Proceeding contribution from Michael Jabez Foster (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 11 November 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Sex Discrimination (Religious Organisations).
Sex Discrimination (Religious Organisations)
Applying the requirements is permitted only where that is a proportionate means of complying with the doctrines of the religion or avoiding conflict with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers. Of course, in the end, it would be a matter for the courts, but it seems unlikely that it would go as wide as to include an organist. That is certainly not the intention. The Government's agreed position on which posts should be covered by the exception remains the same as when Lord Sainsbury described it in the debate on the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which contain an exception analogous to section 19 of the 1975 Act. He said that it involved"““a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.””—Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 779.]" It is unlikely that an organist would come within that qualification, but it would clearly cover bishops. Whether or not the conditions I have set out are still met—that is, whether a requirement that bishops should be men was in place in order to comply with the doctrines of the religion or to avoid the kind of conflict described—is ultimately a matter for the courts. I am sure we will all have our own views on whether the Church of England could maintain that position after the debates it has had, but it is not—at this time, in any event—for Ministers to offer an opinion. I have also been asked whether direct or indirect discrimination is at issue. It is right that as a general rule, only indirect discrimination can be justified using the principle of proportionality. A limitation placed on women because they are women would be a form of direct discrimination and so could not be justified in that way. Such a limitation would be unlawful unless allowed by a specific exception, although in that case the exception that would be claimed includes a requirement that a restriction be proportionate. The hon. Member for Salisbury also asked about the work of the Church revision committee. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the rights and wrongs of the Church of England's internal processes and discussions. As I understand it, the Synod has not yet been presented with the proposals under consideration by the revision committee, so to do so would be premature anyway. What I hope is clear is that whatever proposals are brought forward for consideration by Parliament would need to comply with the law as it stands at the time. They should not, in any matter subject to discrimination law, result in direct sex discrimination unless there is a specific exception allowing it, nor should they result in indirect discrimination that is not a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. In the Equality Bill, we have changed neither the range of religious posts to which the law applies nor how it applies to them, but we have maintained and clarified the position as it is now. Compliance with the current law will therefore be a good guide to future compliance in that respect, although the Bill is of course currently before Parliament and subject to debate. As we have heard, the Church of England is exploring moving away from the current position and proposing to allow women to be bishops. That is, of course, a move that many of us welcome. At the same time, I understand that the Church needs to consider the feelings of those who disagree strongly with that move and cannot accept that change. The Church's debate concerns how far it should be possible to go in that effort: not about whether in principle women should be bishops, but about how, and about what accommodation could or should be made for those in the Church who do not think that they should. It is a very difficult question, first of all for the Church of England itself, and it is obvious from what we have heard today that the Church is wrestling with it. I recognise the difficult position faced by those in the Church of England tasked with finding a way through the issues. I hope that they can find a way through that provides comfort to those who feel strongly on both sides. I do not know how close such a solution is, but I hope that one can be found within the framework of applicable discrimination law. Sitting suspended.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 499 c84-6WH
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Clergy Church of England Bishops Women Enforcement Gender Legislation Discrimination Religion
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 22:56:05 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_594438
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_594438
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_594438