Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 173A:"Page 26, line 34, at end insert—" ““(   )   Action by A shall not be regarded as having the effect described in subsection (1) if it involves allowing religious objects, books, practices and observances to remain in place.”” The noble Baroness said: I raised on Second Reading my concerns that the Bill, well intentioned though it may be, could be used by those who are hostile to our Christian heritage. I am absolutely sure that is not the Government’s intention. This is a probing amendment, giving me the opportunity to press the Minister to explain how we can be sure that this will not be so. We really need a safeguard in the Bill, and this amendment is almost certainly not up to the job. If the Government agree with me, I am sure that they can produce something that is up to the job. Why am I worried about Clause 47? I am concerned about the way in which it could be interpreted by the courts, local authority legal officers, other public bodies and private companies. Clause 47 makes harassment on the grounds of religion unlawful. That sounds fair enough, but it defines harassment in a very broad way. It covers:"““creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment””." That definition is taken from employment law. The legal advice from harassment law specialist Neil Addison suggests that the definition is too wide for use outside the workplace. It certainly seems to create a real risk of vexatious litigation. We would probably see examples such as the case in Australia, where a witch by the name of Fletcher is suing the prison service and the Salvation Army over the Alpha course, which is a well-known introductory course for those interested in the Christian faith. Mr   Fletcher said that the course vilified his pagan beliefs by suggesting that Christians should get rid of any books on witchcraft that they owned. Incidentally, Mr Fletcher is currently in prison for sexually abusing teenage girls in pursuit of his pagan beliefs. A paedophile witch suing under religious vilification law—you really could not make it up. The harassment provision would be a gift to people such as Mr Fletcher. I fear that those who object to Bibles in hospital wards or in private hotels will attempt to claim that the presence of the Bible created a ““hostile””, ““intimidating”” and ““offensive”” environment for them. Remember that we have already had the cross removed from a crematorium in Torbay. That is local authority officials taking a belt and braces approach—playing it safe. Frankly, who can blame them? Will we see more local authorities banning Christmas and renaming it ““Winterval”” as was done in Birmingham some seven years ago? I worry that the all-powerful commission might decide that a proper interpretation of harassment requires the removal of Christian symbols. Will we end up like the US, where there is a constant stream of litigation from anti-religious groups seeking to erase all public reference to the Christian faith? Will it be even worse, since the provisions in the Bill apply to the private as well as the public sector? The Christian Institute, which has briefed me on this matter, sent out a briefing listing seven examples of precisely the sort of thing that concerns me. They include the case that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned at Second Reading, of Barnabas House in Norfolk, where the local authority said that the presence of Bibles and saying grace offended other faiths. It also cites two universities that tried to ban Bibles or prayers, two hospitals that thought the Christian faith offensive to others, and a local authority that was urged to drop Christian prayers because they were not ““equally welcoming”” to other religious groups. To most people, such cases represent a clear attack on our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is not only Christians who are concerned. For example, when it was reported in June that the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust was considering banning Bibles from bedside lockers to avoid offending other faiths, Resham Singh Sandhu, the Sikh chairman of the Leicester Council of Faiths said:"““I don’t think many ethnic minority patients would object to the Bible in a locker””." Suleman Nagdi of Leicestershire’s Federation of Muslim Organisations said, in the Daily Telegraph on 3 June 2005:"““This is a Christian country and it would be sad to see the tradition end””." My concern is not so much about action under the Bill by other religions, but action by public officials who are so concerned to appear non-discriminatory that they end up upsetting everybody. I am proud to live in a country where we enjoy religious tolerance, of which many other countries can only dream. I am a Christian and believe that Christ’s words that he is the only way, the truth and the life are true, but I respect people holding different religious beliefs. Fundamentally, I believe that we must all be vigilant about preserving their freedom of worship. However, that does not imply that we should ditch our country’s Christian heritage, nor that we hide or be ashamed of it. We are proud of it and celebrate it. It is the Christian tradition that has created the society in which people of all kinds of religions from all over the world can worship freely and openly. As I mentioned at Second Reading, in the most recent census almost three-quarters of the United Kingdom population claimed that they were Christians. I fear that   the Bill as it stands could cause more problems than we could ever imagine. I firmly believe that both the harassment offence and the general discrimination provisions should be circumscribed by wording in the Bill that makes it plain that Part 2 should not be interpreted in this way. Our Christian heritage is important. We should treasure it, as I know that many noble Lords throughout the House do. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.