Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Equality Bill (HL).


Equality Bill [HL]

I rise with the greatest of trepidation, because I am ashamed to say that although I was a Brownie I was a very ineffectual Guide. I did not rise to the dizzy heights of the noble   Baroness, Lady Carnegy, or the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, or the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. In fact, I was a Shabbas goy, so maybe I fulfilled some purpose. I am of course sympathetic to the need to enable organisations such as the Guides to carry on providing their particular kind of opportunity for children. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the Government have no intention of taking on 350,000 Brownies, much less the rest of the Guide movement—we will come quietly. We believe, however, that Clauses 59 and 60 already protect the Girl Guides and Scouts in that they allow   children to engage in activity within a clear framework, including religious belief. Therefore, they will be able to restrict membership of the organisation when they need to do so. If the relevant associations are not satisfied that they could benefit from those provisions, we will be more than happy to discuss that with them, but we believe that they do benefit from the provisions. The amendment contains a far wider exemption. Under the amendment, an organisation that could claim that a particular belief was fundamental to its ethos could discriminate in membership. It would allow discrimination irrespective of the function of the organisation or the role of the person concerned. There would be nothing to prevent any organisation that had some claim to a belief ethos from benefiting from that clause. That is a very wide door indeed, and I fear that it is too wide. We do not believe that organisations that have a genuine belief purpose need wider protection than we have already provided, and organisations such as the Girl Guides already benefit from that protection. In addition, the reference in the amendment to ““or employment”” would appear to have no practical purpose. The Bill does not cover discrimination in the field of employment. Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in employment or vocational training is prohibited by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. I understand why the noble Baronesses have raised the issue. I hope that the clarity of my answer will mean that the Guide movement will feel assured that they can continue untrammelled by any self-respecting humble government’s interference.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1185-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Staff Education Contracts Civil partnerships Care homes Curriculum Courts Carers Age Equality Immigration controls Gender Exemptions Faith schools Harassment Facilities Immigration officers National security Parents Local education authorities Membership Public bodies Older people Public opinion Transport Schools Training Religion Registration of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships Sexuality Religious freedom Religious persons Transgender people
Legislation
Equality Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk