Equality Bill [HL]

It is fair to say that the Government have tried harder than ever before to devise exceptions for religious groups that protect their principal activities. I have referred to that on several occasions already this evening. The Government have sought to ensure that legitimate religious activities do not suffer as a result of legislative innovations. They have negotiated the exceptions with a wide range of religious groups including the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference, which I presume have seen the final wording of the Bill. That would make Clause 65 all the more surprising, as it gives the Secretary of State power to amend or remove any of the religious exceptions by order. All the good work achieved by devising those exceptions could therefore be undone almost at a stroke. The only opportunity that Parliament would have to consider the implications of abolishing or amending one of the exceptions would be a time-limited debate on a ministerial order on a ““take it or leave it”” basis. Honestly, it seems absolutely extraordinary that exceptions essential to protect freedom of religion can be limited or deleted by secondary legislation. If a future Secretary of State decided that Churches should be stripped of the protections of Clause 59, so that the   law required them to alter their membership conditions, surely the proposals would be deserving of proper scrutiny and be capable of amendment. If a future government decide to vary an exception and it is not clear what the effect of the wording will be, we should have the opportunity to submit amendments and have our concerns properly debated. It has been said on many occasions that governments are certainly not infallible in their drafting, and when the subject is   fundamental religious rights, we cannot afford mistakes. Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State must consult first with the commission, but he is not bound to take its views into account. Consulting the commission is no substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have seen quite enough of this sort of Henry VIII clause. If the Government conclude that there is a problem serious enough to warrant legislation, let them bring forward a Bill and make their case. Secondary legislation, even by affirmative resolution, is simply not good enough.