Proceeding contribution from Lord Low of Dalston (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Equality Bill.
Equality Bill
My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I have listened carefully to what has been said and it has prompted one or two reflections that I would like to give voice to briefly, particularly in the light of the remarks by my noble friend Lady Murphy. I am not a religious person, but people of all faiths and none should be concerned about the value of tolerance. It is a value that we should not lightly undermine. What leads people to support provisions that seem to have the effect of undermining free speech and conscience and creating the oppressive majoritarian regime of which my noble friend Lord Alton spoke? I think that it arises from concern over the exercise of free speech and conscience operating as a sword for the oppression of minority groups. That may not be the intention, but the exercise of rights of free speech and conscience can operate in that way, which is the mischief to which my noble friend Lady Murphy referred. We should be concerned in our zeal to prevent such provisions from operating as a sword not to prevent them from operating as a shield in the hands of people who are simply concerned to protect their private belief and their freedom to act in accordance with it. As my noble friend Lady Afshar said, faith and belief are important strands in our civic life and we ought to be concerned not to undermine people’s freedom to believe these things and to act reasonably in the light of them. That word "reasonably" leads me to make a suggestion. If the Government are minded to stand pat on the provisions of the Bill and to resist the amendments, it occurs to me that they might like to reflect a little more on what has been said and come back at Third Reading, as was suggested, with their own amendment that glosses these amendments, upholds their spirit and enables people to exercise their conscience, so long as that does not cause any harm to others or have any disproportionately adverse effect. We have heard a lot of testimony in this debate to suggest that the operation of the provisions that are maintained in the Bill has had a disproportionately adverse effect. If exercising the right of conscience were not to have a disproportionately adverse effect, that is the basis on which we could reasonably support amendments of this kind in the interests of upholding the value of tolerance.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c1366-7
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Conditions of employment Civil partnerships Adoption Candidates Age Depressive illnesses Crew Catholicism Ceremonies Women Employment Equality Homosexuality Foster care Equality and Human Rights Commission Insurance Equal pay Harassment Foreign nationals Discrimination Ethnic groups Mental illness Qualifications Marriage Recruitment Poverty Minimum wage Public bodies Political parties Low pay Scotland Schools Young people Religion Wales Sexuality Shipping Tourism Territorial waters Religious buildings Retirement Transgender people Reasonable adjustments
- Legislation
- Equality Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-06-21 09:57:36 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625967
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625967
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625967