Equality Bill

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister, whom I count as a friend even if we do not always agree. We have had some excellent speeches, and some particularly wonderful speeches from the Bench of bishops, which clarified a lot of things in my mind. The odd thing about this debate is that those of us who want to see Amendments 98, 99 and 100 succeed agree with government policy as stated by the Minister. The Government say that they do not want to change the legal position for churches when it comes to the ability to appoint staff—neither do we. They say that they do not want to narrow the exemptions—neither do I; neither do we. I just want the status quo. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, stated that we want to widen the exemptions. We have never stated that—we have never asked for a widening of the exemptions; we just want the status quo. Let us not forget that in 2004 the status quo wording was challenged in court by the Amicus union. The law of the land at present is the law as stated by our High Court in the Amicus case. This supports the original wording to which we want to return—not to the reasoned opinion of the European Commission, or, with respect, to the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Finally, you will be glad to hear, I will speak generally about the Bill. In another place, Michael Foster MP, the Equalities Minister, told one national newspaper that churches should be "lining up (their lawyers)" in anticipation of legal challenges. That cannot be the right approach to protecting religious liberty, but without the package of Amendments 98, 99 and 100 that is precisely what would happen. We must keep the status quo, and I wish to test the opinion of the House. Division on Amendment 98 Contents 216; Not-Contents 178. Amendment 98 agreed. Moved by