Equality Bill

Amendment 97E in the name of my noble friend Lord Alli would mean that a requirement related to sexual orientation could no longer be applied by an organised religion in relation to employment for the purposes of the religion. For example, the Church of England could no longer require a gay Minister to be celibate, should it so wish. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 replaces and harmonises separate exceptions in current discrimination legislation for occupational requirements where the employment is, ""for the purposes of an organised religion"." The existing exceptions are contained in Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and regulation 7(3) of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Paragraph 2 and regulation 7(3) both refer to a requirement "related to sexual orientation" rather than to be of a particular sexual orientation. This choice of wording was deliberate so as to accommodate the concerns of some churches about certain forms of sexual behaviour rather than sexuality as such. However, a person is protected from discrimination because of how their sexual orientation is manifested, such as being in a same sex relationship, as well as because of their sexual orientation. If "requirement related to sexual orientation" was removed from the exception, a church would not be able to require a minister of religion to be celibate if they are not married. This is because only a person who is heterosexual could meet the requirement to be married. Therefore, the requirement would constitute discrimination because of sexual orientation, unless it was allowed by the exception. In the Government’s view, paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 strikes an appropriate balance between competing rights. The rights in question are the rights of followers of organised religions to manifest their religion and the rights of others not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. The Government would risk upsetting that balance if we were to prevent churches and other organised religions from manifesting their religion in the limited circumstances allowed by the exception. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also considers in its recently published Report on the Bill that, ""in general, the provisions of Schedule 9(2) … strike the correct balance between the right to equality and non-discrimination and the rights to freedom of religion or belief and association, especially if interpreted in line with the approach set out in Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry"." In that case, the High Court decided that regulation 7(3) of the 2003 regulations does not interfere with any rights under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In other words, regulation 7(3) does not involve any violation of the private rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. It simply limits the scope of what the regulations add to existing rights. That applies equally to paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 because it has the same effect as regulation 7(3) of the 2003 regulations. Amendment 119A, also spoken to my noble friend Lord Alli—