Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 200A:"Page 35, line 16, leave out ““or main””" The noble Baroness said: Clause 59 is a welcome exemption for religious groups from Part 2 of the Bill. However, subsection (2) excludes a religious group if it has a commercial emphasis. My Amendment No. 200A would widen Clause 59. It would ensure that religious organisations with mixed commercial and religious purposes are protected. Only those that are ““solely”” commercial would be excluded. I have tabled the amendment because I am concerned that subsection (2) might be too restrictive. The Government have taken great care to draft Clause 59 and the other religious exemptions in Clauses 60 to 64. However, I still see a problem. Clause 59 allows religious groups to focus their ministry on fellow believers and to restrict membership on the basis of religion. That is the way religious groups have operated, quite properly, for centuries. These are common-sense protections. Without them the work of thousands of Christian and other religious groups around the country would immediately become unlawful. There is no evidence that religious selection by Christian groups is any kind of social evil. There is   ample evidence that these groups have an overwhelmingly positive impact on our culture, including through their many welfare projects. This is why I believe it is right to protect them. Indeed, it would be most regrettable if a religious group were held in breach of Part 2 over some perfectly reasonable practice aimed at protecting the doctrines of furthering its ministry. I understand the reason behind subsection (2). We do not want commercial organisations getting round the law by pretending to be religious. But what about truly religious organisations that operate in a way which appears to be mainly commercial? For example, there is a company which supplies, on a commercial basis, the organising of Christian ceremonies for weddings, funerals and baby-namings, as they are now called. Would that be regarded as solely or mainly commercial? There are Christian book distributors, which are very large organisations. They exist primarily for religious reasons, but are they safe under Clause 59? There is an organisation called Autosave, which supplies cheap cars to ministers and missionaries, and one called MasterSun, which organises Christian holidays. They can doubtless prove, under subsection (1)(d), that they exist to,"““enable persons of a religion or belief to receive any benefit, or to engage in any activity, within the framework of that religion or belief””." But, if a court decides that their main purpose is ““commercial”” their work would be deemed unlawful. The amendment is intended to probe how the Government believe that the exclusion for commercial organisations will operate and why they have decided to introduce it. Specifically, I would like the Minister to give judgment on the theoretical scenario from the Christian Institute’s briefing. It talks about a Muslim taxi firm that is set up specifically to supply cheap taxis to local mosques on the day of worship to help elderly and infirm Muslims to get to the mosque for daily prayers. The firm also supplies taxis on an ordinary commercial basis to other customers. This side of the business expands, but the original side of the firm business remains unaffected. Would the court take the view that the main business of that taxi firm is commercial? If so, an ordinary customer could successfully allege religious discrimination because the elderly Muslims would get cheaper rates than a normal non-Muslim passenger. It seems that that would be a harsh and undesirable consequence of the Bill, and I wonder what the Minister thinks about that scenario. Before I sit down I should make it clear that the Christian businesses that I encounter are very keen to supply services to anyone who wants them. Their very purpose is to give a positive portrayal of the Christian faith to people who are not themselves Christian. But they are not proselytising. I do not say that all such businesses are restrictive about who benefits from their work or that they are restrictive all the time. But if, for sincere religious reasons, some religious businesses do give different treatment to fellow believers, I ask what is wrong with that? I beg to move.