Lords reject Equality Bill

 

On Monday 25 January the Lords voted by a significant margin for a different amendment, from Baroness O'Cathain, which will maintain the status quo. There is much in the Bill that promotes justice, fairness and equality, all hallmarks of a modern society that the Evangelical Alliance enthusiastically supports.  However, it is also important that fundamental liberties, such as freedom of religious belief and expression are maintained.

 

The Evangelical Alliance's role in explaining the implications of the Equality Bill to Parliament was highlighted in the House of Lords by the Bishop of Winchester, as he argued for the rights of Christian churches and organisations to employ key staff who can represent their employers with integrity.

 

The Bishop mentioned the "huge amount of work" done by the Alliance, among others, to try to get across the implications of the bill for churches unless an amendment by Baroness O'Cathain was passed.

 

Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott Joynt said during the debate: "My anxiety is that, notwithstanding a huge amount of work done by the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Evangelical Alliance and a range of other organisations, we still seem not to be getting across the sheer reality in so many churches."

 

He added: "I have a lay assistant, not a chaplain, who represents me in a whole range of ways; his job description notes that he does so. Is it not entirely reasonable that he should be a Christian of good standing whose life tallies with his Christian profession and who is therefore able to represent me, not someone living in some quite other way so as to make his representation impossible and to undermine my own activity?"

 

The Lords voted for the Baroness's amendment by 216 to 178.

 

Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, said: "We're grateful to the Lords for this result. The Government's amendment was unclear and would have left churches and organisations unsure whether they could preferentially appoint practising Christians for the majority of their key roles.

 

"Now, they can continue to appoint people who are committed to the ethos of the organisations they are supposed to represent. It's a victory for common sense. I hope the government will accept this and not prolong the issue by asking the House of Commons to challenge the Lords' vote."

 

The rejected amendment stated that religious organisations could only prefer candidates if they were applying for the job of minister of religion or posts that "exist to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion."

 

The Alliance was concerned it would be unclear how the courts might interpret the word "exist" - few religious posts actually exist wholly or mainly for the purposes stated.