Equality Bill

I want to deal first with new clause 7—and new clause 8, which is closely related—which calls for protection from harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation in education and the delivery of public services. Protection already exists in those areas in respect of other grounds, so it is necessary also to protect vulnerable individuals on these grounds. The key point about people in education and using public services is that they are a captive population. They cannot choose another hotel, another bed and breakfast or another retailer; they rely on public services, and in schools, they are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, all one needs to do to make the case for this provision is to show that there is a bullying and harassment problem in those places and that the new clause will do the job in providing protection, just as the existing provisions, such as for protection from racial harassment, do their job. It is also necessary to ensure that there is no undue infringement of free speech, however. I hope that hon. Members will accept that I am always sensitive to arguments about that, which is why my proposed definition of harassment in relation to sexual orientation is, even for schools, slightly narrower than the existing provision for sexual orientation harassment in employment, as it requires both a violation of dignity and the creation of an environment that is""intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive"." A number of studies have shown that there is harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. A European Union study showed:""Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation…becomes an important issue for secondary schools…The main problems experienced by LGB individuals include: harassment and bullying…insulting and degrading treatment during classes…Fellow pupils may threaten or subject LGB pupils to verbal and physical abuse in the classroom and on school grounds"." That evidence is cited by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in support of including a measure such as this in the Bill. In addition, the EHRC's briefing material states:""Stonewall found that of the 1,100 lesbian and gay people interviewed in 2007 for The School Report:""Almost two thirds…of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying. 75 per cent. of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying."" The idea, promulgated by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), for whom I have a great deal of time otherwise, that the solution is for parents to choose schools where pupils will not be harassed is astonishing. Would he make the same argument about racial harassment—that argument could be made, too? That is otiose and odious in principle, but the idea that this provision should apply in areas where there is no choice of school, or that people who are vulnerable to harassment should have a smaller choice of schools because they have to avoid the schools where harassment takes place, is bizarre. In the Public Bill Committee I asked the representatives of religious organisations whether anything in the way in which they deliver the curriculum, be it on religious education or anything else, amounted to the creation of an environment that was hostile, degrading, threatening or offensive, and they said that there was not. They said that that was not part of what they do, so I do not think that this provision will in any way hinder what faith schools can do. In fact, it is not about faith schools; it is about all schools.