Equality Bill—the Public Sector Equality Duty and Employment Exceptions for Churches and Christian Organisations
The Equality Bill aims to sweep all of the existing law on equality into one Act of Parliament and to eliminate more forms of discrimination than are currently covered.
While Christians believe in the innate worth of every human being, the Bill undermines basic Christian freedoms to adhere to biblical values in the area of employment. The Bill will affect Churches, who will not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual practice that contravenes biblical values or gender reassignment when employing staff. Only roles that wholly or mainly involve, promoting or teaching religion or leading worship services will be exempt from the provisions of the Government’s Equality Bill. Far from simplifying the law, which the Government promised the Equality Bill would do, the Bill introduces more complex requirements even above and beyond those already within the existing law and the explanatory notes to the Bill state that “the specific exception applies to a very narrow range of circumstances”.
During the Report Stage in the House of Commons, John Mason, MP said:
Let us consider the definition: “wholly or mainly involves...leading or assisting...liturgical or ritualistic practices...or...promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion”.
Even a full-time priest, minister or pastor would not “mainly” be doing that, because much of their time is spent visiting the sick and perhaps with funerals and so on. In fact, therefore, the definition could exclude everybody.
Mark Harper, MP, Shadow Minister (Disabled People), Work and Pensions, explained this in more detail and added that “If the definition does not even include people who lead worship in their churches, it seems to me that it is a faulty one.”
The Bill’s intention was to ensure that posts such as Church Cleaner or Accountant to the Church would not be covered by the exception, but a Minister or Priest would be. There are other posts that this change would affect, including those which may have a pastoral or representative role such as a youth worker.
The current Bill’s wording means that if passed, it would no longer be lawful to require a Minister/Vicar/Priest to be male, unmarried, not in a civil partnership, not a practising homosexual or not transsexual, since virtually no such person would be able to show that their time was “wholly or mainly” spent either leading liturgy or promoting or explaining the doctrines of the religion.
The Equality Bill is at Committee Stage in the House of Lords. It will continue to be debated on 13th, 19th, 25th and 27th January 2010. It is at Committee Stage and Report Stage that amendments to the Bill can be considered and voted upon. Now is the time to act.
We want to maintain the legal status quo regarding the exceptions that churches can use when deciding who they are prepared to employ. Please help us by writing to Peers to ask them to support amendments to the Equality Bill that will maintain churches’ freedom to recruit suitable people to key positions in churches.
Act Now to Protect Employment Exceptions for Christian Organisations
We are also concerned that although the explanatory notes say that the current law regarding the freedom of Christian organisations to employ only Christians has not changed, the example given of how the new provisions would operate is arguably much more restrictive than the current law. For that reason we would like you to request that during debate in the House of Lords, Peers ask the Government to remove this example from the explanatory notes.
The Equality Bill is a direct assault on the Church’s freedom to employ people who are committed to living with Christian integrity according to the Bible. It also makes it more difficult for Christian organisations to employ Christians and reject applicants who do not share our faith, or who refuse to live according to the Bible’s teaching.
Please click here to see the information pack provided by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (LCF), to which you can refer for further information.
You will find suggested bullet points to assist with a letter to Peers on pages 9 to 11 of the LCF briefing, covering these two issues. If you know a Peer, or know he or she lives in your local area please write to them. Otherwise, choose a Peer whose surname begins with the same letter as yours.
Act Now to oppose a Public Sector Equality Duty for “Religion or Belief” and “Sexual Orientation”
We would also like you to consider asking Peers to oppose the application of the Public Sector Equality Duty in the Equality Bill to both “religion or belief” and “sexual orientation”. This is because local Councils would be required by the PSED to promote all religions as equal and all lifestyles as equal in so many of their activities including core business planning.
Please click here for our supplementary briefing pack, which contains points that we suggest you could make in your letter to a Peer of your choice.
Simplified Instructions
We have been asked for details of how to write to Peers and for a more simplified response.
We have advised to write to Peers who have the same surname as you so that we get a fairly even spread of Peers contacted. It is useful to also contact Bishops who we know support the Christian faith .An alphabetical list of Peers including the Bishops can be found at the following link:
http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm
(Please press "biog" for more information adjacent to each Peer).
We do not have a specific list of Christian Peers but it may be that Peers who voted to retain the free speech clause may be more sympathetic:
You can find out which Peers supported the free speech provision by checking their names listed under "NOT CONTENTS" at this link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90709-0009.htm and from the top of the page at this link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90709-0010.htm
Instructions on how to write to Peers (including how to address them) can be found at the following links: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/lords_contact.cfm and http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/lords_contact/address.cfm .
In terms of a simple response, you may wish to use the details outlined above.
There are two basic points on the employment side (but with more details in the LCF briefing):
Firstly, that you would like the current work exceptions for Churches for it to be lawful to require a person such as a Minister/Vicar/Priest to be male, unmarried, not in a civil partnership, not a practising homosexual or not transsexual etc to be kept. Since within the Equality Bill, virtually no such persons would be able to show that their time was “wholly or mainly” spent either leading liturgy or promoting or explaining the doctrines of the religion. The existing law already provides a very narrow exception without narrowing it so much with a job description which is so restrictive that virtually no-one can qualify. The Government in the Second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords have unbelievably suggested firstly, that "wholly or mainly" does not have its ordinary meaning and means it’s a “major or fundamental part of the job” and secondly, that it does not narrow the law and covers a" minister of religion plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and to represent religion". This argument just causes a lack of legal clarity and confusion where words are not given their ordinary meaning. It does create extra hurdles and its wording does narrow the existing definition. The job description needs to be removed, it is not in existing law and is not necessary. The Amicus case found that the existing work exceptions for churches are already very narrow, without making them any narrower.
Secondly, you are also concerned that although the explanatory notes say that the current law regarding the freedom of Christian organisations to employ only Christians has not changed, the example given of how the new provisions would operate is arguably much more restrictive than the current law. For that reason you would like you to request that during debate in the House of Lords, Peers ask the Government to remove this example from the explanatory notes.
On the third point on the Public Sector Equality Duty you may find the bullet points at the bottom of the following CCFON article helpful (but with more details in the CCFON/CLC Supplementary briefing):