Equality Bill reforms hit the buffers as bishops derail amendments

The religious lobby in the House of Lords inflicted three humiliating defeats on the Government on Monday over religious exemptions in the Equality Bill.

This bill is consolidating the last forty years of equality legislation and bringing in some new elements. The principal vote was on the extent of the exemptions permitting religious organisations to discriminate in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation, sex, marital status, etc.

The result of the carnage is that the Bill has been stripped of any definition of what jobs would fall within the exemptions. A requirement that the exemptions should be “proportionate” (a key element and requirement of EU law) has also been removed.

The definition was a lost by 5 votes with 8 bishops voting against the Government. The greatest defeat was by 38 votes. The Christian Institute and other religious lobby groups had done a magnificent job in bringing out their supporters in the Lords – of which there appear to be many.

The bishops voted entirely in their own interests in the full knowledge that what they voted for was contrary to the EU Employment Directive, which Britain is legally bound to observe.

It now seems unlikely that the deficiencies in the Bill pointed out by the European Commission in its Reasoned Opinion (following a complaint by the NSS in 2004) will be rectified. This moves the UK one step closer to being prosecuted in the European Court of Justice. If that happens, it will be the Bishops Bench acting in its own rather than the country’s interests that will be to blame.

NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood has spent a great deal of time in Parliament in connection with this Bill, preparing amendments and briefings. He warned the Chief Whip’s Office last week that the Government was in grave danger of losing these votes.

However, it could be that this will prove a Pyrrhic victory for the bishops. By removing the definition noted above, courts will have to refer to the European Directive for guidance – which contains the very safeguards the bishops are so determined will not be included our domestic legislation. As the eminent Human Rights lawyer Lord Lester QC put it in the debate: “The Lords Spiritual managed to vote as turkeys for Christmas”.

The Government has maintained on numerous occasions that it was not trying in the Bill to narrow the existing religious exceptions (which the European Commission complained about).

On Wednesday, NSS Honorary Associate Baroness Turner moved a series of amendments to the Bill aimed at removing discrimination against teachers and headteachers in faith schools who are of the “wrong faith” or none – an injustice that the NSS has tried to correct many times before. We are most grateful to her for making some powerful points which will come back to haunt future Governments. Unfortunately, Lady Turner’s amendments received little support. Labour backbenchers and the LibDem benches have been heavily discouraged from intervening in order to help ensure the Bill reaches the statute book before the election.

Once more, opposition to these proposals came from the Bishop’s Bench as well zealous Catholic campaigner Lord (David) Alton and the Conservative front bench which was keen neither to “limit the powers of governors” nor “impair the excellent work done by so many faith schools, often in deprived areas”. A taste of what is in store if the Conservatives win the forthcoming General Election.

Keith Porteous Wood commented: “The Government’s defeat in the Equality Bill demonstrates just how strong the religious lobby is in the House of Lords. This should have taught the Government that it gets nothing in return for its policy of indulging the whims and demands of the religious lobby, especially the Anglican Church.

“The UK is the only western democracy giving clerics the right to sit in their legislature. The Government should bring forward its plans to reform the House of Lords and disband the Bench of Bishops, ejecting the irresponsible, self-serving and unrepresentative bishops as it did the hereditary peers. And then it should reflect carefully on the whole issue of disestablishment.”