A historic step forward for gay rights has been taken by European Union ministers. They have ratified a Directive to outlaw discrimination against gay people by employers throughout the EU. The Directive seeks to ensure equal treatment and combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in employment and occupation. The Directive is number 565 and it covers pay, benefits and conditions, recruitment, promotion and dismissals.
The TUC welcomed the move. Peter Purton, Lesbian and Gay Policy Officer of the Trades Union Council said: “In Britain, for the first time, the Government will now be obliged to end discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.”
It is encouraging that none of the ministers opposed the basic principle of equality in employment for gays and lesbians when the Directive was agreed in Luxembourg on 17 October 2000. By far the most contentious area of debate in the months leading up to the Directive’s finalisation was the extent of exemptions to be afforded to religious organisations. These heated disagreements continued right up to the Council of Ministers’ meeting, with the Irish reportedly threatening to veto the whole Directive unless religious organisations were given more freedom to discriminate.
The procedure for agreeing the Directive was complex. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee issued a draft directive for discussion and then recommended a version for the European Parliament. British (New Labour) MEP Stephen Hughes had persuaded the Committee that every member state should be required to give religious organisations wide exemptions. Then it was the turn of the European Parliament.
The European Parliament reversed this requirement in a closely fought vote. The vote was proposed by Baroness Ludford MEP after detailed briefings from Britain’s National Secular Society. The Parliament’s decisions are subject to ratification by the Council of Ministers. They accepted that there should be no compulsion to give these exemptions but had to make further concessions after fierce pressure from Ireland and Germany. These were to allow member states, if they wished, to permit existing employment discrimination by religious organisations to continue. In the UK this will mean that church schools will retain the statutory right in many cases to refuse employment or to sack teachers who do not conform to a school’s religious ethos.
Our own Parliament must pass legislation to give effect to the Directive, and the deadline for the sexuality provisions is October 2003. The UK had argued for a much longer implementation period, although this may have been because of Government concerns over aspects of the Directive unconnected with sexuality.
It is already accepted by all parties that religious organisations will be able to discriminate (for example, in favour of believers and against gays) in the appointment of such posts as priests and rabbis. When the legislation is introduced, however, the Government will have to decide whether to grant any exemptions allowing religious organisations to discriminate further.
Religious organisations, especially those in the care and welfare sectors, will be lobbying for the right to refuse employment to non-believers, or even gays – even if the jobs are paid out of the public purse. We can expect a torrent of such demands which we can expect to be supported by organisations such as the Christian Institute and Evangelical Alliance. On the other hand, the National Secular Society, gay campaigning organisations (such as the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) and the trades unions will be fighting to oppose any exemptions granted to religious organisations by this legislation.
How are these conflicting demands by such religious organisations to be reconciled with those of secularists and humanists, as well as the lesbian and gay community? We can expect a number of cases to be brought in UK courts resulting in precedents being established.
is Executive Director of the National Secular Society and a member of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association. This briefing is based on an article written for the December 2000 issue of Gay Times and appears here by kind permission of the author.