Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 201:"Page 35, line 23, at end insert ““but only in so far as these activities are conducted in pursuance of one or more of the purposes in subsection (1)””" The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the other amendments standing in my name in this group. Clause 59(1) defines the purposes of organisations that   will be accepted as relating to religion or belief. Clause 59(3) states:"““Nothing in this Part shall make it unlawful  . . . to restrict membership of the organisation  . . . participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf””," or,"““to restrict the provision of goods, facilities or services””," or,"““to restrict the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation””." It is customary for organisations whose main purpose is religious to conduct activity that is not solely related to religion and that may have a wider import. As an example, there are many places where the parish church hall is, in effect, a community hall—a facility available to the whole neighbourhood. As such, it may well receive some public funding. The aim of the amendment and others in the group is to specify that restrictions should apply only in relation to religious purposes and beliefs, as set out in subsection (1). In that   case, it is surely quite reasonable to restrict participation in activities who are members or supporters of its religious religion or belief. However, where a public function for the whole community is being performed, it does not seem reasonable that that restriction should apply. Whatever public facility is available should be available without restriction. Subsection (5) again refers to restrictions, and I do not understand why the word ““expedient”” has been included. ““Necessary”” should be quite sufficient. The inclusion of the word ““expedient”” could give religious organisations wide discretion. They could discriminate because they believed it expedient not to cause offence. Turning to Amendment No. 204, if a religious organisation is performing a public function, it seems reasonable that the provisions applying to other organisations performing public functions—in other words, the provisions in Clause 54(1)—should also apply in respect of the performance of that function. That subsection makes it,"““unlawful for a public authority exercising a function to do any act which constitutes discrimination or harassment””." I turn to the amendments to Clause 60, which deals with charities relating to religion or belief. Again, similar arguments apply. If public duties are carried out, the charity should be bound by Clause 54(1), which intends that no public authority exercising a public function should do any act that constitutes discrimination or harassment. There are good reasons for the amendments—I have of course spoken to the other amendments in this group—so I beg to move.