---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 119:"Page 27, line 12, at end insert—" ““(5)   The manifestation of beliefs or practices, or the display of symbols or artefacts, on grounds of religion or belief, is not harassment for the purposes of subsection (1) unless undertaken with the purpose described in subsection (1)(a) or (b).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the second bite of the three-bite cherry, as we now realise. But the fact that three of us have tabled such amendments should make people realise that there is deep concern. The amendment was drafted by the chief legal adviser to the Archbishops’ Council and I am delighted to have been able to table it on their behalf. I have done so because I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords who are concerned about the implications for free speech of Clause 47. In particular, at Second Reading and in Committee, I raised concerns that the Bill could be used by those who are hostile to our Christian heritage. There is a realistic fear that people who want to make mischief for religious groups will raise claims of harassment to try to secure the removal of signs and symbols of religious faith. A large part of the problem arises because of the Government’s policy of wanting to persuade the courts to turn religious groups into public authorities if they carry out public functions. That could make them subject to litigation under the Human Rights Act. It would impose regulatory duties, such as those found in Clause 83 and, crucially, it could well result in litigation for harassment under Clause 47. No one is quite sure which religious organisations would be converted into public authorities. But many churches might be caught, simply because they want to act out their faith by being involved in the delivery of public services, such as services to the homeless. From the Dispatch Box, on 13 July, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, regarding Clause 47, stated:"““I can see situations where public functions are carried out in church halls or other places associated with worship where objects on display in those premises, such as crucifixes, might conceivably lead to accusations of harassment””.—[Official Report, 13/7/05; col. 1130.]" I was also concerned that the Minister suggested that making Bibles available could also be considered harassment unless they were specifically requested. Why should it be regarded as unlawful for a Christian organisation to have bibles and religious literature lying around? Existing public authorities would also suffer as a result of Clause 47. A hospital, for example, which allows Gideon bibles in bedside lockers could find itself defending a legal action for harassment. Surely, that is not what we want? Public authorities funding religious groups could also be sued. In turn, that could result in fewer and fewer religious groups obtaining public funding. The Minister made a commitment to look at the issue further—she has already stated that the Government are doing so—and to see if there is any way to exempt the display of religious objects from the definition of harassment. I understand that the reason the Government have not tabled an amendment is that officials now take a different view on how harassment could be interpreted by the courts. That indicates that there is legal uncertainty. The Home Office’s new reassurances on that point amount to no more than a suggested legal argument upon which a church could rely. Maybe they will win. Maybe they will lose. Maybe they will spend a lot of money on legal fees finding out whether they win or lose. It is notoriously difficult to predict how legislation will be used. Perhaps I may cite an example. When the previous government passed the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it was intended to target stalkers and we thought that the number of prosecutions would be in the hundreds. In fact, I understand that it is now routinely used to tackle animal rights extremists far more than stalkers, and there are thousands of prosecutions a year, not hundreds. I do not object to that; I just use it to illustrate how, regardless of our intentions, the wording of an Act of Parliament can be used in unpredictable ways. It seems to me that we are leaving a lot to chance when we could simply place words in the Bill to make it clear that it is not intended to be used in the ways that I have suggested. I give credit to the Government for their considerable efforts to prevent the Equality Bill being used to attack, rather than defend, religious organisations, but they seem to be peculiarly resistant on this point—or, at least, they have been until now. I think that I discovered a slight chink earlier this evening—I live in hope. That is why I tabled the amendment. I am very grateful for the advice of the Chief Legal Adviser to the Archbishops’ Council. He and other officials have been engaged in prolonged discussions with the Home Office on all these issues, and this amendment is their response. The amendment does not put forward a fundamental exception to the definition of ““harassment””; it does no more than enshrine the Government’s own reassurance about Clause 47 by making clear that it cannot be used to force the removal of religious symbols or manifestations of religion, such as the saying of prayers or the putting out of Bibles. Surely that is perfectly reasonable. How many of us would want to see a religious group hauled through the courts over matters such as these? I am sure that none of us wants to end up like the United States, where there is a constant stream of litigation from anti-religious groups seeking to erase all public reference to the Christian faith. There, an atheist is currently litigating to remove the phrase ““under God”” from the pledge of allegiance. It occurred to me that the harassment provisions could lead to court cases with attempts being made to remove the word ““God”” from our national anthem. I sincerely hope that that is not so. The amendment is very modest. It specifically does not protect actions which are deliberately intended to harass. None of us wants that. However, it does give certainty where currently there is none. If Ministers and their officials can change their minds over the interpretation of this clause as it stands, so can the courts. And what about local authority legal advisers and those advising charities? Will this uncertainty not lead to them taking a very cautious approach, removing religious symbols rather than risking legal action? The Minister may give assurances on the Floor of the House, but most lawyers do not read Hansard; they will be reading the wording of the Act. Such uncertainty creates a risk of gross infringement of religious liberty. Quite unnecessarily, it places religious groups which carry out public functions in a precarious position. The Prime Minister is on record as supporting the contribution of ““faith-based welfare”” providers and supporting their ability to operate consistent with their religious ethos. In a speech shortly before the election, the Prime Minister said that churches made a ““visible, tangible difference””. He said that he wanted to see them,"““play a bigger, not a lesser, role in the future””." That was on BBC News on-line on 22 March 2005. But if those who receive public money to provide public functions are placed in the firing line under the Bill, they will play a lesser role and not a bigger role as the Prime Minister wants. They will be frightened off. They will be excluded by nervous funding authorities. I am told that the Salvation Army has been making strong representations to the Home Office about these matters. I believe it would be terrible if organisations such as that withdrew their services because they felt that they were likely to be targeted under Clause 47. Whatever one’s religious beliefs, I think that we all have the greatest respect for the Salvation Army, and it would be appalling if the Bill were to make that happen. Simple wording such as that contained in the amendment will solve the problem. I hope that the Government will look kindly on it. I beg to move.