We are delighted that – at last – gay people are to be offered – at least some – legal protection against discrimination at work. It has long been clear to those of us working for gay rights that unjust and discriminatory treatment of gay and lesbian people in their employment is a major issue.
We do, however, have some profound reservations about what is being proposed in this new legislation.
We are sorry to see that the equality that the legislation promises will not extend to occupational pension schemes that restrict benefits to “spouses”. We understand that the European Directive seeks to protect “national laws on marital status and the benefits dependent thereon”, but it seems unfair to us that some pension schemes will be able to avoid granting equality of treatment simply because their rules were drawn up with a particular wording. It is not sufficient for the Government to offer to put pressure on such schemes to change their rules, they must be made to do so. It is the very employers that will resist change that will need to be compelled to eliminate discrimination.
We are most disturbed to see that special exemptions will be permitted for “organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief”. We feel that such exemptions completely undermine the spirit of this legislation. Providing protection from discrimination is a noble objective, but permitting exemptions on such wide-ranging grounds means that discrimination that is at present discouraged, and might be open to legal challenge, will become legalised and institutionalised. This is surely a regressive step to which we strongly object.
The Government propose to exempt from inclusion those jobs where there is a “genuine determining occupational requirement that a job be carried out by a person belonging to a particular religion, or holding a particular set of religious or other beliefs.” We agree that it is reasonable to apply such an exemption to jobs that involve proselytising – such as clergymen, priests, imams, etc. We urge, though, that it is made clear that such exemptions are to be very narrowly applied, and solely to jobs that involve the direct proclamation of the faith.
We find this proposal to permit religious employers to discriminate widely in their employment policies to be completely unacceptable. It is a total negation of the spirit of equality of opportunity that this legislation seeks to promote. In her introduction to the consultation, the Minister of State [Barbara Roche] wrote: “We need to have a clear, shared understanding of basic minimum standards. Put simply, unfair discrimination – whether at the point of recruitment, in conditions of employment or through harassment – is wrong. It can have a devastating impact on the lives of individuals.”
We agree entirely, but cannot understand the reasoning that will permit exemptions rendering the Minister’s fine sentiments meaningless.
Although religious organisations will have to prove that it is necessary for them to reserve all jobs for their own adherents in order to preserve the “ethos” of that organisation, we think that it will inevitably lead to injustice, discrimination and the creation of even more inequality. It is wrong that people will be forced to fight in the courts to retain their jobs when the only justification for their being dismissed is religious bigotry.
Religious organisations are frequently major employers, particularly in the welfare field. Many religious organisations feel that any expression of homosexuality is completely unacceptable and in automatic conflict with their “ethos”. They will therefore seek to ensure that no “practising” homosexual is employed and any that are already in employment are removed.
This is already in evidence. St George’s Crypt for the homeless, a religious charity in Leeds, has formulated what it claims to be “a statement on equal opportunities”. Part of the statement reads: “In order to safeguard the Christian ethos of the charity, it is our policy not to employ anyone whose lifestyle is inconsistent with our understanding of that ethos.” One of the examples of “inconsistent lifestyles” given is “active homosexual or lesbian relationships” (Guardian, 11 December 1999).
We feel that, by giving near carte blanche to religious organisations to deny employment to gay people and non-believers, the Government is creating circumstances that will lead to a great deal of discrimination – the opposite of what is intended.
The Labour Party manifesto at the last election indicated that it was the Government’s intention to involve “the faith communities” much more in community projects – so-called Faith-Based Welfare. Since then, the Local Government Association has issued guidelines to local authorities about how to involve religious communities in council activities, including the provision of welfare services that have been traditionally undertaken by the councils themselves. The LGA guidelines also indicate that funding for these groups must not be automatically rejected simply because they have a religious character. This suggests to us that increasing numbers of jobs that have until now been in the public sector will eventually be handed over to the religious service providers.
Most local authorities have equal opportunities policies that have been worked out over many years and strictly enforced. Most include measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The LGA guidelines conspicuously omit to recommend that religious organisations be required to observe anti-discrimination guidelines in employment or service provision as a condition of receiving public funding. If religious bodies take over existing council services, there is no indication that they will also be required to embrace existing equal opportunities policies under which staff in these services were originally employed. Indeed, if the new law is formulated on the basis of the proposals in this present consultation, no such conditions on the use of public money by religious organisations would be permitted.
This could potentially involve thousands of jobs. The jobs of those people who are already employed in, say, an old people’s home that is handed over by a local authority to a religious body, will be at risk if they are “practising” homosexuals or non-believers – or even unmarried heterosexual co-habitees.
In the United States, where the Government is trying hard to install “faith-based welfare”, there is endless controversy over the behaviour of some religious groups towards their employees. Indeed, according to the Christian Science Monitor (11 February 2002) President Bush has had to “compromise his plan to expand federal support for social services run by religious groups [...] Religious groups would not be able to discriminate on religious grounds in the hiring of social workers when using pubic money for public services. That compromise is necessary for the Bill to pass the Senate.”
We feel that the Government here could learn from the experiences of the Americans. There has been a lot of very unpleasant discrimination by religious groups, which is why the faith-based initiative is foundering so badly. The Americans have learned the hard way about curbing religious bigotry in the work place; we can avoid their mistakes.
Equality and Diversity states that the EU directive makes it clear that “organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief can continue to expect their staff to ‘act in good faith and with loyalty to that ethos’ ”.
This proposal, too, we find almost unbelievably unfair. It could lead to the most offensive discrimination. As we have said, “practising” homosexuals will be unacceptable to many religious employers simply because of what they are. However good they are at their job – perhaps as a nurse in a hospice or a cleaner in an old people’s home – if they are “practising” homosexuals, they could be fired, demoted or otherwise discriminated against.
If a gay person who was not “practising” were to obtain a job with a religious organisation on that basis, and then later begin a relationship, could he or she be sacked? Could the penalty for falling in love be the loss of your job?
And will religious organisations be permitted to ask impertinent and intrusive questions at interviews? Will they be allowed to ask on application forms whether an applicant is a “practising” homosexual? Have they have ever been a “practising” homosexual? Do they intend to become a “practising” homosexual? Such questions, breathtakingly offensive as they are, seem perfectly possible given the hostility that many religious organisations show towards homosexuals and the dread they have of employing them.
If religious organisations are given the legal right to deny jobs to homosexuals, then there is no logical way to prevent them prying and enquiring to discover if prospective employees are homosexual or not.
We are deeply concerned about just how much invasion of privacy will be permitted by religious employers as they seek to discover whether their employees are “acceptable” to their “ethos”. It seems to us that this legislation may well be found to be in contravention of human rights legislation. It could open the door for vindictive accusations from fellow employees, and witch-hunting by hard-line religionists.
The proposals in these clauses are insidious and an open door to the abuse of the rights of already vulnerable people. We strongly urge the Government to abandon or severely modify such exemptions.
Already there is a campaign under way by one Christian pressure group, urging religious organisations to change their trust deeds so as to ensure that their religious “ethos” can be in no doubt if court action should ensue. We feel very strongly that the Government should not leave these exemptions so open-ended, almost inviting institutionalised bigotry. It would only take a few adverse precedents at industrial tribunals or in the courts to completely rob gay employees of their employment rights with religious organisations.
We urge the Government to abandon this exemption or modify it in such a way as to leave no opportunity for religious employers to practise bigotry against gay staff who are performing their jobs to a satisfactory standard.
We regard Sections 58 and 60 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act as an affront to natural justice. Once again religious “rights” to discriminate are favoured at the expense of the non-religious and others. What makes it worse is that all the jobs in so-called faith schools are paid for from the public purse.
The number of religious schools in this country runs into many thousands, and is set to increase. That means hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. To intimate that these can all be reserved exclusively for religious adherents is intolerable in a pluralist – and, by choice, a secular – society. Why does one have to be an Anglican in order to teach French effectively? Why does one have to be a Catholic to teach biology?
The present teacher shortage is ensuring that few, if any, schools are able to insist on believers for every job in a school, but the principle remains valid – religious privilege, provided at the expense of innocent people’s job opportunities, is completely unacceptable.
Equality and Diversity states the view that there will be no need to amend Sections 58 to 60 of the SSFA or Section 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. We disagree completely. The Directive is a minimum. There is every need to amend these iniquitous examples of favouritism. They are completely out of step with the wants and needs of society, as expressed in the very small numbers of people who attend churches or are actively involved in religion of any kind.
We find this section to be shocking and dispiriting. How can legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination at work countenance such blatant discrimination? We feel very strongly that this provision (to permit schools with a religious character to “pursue employment policies needed to preserve the particular religious character of the school”) must be abandoned. The objections we have already stated in relation to religious organisations in general also apply to religious schools, but our objections are strengthened by the jobs are being paid for from public funds. The public at large will, in effect, be funding religious bigotry through their taxes. This is entirely unacceptable.
The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association is one of Britain’s longest established, democratically run, national gay groups. It has consistently fought for the rights of gay people to live free from the threat of religious interference. It favours equality over privilege and inclusiveness over discrimination.
If there is any other way in which we can help with the formulation of this legislation we will gladly do so.