Equality Bill [Lords]

It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who brings a particular expertise and a great deal of passion to the debate. I wish to confine myself in the main to part 2 of the Bill. The definition of religion in clause 43 states that"““a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion, and . . . a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief.””" So all those who thought that they had no religion, or had explicitly decided to have no religion, are caught by the provisions of the Bill—they count as though they have a religion and will be treated as such. That might lend some scope to mischief-makers. Indeed, it might give some offence to those who take a position of believing in no God. Religion is different from the other strands in the Bill. It differs from disability, race and sex because, by and large, in a free society, we still choose to adhere to a particular religion. Although some people might find it profoundly shocking, most adherents of a religion believe it to be true. By and large, they do not treat life as a supermarket where one can choose any number of breakfast cereals from the shelves and find that they amount to the same thing. Most—not all—adherents of a religion believe passionately that their religion is true and that, of necessity, casts an aspersion on other religions. Indeed, the first commandment is:"““Thou shalt have no other gods before me.””" Our Lord said that he would be followed by false prophets and that we were not to treat them with respect or tolerance but to judge them. That does not lend itself to the general principle that is set out in clause 44. Clause 44(1) states:"““A person (““A””) discriminates against another (““B””) for the purposes of this Part if on grounds of the religion or belief of B . . . A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others””." That is a wide and dangerous principle to apply to religion. Religions rub together pretty well in this country, but introducing such a wide-ranging principle is dangerous. The danger relates to the zealot or the mischief maker and the provision could cause more harm than good.