| Draft Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and Draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
|
|
The Chairman: We are talking about the order that relates to religion or belief. The rules apply to all members of the Committee. I understand that some hon. Members may have expected that the orders would be taken together, but it must always have been known, particularly to those with considerable experience in the House, that there is a provision for orders to be taken separately. We are now on religion; we will be coming to sexuality later. Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood): On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. I wonder whether we might have a five-minute suspension to enable all members of the Committee to adjust to the fact that the orders are being taken separately. I have been approached by a number of colleagues on the matter. I echo the point that has just been made; speeches have been prepared in expectation of the orders being taken together. The Chairman: It is a procedure of the House that when two orders are considered by a Committee, they may be debated together or separately. It is reasonable for the Chair to expect Members, including the Minister, to have come prepared for either eventuality. However, given that the Minister is obviously extremely new to what is going on, I shall take the rare step—I would not usually do this—of allowing the Committee a five-minute break. However, there will be no further indulgence to any hon. Member. Column Number: 007
2.41 pmSitting suspended.
2.46 pmOn resuming— Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to you, Miss. Widdecombe, for your patience in ensuring that the Committee's deliberations are smooth so that we can deal with these sensitive and difficult orders. I was trying to make the point that the regulations have a wide application, and will apply to those who offer employment and training across England, Scotland and Wales, whatever the size of the organisation and regardless of whether it is in the public or the private sector or is secular or religious. It is as challenging now to define an act of discrimination as it was when the sex discrimination and race relations Acts were designed in the mid–1970s. There has been no more difficult question in equality law than defining religion. One alternative was to list religions, but that solution would have been inflexible. Far from providing employers with the certainty that they want, such a list would quickly have become out of date. It also assumes that an exhaustive list was a realistic aim, which it is not. A broad definition of a religion in general terms is the only workable solution, and more than 70 per cent. of respondents to consultation agreed. In preparing the legislation, we have been open to new approaches. Our driving principle has been to ensure that the regulations are consistent with other requirements wherever that is practical. Dr. Harris: On the point about the definition of religion and belief, I should be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on where he sees the dividing line between religions and way-out cults. Everyone understands what we mean by the major religions, but some questions will be raised about whether exemptions in the regulations might be claimed by cults. Protections might be claimed by people involved in cultish behaviours. Mr. Sutcliffe: The exemptions are narrow and specific, and it is the job of the religion to prove that the exemptions are necessary. Cults will not therefore be able to use the regulations. Dr. Harris: Perhaps I can be more specific. Will individual employees be able to claim that some behaviours are of a religious nature, although not from a mainstream religion, and, if action is taken against them by their employers, claim that they are being discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief? How does the Minister expect the courts to deal with the question of what is and what is not a legitimate—in the lay sense of the word—religious belief? Mr. Sutcliffe: We must remember why we are here. We are here to discuss regulations for people who require protection at work. It is not for the Government to decide on a religious doctrine, or decide whether a cult is sensible. That question is for the tribunals to decide. We are talking about regulations for people at work. Column Number: 008 The regulations include specific protection against harassment for the first time in UK discrimination legislation. They outlaw victimisation in much the same terms as exist in equality legislation and they allow for positive action. Complaints made under them will mainly be considered by employment tribunals, in the same way as complaints on the grounds of sex or disability. There are, however, exceptions. It would be odd if legislation designed to outlaw religious discrimination took away the ability of organisations to have an ethos that was genuinely based on faith. That is no doubt why the directive contains a specific provision on Churches and religious organisations. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): Will the Minister give way? Mr. Sutcliffe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will first let me make some progress. Employers with an ethos that is based on religion or belief will be able to recruit employees from their own faith if they can demonstrate that faith is a genuine occupational requirement. Obvious examples are that one must be Jewish to be a rabbi and Catholic to be a Catholic priest. However, we have deliberately not prescribed which posts the genuine occupational requirement on religion will cover. The Government are not qualified to do that, and it makes more sense for employers to consider whether a post's functions require someone to have a particular faith. None the less, employers must be prepared to justify their actions. It is not sufficient for them simply to show that they have a religious ethos. The exemption will apply only where it is a genuine occupational requirement for the postholder to have a particular belief because of the ethos and the nature of the job. Even then, it must be proportionate to apply the requirement in each case. If challenged, employers will need to defend their decisions before an employment tribunal. Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw): The Minister will know that I represent a constituency in the west of Scotland, where employment practices and religion unfortunately became intermingled for all the wrong reasons. Can he confirm that the regulations are what my constituents have been waiting for, in that they will ensure that people are not discriminated against in their place of employment because of their religion? Mr. Sutcliffe: Yes, I can confirm that. We are talking about new rights and, despite the great sensitivity about the issues that they raise, we should not forget that they will give people new opportunities, as my hon. Friend suggests. I am sure that they will be welcomed as a result. Andrew Selous: A few moments ago, the Minister referred to positive action, and I should be grateful if he would clarify what he means. Is he talking about positive discrimination in terms of employment numbers? Will he also clarify whether, in responding to the comments by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), he was referring to safeguarding people's right not to work on Sundays? Column Number: 009 Mr. Sutcliffe: Certainly not. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw was alluding not to that but to religious discrimination, and he made a good point about the practices that exist in his constituency and elsewhere in his region. On the point about—I apologise, but I have lost my note. Andrew Selous: I asked whether the Minister would explain what he meant by positive action. Mr. Sutcliffe: Positive action means that individuals can have recourse to an appeal to an employment tribunal if they feel that they have been discriminated against. The exception in regulation 7 focuses on individuals' faith. Nothing in the regulations would allow organisations to discriminate against gays and lesbians, or, indeed, justify any act that was unlawful under the sexual orientation regulations. Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. The Minister is again drifting. The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise a point of order, and the Minister must confine his remarks to religion or belief. However, he is new and he is trying to be briefed on the hoof and to do his level best. I ask hon. Members to exercise a little restraint. They may have their fun with him when he has been in the job a little longer. Mr. Sutcliffe: Thank you for that protection, Miss Widdecombe—I am very grateful for it. As you rightly said, the procedural situation has caused me some difficulty, and I apologise for that. However, all members of the Committee will be aware of the sensitivity of the regulations and of the fact that they are new. To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), positive action is not positive discrimination. It can overcome disadvantages through, for example, encouragement to apply for a job, while not permitting discrimination at the point of selection, and gives the opportunity for new rights. Members of the Committee might feel it more appropriate to go into the detail of some aspects of the provisions. I have tried to explain why the regulations are important, and that for the first time they provide protection against discrimination and harassment at work on the grounds of religion or belief. I commend them to the Committee.
2.55 pmMr. Robathan: May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe? I shall be careful not to stray, because I know that you will come down on me fiercely if I do. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) indicated his objection. We did not object on the ground that that would embarrass the Minister. The regulations are important, but we do a discourtesy to the general public if we do not examine legislation as closely as possible. I have a certain soft spot for the Minister, because I think that he stood in at the 11th hour and 59th Column Number: 010 minute once, when I was captain of a tug-of-war team and he came to my assistance. We lost on that occasion, as on every other occasion—I have captained the team for six years—but I am glad to say that we won yesterday. I am sure that everyone would like to congratulate the House of Commons team, which is now made up mostly of Labour Members, on winning against the House of Lords yesterday.To be serious, I wish the Minister no ill. The regulations are important and it is apt that we should have religion before sex. Although the Minister was caught hopping, it should be noted that I did not know that I was going to speak on the regulations until approximately 6 pm yesterday, so I have also been learning on the hoof. It is important that the Government do not disregard Parliament and that the regulations be examined. My hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon have many points to make. There is a certain mess, although I do not blame the Minister for that. Until about Saturday, the regulations were the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) has been cheerleading on the matter—very well, I am sure, although I have not been concentrating on that. However, suddenly the regulations have come to the Department of Trade and Industry. I suspect that that is where a certain amount of the confusion lies. Part of the mess caused by the Government reshuffle is being discussed on the Floor of the House at the moment. We want to know whether the DTI is now responsible for equality issues. The regulations came out of the department with responsibility for equality issues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, or whatever it was called. It seems also that the regulations have been forced on us through the directive, because we signed up to the social chapter. I know that the regulations are coming in under the European Communities Act 1972, but I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm in his summing-up whether we could have been exempted from the regulations if we had kept our opt-out on the social chapter under the Maastricht treaty. When the directive came in, did the Government oppose it? If not, why not? Did the Government then cave in, and if so, why? We hear a lot about such matters, so was anything offered in exchange? The United Kingdom has a long history of being highly regarded by the rest of Europe and the rest of the world for its law in relation to discrimination. The Race Relations Act 1976, as well as other legislation on racial discrimination, is ahead of most of the EU and generally works pretty well. It is therefore not necessarily desirable that the UK should be pushed in other directions when it does not have that much to learn. What is the need for the regulations? Parliament has an important role to play in protecting the rights of minorities. However, that is not to say that we should legislate on the basis of pressure from single-issue pressure groups. We have heard from the hon. Column Number: 011 Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that there is a serious problem, as we all know, between Rangers and Celtic and Catholics and Protestants in the west of Scotland.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 17 June 2003 |
