Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

The Equality Act

Interview with Lord McKay

Margaret Thatcher appointed Lord Mackay Lord Chancellor in 1987. This is a post with overall responsibility for the justice system in England and Wales. He served until the Conservatives lost power ten years ago. He is a Christian and spoke against the Sexual Orientation Regulations in the recent House of Lords debate. He kindly agreed to answer some questions for EN.

EN: Could you briefly explain how the passing of the Equality Act came about?

LM: The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 were made by the Secretary of State with powers conferred by the Equality Act to enable regulations to be made to outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods and services, in the exercise of public functions, in education and rental and sale of premises. Similar regulations had been made for Northern Ireland and had been debated in the House of Lords on January 9 2007 on a ‘prayer’* by Lord Morrow to annul them.

In view of the arrangements for direct rule in Northern Ireland then in force no approval by Parliament was required to bring these regulations into force. The only way in which a debate could be secured was by a prayer to annul the regulations, hence the procedure adopted on January 9. The prayer to annul was defeated by a substantial majority.

The regulations for England, Wales and Northern Ireland followed but be-fore they could come into force they needed approval by both Houses of Parliament. They were debated in a committee of the House of Commons for 90 minutes and approved by a vote of the House of Commons by a substantial majority on March 19 2007. They were debated in the House of Lords on March 21, a date selected by the government business managers in the House of Lords, being budget day, and approved by a majority which was still substantial but much smaller in favour of the regulations than the majority for the Northern Ireland regulations in January.

EN: How do you understand the implications of this legislation?

LM: I know of no faith which would regard as sinful having any particular sexual orientation. The word orientation is not one in very common use but it clearly means tendency. Having a tendency is not to be regarded as sinful. It is the practice of that tendency that may be sinful.

The judgement that homosexual and lesbian practice is sinful is held by many Christians, Muslims and Jews, and this is what makes these regulations so controversial. That they go beyond merely rendering discrimination on the grounds of orientation unlawful and deal with discrimination on the basis of homosexual and lesbian practice was highlighted by their application to Catholic adoption agencies. Catholic adoption agencies have a settled policy not to place children with same sex couples in a homosexual or lesbian relationship. There are many adoption agencies who consider placements with such couples and if such a couple approach a Catholic agency it refers them to one of these agencies.

In my view, these regulations make it a condition for those who offer goods, services or engage in other activities covered by the regulations, unless they have the benefit of an exception, to offer their goods or services or other such activities to those who practice homosexuality or lesbianism even if the provider considers as a matter of his or her religious faith that to do so would involve participation or facilitation or promotion of such practice and as such would be sinful.

Examples to illustrate this include the printer, the person who offers bed and breakfast facilities or boarding facilities and whose establishment accommodates more than six such boarders.

When I raised this point in the debate on the Northern Ireland regulations, Lord Rooker, the minister, stated in his reply to the debate referring to my contribution, ‘These regulations are not concerned with homosexual practice or the facilitation of such acts. They concern only sexual orientation. Nothing prevents people having a belief. The regulations are de-signed to capture when they manifest the belief by discriminating against people. It is as simple and clear as that.’

EN: Do you believe it is ‘as simple and clear as that’?

LM: No. The regulations for Great Britain originally laid were withdrawn and re-laid after correction a number of times. They still contain ambiguities.

For example, the exception for churches does not seem to apply where a church provides a service on behalf of a public authority under the terms of a contract. If a church provides a home for aged people and people are placed there under contract with a local authority does the church lose the exception altogether?

The regulations for Northern Ireland are the subject of a judicial review, so some clarification of these issues may arise from that process, although the Great Britain regulations and the Northern Ireland regulations differ in a number of important respects.

In my view this is the first time that British law has required a person as a condition of undertaking some activity to act in defiance of his or her conscience.

EN: How do you see these laws being enforced?

LM: I would expect these regulations to be rigorously enforced since those with an interest in promoting these regulations will be anxious to ensure that the rights given to them are fully protected.

These regulations illustrate a loosening of the connection between our law and the principles of morality as they have been interpreted by a substantial body of opinion in Christian, Jewish and Muslim circles over the years.

EN: How should Christians react to what has happened?

LM: The time of a general election is the opportunity for most people to make their views effectively known.

I believe the authority of the individual conscience has been an important element in shaping society hitherto. In a debate on law and order in 1982, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, said, ‘It is now very bad psychologically for anybody to have a bad conscience, a guilty conscience. Nothing has been found to replace it.’ During the darkest days of two world wars those with conscientious objections were exempt from conscription. Should the individual conscience in matters such as are apparently covered by these regulations be overruled by the law of the land?

*This ‘prayer’ is a prayer to annul which is a parliamentary procedure for rendering ineffective a statutory instrument which does not require affirmative approval.