Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 206A:"After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—"    ““EXCLUSION ON GROUND OF RELIGIOUS ETHOS ETC. (   )   Nothing in this Part shall inhibit the right to exclude a person from any organisation or employment on the grounds of his belief (as defined in section 45(b)) or lack of belief where the holding of a particular belief is fundamental to the ethos of that organisation or employer.”” The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lady   Wilcox, who joins with me in proposing this amendment, is a vice-president of the organisation now called Girlguiding UK, whose patron is Her Majesty. I, too, have a former interest to declare—quite apart from the fact that I was a girl guide. My later interest is that I was, formerly, a lady Cub master; we were called ““Akela””. I spent about 10 years drumming into the heads of boys aged from eight to 10   the same concepts of good citizenship, patriotism, decency, and all other forms of respect for each other. I am very proud to say that in the many years since then, I have never come across any of ““my”” boys—as I still call them—now grown men with families of their own, who have ever let me down. Now both in the Cubs, the Scouts, the Brownies and the Guides, a promise is required from every member and is repeated at every meeting. It is called a ““promise””, not an oath. In the case of the Guides, it says:"““I promise to do my best to love my God, to serve the Queen and my Country and to help other people and to keep the Guide Law””." The Cub and Scout promise is similar. I understand that Freemasons require candidates for initiation to attend an interview where the first question is:"““Do you believe in a Supreme Being?””." Unless the answer is an unequivocal ““yes””, the interview is over, then and there. It does not matter whether it is the God shared by Christians, Jews or Moslems, or whether it is the God or Gods or the supreme being worshipped by Hindus, Sikhs, or any other religion whatever. I recall the wonderful World Scout Jamboree held in Britain in August 1957 when young people from all round the world, of every religion, every race and every colour gathered together in united friendship. One of the things they shared in common was their belief in their personal god. It is not possible to accuse such an organisation of either racialism or any other kind of prejudice. There is another problem thrown up by the provisions of this Bill under Part 2. There are occasions when it may be reasonable and proper for there to be discrimination on the grounds of a person’s religious beliefs or, indeed, the lack of them. I am talking about the employment of someone by a religious organisation. I believe it is not unreasonable for a mosque to wish not to employ someone to work, even in a menial position, say as a cleaner, about their premises and to handle religious objects unless he is of their faith. Although I know that synagogues almost invariably employ non-Jewish caretakers for a variety of reasons, they obviously have to have the right to impose rules as to what food may be brought on to their premises. Surely Catholics and Protestants alike are entitled to decline to employ non-believers in their schools. I say nothing of the Plymouth Brethren, who do not want to recognise trade unions because of their genuine religious beliefs. Religious belief is possibly the most delicate of subjects with which the commission is going to have to deal. But the rights of a person who is reasonably refused a job on the grounds of his conflicting religious belief, or the lack of any religious belief has to be balanced against the equal right—confirmed by the Human Rights Act—of the employer to practise his religion without disturbance. The amendment I propose is not a licence to practice discrimination for reasons of pure, unacceptable prejudice. It is to be even handed on a matter of pure conscience, and I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept it. I beg to move.