Equality Bill [HL]

The amendments in this group attempt to restrict in various ways—I understand why—the exceptions that we have made available in Clauses 59, 60 and 61 for faith and belief groups, charities and faith schools. It is an important and sensitive area, and we recognise the need for balance and the difficulty of getting that balance right. Amendments Nos. 2001—I meant 201, but it feels like the 2001st—and 202 would tighten the restrictions on an organisation relating to religion or belief. Such a change would be unnecessary and would have a potentially damaging effect on the confidence with which religious and belief organisations perform their many valuable functions. It is unnecessary because it is   already clear under Clause 59(5) that any such restriction must be necessary or expedient with regard to the purpose of the organisation or to avoid causing offence to members of the religion or faith group. It risks having a harmful effect because, if agreed to, the amendment would cause religious and belief groups to have to ask themselves two questions: not just whether restricting access to the activity concerned was necessary or expedient for its function, but also whether the activity concerned was carried out in direct pursuit of its purpose. We seek to avoid such a ““chilling”” effect as it might have. It is right that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle should mention the breadth of activities participated in by religious groups. As noble Lords know, sometimes the groups are very small, comprising no more than a handful of people and quite often they do not have a formal constitution. It seems to have caused huge concern and difficulty. The list of purposes that we provided in Clause 59(1) is broad but this amendment might cover, for example, purely social activities of such a group. Why should we require that such arrangements be open to all comers? While I recognise the importance of getting the balance right, I am unable to accept the two amendments. Amendments Nos. 203, 205 and 207 seek to ensure that the exceptions in Clauses 59 to 61 will apply only where the groups concerned can show the necessity of a restriction having regard to the purpose of the organisation or to avoid causing offence to members of the religion or belief group. They would do so by removing the words ““or expedient”” from the clauses. It is a particularly difficult area, and we are prepared to consider change. At the same time, however, we feel that the test of necessity is too stiff a test to rely on alone. Again, we have discussed the matter with many stakeholders, and we feel that the test of necessity alone would risk causing great difficulty to religious and belief groups who currently offer valuable services. I can see from the expression on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that he will immediately think, ““What about proportionality? Proportionality is the curer of all ills, and surely it would mean that some of the issues could be dealt with de minimis””. It will not deal with the chilling effect.