I regret that the hon. Gentleman has put it in that way and I hope that we can discuss what he is saying outside the Committee. We are going back to the ’50s. If being gay is scandalous— [Interruption.] I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman thinks that, but there are some religions that think it is scandalous. Those religions should not be able to use that as a basis for dismissing someone, or not employing them, unless they comply with the role set out in paragraph 2(8), which regards priesthood, or activities that are wholly or mainly involved in representative or religious promotion or work. I defend the right to make that distinction, but when it comes to a caretaker or a teacher in a faith school, lawful private behaviour associated with a person’s sexual orientation cannot be used as a basis—in my view, under the schedule—for their dismissal and the wrecking of their life and career. That is why we have modern anti-discrimination legislation. I do not seek to persuade religious people that it is not scandalous; I only seek to ensure that the law protects people from employers who hold that view about them either on the basis of their sexual orientation or because they are divorced.

My last point is that the example used by the Church in its written evidence—it did use the gay example in its oral evidence, which was appropriately honest—would also be unfair. If someone has a role not otherwise covered by paragraph (2)(8) of schedule 9, the fact that they get divorced—which might happen for all sorts of reasons, including domestic abuse—should not be a basis for losing their job unless they do a job where that is incompatible under paragraph (2)(8), which is itself an expression of the European directive to which we have signed up and essentially a treaty obligation to which we are committed, as well as being compliant with the European convention on human rights. It is only right that at some point we should meet the lobbying of Church and other religious organisations four-square, as I have sought to do. Not to do so would mean that they were wasting their time in urging us to address such points.