Schedule 9
Equality Bill
5:45 pm
Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The more specific it is, the less doubt there is. That is why I welcome the fact that it has been made more specific. The point that I am making is that even when it has been made more specific—not necessarily more narrow—in our legislation, it is not clear whether that definition captures people who I do not think ought to be caught.
I do not want the hon. Member for Forest of Dean to think for one moment that I accept that if one is teaching and is in a religious organisation, there is some sexual orientation test that is automatic. I understand that if one is proselytising, that can be a question. But promoting or explaining the doctrine is what matters, not the general teaching point of view. That implies that any role that involves young people, which automatically involves teaching, would be caught. I hope that that is not the intention of the schedule. It must not be its intention, because otherwise we would just have a no gay teachers situation, which, with the connotations, is unacceptable. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not need to make them, but they are sometimes made in that respect. I urge all of us to be careful where we assume that teaching, rather than explaining or promoting the doctrine of a religion, is automatically caught.
There are just two other points that I would like to raise to avoid a stand part debate. That is to ask the Minister briefly why, in paragraph (1), in line 15, the language does not use the term “genuine occupational requirement”, but only “occupational requirement”. It would be sensible to use the language of the directive, because it is there.
On the same page, sub-paragraph (4), line 37, raises a couple of further issues. Why does the question of whether
“A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets”
a requirement apply only to the
“requirement to be of a particular sex”?
The Bill states—rightly—that there are no ifs or buts. A person cannot say, “Well, he kind of looks male, so we’ll assume that she is not female and that therefore the provision does not apply”. Should that not also apply to age? A person has a specific age that should not be open to doubt.
Finally, on the same issue—to a certain extent—it is most unfortunate that sub-paragraph (3)(a), on page 180, in respect of a transsexual person, does not give any protection to someone with a gender recognition certificate. There is a starred but not select amendment on this matter, so the Minister might have had some notice of it. It is very worrying that a person can have a gender recognition certificate stating very clearly their new gender and still be liable to be considered a transsexual on a spectrum without the protection that I thought that the Government would seek to provide. With those caveats and questions, however, I support the Government’s general approach, and I urge them to resist the lead amendment.