---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 154:"After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—"    ““EXCLUSION ON THE GROUNDS OF RELIGIOUS ETHOS ETC.    Nothing in the Part shall inhibit the right to exclude a person from any organisation or employment on the grounds of his belief (as defined in section 45(b)) or lack of belief where the holding of a particular belief is fundamental to the ethos of that employer or organisation.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, I introduced an identical amendment, which permits employers or organisations to restrict membership or employment to persons of a particular belief. This matter was drawn to my attention by the Girl Guides, whose members are required at every meeting to confirm in so many words their belief in God—which god is not specified and members of any faith are, of course, accepted. The same problem would have applied to the Scouts. It also applies to Freemasons and perhaps other organisations—especially youth organisations attached to places of worship, to say nothing of the Mothers’ Union. I am very grateful to the Minister for having taken this problem on board and, in consequence, for having proposed Amendment No. 163, which introduces a new clause after Clause 61. However, I am sorry to say that I do not believe that the amendment goes far enough to meet the difficulty. That is because it is restricted to charities, and I do not know whether all the organisations that might be involved are charities. I assume that the Guides and Scouts are because they have told the Minister that they are satisfied with the proposal. But what about other perfectly respectable organisations, such as, again, for example, Freemasons, the Mothers’ Union and the Boys’ Brigade? They all give considerable support to charities without being charities themselves. And what about the Plymouth Brethren—a sect whose members require a certain, but not very onerous, religious ethos from its employees? I am not singling out the organisations that I have just mentioned for special treatment, such as the Guides and Scouts are to receive. For all I know, there may be dozens of respectable organisations out there with perfectly proper, justifiable reasons for requiring members and employees to conform to their perfectly reasonable religious ethos. And what about religious edifices—mosques, synagogues and even some churches? Is it not right, for example, that mosques and synagogues should be able to prevent employees consuming ham sandwiches on their premises; that the ““Wee Free”” Church in Scotland should not want to employ persons who, according to its ethos, desecrate the Sabbath; or that Baptists should not employ or admit as a member someone who has a drink problem? The second objection to the Government’s proposed amendment is that it places an artificial deadline of 18 May 2005 on the charities that are exempted. I ask the Minister why that is the case. Is it suggested that some malign organisation will create a new fictitious charity designed to evade the provisions of the Bill? I think that we can rely on the Charity Commissioners to spot, and put paid to, any so-called phoney charity such as that. It seems to me that the concession to the religious susceptibilities of various organisations with a religious ethos may not be as wholehearted as it should have been, and that the Government want to give as little leeway as possible to persons whose reasonable views are entitled to be respected just as much as those of any applicant for a job or membership. In short, the Government’s concession, which is welcomed—there is no doubt about that—does not go quite far enough and is still unduly restrictive. That is why I found it necessary to bring back my own wider and more inclusive amendment. I hope that the Government will find it possible to reflect on what I am seeking and, by the final stage of the Bill, accept it. I beg to move.