way to do
it.
Let me illustrate
the distinction in another way. It is one thing to serve a homosexual
person a cup of coffee in a Christian bookshop—it is no problem
at all, and Christians are glad to serve anyone—but quite
another if he can sue someone for harassment because they explain the
Gospel while serving the coffee, because of the environment that they
are
in.
Mr.
Simon:
The hon. Gentleman keeps stating that the Christian
faith teaches, as he said explicitly earlier, that homosexuality is
wrong. Does he accept that there are many very convinced Christians who
do not believe that that is what it teaches and believe that it teaches
that homosexuality is
fine?
David
Simpson:
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Yes,
there are those who profess faith in Jesus Christas Christians
or evangelical Christians who say that homosexual relationships are
right. That is their interpretation, but in my opinion the biblical
view and the theology of scripture teach the
opposite.
I hope that
we can focus on real examples and not on the hysterical claims that we
want to ban homosexuals from coming to church, and so on. I remember
that some comments of that description were made in the debate in the
other House, but it is not the case at all. I would be interested to
know whether Committee members would like Christian bookshops to be
sued in the circumstances that I just
outlined.
The
Government make much play of the religious exemption in regulation 16,
but that regulation failsto cover harassment. It protects
religious groupsin limited circumstances from being sued for
discrimination, but does not prevent their being sued
for harassment. We are talking not about harassment in the criminal law
sense, but about civil harassment in the form that the Government have
adopted, where a person’s perception that someone is offending
them can be enough to found a claim. To some people, simply disagreeing
with their homosexuality will be regarded as
harassment.
Hon.
Members will know that seven denominations are suing the Government
over these regulations. They have been granted a judicial review, which
will take place, I believe, in early March. James Dingemans QC is
advising the denominations and argues that the regulations breach the
Human Rights Act 1998 by elevating one set of rights over another. He
says:
“Regulation
16 of the Regulations (recognised by the Government as vital to
preserve the religious freedoms of religious organisations and to
ensure that a fair balance is struck between article 9, rights of
religious organisations, and article 8, rights of lesbians, gay men and
bisexual people), does not apply to the harassment provisions. For
example if holy sacraments were denied to lesbians, gay men and
bisexual people, and the minister explained in orthodox theological
terms the religious belief which justified this denial, it would be
open for the lesbian, gay man or bisexual person to bring a claim for
harassment complaining that this had the effect of
‘violating...dignity; or creating an intimidating...humiliating
or offensive
environment’.
Regulation
16 says that ‘nothing in these regulations shall make it
unlawful for a minister...to restrict participation in activities
carried on in the performance of his functions’. That exemption
covers the refusal by the minister. It does not cover any subsequent
explanations. It is difficult to resist concluding that this is an
oversight (no doubt part explained by the inadequacy of the
consultation on these provisions
).”
The
Government claim that they intend regulation 16 to protect the ability
of Churches to make decisions over Church membership, communion and
other doctrinal issues, yet they failed to ensure protection from the
harassment laws as well as the discrimination laws. This is a serious
error, and a breach of the promise made to religious groups that their
doctrinal activities would be protected.
Of course, the inclusion of
harassment was one of the great surprises in these regulations. The
goods and services laws on sex discrimination in Northern Ireland
contain no harassment provision, and neither do those on religious or
disability discrimination. Only race laws contain harassment provisions
that apply to goods and services. I am sure that the Minister will
confirm that. So, sexual orientation has been elevated above almost all
other discrimination grounds.
Everybody knows that harassment
law in goods and services is controversial. In employment, it is
different, because that is an environment that people cannot escape
from without resigning, but if they do not like the place where they
get their goods and services they can go somewhere else. That is what
most people do.
In
November 2005, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats united in a vote
in the other place to delete the religious harassment provision from
part 2 of the Equality Bill on goods and services. They did so because
they thought it was a threat to free speech. The Government accepted
that, and the issue of harassment, with all its complexities and
threats to freedom of speech, was referred to the discrimination law
review. The issue is still being considered for Great Britain, but in
Northern Ireland the Secretary of State is forcing through a harassment
law without the benefit of the outcome of that review.
In the
consultation paper on the regulations,there was no formal
question on harassment. In fact, “Getting Equal” sets out
reasons for not including harassment in the regulations. Paragraph 4.15
says that
“on the basis
of the complex arguments put forward we are minded to accept that it is
not appropriate to legislate for harassment within these
regulations.”
In light of
this, many people who oppose a harassment law did not mention it in
their response. Had they known that such a law was seriously being
considered by the Government, they would have
objected.
Mr.
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I have been
listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. Perhaps
he or the Minister will shed light on why Northern Ireland is being
treated as such a special case and why the consultation there was
shorter than the recommended 12 weeks, at only eight weeks and two
days. Between the close of the consultation and the publication of the
draft regulations there was just six weeks, compared with the six
months’ consideration given to comparable submissions for Great
Britain. Why are the regulations being imposed in this way in Northern
Ireland, which obviously has particular sensitivities in these
matters?
David
Simpson:
The hon. Gentleman has really directed that
question to the Minister, but I will come to the consultation, which I
believe was carried out when a lot of people were on holiday. I also
believe that the Secretary of State is forcing this through now because
he knows—the Minister and I spoke briefly about this earlier
when we discussed the setting up of devolution—that if the
Assembly was up and running, it would not approve the regulations. That
is my personal view. The Minister heard the hon. Gentleman’s
question, and perhaps he will respond to it at the very
end.
One of the
fundamental problems with the Government’s approach to this
issue is the insistence on equating homosexuality with race.
Homosexuality is about what people do, about their choices. A person
who is regarded as a homosexual now, may in a few years’ time be
regarded as a heterosexual.
Mr.
Simon:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
David
Simpson:
No, I want to finish this
point.
I could list
examples of famous people who have changed from one to the other, but I
will not. A song was sung some years ago, back in the 1970s. I shall
not name the singer, but I am sure that those who are old enough to
remember back to the 1970s may know of the song, “Glad to be
Gay”. That individual is now happily married, with children,
despite his protests of being still “gayish”. If
homosexuality were fixed and immutable like race, nobody would be able
to change—but they can.
We would be better off if the
law treated homosexuality like religion instead of race. There are some
things—environmental factors—that may predispose a person
to choose one religion or another, but we regard religion as a matter
of choice. It is similar with homosexuality: ultimately it is a choice.
To say otherwise is to deny fundamental human
autonomy.
Angela
Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way
on that
point?
David
Simpson:
No. [
Hon. Members:
“You must give way.”] Okay, I will give
way.
Angela
Eagle:
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is making a point
that is clearly a personal opinion. Ican tell him from my
personal experience that homosexuality—being gay—is a
matter not of choice but of who you
are.
David
Simpson:
Thank you. I apologise for not having given way
earlier, but this is my speech and in it I am giving my personal
opinion. There are bound to be many diverse comments on this subject,
and I am sure that we will hear all the views from both sides soon
after I have
finished.
We would be
better off if the law treated homosexuality like religion instead of
race.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): May I bring
the hon. Gentleman on to the parallel point about sexual orientation
and race? He is clearly arguing that in the provision of goods and
services an individual’s religious beliefs should override the
rights of someone who may be provided with those services. What happens
if there is someone with a genuine religious belief that it is wrong to
have sex between people of different races? If a black person and a
white person wanted to hire a hotel room from that individual, would
the law be right to allow him to
refuse?
David
Simpson:
I have never met anyone of that
view.
Mr.
Betts:
South Africa had a
few.
David
Simpson:
That may be, but I have never met anyone of that
view, so I will not comment on it. I am sure that others will make that
point when their turn comes to
speak.
If sexual
orientation were treated in law more like religion, we would have fewer
problems. The Northern Ireland legislation on religious discrimination
contains much wider exemptions than these regulations and does not
attempt to outlaw harassment in the provision of goods and services,
but I believe that the Government are intent on taking a more extreme
approach, and large numbers of religious people will suffer legal
persecution as a
result.
I feel that I
have a duty to ask the Minister two simple, straightforward questions:
what proofing against section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 were
the regulations subject to; and how satisfied is he, and on what basis,
that they are in line with that
legislation?
On
the matter of religious concerns, I was interested to hear that the
four largest religious denominations in Northern Ireland—the
Presbyterians, the Roman Catholics, the Church of Ireland and the
Methodists—met the Minster just before Christmas and were
unimpressed with his claim that they would be protected by regulation
16. Coming from such moderate denominations, their
statement of 20 December is all the more extraordinary, and it is worth
quoting at length. Commenting on the religious exceptions, they say
that
“these exceptions do
not apply to individual Christians, nor are we convinced that they
cover all circumstances in which the Churches will have to be guided by
their doctrinal
standards”—
Jeremy
Corbyn:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
David
Simpson:
I have nearly finished this point, so I will not
give way again on
it.
—“or
the sincerely held convictions of a significant proportion of their
adherents. We are concerned that the Courts will be involved in
deciding what is acceptable doctrine. This, of course, will not only
apply to those with Christian belief but other faith groups
also.
Also, we were
not adequately assured that our concerns in relation to services
provided by our Churches as part of our Christian witness were fully
met. These include the provision of faith based adoption services, care
of older people, education and marriage
counselling.”
The
statement goes on to
say:
“We note
that within the Westminster parliamentary process there will be some
limited debate and a vote on these regulations in the early New Year.
We call on our politicians to fully engage in this debate in order to
ensure a balance of rights for all, including the protection of freedom
of religion and individual conscience as part of a diverse and plural
society in which everyone may feel an equal member.
We also expressed concern over
the short time given for
consultation”—
a
point made earlier by the hon. Member for Enfield,
Southgate—
“on
proposed legislation in Northern Ireland and that, although similar
legislation in England is being reconsidered, it will be imposed on
Northern Ireland using direct rule powers despite the many objections
of churches and other
groups.”
It is
quite a trick to upset such a wide cross-section of Northern
Ireland’s religious community. One would have hoped that the
Government would take note. These people are not stupid; they are not
being taken in by over-egged interpretation of the new laws but are
looking at them carefully and soberly, presumably taking their own
legal advice and listening carefully to the Minister’s
explanations, and yet they are still worried. It is about time the
Government took them
seriously.
The
Chairman:
I call Maria Eagle—I mean
Angela.
2.53
pm
Angela
Eagle:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Williams, and thank you for correcting your twin error.
It is an understandable mistake, as my sister is a Northern Ireland
Minister, but I would not want people to mistake what I am saying for
ministerial comments, because we have our own esteemed Minister in
attendance who is not my
sister.
I welcome
these regulations as an entirely sensible, moderate, progressive
advance in social policy, giving lesbian, gay and bisexual people in
Northern Ireland the right to have access to and enjoy in a fair and
equal way services, facilities and goods, without suffering
discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation. People in
Northern Ireland have had such
protection in relation to their religious belief
since 1998, and it pains me that many of those who object to this
entirely sensible extension of such protection are the very people who
have benefited from it for all that time. It is time they understood
that it is not a huge threat to them if the sensible protections on the
grounds of sexual orientation are extended to the citizens of Northern
Ireland.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): It is, of course, a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr.
Williams.
Will the
hon. Lady address one point? She will be well aware that the Government
are bending over backwards to ensure that the party that the hon.
Member for Upper Bann represents will sit in a restored Assembly by 26
March. Given that we areonly weeks away from the restoration
of devolved Government in Northern Ireland, surely we should leave the
regulations to that devolved Government, rather than bulldozing them
through the House this
afternoon.
Angela
Eagle:
Far be it from me to comment in detail on the many
interesting differences between the two jurisdictions and the difficult
and painful construction work to create peace in Northern Ireland and
to get the Assembly up and running again, but I understand that if the
Assembly is restored, devolved powers will allow these issues to be
revisited.
These
protections are sensible and do not deserve the hysterical response
that they have received in some quarters with scaremongering and
misrepresentation of their effect. We have all seen the adverts in the
newspapers in this country and Northern Ireland claiming that Bibles
will be banned from hotel rooms and that, although the regulations do
not deal with education, children will be forced to regard the
homosexual lifestyle on an equal basis with the heterosexual lifestyle.
Such scaremongering completely misrepresents the narrow, welcome and
modest advance that the regulations
present.
The hon.
Member for Upper Bann argued for exemptions—some of the
objectors to the regulations also argued for them
vociferously—that would legalise homophobia and bigotry. If we
had exemptions that were wider than the narrow and acceptable doctrinal
exemptions in the regulations, we would be sayingthat it is
acceptable in part of the British Isles in the 21st century to allow
pub, bed-and-breakfast or hotel providers to put up a sign on their
front door saying “No homosexuals”, and that people who
run shops or provide insurance or banking services would be allowed
under the law to discriminate directly against lesbian, gay and
bisexual people in the provision of their services.
I want to suggest gently that
we change the sign from “gay, lesbian and bisexual” to,
for example, “black”, “Catholic” or
“Protestant”, and think about what we are arguing about
when we consider exemptions. The regulations are modest and wholly
reasonable, and I, for one, welcome the fact that the Government are
introducing them
today.
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I am following the
hon. Lady’s very reasonable speech carefully. When she refers to
exemptions, she will be aware that there are some non-religious
exemptions,
such as for smaller guest houses. Does she believethat those
exemptions riddle the regulations with
inconsistencies?
Angela
Eagle:
I, for one, think that the only way of dealing with
these issues is to have the minimum number of exemptions. I think it is
reasonable in the circumstances to have the narrow doctrinal exemption,
but I do not believe that other exemptions are acceptable or desirable.
The fewer exemptions, the better.
I was coming to the end of my
remarks, because I do not want to detain the Committee. The proposals
are entirely reasonable, sensible and moderate, and I, for one, welcome
the fact that the Government have introduced
them.
3
pm
Mr.
Robertson:
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady and,
indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I welcome you, Mr.
Williams to the Committee.
I thank the Minister for the
information that he was able to provide me, and I thank his officials,
too. I have said before that such cross-party co-operation leads to a
better informed debate, and this place should be all about that, rather
than about following narrow party lines. The Conservative party has a
free vote on the issue, although looking to my Back-Bench colleagues I
find that neither of my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli
Pembrokeshire and for Enfield, Southgate will be present for it. If
they were present, it would be afree
vote.
Mr.
Simon:
Government Members, who consider the matter to be
one of principle, of politics and the exact opposite of a free vote,
would be fascinated to learn why the new touchy-feely liberal Tories
are having a free vote on what should be a bottom-line issue of proper
politics.
Mr.
Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his opinion,
but I do not take that view. I wish that there were many more free
votes in Parliament. The Chamber on a free vote is Parliament at its
best. We might not have got into some of the mess that we are in if
there had been more free votes.
Jeremy
Corbyn:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Robertson:
No, I have explained the position. The
regulations are not about whether there should be a free vote, so the
hon. Gentleman must excuse me.
I shall explain why I cannot
support the regulations and why we will vote against them at the end of
the sitting, which may run to full time, which is unusual for a
Statutory Instrument Committee. Before anybody accuses me of objecting
to anybody’s sexuality, I do not. I have friends who are
heterosexual, who are in no relationships at all, who are homosexual,
who are white, black, Asian, men, women and so on. Unlike many hon.
Members, I have always supported the concept of women priests, and I
support the ordination to the priesthood of well behaving
heterosexualsand homosexuals. I support meritocracy; I
object
to discrimination and I also object to positive discrimination, a
disruptive feature that is creeping into national life.
I believe, too, in
people’s lifestyle choices, and that it is up to the individual
how they live their lives as long as they do not damage other people. I
have had my private life examined by the national newspapers, if we can
call the Daily Mail and the News of the World newspapers;
I would question whether they are worth the paper on which they are
written. They have none the less questioned my private life, and I find
it intrusive and none of their business. That is where I come from on
this particular issue.
Angela
Eagle:
If the hon. Gentleman supports all those ideas, he
is obviously a progressive force in his religion, whichever it is.
However, does he really believe that sexual orientation is a lifestyle
choice?
Mr.
Robertson:
I would probably agree with the hon.
Lady’s analysis. The hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to a
limited extent: possibly people are unsure about their sexuality, and
they perhaps question it and change. However, a high percentage of
people—I do not know whether it is 80 per cent. or 95 per
cent.—probably do not have a choice.
I regret the regulations
because they intrude into sexual behaviour. It is a private matter, and
when we try to legislate on such issues, we get into difficult
situations. We are bringing a private matter into the legislative
arena, and it is not always good for Parliament to do that. Some things
are a matter not for Parliament but for personal behaviour and of
private conscience. Even if we disagree with certain thingsand
certain behaviour—I totally disagree with
discrimination—heavy-handed legislation is not always the best
way to sort that out. It tends to polarise positions, as the
regulations have done. Perhaps the balance that we require is too
delicate to be struck by legislation.
It has been said that those of
us who oppose this measure somehow endorse the putting up of signs
saying “Blacks not welcome here” or “Gays not
welcome here”. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, such
behaviour is not happening now, so I do not see why it should happen in
future. If it were to happen, I would condemn it. I condemn a lot of
behaviour that is not illegal. That is the point that I am trying to
make.
Mr.
Betts:
Given that we have laws on racial discrimination,
is the hon. Gentleman saying that the laws on this should be different
and that they should prohibit discrimination on grounds of race but
allow it on grounds of sexual orientation? We are talking about the
same sort of activity.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am not quite saying that. I think that the
hon. Member for Upper Bann had it about right when he said that this is
a different matter. The legislation on race discrimination has gone
through. I have not considered that question fully, but perhaps I may
be allowed to explain why I do not think these regulations should be
enacted.
We ought to
be careful about initiating legislation where it could in many
circumstances be unenforceable. Is a guest house, late in the evening,
full or are guests being turned away because they are homosexual? What
constitutes harassment? Subjective judgments would be made on such
questions and I am not sure that it is for the courts to make them. I
might as well be totally controversial, so I shall discuss the example
of the hunting ban. I understand that more people are hunting
now—I am not one of them—than were doing so before the
ban. That is an example of a bad piece of
legislation.
Mr.
Betts:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Robertson:
Do not take me too far from this
issue.
Mr.
Betts:
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the
arguments about how difficult it would be to prove the real reasons why
someone was being refused a room in a hotel were used in exactly the
same way in respect of race when the race discrimination laws were
brought in? We heard the arguments that those laws could not be
enforced because things could never be proved. We still introduced
those laws because it was right to do so, and it is right to bring in
these regulations for the same reasons.
Mr.
Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I
have no doubt that if he is able to catch your eye, Mr.
Williams, he will expand upon it.
We ought to consider whether we
want to introduce legislation that could give rise to many vexatious
litigants. We must also consider the question of freedom of speech,
which I am sure the Minister will address. Can a minister of religion
say that homosexuality is a sin? We have heard that the Bible could be
read as saying that homosexuality is sinful or as saying that it is
not. When I have the argument about women priests with some of my
friends in the Church of England, some say that the Bible says one
thing while others say that it says another. I accept that argument.
However, some people believe in a certain point of view, so will it be
an offence for a minister of religion, either in a church or outside
it, to condemn homosexuality as sinful? Even more importantly, will it
be legal for a layman to stand up outside this place or a church, or on
the street corner, and say that he also believes that homosexuality is
sinful? At what point does such an action become harassment? That is my
question.
Dr.
Harris:
The obvious question that the hon. Gentleman must
ask is: what goods, services and facilities is that man on the corner
providing? Similarly, what goods and services is a minister providing
to the general public in the ministerial work that is done when
speaking from doctrine in a church that is not covered by the
exemption? The answer is none; therefore it is not
covered.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention and would be glad if the Minister would confirm that. I am
posing that as a question; indeed, there are three question marks
against that paragraph in my notes.
I am concerned about the general
drift away from the right to freedom of speech. I do not think that it
is very clever to offend anyone by what one says, but a short while ago
I surprised several of my colleagues by writing to the Standards Board
for England in defence of Ken Livingstone. I thought that what he said
to the journalist was extremely offensive, which is typical of
Mr. Livingstone, who uses political correctness as a shield
when it suits him. I despise everything that he stands for and think
that the sooner we kick him out of office the better. [Hon.
Members: “You’re not improving your
chances.”] Perhaps it depends on who our candidate
is.
To ban
Mr. Livingstone from office for his comments was very wrong.
Even though I cannot stand what he stands for, I wrote to the board and
went public on that because it was a curtailment of his freedom of
speech and was wrong. His words were offensive, and I hope that I would
not have used such words myself, but making such comments should not be
illegal.
I have more
examples of the drift away from the right to freedom of speech. There
were the famous incidents of the man at the Labour party conference and
the woman who read out the names of people who were killed in Iraq.
There was also a case in which two orders were served against a man in
Lincolnshire who had a trade stand. He was served with fixed penalty
notices for selling T-shirts that said—forgive my language; it
is a matter of record—“Bollocks to Blair”. That
drift away from freedom of speech is one of my concerns about the
regulations.
I am also
concerned by the drift towards the concept that people are not all
equal before the law. These days, we see police signs about homophobic
assaults. I condemn any such assault because it is an
assault—not because it is a homophobic. In my opinion, a
homophobic assault is no better or worse than any other assault because
it is wrong to carry out any assault. We should all be treated equally
under the
law.
Fiona
Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right that it is equally wrong to assault anyone, whatever
the motivation. Does he recognise, however, that when someone becomes a
victim because they are part of a group—because of their race or
sexual orientation, for example—all the people who share that
characteristic become terrorised by the fact that they are more likely
to be victimised following such an attack?
Mr.
Robertson:
The hon. Lady probably has a
point—
[Interruption.] Let me explain what I mean. There
are some very stupid men: there was one in Ipswich who went around
killing women. Obviously he has something against women, but it would
be wrong to put up a sign saying that there was a woman-hating assault
or murder because the crime is the evil thing. The motivation is also
evil, but what I am trying to explain rather
inadequately—[
Hon. Members: “Yes,
you are.”] Well, we will see what contributions are made on the
Labour
side.
The
Chairman:
Order. May we return to the subject of the
debate?
Mr.
Robertson:
Thank you for getting me out of a hole,
Mr.
Williams.
These are my
objections to the regulations: this is not a matter in which Parliament
should be involved; it places a further burden on small businesses; it
could be largely unenforceable; and it has the potential to constrain
freedom of speech. The Committee will be delighted to hear that I have
some other objections that I want to run through, which are partly to
do with inconsistencies and partly to do with the details of the
regulations.
In an
intervention on the hon. Member for Wallasey I asked why religious
organisations are left out. Is it because the Government recognise
that, to some people, the regulations are offensive? Obviously, they
must recognise that. They are not only offensive to religious people,
but to people who are not particularly religious—or is offending
them not important? For example, guest house proprietors may be
offended by being forced to allocate a room to a homosexual couple.
However, why are small guest houses excluded from the
measure?
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David
Hanson):
They are
not.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am corrected by the Minister from a sedentary
position. Lodgings and small rooms are excluded when the owner lives on
the premises. The owner often lives on the premises in a guest house,
so I do not know how far off the mark I was in my analysis. Why is it
the case that a house of that size is excluded and a bigger house is
not? Is it that in the bigger house people will not be inconvenienced
by the regulations or is it that those people will not be offended by
them? How can that be the case? As the hon. Member for Wallasey said,
the exclusions for this should be drawn rather narrower than they are.
I understand her point. I would rather not have the regulations because
we will get into the kind of mess I have described. Why should some
guest houses, small or large, be treated differently? I simply do not
understand the logic of
that.
Dr.
Harris:
The hon. Gentleman’s argument is flawed on
several points and I suspect I will have to respond again in a
contribution rather than in an intervention. If he reads the
regulations, the exclusion is to residential accommodation in the form
of lodgings where people presumably live for a long time and
effectively become part of someone’s family. That gains respect
for private life in human rights terms and is different from running a
commercial guest house where people are in and out all the time and a
commercial service is provided, not just lodgings. It is different and
that is one of the areas where he is
wrong.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do
not think that that is the point. The point is that the exclusion
assumes that certain groups of people will be offended and certain
groups will not. He
disagrees.
Mr.
Robertson:
No, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point,
but I do not agree. To further my argument, why are private
members’ clubs exempted if they have fewer than 25 members?
There is a complete inconsistency in that. What principle is
underpinning the regulations? They appear to be on shifting
sand.
Mr.
Simon:
Could the hon. Gentleman be clear; is he saying
that if there were no exemptions to the regulations, he would
wholeheartedly support them? I do not think we should have any
exemptions. If the provision is right, it should apply to
everyone.
Mr.
Robertson:
For some of the reasons I have given, I would
not be prepared to support that. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too
smug, let me point out that if we turn this around, he is supporting
regulations that will allow discrimination by certain people. Is he
happy with that? He should certainly think about it. Maybe he should
have gone to the Minister before and said, “I am sorry. I am not
happy with these regulations”. Maybe the hon. Member for
Wallasey should also have done that. They are not happy with the
regulations for the reasons that they have
given.
Angela
Eagle:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way
especially as he just implied that I should have done something that I
have not. The doctrinal exclusion is entirely reasonable in the
circumstances to establish the right balance. Clearly, over and above a
doctrinal exclusion, I am not in favour of exclusions, but the issue
that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised is that there
is a material difference between commercial hotel rooms and lodging
houses. That is a pragmatic, sensible and moderate way of going about
things and fully reflects the way the Government have approached this
difficult issue and I commend
them.
Mr.
Robertson:
I accept what the hon. Lady says. There are
different opinions in the Committee, but what will come across is that
the regulations are not really satisfactory to anybody. That may be the
result of a classical political fudge or compromise, but they have too
many flaws, inconsistencies and philosophical problems for me to
support
them.
Mr.
Burrowes:
My hon. Friend raises the matter of
inconsistencies. There has been in the debate, at least from some,
recognition that there is a doctrinal exception. Is he concerned that
it is not easy to determine the meaning of that? The example was given
of a Christian bookshop, selling Bibles and other books outlining a
Christian view of same-sex relationships. The presence of such a shop
could be cited
as
“creating an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
environment”
in the
provision of goods and services for anyone in a practising gay
relationship. Is the problem not so much discrimination as the fact
that protection for religious organisations is not guaranteed because
of the harassment
provision?
Mr.
Robertson:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not
want to pick up on every word that the hon. Member for Wallasey said,
but she used the word
“doctrinal” several times. As was pointed out
earlier—I forget by which hon. Member—there are different
beliefs about doctrine, so it is difficult to establish what the
exemptions are intended to
achieve.
I have spoken
for long enough, Mr. Williams, and taken several
interventions. I would like to have said a lot more. I spent a long
time last night and this morning going through the regulations and
highlighted many points that I wanted to question, but I know that many
other hon. Members wish to contribute. I shall therefore not detain the
Committee any longer except to say that, having given the regulations a
huge amount of thought, I cannot support them for the reasons that I
have
given.
3.22
pm
Mr.
Betts:
I am deeply disappointed by the speech given by the
hon. Member for Tewkesbury. To support the point made by my hon. Friend
the Member for Wallasey, if the word “race” were in the
regulations instead of “sexual orientation”, there would
be no argument about whether we should agree to them. That argument has
been won. In the 1960s, we would have had that debate and there would
have been people in Parliament who argued strongly against such
legislation.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am sorry to entertain the Committee again so
soon. As I said in my speech, I am comfortable with anybody’s
sexuality, but it is a private matter for them.
[
Interruption.
] I am making the point that I
believe in, not the one that the hon. Member for Wallasey believes in.
She has made her point. It is a personal, private matter that should be
kept to that person
exclusively.
Mr.
Betts:
I would argue that it is not a private matter if
someone goes into a hotel and is refused accommodation because of their
sexual orientation. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he
has mentioned freedom of speech. The argument that people have the
right to say what they believe was also used against legislation on
race discrimination, as was his argument that people have a right to
decide to whom they provide goods and services. People find language
such as “No Blacks here” offensive, and for that reason
such language has been outlawed. I find the idea of a sign saying
“No Gays here” offensive, and it should also be outlawed.
That is not a private matter, it is very public. Nobody should be
allowed to indicate that they are not prepared to provide goods and
services on the ground of sexual
orientation.
The hon.
Gentleman’s argument was that the regulations will be difficult
to enforce, with problems here and exemptions there.
[Interruption.]
I am willing to listen to arguments that exemptions have gone too
far, and if the hon. Gentleman wanted to say that some of them should
be removed, it would be a practical point to make. If he came forward
with constructive proposals to better frame the legislation so that it
would be more enforceable, I would be prepared to listen to him, but it
seems that he is hiding behind such arguments. In the end, as far as I
am concerned—I hope that he will accept this point when he
considers the issue—if it is right in principle that people in
this
country should not be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual
orientation, then it is right in principle that we should find a way to
ensure that it is applied and practised through the
legislation.
3.25
pm
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): I welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Williams, in an important debate. I congratulate the
hon. Member for Upper Bann on causing the debate to happen. It is
important that we have a debate on controversial issues, so that when
we reach a conclusion everyone can be said to have had their
say.
A great deal of
emotion surrounds the introduction of the regulations. I am sorry to
say that much of what has been said has been exaggerated, and some of
it has been downright inaccurate. I shall deal with assertions made by
bodies such as the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. Some people get
emotional about the practice of homosexuality, but homosexuality, in
the words of Lord Tebbit in another place, is about being, just as
being black is about being. It is what someone is, not what they
believe. One can choose one’s beliefs, but not what one is.
People cannot choose their sexual orientation, despite the opinion of
the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I think that I would prefer to take the
opinion of the hon. Member for Wallasey, who has a long and
distinguished track record of campaigning on these
issues.
I shall
attempt this afternoon to bring the argument to a more considered level
and, I hope, to throw a little more light than heat on the regulations.
Aspects of the regulations give me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues
grave concerns. This afternoon, we have just two options: we cannot
amend the regulations, so we must swallow them lock, stock and barrel
or we must spit them out. However, that is not to say that there should
not be a balance between freedom of religion, which is a vital freedom,
freedom of speech and the right to equal treatment without
discrimination.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual
people are discriminated against in all aspects of their lives. When a
commercial service is offered to the public, the Liberal Democrats
believe that it is right that those people should not suffer the
inconvenience and hassle, not to mention the humiliation and distress,
of refusal on the grounds of sexual
orientation.
Let us
start with some facts. The regulations apply to lesbian, gay and
bisexual people. They do not cover transgendered people, which we feel
is a serious omission. Transgendered people suffer the same
discrimination as lesbian, homosexual and bisexual people. I urge the
Government to consider rectifying that omission when the English
regulations are debated before their introduction in April.
In general, the regulations
prevent discrimination in access to goods, services and education,
although they do not apply to the curriculum and public authorities.
Let us talk about education for a moment. Regulation 9 prohibits
discrimination in the admission and treatment of pupils in schools,
universities and colleges of education, which includes access to
services and facilities, once they are admitted. However, contrary to
concerns raised by some religious groups, the regulations do not cover
the curriculum or how it is
delivered. The assertion that schools will have to promote homosexuality
in their teaching is totally inaccurate. Schools will not be free to
discriminate in their admissions, and their procedures will not be able
to discriminate against children or their parents on grounds of sexual
orientation.
The
religious exemptions do not apply to commercial businesses or
organisations that offer services to the public. This means—the
following example is used frequently—that a printing shop will
not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
However, it could refuse to print leaflets that promote homosexual
activity, if it also refuses to print leaflets promoting extra-marital
heterosexual sex. That explanation came in answer to Lord
Lester’s question. Furthermore, a printing shop cannot refuse a
printing job for a person who is black or from another religious
persuasion or for a Muslim or Jewish event. That is already enshrined
in the Equality Act
2006.
It is unlawful
for a lodging house to refuse a room to a couple on the grounds of
sexual orientation, unless it has six rooms or fewer. If a bed and
breakfast or hotel has a policy of refusing rooms to all unmarried
couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, it would be unlawful under
the regulations, as it would discrimination on grounds of marital
status rather than sexual orientation. Again, those points appeared in
written answers to Lord Lester. However, how might one enforce that? In
another place, Baroness Blood has remarked that she has often shared a
hotel room with female friends, as indeed have I—not with the
noble Baroness, but with my own girlfriends. Will it be necessary to
complete a questionnaire before being allowed a room? Might I be
refused entry as a dodgy-looking character who may have lesbian
tendencies? Frankly, the whole thing is
farcical.
Religious
organisations, but not religious individuals, which let out church
halls and any other buildings that they own, can discriminate.
Therefore, to say that a Church would be forced to let out a hall for a
gay civil partnership signing celebration is simply wrong.
The Lawyers Christian
Fellowship has asserted that the regulations violate article 9 of the
European convention on human rights, from which it has quoted the
following
passage:
“Everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.”
However, it
has neglected to mention that the article goes on to
state:
“Freedom
to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to
such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the
protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the
rights and freedoms of
others.”
On its
interpretation of article 9, a racist would have the freedom to
discriminate in the provision of goods and services.
One area on which the Lawyers
Christian Fellowship would do well to concentrate is the inclusion of
harassment in these regulations. The Liberal Democrats are open to the
idea of harassment provision, but we are worried by its form in these
regulations, especially the process by which the Government have
included it. The consultation paper expressly stated that a harassment
offence would not be included and that the Government would wait for
the discrimination law review to report. Therefore, the measure has
been included without consultation.
The practical limitations in
this area are such that someone could be prosecuted for expressing the
opinion that homosexuality is wrong. Even if there were no conviction,
or even no prosecution, due to a test of reasonableness, a false
expectation or culture of potential wrongdoing would have been created
by a vague and broad definition of
harassment.
Mr.
Hanson:
May I help the hon. Lady with her point about
consultation? The harassment provisions were included following the
consultation, because we received representations in favour of
including them in the final document. They came from the
consultation.
Lorely
Burt:
I thank the Minister for that
illumination.
Angela
Eagle:
I thank the hon. Lady for having the grace to allow
me to intervene so soon after allowing the Minister to give his
explanation.
On the
issue of harassment, does she agree that the racial harassment laws,
which have been in force for30 years, still seem to allow the
British National party to operate and to hold its views on race? The
reasonableness provision means that there is nothing really to worry
about in connection with the harassment
rules.
Lorely
Burt:
I am not a lawyer or an expert, and, as I have said,
we are not against a harassment provision, but I have been told that
the definition is very broad and leaves us open to the possibility that
freedom of expression may be
curtailed.
Angela
Eagle:
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I think,
Mr. Williams, that there are benefits in being able to
discuss these matters and deal with the regulations in this
way.
Is the hon. Lady
not made more content by the reasonableness provisions relating to
harassment, which mean that if someone brought a case, it would not get
far if the court did not judge it to be reasonable to take the view
that harassment had taken place? The courts have shown over the years
that they take a pretty moderate view, and that they will not allow
vexatious or weak harassment allegations to get
far.
Lorely
Burt:
I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. My
first point is that if we had a better and tighter definition of
harassment, it would not be necessary to put people through the upset
and anxiety of going to court in the first place. Secondly, why not
allow the discrimination law review to report before we pass the
regulations? If the matters are covered elsewhere, why do we need to
take emergency action to include the harassment provisions in the
regulations before the Committee?
Liberal Democrats believe in
equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, but we
also believe in freedom of speech, regardless of whether we agree with
what is said. Voltaire is famous for saying that while not agreeing
with what another said, he would defend to the death their right to say
it. Freedom of speech is a precious and fundamental human
right.
Mr.
Simon:
Just to be clear, do the Liberal Democrats believe
that anyone should be allowed to say anything in any circumstances?
Surely that is what the hon. Lady has
said.
Lorely
Burt:
No; that is not what I have said. I have said that
the Liberal Democrats support freedom of speech regardless of whether
we agree with what people are saying.
Mr.
Simon:
Within
limits.
Lorely
Burt:
Yes, within limits. We should like the harassment
rules to be withdrawn now and given closer consideration in the
discrimination law review, where the matter is already under
consideration.
Polls
indicate that the regulations are supported by the vast majority of
Christians who practise their religion in a way that is inclusive
rather than exclusive. I cannot speak for other groups, because we have
not been approached by any other religious groups. The Liberal
Democrats have reservations about some aspects of the regulations, with
respect to the breadth of the exemptions and the inclusion of a broad
harassment
provision.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I concur with the hon. Lady’s concerns
about the harassment provisions. Does she agree that Christian
organisations that might not have contacted her are most concerned
about religious liberty? For example, let us say that a practising
homosexual is denied Church membership, and associated activities such
as a crèche and Church group, or the provision of other goods
and services within a Church school that come within the ambit of the
regulations. Even if the membership provided its orthodox theological
justification for the denial of membership, the aggrieved person could
claim harassment under the provisions in the regulations on the grounds
that their dignity had been violated orthat an
“intimidating”, “humiliating” or
“offensive environment” had been created. The regulations
do not provide protection against
that.
Lorely
Burt:
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, my hon.
Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will deal with that
more accurately than I
can.
Lady
Hermon:
I am most gracious to the hon. Lady for taking a
second intervention so quickly after the
first.
The Liberal
Democrats’ sister party in Northern Ireland is the Alliance
party. Will the hon. Lady tell me, for the benefit of the people of
Northern Ireland, whether the Liberal Democrats support devolution? Do
they recognise that equivalent regulations will be
introduced in Great Britain in April? That is one month after the
restoration of the Assembly at Stormont. Does she have a view on
devolution and what the Assembly will be expected to
do?
Lorely
Burt:
It is regrettable that the introduction of the
regulations in England has been delayed until April. The haste with
which they are being introduced is
unfortunate.
In
conclusion, we believe that the regulations are welcome. They are a
long overdue measure to tackle discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation in Northern
Ireland.
3.42
pm
Jeremy
Corbyn:
I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish
to speak in this extremely important debate. We have heard some
extraordinary contributions from Opposition Members, the like of which
I have not heard in this place for a very long
time.
In essence, some
hon. Members have said that it is okay to practice bigotry against
people of a different sexual orientation. The hon. Member for Upper
Bann has said that the erection of a sign above a guest house saying,
“Gays may not come here,” would not be covered. That sort
of humiliation is precisely what will be covered. Bigotry is being
dressed up as freedom of speech. We live in a society in which one
hopes that such bigotry, discrimination, homophobia, gay-bashing and so
on have been left well
behind.
My only
disappointment is that the regulations do not cover the whole of the
United Kingdom. I hope that the regulations are passed into law in
Northern Ireland and that they will apply to the rest of the UK as soon
as possible, so that those who wish to provide goods and services will
be prevented from actively discriminating against
individuals.
Before I
or any other hon. Member was in this House, the then Labour Government
introduced the Race Relations Act 1965, and exactly the same arguments
were made. It was said that we could not legislate to end racism,
bigotry or to stop such practices. Obviously, racism did not end in
1965, any more than it has ended now, but it created a very important
political benchmark—our society said, “Racism is
out”. It gave space to people to campaign and it isolated
racists.
Think of the
implications if we do not pass these regulations. What message will
that send? That it is okay to discriminate against people because they
are gay; that it is okay to put up signs to prevent them from accessing
services, and that it is okay to be beastly towards them, because they
do not follow some rather strange readings of some parts of the
Bible.
The hon.
Member for Upper Bann claims that there is some kind of Christian
perfection behind his arguments. I do not have strong religious beliefs
myself, but I talk to people of different religious faiths in my
community—every religious faith is represented in inner
London—and they all tell me that the teachings of the Bible, as
they understand them, are of tolerance, understanding, compassion and
co-existence in society.
I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should claim any particular
perfection for his reading of the Bible.
We have a duty to pass the
regulations into law and to send out a message that we will put behind
us the days of violence against homosexual people. We wish to live in a
tolerant society and a tolerant world. I do not think that there should
be any exemptions. I hope that the exemptions that unfortunately are
included in the regulations will eventually disappear and that an
amendment will be made or that a legal action will take place to ensure
that they disappear altogether, in accordance with the European
convention on human
rights.
Those
who are opposing the regulations—I findthe position of
the Conservative party absolutely extraordinary—are playing up
to an audience of discrimination and bigotry and a nasty, divided,
unpleasant society. Those people who support the regulations in
Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England do not want to see such a
society. They want us to pass the regulations into law to make a
declaration of the decent, equal society in which we all want to
live.
3.47
pm
Lady
Hermon:
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about
these controversial regulations, which are being introduced in the
space of two and a half hours. They are unamendable and will be imposed
on1.7 million people in Northern Ireland, whether they like it
or not. I object to the manner in which we are legislating for the
people of Northern Ireland.
I shall preface my remarks by
saying that I believe passionately in equality; I believe that we are
all equal in the sight of God, and I loathe and detest all forms of
discrimination. I believe passionately in the freedom of thought,
conscience and religion, which is guaranteed by the European convention
on human rights. I amon the record as often having
complimented the Government on making the convention part and parcel of
domestic
legislation.
Jeremy
Corbyn:
If the Northern Ireland Assembly were in
Session—there are no guarantees as to when it will come back
into operation—would the hon. Lady support the approval of the
regulations as presented to the
Assembly?
Lady
Hermon:
Believe it or not, I am extremely grateful to the
hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am one of the few Northern
Ireland representatives in this House. We have 18 Members of
Parliament, five of whom are Sinn Fein Members, who, as the hon.
Gentleman will know, do not take their seats in this House to represent
their constituents as they should. Of those 18 MPs, there are only two
of us who are not holding a dual mandate and doubling up as Members of
the Assembly. I and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr.
McGrady) are the only Northern Ireland MPs not to hold a seat in the
Assembly. I will therefore not predict what 108 Assembly Members will
do, but I will defend the Belfast agreement, which this Government
introduced after the Good Friday agreement. I am one of the few Ulster
Unionists who
remain pro-agreement. We are an endangered species, as reflected by the
fact that I am the only one returned to this House.
Let me remind the Government
what they legislated for when they put the Belfast agreement on the
statute book. For the benefit of Labour Members, let me
read—
The
Chairman:
Order. I should remind the hon. Lady that the
subject of the debate is the regulations, not the
agreement.
Lady
Hermon:
Absolutely, Mr. Williams. I take your
point entirely. I simply want to remind hon. Members of the situation
before us. The procedure under which the regulations are being taken
through means that they are completely
unamendable.
Lady
Hermon:
If I could just finish, the Minister will have an
opportunity to intervene. I will give way in a moment or two.
The Minister will be well aware
of the Government’s valiant efforts to ensure that devolution is
restoredin Northern Ireland. An election is scheduled
for7 March, with a view to restoring the Assembly and having
it sit again on 26 March. We are within weeks of having a restored
devolved Parliament at Stormont.
I wish to quote only one part
of the Belfast agreement, Mr. Williams. Thousands of people
in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland voted for the agreement
and for an Assembly that
“will exercise full legislative
and executive
authority”.
That is what
I voted for—I did not vote for a Mickey Mouse outfit that would
vote and legislate on the bits that this House had left over for it to
consider.
Mr.
Hanson:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to
intervene, given that I have an opportunity to speak later. She will be
aware that the Assembly considered a motion in the name of the hon.
Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) to annul the
regulations, but that motion was not
carried.
Lady
Hermon:
I am most grateful to the Minister for that
enlightening intervention. As we know from the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury and the hon. Members who speak for the Liberal Democrats,
the Assembly is a debating chamber and does not operate with full
legislative and Executive authority.
Mr.
Hanson:
If the Assembly had supported the non-carrying of
the regulations, that would have put me in an even more difficult
position than today’s debate. However, it did not carry the
motion in the name of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, so it did not
wish to have the regulation that the hon. Member for Upper Bann has put
forward today.
Lady
Hermon:
I am sorry, but I have to say that that is as
clear as mud. Perhaps other members of the Committee understood the
Minister’s interpretation of the Assembly’s
motion.
Mr.
Hanson:
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley put the motion in
the Assembly to annul the regulations, but the Assembly did not carry
that motion. Therefore, it has not indicated to me, as the Minister,
that it wished the proposal in the name of the hon. Member for Upper
Bann to be carried today. The Assembly considered the motion, voted on
it and did not carry it.
Lady
Hermon:
I am most grateful to the Ministerfor
clarifying his earlier intervention. However, I understand that some
Assembly Members were not present, although that is not the point. The
point is that this House passed legislation to bring the Belfast
agreement into effect and voted to allow the Assembly to have full
Executive and legislative powers. We are within weeks of restoring
devolution in Northern Ireland. At the same time—I have not
invented this—we have the code of practice on consultation on
all documents, which was issued by the Cabinet Office. In the foreword,
the Prime Minister
says:
“Effective
consultation is a key part of the policy-making process...I
encourage all departments and relevant public bodies to use it
effectively.”
With
your indulgence, Mr. Williams, I will just quote paragraph
1.4 of the code of the practice, which is intended for all Departments,
including the Northern Ireland Office. It
states:
“This
written consultation period should be a minimumof 12 weeks.
Departments should consider the specific circumstances of their
stakeholders and consider longer consultation periods at certain times,
for example during the summer holiday period...Where a
consultation takes place over a holiday period or lasts less than 12
weeks, extra effort should be made to ensure that the consultation is
still effective, by supplementing the written exercise with other
methods of
consultation.”
I have not
invented the words written by the Cabinet Office and printed in its
“Code of Practice on Consultation”. They have come from
the Government who directed all Ministers, including those who hold
jobs with important responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Office, to
consult for at least 12 weeks. Furthermore, when a period of
consultation overlapped with the holiday period, they were to directed
to make “extra effort” to ensure that consultation was
still effective.
The
document was issued for consultation on29 July. The Minister
has been in the Northern Ireland Office long enough to know that July
is a particular busy holiday month, as is August. It overlaps with the
holiday period. The reply to the consultation was demanded by 25
September, so consultation on the regulations was curtailed to a mere
eight weeks. That point was made in another place in an earlier debate
on 9 January 2007. It is, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury alluded to,
the subject of judicial review and I shall not pursue the issue. The
serious matter of consultation as directed by the Cabinet
Office’s code of practice was not followed through properly by
the Northern Ireland
Office.
I feel
passionately about the European convention on human rights and the
commitment of all Ministers, including those at the Northern Ireland
Office, to abide
by it. The convention is part and parcel of our
domestic law. In the light of that, can the Minister elaborate on, or
clarify, the explanatory memorandum? I commend those civil servants who
make great efforts to help hon. Members by drafting such memorandums. I
refer to paragraph 6 of the explanatory memorandum to the regulations
that we are discussing. I am sure that members of the Committee will
have noted that the regulations do not bear a statement to the effect
that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The memorandum states that, as the
regulations
“are subject
to negative resolution procedure at Westminster and do not amend
primary legislation, no statement is
required.
I was surprised to
find such wording in an explanatory memorandum, as I was surprised to
find that the Minister does not have the confidence of his own
procedures and consultation. He should be courageous enough to publish
a statement in the regulations to imply clearly that he believes the
regulations are compatible with the European convention on human
rights. Will he explain why that has not been
done?
Mr.
Robertson:
The hon. Lady has touched on an important
point. As she said, the reason that such wording is not contained in
the regulations is that it was included in the original Bill that gave
rise to the regulations. However, the details of the regulations were
not in the Bill, so we do not know whether or not they are
compatible.
Lady
Hermon:
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury. He is absolutely correct. The Minister will have an
opportunity when he winds up the debate to say that he is confident
that the regulations are compatible with the European convention on
human rights. I should just like him to explain why that statement is
not carried on the front of
regulations.
I object
to the lack of consultation. I object in particular to the fact that we
are taking such measures through by means of regulations that are not
amendable and will be debated simply in two and a half hours in the
House, after which time they will be imposed on the people of Northern
Ireland. I am confident that, despite the overtures from the hon.
Member for Upper Bann on Radio Ulster and elsewhere that a government
should go ahead without Sinn Fein, his party will sit with Sinn Fein in
an inclusive government by 26 March. That is what I hope. I am sure
that this Government will not go ahead without Sinn Fein.
Will the Minister explain why
he has driven through the regulations at such breakneck speed,
particularly when he knows very well that the equivalent regulations
have been delayed and will be introduced to the rest of the United
Kingdom only in April?
The Belfast agreement
established two important statutory bodies in Northern Ireland: the
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and the Equality Commission
for Northern Ireland. Under the extensive regulations before us, an
enormous chunk is dedicated to increasing the powers of the Equality
Commission, so that for example, under regulation 28:
“The Commission may give
financial or other assistance to any organisation appearing to the
Commission to be concerned with the promotion of equality of
opportunity between persons of different sexual
orientations.”
That is absolutely fine, but will the
Minister explain whether the commission’s budget will increase?
It is already overstretched by the commission’s other work on
equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland.
Under regulation 30, the
commission may appoint a full-time or part-time additional commissioner
for the purpose of investigating complaints of discrimination on the
ground of sexual orientation. Will the Minister confirm that the
commission has equal powers, as hon. Members have mentioned, on racial
discrimination, which I loathe and detest with every fibre of my
body?
In Northern
Ireland we welcome people from Poland and other parts of the world.
They take jobs that other people do not want and they have made a
valuable contribution to the community. In my constituency, there is a
large ethnic Chinese community, which came to Northern Ireland doing
the bloody and awful years of the troubles. They remained loyal to
Northern Ireland through all the mayhem.
The hate crime figures show an
increase in attackson people from ethnic communities—on
people of a different colour. Will the Minister assure me that when a
person feels that racial or sexual discrimination has taken place, the
Equality Commission will divert financial resources to help them, and
that it willalso appoint additional commissioners to
investigate complaints of racial discrimination and of discrimination
on any other grounds of ethnicity?
Finally, I draw the
Minister’s attention to a point that I am sure other Committee
members have noted. Schedules I and II on pages 28 and 29 set out draft
forms: a form for a person who believes they have suffered
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, which they send to the
person who challenges the belief that they effected such
discrimination; and a reply form for the respondent to fill in. Is
there parity for those who suffer racial discrimination, sexual
discrimination or discrimination on any other grounds in Northern
Ireland? It is extraordinary that people—the aggrieved person
and the person against whom there is a complaint—are invited to
implicate themselves in text, in the aggrieved person’s case by
setting out the reasons why they feel discriminated against. The
Minister could, of course, correct me. However, that route is not open
to those who feel that they have been discriminated against on racial
or any other grounds, and he needs to address that matter,
too.
Angela
Eagle:
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady.
Does she agree with me that Northern Ireland has led the way in having
an anti-discrimination commission that deals with all sorts of
discrimination across the piece? She appears to be arguing that
including another one will be a disbenefit to the existing
anti-discrimination laws. Does she agree that when someone is a racist
they often have other bigoted views? They can be sexist, and certainly
anti-gay. Dealing with those things in one piece does not threaten any
of the strands; it strengthens all of
them.
Lady
Hermon:
I am most grateful for the hon. Lady’s
thoughtful intervention. I am sorry if my intervention when she was
speaking earlier was taken as a personal concern, as it was
not.
When I look at the statistics in
Northern Ireland, I am worried about the rise in hate crime and the
dramatic rise in homophobic attacks, particularly on young gay men.
Some paramilitary organisations have a fixation on a person’s
sexual orientation. That concerns grieves me. Something that worries me
greatly about the unfortunate coverage of these regulations is that it
may make the lives of those in Northern Ireland who have a particular
sexual orientation even more difficult. That would be most
regrettable.
We have a
very good Northern Ireland Office Minister before us. I always give him
a difficult time in Committee—he deserves a hard time—but
despite that I recognise that he works extremely hard to secure a
devolved Government. I wish to goodness that we had the wit to treat
with sensitivity all people in Northern Ireland including the Church
representatives. The recently retired primate of all Ireland, Lord
Eames, expressed his concern in the other place on 9 January about the
manner in which the proposal is being taken through Parliament. To say
that the debate is about the denial of equality of opportunity is to
give the wrong interpretation of where the Churches in Northern Ireland
stand on this matter.
This sensitive proposal is
being taken through the Committee in two and a half hours by a horrible
procedure of which I am highly critical: an unamendable Order in
Council. We cannot even correct the spelling; I am being pedantic, but
“to practise” is spelt as “to practice” in
the proposal. It would have been much better for all concerned—I
genuinely mean all—if the issue had been left to the Assembly,
which will be restored. It would have had much more cross-party support
and the Churches would not have been portrayed as being against
equality of opportunity for all in Northern Ireland. That is unfair to
the Churches in Northern Ireland as it is not their view.
I pay tribute to the Minister
and the Secretary of State for trying so valiantly to restore at
Stormont a devolved institution of 108 well paid Assembly Members who
should not also be sitting as Members of this House. However, that is a
different issue for another day.
The Opposition parties are not
going to vote with us this afternoon so we are numerically outnumbered.
I wish that the Minister, even at this late stage, would have the sense
to exercise his discretion, withdraw the regulations and allow full
consultation instead of having another judicial review, which I expect
will go against the Northern Ireland Office for not following its own
procedures on
consultation.
4.10
pm
Mr.
Simon:
It is always a pleasure to serve under your
judicious chairmanship, Mr. Williams. What used to be the
Conservative and Unionist party has long since sold its unionism down
the river, and I should identify myself as a convinced and committed
socialist Unionist. As such, I never thought that I would have to
explain to the hon. Members for Upper Bann or for North Down that this
is the sovereign United Kingdom Parliament, and here we legislate for
the entire United Kingdom.
It is also rare for me to find
myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,
North. However, it is difficult to understand why the matters before us
have been devolved to the devolved bodies that are sitting at the
moment—as we know, that is not all of them. Those of
us—some of us socialist Unionists—of different views, who
have sat for many a long afternoon on Committees such as this
legislating on Northern Ireland matters because the Northern Ireland
devolved body did not sit, was not sitting, was not capable of sitting
or could not agree to sit, have legislated happily, indeed, with pride
and satisfaction, as the sovereign United Kingdom Parliament during
those long years of tediously technical matters that appeared to
concern us relatively little. It is with equal pride and delight, as
members of the sovereign United Kingdom Parliament, that we now play
our little role in passing on to gay, lesbian and bisexual United
Kingdom citizens, who happen to live in Ulster, the right to gain goods
and services without prejudice, discrimination or humiliation, just as
they might in England, Scotland or Wales.
The hon. Lady suggests, very
cynically it seems to me, that the Government are trying to rush the
issue through the House in a statutory instrument because they do not
trust the devolved body in Ulster to give the same rights to gay,
lesbian and bisexual people that we in this Labour-controlled and
therefore decent and liberal
sovereign—
Lady
Hermon:
The hon. Gentleman provokes me by bringing to the
Committee’s attention the fact that the Labour party is decent
and honourable and all the rest of those good characteristics. When is
that good, decent and honourable party going to field a candidate in
Northern Ireland?
Mr.
Simon:
I cannot speak for the leadership of the
party.
The
Chairman: Order. We should return to the regulations that are the
subject of the debate. The constitutional position in Northern Ireland
is not a matter for us today.
Mr.
Simon:
Thank you, Mr. Williams, for that
guidance and for bringing us back on to the straight and narrow, from
which we were in danger of wandering.
I was about to say that the
hon. Lady’s suggestion that the regulations have been brought
before this Committee this afternoon in order to avoid a devolved body
that would reject them seems to be a little at odds with what the
Minister says has already been debated in that body without its powers.
Secondly, all that I can say as a Member of this sovereign Parliament
is that if that were the case, crafty though it might be, it would be a
jolly good thing if it means that those people got the rights to which
they ought, in any decent society, to be entitled.
I shall not detain the
Committee for long. I will make this second point and one further one.
The hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Upper Bann have talked at great
length about what they say are the tensions and difficulties in
protecting the rights of some people to enjoy free speech and freedom
of
expression and those of others to be free from prejudice and
discrimination. The reason why we are making this kind of legislation
is that there are abroad people whose attitudes are prejudiced,
bigoted, offensive, unfair and unreasonable. We do not legislate unless
there are people abroad with those intentions.
No one suggests that we
legislate to safeguard the rights of Members of Parliament to keep
budgerigars, because no one is trying to prevent Members of Parliament
from keeping budgerigars. The point is that the things that we have
heard about do happen to the people we are discussing. That is why we
are legislating and, every time we legislate on such issues, there will
be people whose right to be bigoted and prejudiced will be curtailed.
That is the fact of the
matter.
We have heard,
from Labour Members primarily, how easy it would be to replace signs
saying “No homosexuals” with “No blacks” or
“No women”. My constituency of Erdington is one of the
most Irish constituencies in the United Kingdom. Let us be clear: if
someone went to Erdington in the 1950s and 1960s, the sign would not
have said just “No blacks” or “No
Catholics”; it would have said “No Irish”. That is
what it would have said in Erdington. Every single one of the arguments
that we have heard this afternoon applied equally at that time. They
applied through the 1950s and 1960s. If we give people rights, we take
away the rights of other people to be prejudiced and bigoted, and that
is what we are doing this
afternoon.
Thirdly, I
would like to echo very strongly the comments of my hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe about his disappointment in what we
have heard from those on the Conservative Front Bench. The hon. Member
for Tewkesbury made it clear that he is a man of great decency and
reasonableness, and I am sure that no Labour Members disagree strongly
with his personal views on anything. That is not the point, however. He
sits on the Front Bench for the Conservative party and he tells us that
it is a free vote. How many touchy-feely new Tories does he have behind
him? Hardly any. He has one colleague, who is not looking very
touchy-feely and very new Tory on these issues at
all.
It is important
for this Committee, considering these important regulations, to send
the message that Labour Members are here as usual in numbers and
speaking because we care about these issues. These things are important
to us; this is real politics; and it really matters. What we see on the
Conservative side ofthe Committee is just how committed the
new Conservative party is to giving rights to gays, lesbians and
bisexual
people.
4.18
pm
Dr.
Harris:
I start by thanking the Minister for taking the
time to meet me earlier today, so that we could go over some of the
questions about what are, as the debate has shown, sometimes quite
complicated regulations. I am not an expert on drafting, so I
congratulate whoever managed to draft them, because they are so
complicated, but I regret that it is not always obvious what is being
covered.
This has been
a good debate because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington
said, Government Back Benchers have spoken and spoken very well. They
have got stuck into this issue, as is right and proper. Furthermore, as
far as I know, no Labour Members of the House of Lords voted against
the Government on the issue, which is unusual, given some of their
backgrounds in the House of Lords. That is to be recognised and
applauded.
As my hon.
Friend the Member for Solihull said, although we have concerns that the
regulations do not go far enough in some cases and that the harassment
provisions perhaps go too far, on balance, we support the regulations
and will vote for them this afternoon. I stress that we strongly
support the anti-discrimination measures in the regulations. We
recognise that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are discriminated
against in many, if not all, aspects of their lives. Just like other
people—they are people—they need goods and services, and
where a commercial service is offered to the public, they should not
suffer the inconvenience, the hassle and, above all, the humiliation
and distress of refusal on the grounds of their sexual orientation; nor
should they suffer victimisation as a result of complaining about that.
Sexual orientation is an innate part of who we are as human beings,
like race and gender. It is therefore necessary and right to seek to
limit such discrimination in everyday life. That is why we support very
strongly the anti-discrimination aspects of the regulations, as we did
with the rules on employment, which came in three years
ago.
We are also
generally content—we were not particularly, and I certainly was
not, with the employment regulations in certain cases—with the
exemptions and their scope. The problems that we have in this respect
are relatively minor. Despite concerns about the process, I applaud the
Government on the way in which they have scoped the exemptions. The
hon. Member for Islington, North said that he hoped that there would be
no exemptions but, given the world we live in, we accept that there
must be exemptions if we are to respect religious freedom. We recognise
that, and think that the Government have got things broadly right. I
hope that the British regulations, when they are published, will make
no further concessions on those exemptions, however. We are not
debating those regulations now, but I put that marker down.
As I said, we are unhappy about
the extent of the harassment provisions. In that respect, the hon.
Member for Upper Bann made some fair points about the consequences that
might arise for freedom of expression from the drafting of the
harassment provisions. That is why the provisions were removed for
religion, where the case for having narrower, if any, harassment
provisions is even clearer. I accept that the case is even clearer for
religion, because sexual orientation is much closer to race than to
religion. It was the understanding that the discrimination law review
would deal with such issues, so it is unfortunate that we are debating
the regulations without the benefit of that review, which is something
that the women and equality unit will do well.
It is unfair of the Minister,
in taking issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, to say
that those issues came out of the consultation. As hon. Members have
said, if the matter was not likely to arise in the consultation
document, people who were happy with that would not be likely to write
to reinforce it, particularly given the understanding that there would
be a discrimination law review, which has already been delayed for some
time. That is not the way consultations work, so what the Minister said
is not a good enough reason for introducing harassment at the last
minute—indeed, it is bad enough dealing with it at this stage,
without that debate. However, although the drafting is not what we
would have liked, we are prepared to vote for the regulations, because
they are a good thing overall. Even having the harassment provisions,
flawed as they are in their scope, is better than not having them at
all. I hope that the Minister can understand that.
As my hon. Friend said, we have
concerns about the timing. In a sense, it is peculiar that we are
debating the regulations now, in 2007. The Labour party’s 1997
general election manifesto said that the party was committed to
legislating
“to end
unjustifiable discrimination wherever it
exists.”
The legislative
programme is crowded—with the Government introducing tuition
fees, foundation hospitals and stuff like that—but back then,
one would have been disappointed to think that it would take10
years to implement that manifesto. However, I am glad that that is now
being done. It is sad that it is being done by secondary legislation,
as we said during the passage of the Equality Act 2006, because doing
so does not allow a fuller debate in which issues can be teased out and
in which hon. Members can feel that they have voted on specific issues,
so that they are not characterised as being opposed to all the
legislation, just because they do not like something in
particular.
I should
like to record my thanks for the briefing and campaigning of
organisations, such as Stonewall and the National Secular Society, over
a long period. We also ought to mention the Lawyers Christian
Fellowship. Although I do not agree with its view on the issue, it has
provoked the debate that we are having, by a loud lobbying campaign. It
is important to point out that the group does not represent all
Christian opinion. There is moderate, mainstream—as I would call
it—Christian opinion that does not support its view. Indeed, the
Board of Deputies of British Jews has been at pains to correct the
impression that it supports that campaign, which it says that the
Lawyers Christian Fellowship has given. The board’s community
issues director wrote in a letter to
me:
“The Board
has never supported this protest and opposes discrimination on any
grounds, recognising the rights of those within our community and in
wider society should not be infringed on the grounds of race/ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or religious conviction.
Furthermore, the Board believes that there is no Jewish group or
association affiliated to this
campaign.”
The board said
that the Muslim Council of Britain had put out a similar statement,
although I do not have that statement and am just reporting what the
board said.
It is
important not to characterise those of us who are in favour of equality
as being against all religious opinion. It is an unusual minority, not
mainstream religious opinion, that feels so strongly. Such people have
a right to feel strongly, but we have a right to say that they are
wrong.
Angela
Eagle:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the
scaremongering involving these moderate and sensible regulations, such
as huge media adverts making all sorts of false claims about them, is
to be deplored? It does not allow a sensible debate; it is just
scaremongering.
Dr.
Harris:
Yes, I oppose scaremongering, particularly in this
matter. An atmosphere of allegations that something will be promoted
and statements made about the implications for
children—distasteful and insulting statements—create
problems for people. This debate is not taking place in a vacuum in
that respect.
We
should be grateful to the Lawyers Christian Fellowship for provoking
votes such as the one in the House of Lord, where the regulations were
overwhelmingly supported. That shows that the House of Lords has
changed on such issues. I do not think that the Conservative party has
changed, but the House of Lords
has.
Mr.
Robertson:
The Liberal party changes every
day.
Dr.
Harris:
I do not think that the Conservative party has
changed. Although it claims to support equal rights, on such a
fundamental issue, there ought to be a Whip. Members could vote against
the Whip, but there ought to be a line; it is not purely a conscience
issue. Even if the vote is free, I cannot understand why the leader of
the Conservative party did not instruct his Front-Bench spokesman to
say, “On a free vote, our line is to support the measures, even
on balance and after putting criticisms.” He has a right to
express his personal views, but as he is a Front-Bench Member, we
should record that, on such issues, the Conservative party clearly has
not
changed.
Mr.
Robertson:
The fact that we are allowed a free vote on
such an issue demonstrates that the Conservative party has
changed.
Dr.
Harris:
I will concede that it has changed from opposing
equality outright to not being willing to support it, but I should like
to see the Conservative party’s leader campaign on that basis
when he next talks to the youth of
today.
Mr.
Robertson:
One of the points that I made in my speech
concerned what happens on a free vote. I shall give the hon. Gentleman
a good example that involves an issue in which he is interested and on
which he was kind enough to advise me because I agreed with
him—stem cell research. The debate in Parliament involved a
completely free vote. The House was full. Everyone treated everyone
else courteously, listened to what other Members had to say and voted
accordingly. To me, that is Parliament at its best. Does he
agree?
Dr.
Harris:
I agree. I am not opposed to free votes per
se—I wish that there were more—but on fundamental issues
of discrimination, I do not think that there should be free votes and
my party does not either. It is up to the hon. Gentleman’s
party. I certainly
agree with him on that issue; but based on what he said, we would have
free votes on everything, because they are
nice.
Fiona
Mactaggart:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
The
Chairman:
Order. I will allow the intervention as long as
it has to do with the regulations and not with free
votes.
Fiona
Mactaggart:
The regulations deal with access for everyone
to goods and services. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that issue
is separate from the kinds of issue properly decided by a free
vote—those that are up to the conscience of the
individual?
Dr.
Harris:
Yes, I do. I welcome the manner in which the hon.
Member for Upper Bann introduced the regulation. He wished to debate,
and he said that others would have their say, rather than debating with
him directly, which is one way of doing it. I shall pick up on two
issues that he raised, however.
The hon. Gentleman said that
the regulations will force people to approve of something. They will
not force anyone to approve of anything. I cannot put it any better
than Lord Smith of Finsbury, a man for whom I think we all have great
admiration:
“I
believe very strongly that people have a right to hold views that may
be bigoted and discriminatory. What I do not believe is that they have
the right to put those beliefs into action in a way that affects
adversely the life and livelihood of other human beings. These
regulations very simply seek to prevent
that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January
2007; Vol. 688,c.
183-4.]
That is perfect in its
phrasing.
The
regulations will not force anyone to approve of anything. There is a
question about facilitation, in the sense that letting someone into a
room implies that they might lie down on a bed, but anyone engaged in
the commercial world should know that such things happen. The
regulations will not force anyone to change their beliefs or to approve
actively of something. People have to sleep somewhere, and I do not
believe that whether a room has a certain wallpaper or another is
particularly
material.
The hon.
Gentleman asked what the problem is and said that we do not need the
regulations because there is no discrimination. However, he also said
that the regulations would prevent people from doing things that they
wanted to do, which, presumably, is to discriminate in some way. He
cannot have it both ways. I believe that there is
discrimination—as honorary president of the Liberal Democrat
lesbian and gay equality group, I have spoken to people who have
suffered from it—and that therefore the regulations are needed.
I accept that they will prevent some people from doing what they would
otherwise do in the commercial field of providing goods and services,
and I say, “Good, they should not have been doing
it.”
Mr.
Burrowes:
I reiterate that I welcome and concur with the
hon. Gentleman’s position on the harassment provision. Is it not
the case that the Government want to have it both ways? They introduced
in the
exemptions for registered organisations on the basisof belief
and refer to a doctrinal exemption, but they then make it meaningless
by way of the harassment provisions. A hypothetical case is a Church
organisation that hires out its building to outside organisations on a
commercial basis and is obliged by the regulations to make a decision
about a group that wants to promote the practice of homosexuality.
Would the Church not be approving of the organisation in a sense if it
were obliged to accept it? The harassment provision drives a coach and
horses through the
regulations.
Dr.
Harris:
There are two separate issues. First, if the
Church is hiring out its hall to the community—it may be the
only hall in the village—and to all and sundry, even though it
owns the hall, it is not permitted by the regulations to say that it
will not hire it out for a gay disco if it hires it out for non-gay
discos. That is right. It does not mean that the Church approves; it
just means that it has to make money from all sections of the community
and cannot exclude one. There is no doubt about that—I hope that
the Minister will confirm that—so that is not scaremongering but
simply stating what is
true.
Secondly, there
are problems with the harassment provision. It is written quite widely.
I do not like the fact that it contains phrases such as
“violating B’s dignity” in regulation 3(3)(a) or
“creating an...offensive environment” in regulation
3(3)(b), because they can be wide and subjective. This is the same
issue that I spoke about on the religious hatred provisions. There is
no right not to be offended. I accept, however, that there should be
harassment provisions to prevent the creation of an
“intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating”
environment.
There is
scope for compromise, and that is what I thought the discrimination law
review might do. There is a risk, even with the reasonableness test
that has been mentioned, of an atmosphere in which someone might feel
that they have a case, they might report it, someone might investigate
it and someone might even prosecute it, but the court might say,
“No, it is not a reasonable view to hold.” The law should
narrow the offence in statute, not rely on a late-stage intervention by
the court to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If, in
carrying out exempt activities, someone wants to explain
politely—at least, not abusively—why they think that what
someone wants to do is sinful, there may be the risk that the person
concerned will claim that they have been
harassed.
I understand
the hon. Gentleman’s point, and that is why I am concerned about
the matter, but it is because we respect the human rights of people to
have views and to speak—I believe that speech is different from
action, and that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull was
saying earlier—that I am delighted that Conservative Members
support the Human Rights Act 1998 and provisions like this one. Such
provisions protect one’s corner, and that is why I am able to
support what the hon. Gentleman has been saying in this narrow
area.
I want briefly
to deal with some of the exemptions, and I will be very brief. The
protestors who are scaremongering against the regulations have said
four
things. They have wrongly claimed that the regulations cover things when
they do not, because such things rightly fall under the exemptions.
They have wrongly claimed that certain things that I believe are
unfortunately not covered are covered. I do not think that there are
many such things. They have rightly said that things that I believe are
rightly covered are covered. They rightly say that things are covered
but that it is wrong that they are covered—for example,
harassment. Their adverts are a mixture of all those things, so I am
unable to say that it is all scaremongering, although it
all—thank goodness—helps us to point out what is
unacceptable.
I hope
that the Minister will have the chance to go through the issues that
have been mentioned. I hope that he will deal with the issue of
lodgings, because there has been a common problem in that regard. I
just want to say a word about education. There must have been a
typographical error in my hon. Friend’s speech, because I
recognise that the regulations cover how the curriculum is delivered in
schools in Northern Ireland.
There is no exemption
for the delivery of the curriculum. In terms of harassment, that
rightly means that teachers will not be able to say, “You are a
sinner.” It is not appropriate for a schoolteacher to tell a gay
pupil or someone whose parents might be gay that being gay is sinful or
unacceptable. In religious education classes, it might be appropriate
for teachers to say, “These Churches teach that homosexuality is
a sin”— blah, blah, blah. That is what religious
education does: it sets out the various orthodoxies of various
religions. I hope that it also points out that some belief structures
that do not adopt such a view and that some religions are less
discriminatory.
As a
backstop—if guidance does not work and the head teacher does not
have a grip, even in faith schools, on what teachers are
doing—the provisions cover the direct proselytising of a
discriminatory and harassing point of view on sexual orientation, just
as they should in respect of racism. I hope that that is understood by
the public, because it clearly is not understood by the Church of
England.
Last summer,
The
Times Higher Educational Supplement,
said:
“Faiths
schools have demanded exemption from new equality laws in order to
carry on teaching that homosexuality is a sin...The Association of
Christian Teachers said that ‘faith schools should be free to
decide what is taught and how it is taught in line with the faith-basis
of that
school’”.
It is
not the job of schools to teach people that something is sinful. Their
job is to teach maths, physics, chemistry and so on—even
religious education, although I do not think that the subject should be
compulsory.
When
schools teach religious education, they should set out what some Church
authorities say. It is not the job of a state-funded school, faith or
otherwise, to be saying that something is sinful. I welcome the fact
that the regulations are wide enough to make that clear to schools in
Northern Ireland, if necessary. I hope, although I am not hugely
hopeful, that the GB regulations do exactly the
same.
The Lawyers Christian Fellowship
complains that there is
“no protection in the Northern
Ireland SORs guaranteeing teachers in faith schools the right to teach
that marriage is preferable to a homosexual civil
partnership”.
I am
pleased about that situation, because I cannot believe that anyone
wants to say to gay people that they should have a sham heterosexual
marriage rather than enter into a civil partnership, as they are
entitled to do.
The
debate has shown how much bigotry still exists among some sections of
religious belief and that it is alive and well in such faith schools. I
do not have a particular view about schools having a faith
ethos—neither does my party—but we must ensure that they
are not used as an excuse to harass pupils on the basis of their sexual
orientation.
Mr.
Burrowes:
Is there not a conspicuous difference with
parallel legislation dealing with religion, the Fair Employment and
Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which specifically exempts the
school curriculum from its religious rights provisions? There is a
conspicuous inconsistency in the
regulations.
Dr.
Harris:
I have not seen the regulations that the hon.
Gentleman mentions, but I am prepared to believe that the
Government’s policy on faith schools is,to a certain
extent, a mass of inconsistencies and irrationalities. I do not mean to
criticise the Minister in my final remarks today, because, like my hon.
Friend the Member for Solihull, I welcome the regulations. I hope that
the Minister will consider narrowing the harassment provisions at a
later stage, especially when the discrimination law review reports and
the GB regulations take that on
board.
4.40
pm
Mr.
Hanson:
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Williams. This has been an interesting and productive debate, and I
thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the reasonable
way in which they have put their arguments, given that we are dealing
with matters of fundamental principle and that there is a fundamental
divide.
I thank the
hon. Member for Upper Bann for the reasonable way in which he presented
his arguments, although I disagree fundamentally with his approach. I
am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for
Wallasey, for Sheffield, Attercliffe, for Birmingham, Erdington and for
Islington, North, who have put more eloquently than I might be able to
the case for why the Committee should support the
regulations.
I make no
apologies for introducing the regulations, supported by my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is the right
thing to do in 2007, and it is the moral and appropriate thing to do to
ensure that we have an inclusive, open and tolerant society. We are
discussing equality before the law in the provision of goods and
services, and I certainly do not wish to tolerate a society in which
people can be discriminated against on the ground of their sexuality or
sexual orientation. I recognise that there is a fundamental chasm or
divide between members of the
Committee in certain areas, but I will take my stand
and other hon. Members will take their stands, which is the nature of
democracy today.
The
regulations will help us to move towards a tolerant, open and inclusive
society in which the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals in
the community are respected under the law. Individuals who
fundamentally object to the lifestyle that people lead—not
through choice, but because of what they are—are entitled to
keep those objections and views, but we have drawn a line in the sand
on those points in relation to the provision of goods and
services.
Lorely
Burt:
I hope that the Minister will comment on transgender
people in his reply, because I asked specifically about
them.
Mr.
Hanson:
I shall come to that issue at an appropriate point
in my speech. I have the hon. Lady’s points in front of
me.
My hon. Friends
gave an eloquent historical analysis of race relations legislation.
Even though there is racism in society today—there are people
who vote for the British National party, people who will stand for that
party and people who will propagate racist views—the key thing
that our Government and previous Governments have done is to draw a
line in the sand that says, “This is where we stand, and this is
what we believe is tolerable in society in terms of people’s
attitudes and approaches to discrimination provisions, as opposed to
attitudes of
belief.”
The
hon. Member for Solihull said, “You cannot change what you
are,” and I take that point. Discrimination against people for
what they are is not
tolerable.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister confirm that if the line in the
sand is drawn differently in the regulations in Great Britain in April,
equivalent amendments will be made to the Northern Ireland
regulations?
Mr.
Hanson:
We in government will certainly reflect on what
colleagues in other Departments do. I hope that I will soon be spending
my last days as a Minister dealing with devolved matters in Northern
Ireland. I hope that we will dissolve the Assembly on 30 January, have
an election and elect a local devolved Administration, in which case
these matters will no longer be my responsibility. Any such
Administration would, in due course, consider the issues of
consultation and introduction that the hon. Lady has
raised.
Before I go on
to the main bulk of my comments, I shall address an important point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. This is not
just about legislation, it is about ultimately changing the culture of
our society to have that tolerance. We will lead the way in having a
society that is tolerant to people who are gay or
lesbian.
It is
important to say what the regulations will not do. They will not stop
freedom of speech. People are allowed to say what they will about
individuals in the community at large, and that is not going to change.
People will not stop believing what they believe, whether or not we
change the regulations. We might change the culture for future
generations, but what individuals believe is a matter for
them.
The regulations will have no
impact on the curriculum in schools in Northern Ireland or lead to the
promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. They will not lead to
the banning of Bibles in hotel rooms or attack the religious ethos,
teaching, practice or regulation of accepted Christian organisations.
They will certainly not mean that Christian bookshops promoting
marriage will find themselves being successfully sued for creating a
intimidating, hostile, humiliating, degrading or offensive
environment.
Turning
to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said, there has been and is
discrimination, and unless we take action today for Northern Ireland,
and on other days for the rest of the UK, there will continue to be
discrimination. That is why we have proposed the
regulations.
David
Simpson:
On the Minister’s point about freedom of
speech, may I take it that if a minister of the gospel, because of his
religious beliefs, were to say from his pulpit that homosexuality is
wrong, he would be protected under the
exemptions?
Mr.
Hanson:
Absolutely, and I hope that that clarifies the
point for the hon.
Gentleman.
In the 12
minutes or so that I have left, I wish to cover four areas, namely the
method of consultation and the introduction of the regulations,
harassment issues, enforceability and matters raised by hon. Members.
On the method of introduction, the hon. Member for North Down and I
have this joust regularly in relation to Orders in Council. I agree
with her that Orders in Council are an unsatisfactory way to legislate
for Northern Ireland. She knows that I know that, and I have told her
on many occasions that this is not the way to do it. I hope that the
Assembly will be back in due course, and I assure her that if an
Executive is in place by 26 March after an election on7 March,
the Assembly will be able, not by cross-community vote but by majority
vote, to throw out the regulations, if it so wishes. It could also
amend them or do what it wished within its competence. Once the
Assembly is in place, it will have competence on such
matters.
Mr.
Simon:
Does the Minister agree that when we spent years
passing the Northern Ireland turn the taps off order and the Northern
Ireland turn the lights off order over and over again, we did not have
a barrage of Northern Ireland Members telling us that we should not be
legislating and that it was absolutely out of the question? When they
get their Assembly back then great, they can legislate, but for the
moment this is our Parliament and we are legislating. They should be
joining
in.
Mr.
Hanson:
I accept that we have competence, and as a
Minister under direct rule, I have competence in such matters because
the Assembly is not sitting. I want it to sit, and it should be in
place and have responsibility. I repeat to the hon. Member for North
Down and other hon. Members, and to those in Northern Ireland who
oppose the regulations, the points that I made in an intervention on
her. Do not hold out hope that the Assembly will overturn the
regulations. In a vote in the Assembly on 11
December, the motion to annul the regulations, made by the hon. Member
for Lagan Valley, who is not present today, was defeated. Admittedly
the vote was close, but the motion was defeated and the Assembly
supported the introduction of the
regulations.
The hon.
Member for North Down and others mentioned consultation. I admit that
it was short, and the issue is currently under judicial review and I
cannot comment on it in detail. I say to her and the Committee that I
issued the regulations for consultation at the end of July. I wrote to
the leader of each party to ask them to meet me in September to discuss
the regulations. Nobody took up that invitation. We had 370-odd
responses to the consultation, compared with many thousands in Great
Britain. We assessed them and, on the back of the consultation, we took
steps to include details on harassment. Including those received since
the end of the consultation, I have received fewer than 700 pieces of
correspondence on the regulations, and the majority have come from
people outside Northern Ireland who have used these regulations as a
way to attack the pending regulations for England, Wales and
Scotland.
David
Simpson:
Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Hanson:
I cannot give way at the moment, because I want to
finish my points in the 10 minutes that I have left. As you know,
Mr. Williams, I would normally give way, but I want to cover
all the points.
There
has been a consultation and it will be subject to judicial review. I
cannot comment on what will happen in due course, but there has been an
opportunity for the Assembly to debate the regulations and individuals
to comment on them. I was asked why we have brought the regulations
forward now. First, it is the right thing to do and I believe that my
hon. Friends, whether the vote were free or whipped, would support me
in that. Equally, as I have said, there will be an election in Northern
Ireland shortly. If we call that election on 30 January, we cannot make
any Government announcements during February or most of March and we
will have an Assembly in place from 26 March. I want to ensure that the
regulations are in place at the earliest opportunity. I have had to
bring them forward to ensure that we avoid the election period. I hope
that that explanation will satisfy hon. Members.
Harassment has been mentioned
by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Tewkesbury,
for Upper Bann and for Oxford, West and Abingdon. The definition of
harassment in the regulations is not a dangerously new broad
definition. It is not something that I have invented over the summer
and decided to put into place. The definition of harassment in the
regulations is in its entirety the same as that applying in other
pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, not least that in the Race
Relations Order (Northern Ireland) 1997.
I must emphasise that the
provision does not give carte blanche to any person to receive damages
for allegations of harassment. There is a test of reasonableness in the
harassment legislation. The case needs to be made and people will
consider vexatious
and other complaints. The test of reasonableness, asin all
other legislation—including the race relations
legislation—will be based on the court making decisions based on
the relevant facts and on whether a reasonable man would have felt
harassed in those circumstances. If we reach a stage where the court
believes that a reasonable man would have been harassed in those
circumstances, it is right to give legal redress to that person to
ensure that they have a reasonable, open, tolerant life in our
community at large. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the
harassment definition is there for a purpose. It has a reasonable test
and, in due course, it will be reasonably examined.
Another matter that came up was
the question of enforcement. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury—I am
pleased that he has put his points in a reasonable way, which is the
way in which we operate in these Committees—mentioned
enforceability. He gave the example of whether someone could be turned
away from a guest house with the excuse that it is full when it is not
full at all, and asked how we would examine and accept such matters.
Nothing is perfect. We will never be able to judge on some occasions
whether something is down to discrimination, to someone not liking the
look of someone else for whatever reason, or to another reason. We are
trying to put down a basic legal test so that if an individual feels
that they have been wrongly persecuted because of their sexual
orientation, they have a legal redress to stand up for their right to
end that discrimination. I accept that it is not ever always going to
be perfect. There might be occasions on which people feel that they
have been discriminated against when they have not, but that is the
basis of the legal test in due course.
Mr.
Robertson:
Will it be for that person to prove that they
were discriminated against, as is normal in court proceedings? As the
hon. Member for North Down mentioned, the forms in schedules I and II
almost presume guilt.
Mr.
Hanson:
As ever, the court will ultimately determine the
outcome of any case. However, the point is that we are trying to put
down a basic set of moral beliefs in society about how an individual
should be able to receive goods and services. That is a simple test.
There will be grey edges—there always are with discrimination
issues.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am asking about the burden of
proof.
Mr.
Hanson:
The burden of proof will be there for the court to
determine based on the complaint and the test, as any court will
undertake to do. An individual will have to prove that they were
discriminated against and an individual will have to prove that they
did not discriminate. That will be the same in any legislation. I hope
that we will never find a case in point where that happens. I hope that
the culture change will ensure that we do not undertake that. I want to
try to eradicate a situation whereby we face such a court case. The
purpose of this is to try to change the culture in society to a
tolerant, open and accepting one.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury
has mentioned the fact that we have made some exemptions, and I know
that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey and other Labour Members
have done so too. There are a number of exemptions and I know that some
Members are happy with them, but wonder why they are inconsistent, and
others are not happy with them and wonder why they cannot be
eradicated. We had to draw the boundary somewhere, and the 25-member
boundary is one that is recognised in other anti-discrimination
legislation. To let you into a secret, Mr. Williams, I am
not greatly enamoured of the boundary myself, but it is the current
one, and it is fair and appropriate that we set one. In due course, it
may be appropriate to make further progress, and I certainly hope so.
For the moment, the boundary is a recognised one for private
members’ clubs and for other legislation.
I want to mention three or four
other points before my time expires. The hon. Member for Solihull
mentioned transsexual individuals. We are currently working on the
issue of legislation on goods and services in relation to such
individuals and I hope that the Government will propose regulations by
the end of the year. We are not covering the issue in the present
proposals because there is still work to be done with the European
Community.
The hon.
Member for North Down asked whether the legislation is ECHR-compliant.
Our view is that it is. The point is not mentioned in the legislation
or the explanatory notes because, under the rules of the House, we are
not permitted to give such a declaration.
The hon. Lady also
mentioned the question of the Equality Commission. I have discussed the
matter with the commission and it is true that the commission will have
additional responsibilities. It has not yet madeany
representations to me on the need for extra resources to meet the
requirements, but I shall be happy to discuss its financial needs in
due course if necessary.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann
mentioned two specific questions relating to section 24, and whether we
are satisfied that there is consistency between provisions. The
Department has provided a detailed response in confidence to the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is examining the issue. The
Committee itself has not yet deliberated on the response so I am not in
a position to tell this
Committee the outcome. Nevertheless, a view has been
submitted and I am aware of the issue. The JCSI will report in due
course.
Finally,
there was the question of accommodation. It will be unlawful to
discriminate against tenants or potential buyers on the basis of sexual
orientation. As with other anti-discrimination legislation, there is an
exception for provision of accommodation in someone’s own home.
That is why the dividing line
exists.
In conclusion,
the measure is a progressive oneand one that will bring
society in Northern Ireland into the 21st century with respect to the
provision of goods and services for gay and bisexual individuals. I
genuinely do not believe that people with strong religious beliefs have
anything to fear from the legislation. They have a right to those
beliefs, and gay and lesbian people have a right to receive goods and
services on a non-discriminatory basis. I am proud to introduce the
measure today and I am pleased to have the support of my hon. Friends.
I commend the measure to the Committee because it is the right thing to
do.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes
3.
Division
No.
1
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (S. I. (N. I.) 2006, No.
439).
Committee
rose at Five
o’clock.
