Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 179:"Page 29, line 37, leave out ““51”” and insert ““51(1)””" The noble Baroness said: I know that some people would like to use this Bill as an opportunity to pursue a separate agenda to do with the existence of faith schools and their place in a largely secular society. Others here are deeply engaged in and committed to faith-based education. For that purpose, I should declare my own interest as a practising Catholic whose son attends a faith-based school. I need to make it clear that the Government are firmly of the view that faith-based schools make an important contribution to the diversity of our education provision. Therefore we do not intend this Bill to affect the status quo in terms of their continued existence and their ability to operate in accordance with their particular ethos. The exemption for faith schools in Clause 52 was intended simply to reflect the fact that faith schools will necessarily and reasonably be involved in acts, such as giving preference in admission to children of their faith and providing pastoral care within the school tailored to the needs of children of that faith, which would otherwise be made unlawful by the Bill. It has been argued by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others that the exemption as it appeared in the Bill was too sweeping—it was described as giving these schools a ““licence”” to harass children. No one is seeking to give a green light to unacceptable behaviour of that kind, although I should stress that we have no evidence that anything like this is happening in schools at the moment. This amendment is therefore intended to tighten up the exemption and to apply it to faith schools. The blanket exemption from harassment provisions is removed. In its place we propose a much more limited exception which applies only to acts which are necessary, having regard to the purpose of the faith school. The reason we are retaining this much more limited exemption is that we want it to be clear that the presence in a faith school of evidence and symbols of its religious ethos cannot in itself be regarded as creating an ““intimidating”” or ““offensive”” environment for a pupil not of that faith and therefore legitimately be claimed to constitute harassment. ““Necessary”” is a high test and strikes, we think, an appropriate and proportionate balance between a pupil’s right to be treated with respect and consideration and the right of a faith school to function as such—and indeed the rights of the pupils sharing the faith of the school to manifest their faith collectively in this way. I beg to move.