Britain’s political parties are currently clambering over each other to get to the gay vote. At a close election, the 3.6m gay voters could swing open the gates of Downing Street – or slam them shut. So in the run-up to the general election, we will be interviewing all the main party leaders, to find out how the next government will advance the cause of equality for gay people – or hold it back. In November, Attitude went to Number Ten Downing Street for Gordon Brown’s first interview with a gay publication. At first glance, Brown has an easier salesjob than the other political parties. It is the current Labour government that has massively advanced gay rights by equalizing the age of consent, ending Section 28 and the ban on gay people in the army, and introducing civil partnerships. But some severe inequalities remain. Will Brown commit to end them now? And how does he compare to the alternative leaders on offer?

Why should gay people vote Labour at the next election?
Because we’re the anti-discrimination, anti-prejudice and pro-equality party. We’ve always been determined to protect and defend the rights of people who need the protection of the law. I think the whole history of the Labour movement has been to take on prejudice, discrimination and vested interests where they exist. If we’ve not done enough until 1997, we are to blame for that. But we have done a huge amount since, we’ve got a lot more to do, and in our blood, in our DNA, is a determination to speak up for equality and against inequalities and against injustices. I am really proud that once people have won rights, you can’t ever humiliate them again. You can’t ever go back. My view is: you start from the dignity of every individual. You want a society where every individual has the chance to realise their potential to the full, and any barriers that exist – like prejudice – is dismantled. And so, my position starts from a principled position. Some people might think – this guy is a son of the Manse, brought up in a very Presbyterian environment. But I’ve always been very proud that the Church of Scotland has a much more egalitarian view about gay rights than others

Who were the first gay people you knew?
Good friends at university. I went to one of the first civil partnership ceremonies in Britain, and it was very moving. I thought – here’s something that wouldn’t have happened in Britain ten years ago without there being a Labour government to bring it about. It demanded such courage from the people who campaigned for it for decades and then it took legislative decisions to make it happen. It showed our country is far more tolerant than people thought – we are ready to embrace the dignity of every individual. The gay community in Britain should take credit not just for winning rights for themselves, but making our country a better country. People respect individuals more as a result of the achievements that you have had. And to have changed not only your own community but also to have changed the country itself over the last ten years – it’s an incredible achievement. And that message has gone out across the world, everyone can see it. That’s why I spoke out so strongly when there were moves to roll back civil partnerships in America. These are people who have made a commitment to each other and clearly loved each other, who are now to be faced with this idea that it was going to be rescinded. It’s totally unacceptable. And that’s why I’m fighting to get all the countries in Europe to recognize civil partnerships carried out in Britain. We want countries where that hasn’t been the case – especially in Eastern Europe – to recognize them. We’re negotiating agreements with France and then with Spain. But I think we can actually go further than that. And if we could show, in Eastern Europe as well as Western Europe, that this respect for gay people is due, that would be really important. Of course it will be tough, and will take many years, but that has never ever been a good reason not to fight. Every single change we’ve delivered for equality we started off with people telling us it couldn’t be done.

One area where you took a tough stand early on in your Premiership for gay rights was over IVF for lesbians. The Daily Mail said it would mean “the end of Western civilisation”, and most Conservatives including David Cameron voted against it, saying there had to be a man involved. But you very strongly defended the rights of gay couples. Why was that?
We have to fight all this out. You have to fight. This became a political issue when it shouldn’t have been one. We’re actually talking here about life itself. I was fighting a campaign where I was being criticised by the churches. I said that if science gave us the opportunity, without risk to other people, of helping people who were previously unable to have children, we should take that opportunity. I think I was right. I decided to go out there and persuade people. It means a lot of happiness for people who otherwise wouldn’t have it.

You have been critical of homophobia for your entire political career,including in the 1980s, when that was very difficult. What are your strongest memories of the anti-gay debates of that time?
If you look at the way the Conservative party chose to make Section 28 a sort of defining issue… that was probably the worst part of it. We won’t go back - if you establish rights to people, you can’t ever humiliate them again.

As Prime Minister, you issued a very moving apology on behalf of the nation to Alan Turing. He was the genius scientist who broke the Nazi codes and played a crucial role in winning the war – only to be persecuted by the police after the war for being gay, and driven to suicide.
I believe very strongly that it was outrageous what happened to Alan Turing. This man is a British national hero. We relied on him to defend the security of the country, but he was treated in the most cruel and unfair of ways. I believe very strongly that when something is wrong, you should say it’s wrong. The apology should have happened a long time ago.

"Yes, but there¹s a lot governments can do to change culture. There¹s a zero tolerance policy for racist comments in schools. Can¹t we do the same for homophobic comments? But have we not tried to deal with homophobia? Whether it¹s bullying, or whether it¹s practiced in another way. We do fund support gay organisations who make this an issue in schools. There should be no bullying, there should be no prejudice, there should be no discrimination.

Just today, I was at a reception for what's called the Spirit of London awards, and there was a young guy there who I think was maybe 16 or 17. He was involved in his own school and telling me about the campaign he was having to run against homophobic bullying.

The Stonewall study found that the bullying of gay children is 10 percent worse in faith schools. Do you think it has been a mistake for Labour to expand faith schools?

I couldn¹t say that. I think every good school is surrounded by both good leadership and strong values. The strong values ought to be in all cases about the dignity accorded to every individual, and the respect for everybody¹s potential and how it can be realised. People have made mistakes and there needs to be action taken. I often look back on the mottos of schools. My school is: ³I will strive my utmost². Most schools have a positive vision about the realisation of individual potential. The school next door to me had the motto ³rise to the light² ­ it was a mining community. The men could come out of the mines and realise the potential of education. I think all good schools have those values. If there have been mistakes made, then it¹s our duty to say ­ look, the culture¹s got to change." So will you require, as Prime Minister, that faith schools – funded with our tax-money – should be required to teach that homosexuality occurs naturally in all human societies, and it’s not immoral?
My view of every faith is that the core of these religions is a belief in treating every individual fairly. Some people sum up religion as actually better described by the word ‘compassion’. Not compassion in a condescending sense, but compassion in a sense of being fair to everyone. So, I think we have these debates within the different faiths about what that means in practice, and these debates will always continue. And I just want to say that, at its core, a school that represents a faith is not, by nature, a school that wishes to practice prejudice and discrimination against anyone. And we should have the debate about the faith itself.

I know you sincerely believe that. But many religious people don’t. They believe homosexuality is immoral, and they teach that in schools. The result is that gay kids are ten percent more likely to be bullied there.
Yes, but which schools are you talking about? You’d have to give me individual examples about where this discrimination has been practiced, and if it has been practiced, it was wrong.

Let’s look at a related issue. A Home Office study commissioned by your government found that homophobia is ‘all but endemic’ in the police service. What are you doing about that? Isn’t it a failure to have such rife prejudice in such a crucial public service after twelve years in charge?
Well, it’s goes back to the two things that I’ve talked about. There’s an issue about laws, and there’s an issue about culture. Obviously, we now have laws that prevent people from practising that discrimination. But, all too often, you come back to this issue about: how are people going to apply the values that they say they hold? When, in individual situations, there is prejudice and bigotry and discrimination, you’ve got to do two things. You’ve got to use the power of the law, if you can, but you’ve also got to change people’s attitudes. Look: I think what the gay movement has achieved over the last ten years is actually a remarkable thing. It has changed the attitudes of non-gay people in such a way that there is far less prejudice. Now, where there are instances of discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and attacks – as you rightly say – it’s got to be dealt with. But the gay movement should regard it as one of its great achievements that they have changed the culture of our society as a whole. And I think that’s very important indeed. You know, what did Martin Luther King achieve when he fought racism? He was quite unpopular amongst a lot of the black community at first, because from the start he saw it as his goal to persuade the nonblack community to change its culture. I think wherever there is prejudice and discrimination, the strength of a movement is its ability to change all minds. And that’s what you’re continuing to do. So, law and culture are both important.

Of course, but we aren’t talking about isolated incidents of homophobia among the police. Your study showed it is “all but endemic.” Individual gay people can’t change that culture alone: if you’ve had a crime committed against you, you shouldn’t have to persuade the police officer you are equal and deserve help. It requires concerted government action. After the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, there was a real move to drive racism out of the police. Why aren’t we doing the same with prejudice against gay people?
Look at the equality legislation that we’ve introduced. I’m proud that thanks to Labour, incitement to homophobic hate will now be a crime. But the law we recently passed was watered down through the so-called Waddington amendment, which provides a ‘freedom of speech’ opt-out from laws designed to stop incitement. The amendment was defeated by Labour MPs in the Commons four times - but Tory Lords conspired to force it through parliament. That’s simply not acceptable, so the next Labour manifesto will contain a commitment to reversing Waddington, and we will invoke the Parliament Act to overturn the Tory Lords if we have to. They wanted to exempt speech “motivated by religious belief.” We’re removing the defence of discrimination on religious grounds. We’re committed to that.

That decision is obviously related to the fact there’s been a huge rise in homophobic attacks in the past few years – 20 percent in London, 40 percent in Liverpool…
It’s very worrying. It shows we’ve got a lot more to do. Like the terrible tragedy that happened to Ian Baynham [who was beaten to death in Trafalgar Square]. I have met with the people who organised the vigil for him, and with his sister. In the streets of London, today, the idea someone can assault, brutally attack and kill someone because they are themselves is completely horrific. This should not be happening in any capital city in any country, but to happen in London is a reminder just how far we have still got to go. It’s why, for example, I’ve made the commitment on the Waddington amendment, so we can stop incitement to homophobic violence with no loopholes.

Speaking of violence against gay people - there are some refugees fleeing countries where gay people are imprisoned or killed who make it to Britain, and they seem to face a contradictory policy. Some who are given the right to remain, but others are told to go back to their home country, hide their sexuality, and hope for the best. Do you think that’s acceptable?
Asylum law is incredibly difficult, and you can’t ever have a blanket inclusion or exclusion. Every asylum case is going to be dealt with on its merits. I don’t think any party will give you an absolutist commitment on this question. But obviously, our whole party has been built on the idea that where there is persecution, we’ve got to be prepared to help them.

So your view is, if someone is from a country where they will be killed for being gay, and they make it to Britain, they’ve got a right to stay?
What I’m saying is that every case is treated as an individual case. And the people who come to this country who are able to show that they are seeking asylum because the persecution that they’ve suffered is a risk to their life… that is something that we as a nation have traditionally accepted.

Uganda is in the process of reintroducing the death penalty for homosexuality. They receive a lot of aid from Britain. Can’t we use that aid as a way to pressure them to stop this horrific law?
We’ve made it very clear to Uganda that we don’t accept this draft bill. We say that publicly. We will lobby against it publicly. I can also say we regularly raise gay rights in our discussions with our Ugandan counterparts. But the point about aid is that it saves lives – it goes to people who are starving and who will die without it. I don’t want it to be used as a political tool. When George Bush tried to use aid as a form of pressure [he withdrew aid from agencies that provide abortions], people criticized him for it. But I do stress to you that we’ve made this absolutely clear to the Ugandans and will continue to do so.

In Britain today, if a gay man has ever had sex, even once, even with a condom, he can’t ever donate blood. Do you think that’s acceptable?
I can see the point that you’re making, but we have got to be guided by medical advice. If the medical advice is as it is, I think we’ve got to take that fully into account. So, I think your issue is with the medical advice.

I don’t think that’s true. There are plenty of very distinguished medical experts who say the ban is unnecessary and indeed counterproductive. Our blood banks are running low. As a result of listening to these experts, in many countries, gay men can donate. Isn’t it time to end this ban?
Look, this is a very difficult issue. It’s incredibly emotive. Gay people may have friends who need transfusions, and they will want to help them. And this, I understand, is a hotly disputed issue. But I do say that the first thing for us is to take medical advice and to avoid, wherever possible, HIV, making sure that we do everything in our power to stop it. So, I would have to be guided by medical advice, while I accept it’s a very emotive issue. We’ve got to fight HIV first. And so, if the medical advice is that this is the best way to do it, I think people should accept that that is the way we should pursue.

On a different issue, you have promoted lots of gay people. Peter Mandelson is, under your patronage, arguably the most powerful openly gay man in British history.
I think it’s all moved forwards. What we’re seeing is both legislative change and pride – people recognising that nobody should be discriminated against and that for too long large numbers of people who should have been given opportunities were denied them. We appointed Carol Ann Duffy [who is openly gay] as the Poet Laureate. Now ten years ago that would have been a controversial decision, five years ago I suspect it might even have been a controversial decision, but actually it was welcomed by most people. She is a brilliant poet.

Yet there is only one openly gay woman in the whole of Parliament – the Labour MP Angela Eagle. Why so few?
Well, I think we’ve been determined to make sure that gay and lesbian candidates can come forward. And I think there’s some evidence that it’s making a difference. We have 25 openly gay candidates.

There was a poll recently in The Times that found that 61% of the public support calling civil partnerships ‘marriage’. Why not introduce full equality and call it marriage?
Many people will call it marriage, many people will call it civil partnerships. I think that’s not in the end the most important thing. Surely the most important thing is that people have freedoms that they never previously had, and a lot of people thought they would never have during their lifetimes.

You personally, as an MP, didn’t vote on the gay legislation that came before parliament in the first eight years of this government. It was certain to pass so many ministers didn’t need to turn up, but do you regret not voting on this?
I’ve always intended to vote when I can on this legislation. I was at the Treasury so I don’t know if I was away at conferences or busy doing a budget or something, but I’ve always given my strong support.

There have been some reggae or hip-hop artists who have been allowed into Britain recently like Bounty Killer or Buju Bantam, whose music explicitly calls for gay people to be killed. Why are they allowed in?
I think the general principle should be this: anybody who is going to break our laws – you’ve got to be very careful about any suggestion that they could come into the country. But again, each individual case has got to be looked at on the specifics of it. You’re certainly not going to want to bring someone into the country who’s going to break the laws of your country.

Let’s turn to the main alternative to you as Prime Minister. In 2000, David Cameron was attacking Tony Blair for “moving heaven and earth to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools.” He said the government was “obsessed with their fringe agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28”. He supported Section 28 to the bitter end. He voted against allowing gay people to adopt twice. He now says he has had a conversion to the cause of gay rights and regrets some of these statements. Do you think gay people should be suspicious of him?
I think gay people should be worried about the Conservative Party because of what they’ve done when they’ve been in power and because of the things members of their Party do now, like the Waddington amendment. And, of course, the recent Conservative party conference just made you ask how much the Conservative party had really changed. They gave front-office billing to Michal Kaminski, the Polish politician, after we know he made homophobic comments. [He has called gay people “faggots”, and the party he is a member of led a campaign to ban gay people from teaching.] I think it’s totally unacceptable. And yes, we’ve fought them over Section 28, and we’ve fought them over a large of the measures that we’ve put forward. So… the question is: has the Conservative party changed? When [the MP] Shaun Woodward left the Conservative Party because he said they could not come to terms with the new age [on issues like this], he represented the feeling that all of us have when we’re listening to these debates. I think you can say you’ve changed, and you can make slogans about how you look as if you changed, but actually, have the values that underpin it changed? In terms of Cameron himself, I don’t want to get into personal mud-slinging, I never have. I just feel that when people actually look at what we’ve achieved over the last twelve years, and what we want to achieve. These are examples of how we want to move the agenda forwards not just leaving the status quo; what we’re doing about homophobic bullying, about the Waddington amendment, about civil partnerships. I see no evidence that the Conservatives want to move the agenda forward. In fact, there’s quite a lot of evidence that, if given half a chance, they would move things backwards.