---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 170:"After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—" ““PART 2A DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION Key concepts    SEXUAL ORIENTATION    In this Part ““sexual orientation”” means a sexual orientation towards— (a)   persons of the same sex; (b)   persons of the opposite sex; or (c)   persons of the same sex and of the opposite sex.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 171 to 187. I only wish that I had a note like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, with which to give good cheer to the Front Bench. Alas, no such note exists. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner of Camden and Lady Massey of Darwen, whose names are attached to the amendments. The amendments have been tabled for two simple reasons. First, the Government have sought to use the Bill to extend protection against discrimination in goods and services for faith communities, and, in particular, to protect Muslims against discrimination, or perhaps just as importantly, perceived discrimination. Their intentions are to be applauded but they have created an anomaly. If, as someone with a Muslim background, I were refused a hotel room on the basis of my religion, I would be protected under the provisions; but if I were refused the very same hotel room on the basis that I was gay, I would have no such protection. The amendments seek to correct that mischief. The second reason why these amendments reappear is the growing evidence of widespread discrimination, which needs to be tackled as soon as possible. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, my honourable friend in the other place Meg Munn, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for giving their time in dealing with the issue. I want to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for his commitment to do all he could to make that happen in this Bill, which he gave to the Labour Party conference only a few weeks ago. In Committee in July the noble Baroness kindly undertook to continue consideration of matching the Bill’s proposed protection for faith groups with similar protection for the gay and lesbian community. It was on that basis that I withdrew my amendments in Committee, to give the Government the summer to start work on the necessary consultation and draft. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, aided by her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has sought to convince a range of civil servants that they should include the provisions in this Bill if the timetable permits. The noble Baroness knows that lesbians and gay men are routinely insulted by being refused double rooms in hotels and guest houses. Such discrimination is already rightly unlawful, should hotel proprietors refuse rooms to black and Asian couples. That such discrimination towards gay people is still lawful can only reinforce discrimination against the lesbian and gay community in wider society. However, in the three months since Committee, there has been further compelling evidence. I will not bore the House with huge numbers of examples. But one that really struck home to me was that of a woman who described how a nurse demanded a male doctor to be present for her smear test, once the nurse found out that the woman was a lesbian. There are disturbing cases, which need to be dealt with now. I am mindful that Ministers have offered no satisfactory explanation of why those protections are less needed by gay men and lesbians today than they are for faith communities. The violent murder in London at the weekend goes to underline the vulnerability of the gay community. Even though we have made huge progress, a lot more still needs to be done. I am genuinely perplexed. I know that there is political will. The case for doing so is compelling. But the wheels of government are so slow. I understand from civil servants that there have been many discussions with key stakeholders and that there are no objections, in principle. So perhaps the noble Baroness will explain this to me: with a targeted six-week exercise, consultation could be completed before the Bill reaches the other place. Why can the Government not commit to doing that consultation and putting those provisions in the Bill? In any event, the existing provisions for religious groups were swiftly expedited and I cannot see any logical reason—no doubt, the Minister will find some eloquent words to help me with that—why this should not be too. I know that the noble Baroness is aware of the strength of feeling on this issue across this party, this House, and particularly on these Back Benches. I hope that she can assure me that action will be taken before the Bill reaches another place, for I believe that the case merits it. The previous time that the noble Baroness stood at the Dispatch Box on this issue, she gave me assurances that she and her colleagues would look at these issues over the summer. I am afraid that that time was squandered. Let us not make the same mistake again. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say when she answers. I beg to move.