Schedule 23

Part of Equality Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:00 pm on 2 July 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Mason John Mason Scottish National Party, Glasgow East 2:00, 2 July 2009

I have listened to what is being said. I am encouraged by the Solicitor-General when she uses words such as “difficult balance” and “proportionate”, which to be fair she has done throughout the sittings of the Committee. That is what we are all looking for.

I am a little disappointed by some of the other comments. I wonder whether the evidence supports the idea that there has been no problem or loss of service, when adoption agencies are closing down. The examples of a bookshop or publisher not serving somebody were definitely not what I was aiming at. I have no problem with legislation saying that a bookshop or a printer must serve anybody who comes in. The problem is about the material. Is the bookshop being forced to sell or publish material that it is not happy with? Is the printer or the website designer being forced to produce material that they are extremely uncomfortable with? That would require some negotiation, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, and I agree with him about that. Perhaps somebody could look at that point later.

The issue of religious organisations being provided with funds to understand and tailor their practices is, I think, a draconian method whatever it applies to. It  implies, “We will not discuss it, we will just give you money to understand us.” On the basis that all those matters have been discussed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.