Why are the UK churches fighting the government's equality bill so fiercely in the House of Lords?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Dale Morgan
Jan 24, 2010, 9:39:46 AM1/24/10
to Bible-Pro...@googlegroups.com
Faith Under Fire......
Why are the UK churches fighting the government's equality bill so fiercely in the House of Lords?
Churches panic over equality bill
o Simon Sarmiento
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010 10.56 GMT
On Monday, peers will debate amendments to the Equality Bill affecting employment by religious organisations. In the run-up, a fierce campaign has been mounted by CARE, CCFON, the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and the Christian Institute, and supported in substance if not in tone by the Roman Catholic bishops and the Church of England.
Is this campaign just wanton scaremongering by religious extremists as a cover for retaining the right to irrational prejudice? Or is the government really trying to narrow existing law so as to curtail the exemptions from employment discrimination law to which religious organisations are entitled under the law?
The government insists that it is doing nothing of the kind, merely "clarifying" the law, in the course of consolidating the myriad of existing anti-discrimination regulations into a single act of Parliament.
Three Church of England bishops clearly disagree. In an unusual Saturday morning press release they said that the government "have produced no convincing case for change."
But the bishops surely know that the UK government has a problem with the European Commission. When Parliament made the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in 2003, an extra clause was added at the last minute which allows "a requirement related to sexual orientation" to be imposed when employment is "for the purposes of an organised religion". Neither of these phrases was defined any further. There was quite a fuss at the time, and speaking for the government, Lord Sainsbury then said: "When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion."
Following a formal complaint filed in Brussels by the National Secular Society, EC officials have been discussing this clause with the UK government since August 2006. Last November they issued a "Reasoned Opinion" which "maintains that the wording used in Regulation 7(3) is too broad, going beyond the definition of a genuine occupational requirement allowed under the Directive".
"The Directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3)."
One government argument in response was that the 2004 judicial review in Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, while rejecting the unions' argument that the regulations were ultra vires, created a formal legal precedent that the exemption must be interpreted extremely narrowly. Nevertheless an employment tribunal in 2007 allowed its application to a Diocesan Youth Officer, although John Reaney won his case against the Bishop of Hereford on other grounds. This decision, though never appealed and so not forming a legal precedent, gives succour to those who want to believe that the exemption is not so narrow.
So there are some changes in the Bill, by which means the government hopes to satisfy the Commission. It has very recently proposed new wording for an explicit definition of "the purposes of organised religion". And the word " proportionate" now appears twice, in order to make explicit on the face of the bill that the European Directive has such a requirement (in plain language, you must not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut) which the courts are in any case required to observe. The bishops are supporting precisely the amendments that would remove these changes.
The new definition expressly includes all "ministers of religion" and for the laity closely follows what Lord Sainsbury originally said. That is still unacceptable to both Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, whose legal advisers are convinced the wording may somehow be interpreted by the courts in a narrower way than is possible at present. Both groups have stated that they strongly prefer there to be no definition at all in the Bill rather than the new one now offered, though they grant it is an improvement over an earlier draft.
The Church of England bishops are however insistent that their own view is "that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted."
What they want is for candidates for "a small number of lay posts", or more exactly "certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion" to be required "to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion".
It's very difficult to see why the latest wording proposed by the government does not concede all that they require.
Why are the UK churches fighting the government's equality bill so fiercely in the House of Lords?
Churches panic over equality bill
o Simon Sarmiento
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010 10.56 GMT
On Monday, peers will debate amendments to the Equality Bill affecting employment by religious organisations. In the run-up, a fierce campaign has been mounted by CARE, CCFON, the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and the Christian Institute, and supported in substance if not in tone by the Roman Catholic bishops and the Church of England.
Is this campaign just wanton scaremongering by religious extremists as a cover for retaining the right to irrational prejudice? Or is the government really trying to narrow existing law so as to curtail the exemptions from employment discrimination law to which religious organisations are entitled under the law?
The government insists that it is doing nothing of the kind, merely "clarifying" the law, in the course of consolidating the myriad of existing anti-discrimination regulations into a single act of Parliament.
Three Church of England bishops clearly disagree. In an unusual Saturday morning press release they said that the government "have produced no convincing case for change."
But the bishops surely know that the UK government has a problem with the European Commission. When Parliament made the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in 2003, an extra clause was added at the last minute which allows "a requirement related to sexual orientation" to be imposed when employment is "for the purposes of an organised religion". Neither of these phrases was defined any further. There was quite a fuss at the time, and speaking for the government, Lord Sainsbury then said: "When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion."
Following a formal complaint filed in Brussels by the National Secular Society, EC officials have been discussing this clause with the UK government since August 2006. Last November they issued a "Reasoned Opinion" which "maintains that the wording used in Regulation 7(3) is too broad, going beyond the definition of a genuine occupational requirement allowed under the Directive".
"The Directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3)."
One government argument in response was that the 2004 judicial review in Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, while rejecting the unions' argument that the regulations were ultra vires, created a formal legal precedent that the exemption must be interpreted extremely narrowly. Nevertheless an employment tribunal in 2007 allowed its application to a Diocesan Youth Officer, although John Reaney won his case against the Bishop of Hereford on other grounds. This decision, though never appealed and so not forming a legal precedent, gives succour to those who want to believe that the exemption is not so narrow.
So there are some changes in the Bill, by which means the government hopes to satisfy the Commission. It has very recently proposed new wording for an explicit definition of "the purposes of organised religion". And the word " proportionate" now appears twice, in order to make explicit on the face of the bill that the European Directive has such a requirement (in plain language, you must not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut) which the courts are in any case required to observe. The bishops are supporting precisely the amendments that would remove these changes.
The new definition expressly includes all "ministers of religion" and for the laity closely follows what Lord Sainsbury originally said. That is still unacceptable to both Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, whose legal advisers are convinced the wording may somehow be interpreted by the courts in a narrower way than is possible at present. Both groups have stated that they strongly prefer there to be no definition at all in the Bill rather than the new one now offered, though they grant it is an improvement over an earlier draft.
The Church of England bishops are however insistent that their own view is "that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted."
What they want is for candidates for "a small number of lay posts", or more exactly "certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion" to be required "to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion".
It's very difficult to see why the latest wording proposed by the government does not concede all that they require.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages