|
Paul Goggins: Once again, we are discussing where precisely to draw the line in exemptions. Some have argued from time to time during the passage of the Bill that it is drawn too narrowly or too widely. I am, however, slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman's comments because he has given the impression that a massive debate has been raging in another place, which has spilled over to our deliberations. That is not my understanding. He quoted my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Scotland, who said in Committee that exceptions must be based on something between necessity and expedience. She paid tribute to the draftsmen who produced amendments to reflect that judgment. When those amendments were considered in another place, Lord Bishop of Chelmsford spoke
Column Number: 210
warmly in endorsement of the Minister's comments, and the hon. Gentleman's colleague Lord Lester of Herne Hill said:
''My Lords, I echo that remark and pay tribute to the draftsman and to the Government. This is a suitable way of meeting the points which were raised and I am grateful.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2005; Vol. 674, c. 861.]
It appears that, through a careful process of discussion, consideration and further drafting, the House of Lords Committee arrived at a form of words that was acceptable to all parties. We have benefited enormously from that work because they provided us with a form of words that works well.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon argues in favour of reasonable justification. My concern, among others, is that that would place an undue burden on religious and other organisations that are, necessarily, very small. Those organisations often provide, for example, luncheon clubs, sports groups and other low-key, local, but important services, particularly on occasions such as Christmas or Easter. Many of those organisations do not have formal constitutions, and it is right that they should be able to continue their engagement and involvement with the community without having to worry about restricting their membership to people of the same belief or having to open their activities to all. That is why a definition somewhere between necessity and expedience is one that respects the legislation and the need to tackle discrimination.
This is an area of considerable debate and concern, but there is a growing consensus on the right words. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can confirm that that consensus has been reached in another place. If he is having difficulties, I can provide him with the page number.
Dr. Harris: I am very keen. I knew that I had it, and the Minister could see me hunting through Lords Hansard, which is a pleasure not to be enjoyed at this time of day. Baroness Whittaker moved amendment No. 35, which stated:
''leave out 'imposed', and insert 'reasonably justified'''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 675.]
Subsequently, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whom the Minister quoted in support of the Government's position, said, ''I support the amendment.'' There was not the consensus on this matter that the Minister claims. While everyone agreed that the form of words in the Bill was better than ''expedient'', many, including my noble Friend, believed that there was a better way forward.
Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate. He holds his views strongly and sincerely. I am the first to acknowledge the assistance that I receive from others, not least those who are in this Room. The hon. Gentleman quoted from column 675. Perhaps I could gently point him to column 861, which reports a subsequent debate when a consensus was found on this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that that consensus was reached among the three main parties during their discussions. That is Parliament at its best: arriving at something that is both principled and practical. The work that took place in the House of
Column Number: 211
Lords, of which we are the beneficiaries, gives us the best possible settlement on this matter.
Dr. Harris: I am afraid that the Minister has got the order mixed up. The column to which he referred, from which he correctly quoted Lord Lester's complimenting the draftsmen—as it is polite to do in any event—was from Report stage. The column from which I quoted was on Third Reading. Even in the House of Lords, the order is: Report; Third Reading. As the Minister rightly states, ''expedient'' was found to be not expedient, and therefore another word—''imposed''—was imposed. That was welcomed and, furthermore, there was broad support, not necessarily from the Government, for a new test.
The Minister's answer does not address this significant problem. I would be grateful if he intervened on me to deal with it. How does he justify the fact that the current wording allows a religious organisation to discriminate, not in the way that he provides for, which would be easily covered by the wording that I am suggesting—lunch clubs would be reasonably justified—but against people to whom, for example, they do not want to rent their premises because, as they say, the purpose of their religion is to discriminate against and make life difficult for people of other religions?
To a certain extent, faith is like that. People believe that their religious convictions are right. One hopes that they will be polite about it, but they do not have to be if they believe something strongly and also believe that everyone else, almost by definition, has chosen the wrong path. It is reasonable to discriminate if the purpose of an organisation is to promote one religion over another. I believe that it is not the Minister's intention to allow such discrimination, but I do not understand how his wording, even if it is an improvement on ''expedient'', will prevent organisations that do not have to from discriminating on the grounds that they give.
The Minister is not indicating that he wants to give me any comfort on this point. I do not know whether it is because he cannot, as he realises that religions will state that that is their purpose.
Paul Goggins: I will happily intervene on the hon. Gentleman if he insists. I have done my best to give as full an account as I can of how opinion coalesced in the other place to the point of providing us with the form of words of which we are the beneficiaries. He may wish to consult further on what actually took place, but I say with some confidence that what happened is what I described as happening.
As this is an intervention, I do not wish to go on too long. There must be a causal link, not a spurious one, between the two provisions—that is the point. The legislation must be practical, bearing it in mind how small many of the organisations are, and that we do not wish to overburden them. The principle of the legislation and bearing down on discrimination are, of course, important, but we do not want to strangulate organisations that play a purposeful and important role in many of our communities.
Dr. Harris: I am not going to pursue the argument further—nor ought I. I am grateful that the Minister at
Column Number: 212
least recognises that he cannot defend what I consider to be too wide a get-out by saying that the matter was agreed in the House of Lords. On that basis, we might as well not turn up here, although I do not suggest that too loudly.
I see the Minister's point about the organisations being small, and I guess we shall have to look and see. We may well seek to come back to the issue at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman: Before we proceed, I should say that I have been told that there will shortly be a Division in the House; I offer that thought.
Dr. Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in clause 56, page 36, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) in order to avoid conflict with the strongly held religious convictions or beliefs of a significant number of persons of the religion or belief to which the organisation relates.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 157, in clause 56, page 36, line 43, after 'causing', insert 'serious'.
No. 44, in clause 58, page 37, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) in order to avoid conflict with the strongly held religious convictions or beliefs of a significant number of persons of the religion or belief to which the institution relates.'.
No. 158, in clause 58, page 37, line 30, after 'causing', insert 'serious'.
Dr. Harris: I can be brief, because my amendment relates to an issue similar to the one just discussed. It queries why the test in the subsection (5)(b) arm of the exemptions is not even as strong as that in the contentious provision in the measure on employment. As I said earlier, that related to the giving of offence to religious organisations with strongly held views and a significant number of members. I come back to my earlier point: without that test, it will be relatively easy for organisations to state, ''This causes offence'' without needing to show that there has been offence to a significant number of people or that the offence is significant.
The paragraph (b) arm of the exemptions allows the organisations to which the clauses apply to write their own exemption simply on the basis of what they say, because offence is a subjective issue. Some of their members might say that they would be offended if people who were not religious followers were able to rent their organisation's premises because such people might do something vicious to sacrosanct or hallowed ground. I do not know what the issues would be, but we know that there is the potential for such problems. I hope that the Minister can justify why he did not use the form of words that were found to be just about acceptable on judicial review in respect of the regulations on employment and sexual orientation, from which I quoted earlier.
5.45 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
Column Number: 213
6 pm
On resuming—
|
