Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association

Single Equality Body Consultation Seminar

by Eric Thompson

This was a chance for representatives of a range of interested parties to get together in order to discuss, in particular, whether there should be a single body to oversee all equality issues. The issues – or “strands” – that were specified in the light of European Union legislation were: age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, and sexual orientation.

Initially, I was inclined to favour a single body; but, listening to the discussions, I found myself increasingly doubting the appropriateness of including religion and belief together with the other issues.

A full summary of the meeting is to be posted on the Women and Equality Unit’s website, so I will not attempt a full report here, but merely comment on some things that I recall striking me during the day.

As well as the plenary sessions, I attended two workshops: in the morning the “Functions” workshop on equality machinery; in the afternoon the “Strands” workshop on sexual orientation. (Terry Sanderson attended the workshops on service providers’ and employers’ needs and on religion and belief on behalf of the National Secular Society.)

The responsible minister, Barbara Roche, made it clear that no major change could be implemented before 2006 – I suspect it would be much later in practice – and a number of people urged the need to do something before then for the groups that have no existing machinery. I strongly supported the need for a body to deal with discrimination in respect of sexual orientation in the short term, partly because nothing will otherwise be done for some years, and partly so that a comprehensive new body would not be subject to the temptation to give priority to those areas – such as sex, race, and disability – where staff already have developed expertise and where case law has been established.

Another identified short-term need was that for placing a positive legal obligation on public bodies not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

One thing that struck me throughout was the way that religion seemed to be treated as deserving a higher priority than the other strands. This came up particularly strongly during the workshop on sexual orientation, when Simon Calvert (deputy director of the Christian Institute) and I had some heated exchanges. His view seemed to be that it was intolerable for any restrictions to be placed on the activities of religious groups; and that, if their “ethos” (a word I’ve come to dislike) called for discrimination against other people, that was of itself enough to justify such discrimination. I suggested that, if the Archbishop of Wales was prepared to make a practising homosexual a priest, there could be no Christian “ethos” making such a person unfit to be a teacher of mathematics or a caretaker in a church school – but this was apparently dismissed as a debating point. (By the same token, I suppose another religion could claim the right to employ only women who had been circumcised because that was part of their ethos.)

This point tied in with the content of a draft “Equality Bill”, which has been produced by the Odysseus Trust. This is to be introduced into the Lords by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and it is important that we should all make our views on that Bill known well before 30 September. The Bill is designed to deal with discrimination in respect of a rather wider range of characteristics than those discussed at the seminar: colour, race, nationality, or ethnic origins; religion or belief; sex; marital status; family status; sexual orientation; gender reassignment; age; and disability. However, these are not treated equally in the Bill itself. I had been able only to glance at the draft briefly before the seminar, but two points I did spot alarmed me.

First, Clause 26(2) would specifically exclude any body with a charitable purpose (within the meaning of the Charities Act 1993) promoting a particular religion or belief from the provisions about discriminating in the employment of staff in relation to their sex or sexual orientation if that was “necessary to comply with the doctrines of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers”. The lawyer representing the Odysseus Trust said she hoped no-one found that offensive. I replied that I found it very offensive. (The mention of a significant number of the followers of a religion could almost have been designed to cover groups of fundamentalist homophobic cranks.)

Secondly, the list of the equality duties of public bodies in Clause 72 excludes sexual orientation from the areas where public bodies would have to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination.

The workshop on sexual orientation started with a presentation by Angela Mason, executive director of the lobby group Stonewall. This was quite good, and covered the main issues well – with one exception. In her list of the key expectations of stakeholders, she included “a reasoned dialogue with faith communities”. That is not something I think we can reasonably expect. By definition, faith communities do not base their actions on reason, but on faith. I was also slightly concerned by her oral emphasis on getting government support for lesbian and gay organisations. Past experience shows that bodies depending on government funds frequently find that he who pays the piper calls the tune.