Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association

Our Opportunity to Improve Gay Rights at Work

by Keith Porteous Wood

Lesbians and gay men across the nation are being urged to comment on the Government’s plans to introduce legislation to outlaw discrimination at work on several grounds, including sexuality and religion. Gay groups have broadly welcomed the Government’s proposals.

Angela Mason, Executive Director of Stonewall, said: “I am delighted about this consultation which is an important stage towards legal protection for lesbians, gays and bisexuals at work.”

The proposed legislation, which will come into force in December 2003, would also ensure that same-sex couples were treated no worse than are unmarried heterosexual couples, in such areas as pensions.

However, if a pension scheme restricts benefits to “surviving spouses” (i.e. widows or widowers), the Government does not intend to require these same benefits to be extended to unmarried couples (whether they are heterosexual or same-sex).

The Government must be reminded that, unlike heterosexual couples, lesbian and gay employees do not have the option of marrying in order to secure improved employment benefits. We must also stress to the Government how unfair it would be if they failed to protect under this law the huge number of employees in the public sector (such as those in the civil service and the health service) whose pension schemes are governed directly by Acts of Parliament.

Angela Mason said she hoped that the gay community would grasp this unique opportunity and “work to ensure that occupational pensions are fully covered by the new law”.

Of particular concern to campaigners are the exemptions being sought by religious bodies, to permit them to discriminate against their workers. The Government proposes to allow religious organisations to “pursue employment policies necessary to ensure the preservation of [their religious] ethos”.

Disturbingly, their efforts have so far failed to persuade the Government to define narrowly what constitutes a religious employer and to exempt from protection only those jobs directly concerned with proselytising (preaching).

Mason warned: “We must try hard to ensure that backdoor discrimination by religious bodies against our community is minimised.”

The government proposals also signal an intention to permit religious schools – a third of all schools – to “pursue employment policies needed to preserve the particular religious character of the school". This places out gay teachers at a potentially severe disadvantage in the job market.

George Broadhead, Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA), points out that religious groups are major employers in education, and are increasingly so in the caring and social work sectors, too. These groups mostly consider homosexual behaviour to be morally wrong and against their “ethos” or “religious character”, and some are already demanding that they should not be “forced” to employ – or continue to employ – practising homosexuals. If such demands prevail, he fears this “could force tens of thousands of gay employees back into the closet in order to keep or obtain a job".

Broadhead also worries that the new legislation may not prevent intrusion into workers’ personal lives. “Will religious employers be able to ask candidates about their sexuality at the interview? Will they be permitted to enquire whether employees are practising homosexuals?" he asks.

The proposals offer a choice of two legal definitions of harassment at work. Angela Mason considers that option 2, a definition similar to the one used in the Race Relations Act, is far better than the other option, a definition proposed by the EU Employment Directive, which, she feels, would make it more difficult for gay and lesbian employees to obtain redress.

She stresses that this consultation is an opportunity not to be missed: “There is still much we can – and must – do to ensure that the law gives us the maximum protection possible.”