Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding me where I come from. The reality is that I am a Member of the House of Lords and a citizen of this country. This is where I am involved in legislation. I have not been in Ireland to work for more than 40 years. But I will, if I have a moment’s time, reflect on the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, indicated that she, too, was concerned about the issue. She did not actually say that in her speech—unfortunately, she   is not in her place—but the noble Baroness, Lady   Falkner of Margravine, whose speech I am afraid I did not hear, also dealt with the matter. I shall read it with interest tomorrow. Clause 11(2) lists six community groups of which one—listed at (e)—is based on ““religion or belief””. Under Clause 3, the commission is required to bring about ““mutual respect between communities””. Will that requirement mean that the commission will adopt the role of adjudicating on the fundamental doctrines and ethical teachings of the major religions? Will it side, for example, with the demand for women bishops in the Church of England—I look at the right reverend Prelate, who indicates neither ““Yes”” nor ““No””—on the basis that the Church is not, in the words of Clause 3(e) ““valuing diversity””? Clause 30 gives the commission power to back with advice and funding a legal action by an individual. My noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt with that admirably, but I am particularly concerned about the plight of religious charities. Some people will target religious groups precisely because of their traditional views. Such individuals could see the commission as a stick to beat them with and may then deliberately use the commission to pressure them into changing their religious views. That is not impossible. Even more concerning, a legal action need not even be launched. There may simply be a need to persuade the commission to launch an inquiry under Clause 17. No justification is required. Under paragraphs 10 to 14 of Schedule 2, the commission can subpoena witnesses and documents for its inquiries, and it will be a criminal offence not to comply. There is no requirement for the suspicion to be ““reasonable””. It is a return, I fear, to the old ““sus”” laws. Is the Minister aware of that potential loophole? If not, will she assure the House that in Committee the Government will table amendments to ensure that it is closed? The regulatory impact assessment of the Bill states that an investigation may last anything from nine to 18   months, requiring 40 to 60 per cent of a senior manager’s time, which would be costed at about £75,000. Why, for example, should a small Christian charity, or a small Church, have to find £75,000 for that sort of thing, which could be vexatious litigation in the making? If the commission follows up with legal action, the expenses will increase exponentially. Yet, only the   applicant will get help with legal expenses. The organisation or individual accused of inequality will be on their own. Even if they win, in certain courts they are likely to end up substantially out of pocket. There are plenty of people who will see Clause 30 as a gold mine and could open the floodgates for vexatious litigation; for example, between opposing religious groups. We should not imagine that all religious groups get on happily with each other—I wish that they would. Putting the power of the state at the disposal of an   individual with ulterior motives could polarise our   society. The commission and the new religious discrimination provisions in Part 2 could be used to further the agenda of those who seek to erase our Christian heritage from public life. Clause 64 of the Equality Bill places a duty on public bodies not to,"““do any act which constitutes discrimination or harassment””." That is great, but will religious groups really benefit from it? Or will it be those who argue that any public endorsement of religion constitutes discrimination or makes them feel harassed? I fear that it could be the latter. As an aside, I do not understand why so many people in public life feel that we must downplay or get rid of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. We should have confidence in our beliefs and in our country’s achievements as a Christian nation. Most of the tourists who visit this country seem to believe that they are worth something. More than 6 million of them visit our cathedrals every year. We are a Christian nation, and I do not believe that we need the ““creation of a society””. I think that our society is a pretty good one. When I go abroad to countries where other religions are dominant, I do not expect them to be ashamed of every aspect of their religious heritage simply because it is different from mine. I do not expect them to pass legislation that destroys even the smallest public expression of their religious culture simply in order to accommodate me and my beliefs. Yet, some people in   this country seem to think that we have to de-Christianise everything—if there is such a word—in order to avoid offending people—apart, of course from the Christians themselves. We do not seem to mind offending them. I hope that the press and broadcast media will show an interest in the religious aspects of the Bill. To be fair to them, the newspapers have recently covered stories of public bodies banning Christian prayers, banning Bibles, banning Christmas. Usually, the bodies concerned claim that they are protecting the sensitivities of religious minorities. In all cases that I have read, the religious minorities are not bothered one way or the other—they accept it. In the last census, almost three-quarters of the population identified themselves as Christian. As a nation, we have a long and proud Christian heritage. Before such a Bill becomes law, we have a duty to make people aware of what might happen. I do not want to have more examples of political correctness, as in the Scottish Parliament, which refused to have Christian prayers at its meetings and instead has a period of reflection. If the Bill is passed unamended, what will happen to our Christian prayers here in the House of Lords and, indeed, what will happen to the Bench of Bishops? Those things may not change straightaway, but what about in 15 or 20 years’ time? Part 2 also outlaws religious discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Again, that is well-meaning, and the Government have, to their credit, tried hard to come up with exceptions to protect the ability of religious groups to practise their beliefs without falling foul of the Bill. They are found in Clauses 59 to 61. I am concerned that they have not gone far enough. Under Clause 59, the Church must jump through so many hoops to prove its entitlement to rely on the exemptions. I am concerned that that may prove too much of a hurdle for some. I come to my final question to the Minister. Clause 59 does not protect a religious group if it has a commercial purpose. The noble Baroness will be aware that there will be many religiously orientated businesses run by believers who seek to run a commercial enterprise but in   a distinctively religious way. That may mean employing fellow believers and giving preferential rates to fellow believers. It might even mean trying to   convert   customers. Some would doubtlessly call that   discrimination and harassment, but do the Government really believe that such businesses should be penalised in that way? The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that she hoped that the Bill would not be seen as a savings device. No chance. My noble friend Lady Miller has already dealt with the huge increase in costs, and I shall not repeat her remarks. We are told that there will be a ““one-stop shop””, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today gave the example of the disabled black woman who could have an equality problem on all three levels. Would she have to go to three different experts in the one-stop shop? Is the commission just an umbrella that will supervise the operations of the three existing commissions, and will there be another commission dealing with human rights?