---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, had the communication system between the national institutions of the Church of England and this House worked, my name would have been added to the amendment, and I rise to support it. At stake here are two issues which need clarity. The noble Baroness’s speech has clearly set them out and the amendment is aimed at producing clarity whereas, at present, we seem not to have it. The first issue is the implication and extent of Clause 54 for civil society and religious organisations. As I understand it, the present law now stands following two clear decisions by the Court of Appeal on the implications of the Human Rights Act for charities. Charities and voluntary organisations which provide services to the public with the benefit of public funding will not qualify as public authorities for the purpose of Clause 54 other than in exceptional circumstances. But I understand that the Government are not entirely happy with that legal ruling. Therefore, there is now in the public forum an uncertainty about where we stand on that issue, and we need some clarity on it. An important point of principle is at stake here. We need to keep a clear distinction between civil society, charitable and religious organisations and the state. The trouble with an over-generous interpretation of Clause 54 is that, in drawing civil society’s organisations widely into the public authorities, that distinction will be blurred, and I think that we need some help with that. The second issue that has been raised concerns the meaning of the word ““harassment””. It is clear that from a popular point of view and understanding of that word there is no desire by responsible organisations in the religious, charitable or voluntary sectors to engage in activity that manifestly harasses people. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out in Committee, the phrase ““violation of a person’s dignity”” is a very uncertain concept in law. It might give ample opportunity, especially in the context of religious beliefs and practices, for people to challenge what they find to be unwelcome. I think that we need some clarity on those issues if we are to have contentment. If we can get that clarity, that will help us. However, as the noble Baroness has just said, the Government may want real partnership between independent, religious-based organisations which make a contribution to the public welfare and are publicly funded in those properly agreed partnership arrangements. But if there is a fear that a clause such as this can be used to prevent those organisations maintaining the integrity of their beliefs, which is the driving motivation for their work in the public sphere, there will be withdrawal. We need to address that issue. I understand that the Government want to work with us on this matter and I am sure that there is much commonality of understanding here but, if we could find a process for getting the wording right, that would help greatly. Therefore, what the Minister says in reply will be very important. The noble Baroness’s amendment has our support because it expresses the concerns held widely in the churches. Perhaps I may say on behalf of these Benches that, if the national institutions of the Church of England are concerned, that concern really should be taken seriously.