Equality Bill [Lords]

I strongly support the observations made by my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). If the Bill achieves what he hopes it will achieve it will serve some useful purpose, but I have reservations about it. I do not wish to rain on anyone’s parade, but it is important that such concerns, which extend beyond the House, are expressed. I have grave concerns about the Bill because of its likely impact on freedom of choice and expression. It is likely to reinforce the situation in which certain minorities no longer command equality but are, indeed, placed in a position of superiority. Anyone who expresses a contrary view will then be exposed to the threat of prosecution. There are genuine fears about the Bill. The Secretary of State has tried to assure us that the Bill removes fear, but in many quarters ordinary decent and reasonable people fear that it will serve not to remove fear, but to increase it. That is not an off-the-cuff assertion, but is backed up by facts. Mr. Ed Greening, for example, has been removed from Wiltshire’s adoption panel because he believes that children thrive better in a normal home, with a man and a woman as adoptive parents, than in a homosexual household. The Labour Government have gone further and in ““Supporting Families”” they state that marriage is the"““surest foundation for raising children””." However, a man has been removed from a job that he has undertaken for five years not because he believes that homosexual adoption is wrong, but because his first preference would always be"““for a child to be reared by a heterosexual couple.””""He says:""““There is now a lot of pressure to give equal status to same-sex partners, who in some cases are not going to be as appropriate as heterosexual married couples.””" To most normal people in this country, that will be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but in the current climate, which has been reinforced by the Bill, it is likely to attract a police interview. Indeed, that is what happened to Lynette Burrowes, who said in a Radio 5 Live interview that she did not think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. PC Plod was dispatched because, according to a Scotland Yard spokesman,"““it is policy for community safety units””—" ominously reminiscent of Robespierre’s committee of public safety—to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because they were ““priority crimes””. My son is a young solicitor, and I suggest we ask the parents of the young solicitor who was killed last week whether that should be a priority crime, rather than some of the things to which the police must now devote their time. New Labour’s new thought police were soon pursuing the chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie. He, too, was investigated for expressing a view that is a central tenet of his faith. The same thing happened two years ago to the Bishop of Chester. When I complained to the chief constable of Cheshire, he told me:"““I do feel that all community leaders need to be careful that their views however carefully crafted are not misinterpreted through headlines in the media or used by disturbed individuals as an excuse to target particular individuals.””" That is simply unbelievable. For the expression of a deeply held Christian view by a bishop of the established Church, of which Her Majesty the Queen is supreme governor, to be subject to a police caution is a measure of the depth to which we have sunk. As we read in yesterday’s The Mail on Sunday, the Association of Chief Police Officers has issued a guidance note, which states:"““if a complainant feels his allegation is not being taken seriously—even if it isn’t true—he will have been ‘victimised’ by police . . . The onus falls entirely on the police to manage the interaction to ensure that the victim has no residual feelings of secondary victimisation.””" The police are in a no-win situation—it does not matter how careful they are because they will be judged on how the alleged victim views their attitude. I fear that the Bill will accelerate the process of intolerance against Christian views. I am pleased to say that no action was ever going to be taken against Sir Iqbal, but the lack of prosecution resulted from the public authorities’ burning desire not to be seen to offend Muslim opinion. By contrast, Christian views can be offended with impunity: ““Jerry Springer—The Opera”” was deeply offensive to many Christians, but their concerns were loftily dismissed by Michael Grade and the BBC. The padre of my church, to whom I was speaking yesterday, has recently returned from operations in Iraq. Over Christmas, he protested to Channel 4 about the trailer for a programme called, ““The Magic of Jesus””, but the operator to whom he spoke simply put the phone down on him. Would either Channel 4 or the BBC have dared to stage a play making fun of the Prophet Mohammed? I suggest not. However, it is true that a play that offended a minority group in Birmingham, and which caused it to react violently, was abandoned. Tonight’s Evening Standard carries a report entitled, ““Gay police want ban on Christian association””:"““Leaders of the Gay Police Association (GPA) have made a formal complaint to Met chiefs demanding that they bar members of the Christian Police Association from the force as they do members of the BNP.””" It is deeply offensive to associate the Christian Church with the British National party. If the Bill is enacted, I fear that there will be pressure on some of our ancient towns to abandon public support for Christmas celebrations.