BBC Churches fear Equality Bill will conflict with faith
Guardian Afua Hirsch Equality bill: churches and campaigners demand clarity on religion’s exemption
Ekklesia Religion on the agenda as Parliament debates Equality Bill and Equality Bill addresses discrimination against Christians
Daily Mail Harriet Harman’s law ‘will force churches to hire gays’
Telegraph Half of older workers want to keep jobs past retirement age (this is not a story about bishops)
From the blogs:
Cranmer supports the amendments about Civil Partnerships, see Equality Bill: European Commission v the Church of Jesus Christ
6 CommentsThe bishops have not expressed any interest in Clause 3, the one which deals with discrimination on the ground of Religion or Belief. Here’s how it reads at present:
Other requirements relating to religion or belief
3. A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work—
(a) it is an occupational requirement,
(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).
There are five amendments listed.
Amendment 101ZA Baroness Turner of Camden
in para (a) leave out “an” and insert “a genuine”
Amendment 101A Baroness Turner of Camden
at end insert—
“(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101B Lord Lester of Herne Hill
at end insert—
“Paragraph 3 does not apply when A is operating—
(a) on behalf of a public authority, and
(b) under the terms of contract between the organisation and the public authority.”
Amendment 101C Baroness Turner of Camden
0 Commentsat end insert—
“The exception under paragraph 3 shall not be used to justify discrimination on any other protected ground.”
Comment is free: belief has today published an article written by me, see
Churches panic over equality bill.
8 CommentsThe bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the third one. As before, please remember two things:
– this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
– this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendment 100 is sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
This removes paragraph 8 entirely, thus:
(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves— (a) leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or (b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
There is no such wording in existing legislation.
Before that amendment is considered, Amendment 99A will be moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, on behalf of the government. This amendment inserts the following wording at the end of paragraph 6, leaving paragraph 8 unchanged. However, Baroness Royall has stated that if Amendment 99A is passed, the government will accept Amendment 100.
”( ) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).”
The government says that this is only a clarification of the existing law, and does not constitute any change. It refers to the statement made by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in the House of Lords in 2003:
“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.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 779.]
The bishops say “the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted.”
What they ask 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”.
There are two other amendments being proposed to Clause 2.
In Amendment 97E Lord Alli proposes to delete paragraph (4f) thus
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
In Amendment 100A Baroness Turner of Camden proposes to insert three words in paragraph 8, thus:
6 Comments-(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves etc.
The bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the first two. Please remember two things:
– this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
– this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendments 98 and 99 are sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
These amendments have the following effect:
(5) The application of a requirement engages the compliance principle if the
application is a proportionate means of complyingrequirement is applied so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion.(6) The application of a requirement engages the non-conflict principle if, because of the nature or context of the employment, the
application is a proportionate means of avoiding conflictrequirement is applied so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
The wording that they seek to delete was not in Clause 7 of the 2003 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, nor was it in the The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 amending Clause 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, both of which are to be replaced by this Schedule.
The proportionality principle is however a requirement of the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000.
Article 4
Occupational requirements
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1) and (2), Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.
2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States’ constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.
Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos.
Or in other words, 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).
1 CommentChurch of England press release received at 11 am Saturday
Equality Bill: ‘Churches must not face further restrictions’
23 January 2010
A statement issued on behalf of the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter and Chair of the Churches Legislation Advisory Service and the Rt Revd Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, as bishops who have taken a keen interest in the progression of the Bill:
“This Monday, as Peers meet to consider the Government’s Equality Bill, they will be asked to vote on an issue of great importance to Christians and all people of faith. At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.
“The Christian Churches, alongside many other faiths, support the Equality Bill’s wider aims in promoting fairness in society and improving redress for those who have suffered unjust treatment.
“However, unless the present drafting of the Bill is changed, churches and other faiths will find themselves more vulnerable to legal challenge than under the current law. When regulations on employment discrimination were passed as recently as 2003, churches and other faiths were granted certain limited exemptions by parliament to be used when recruiting ministers of religion or others to a small number of lay posts. These enabled religious organisations to apply requirements that candidates for certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion are able to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion, as well as sharing the faith.
“The government have said that they share our view – that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted. Yet they are proposing to modify them. They have produced no convincing case for change. They have now offered to amend their original proposals in the Bill but instead of reverting to the status quo have produced words which will still create difficulties for churches and religious groups. This despite our raising the problem many months ago and offering various ways of resolving the issue.
“We must conclude therefore that the only way to maintain the status quo in exemptions for religious organisations is for Peers to support amendments 98, 99 and 100 on Monday, tabled by Baroness O’Cathain and the Bishop of Winchester, over and above the Governnment’s compromise amendment 99A.”
8 CommentsThere are further reports about this today:
In the Church Times there is a report by me, subscriber-only until next Friday, headlined Change fails to silence critics. A longer account by me is below.
In the Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell has a report headlined Equality Bill still a threat, say bishops.
On the other hand, the National Secular Society has a press release, NSS battles to minimise religious opt outs in Equality Bill.
A new Marshalled List of Amendments has been published. I will review the changes in a later post.
What follows is my full account of events of the past week.
The Government’s efforts to clarify the exemption for churches in the Equality Bill have not been welcomed by either the Archbishops’ Council or the Roman Catholic bishops conference. The Bill is due to complete its Committee stage in the House of Lords next week.
0 CommentsThere has been relatively little coverage of the religion aspects of this in the media until recently. A few items:
Telegraph Martin Beckford today has Bishop of Winchester warns Christians may have to give up public sector jobs because of secular agenda and last week had Equality Bill ‘dangerously’ trying to force religious belief behind closed doors, bishops warn.
The Sunday Telegraph also had a report by Patrick Hennessy headlined Catholic ban on women priests ‘illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill’ which earned a mention in the Church Times press column by Andrew Brown thus:
Full marks to CARE, the Evangelical pressure group, for getting the most completely bogus story of the week into The Sunday Telegraph, via its political editor, who solemnly informed the readers that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill would force the Roman Catholic Church to abandon an all-male priesthood.
The Church of England Newspaper last week had UK promises amendments to controversial Equality Bill. I had a report in the Church Times last week which is subscriber-only until tomorrow, Move to erase doubts over Equality Bill and which takes a rather different view.
Today, the Daily Mail has Video urging protest against Equality Bill that ‘infringes Christian freedom’ to be screened in churches.
Press releases from conservative organisations:
On the other hand:
The Hansard record of day three can be found here as a PDF, or starts here in html.
The official news report of the day is here.
There was an interesting debate on an amendment proposed by Lord Alton of Liverpool. This starts here.
What the Bishop of Winchester had to say can be found here.
The article in The Times yesterday by Shami Chakrabarti referred to in the debate, can be found here.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment dealing with Gender Reassignment and the Marriage Act was accepted without any difficulty by the Government. The debate about that starts here (the Bishop of Southwark stood in as the Bishop of Winchester had to leave before this was reached).
A further exchange of religious interest occurred starting here. The topic being discussed was the content of television programmes. The Archbishop of York participated in this debate.
The amendments to Schedule 9 will now certainly be discussed on Monday afternoon. There has been a change to the texts of Amendments 98 and 99. New wording is here. The old wording was in both cases simply: leave out “proportionate”. The wording was not in the 2003 SO Regulations, but was put into the Equality Bill in order to make plain on the face of the bill the proportionality requirement of the underlying European Employment Equality Directive 2000.
3 CommentsUpdated
The Government has proposed a new definition of when “Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.
Here it is:
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
This would replace the current wording found in Schedule 9, Paragraph 2(8).
Update
In order to evaluate this, it may be helpful to recall that this clause is designed to cover a variety of issues, not only sexual orientation.
25 Comments(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;
(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;
(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;
(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner;
(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end;
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
The House of Lords continued its examination of the Equality Bill yesterday. Amendments discussed covered clauses 10 to 29. Here is the news page with links.
The Hansard record can be found starting here, or the PDF file is over here.
Two of the amendments I had previously listed as interesting were debated.
Amendment 20 (Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris) which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”, was debated, follow that from here.
At the end of the evening, Lord MacKay of Clashfern proposed Amendment 57A:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Read the debate on that from here.
Also, yesterday there was a change in the list of peers sponsoring the amendment to delete Sch 9 Clause 2 Para 8. Baroness Varsi’s name was removed, and was replaced by Baroness Butler-Sloss. Lady Butler-Sloss also added her name to those sponsoring the amendment to delete the word “proportionate” in in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2.
5 CommentsSee earlier article here which includes a list of some of the amendments of interest.
Yesterday’s committee hearings dealt with Clauses 1 to 9. No amendments were agreed. The Hansard record begins here. The Parliament website has this news report with links.
Amendments considered included one from the Bishop of Chester on gender reassignment. (The Bishop of Chichester spoke on his behalf.)
The latest (Tuesday morning) list of the remaining marshalled amendments (excludes those considered yesterday) can be found here. Committee hearings resume on Wednesday.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment relating to marriages and gender reassignment discrimination has now reappeared in much shorter form then before:
58A* Page 143, line 2, at end insert—
GENDER REASSIGNMENT
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in reliance on section 5B of the Marriage Act 1949 (solemnisation of marriages involving person of acquired gender).”
Baroness Noakes and Baroness Neuberger have added their names to Lord Alli’s amendment relating to the venues for civil partnerships.
Meanwhile in the House of Commons, two questions were asked relating to the EU “reasoned opinion”.
5 CommentsAmended again Monday afternoon
My report in last week’s Church Times on the December debate in the House of Lords, can be now be read at Religion is more than this, say peers.
The consideration of the Equality Bill will resume next week, when the House of Lords considers the bill in Committee. The following five dates have been allocated: Monday 11 Jan, Wednesday 13 Jan, Tuesday 19 Jan, Monday 25 Jan, Wednesday 27 January.
Numerous amendments have been proposed, see the new marshalled list of amendments to be moved in committee, starting here.
Monday And now this revised marshalled list starting here.
The Conservative party spokesperson, Baroness Varsi, together with Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and the Bishop of Winchester have put down an amendment to strike out the whole of the new definition of the purposes of organised religion. Amendment 100. The latter three have also put down an amendment to remove the word “proportionate” in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2. Amendments 98, 99
Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris have also put down an amendment which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”. Amendment 20
The Bishop of Winchester had put down an amendment dealing with religious marriages and gender reassignment discrimination. This is not in the current list because it has been withdrawn for redrafting.I am told it will be resubmitted shortly.
The Bishop of Chester has put down an amendment to insert the words “under medical supervision” into the definition of gender reassignment. Amendment 10
Baroness Turner of Camden has put down amendments to ensure that the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will have to be read in light of Schedule 9 (3). Amendments 124, 125 and 137
She has also put down amendments:
– to modify paragraph 8 so that it reads (addition in bold):
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves—
Amendment 100
– to qualify Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (Other requirements relating to religion or belief) to add:
(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101A
Lord Alli has put down amendments:
– to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises Amendment 119A
– to delete the clause in Schedule 9 paragraph 2(4) which reads “(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.” i.e. the transposition of the 2003 SO Regulations paragraph 7(3). Amendment 97E
Lord MacKay of Clashfern has put down this amendment:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Amendment 57A
Michael Foster MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities has today announced that the Government will propose an amendment:
16 CommentsContrary to some reports over the weekend, the Equality Bill will still allow churches to hire only male clergy and will let faith-based charities continue to recruit people of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job, such as care staff who may also be asked to pray with the people they look after. We have been absolutely clear on this throughout the Bill’s passage, but as there has been some misunderstanding around our intentions we will amend the Bill to make this clear beyond doubt.
The following article from the 21 November edition of The Tablet is reproduced by kind permission of the Editor.
Swords crossed over a crucifix by Aidan O’Neill
The Italian Government is seeking to appeal against a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that could lead to the removal of crucifixes from state school classrooms. A leading human-rights lawyer looks at a case that goes to the heart arguments about the relationship between Church and State.
12 CommentsAdditional material added
I wrote earlier about the attacks being made upon this bill. Time now to comment on some of them.
First of all, there were two reports, in the Catholic Herald and in the Telegraph, which tried to put words into the mouth of Michael Foster MP, the Minister of State at the Government Equalities Office.
These were published under strong headlines: Get ready to be sued, Minister tells Christians and Minister predicts legal battles between churches and atheists over Equality Bill were used. In one article it was claimed that
[Foster] admitted that the legislation would open the floodgates to a tide of sexual and religious discrimination cases.
The other version was only slightly less sensational:
[Foster] admitted that the controversial legislation could trigger the launch of religious and sexual discrimination cases against Christian denominations.
I was present at this press conference, the day after the Lords First Reading, and I know that he didn’t say either of those things. The purpose of the conference, limited to the religious press, was to encourage churches to support the bill.
Following a lengthy discussion with all the journalists present about the new definition of the “purposes of an organised religion” in Schedule 9, Clause 2, Paragraph 8, he showed no inclination at all to accept any modification to the existing wording – several suggestions for that were made. He was then asked if he thought it likely that, if the bill passed with the current wording, there would be a challenge to it in the courts.
Here’s what he actually said in reply:
“Both sides will want to be lining up, no doubt. Government is used to the fact that its legislation will be challenged and if we could find the holy grail of avoiding challenge outside of an authoritarian state which says ‘you can’t’, we would. But I think that people feel strongly about these issues. We can’t do anything about that and neither would we want to.”
After which, as reported by the Telegraph, he added:
“I would like to see the churches being more bold. I would like to see the faith groups stand up and be counted for what they think and to challenge secularism, if that’s what they want to challenge. The secularists should have the right to challenge the Church and if the Church’s argument is good enough – which I believe it is – then the Church should win through.”
The Catholic Herald went on to say:
He declined to offer a solution to how conflicting rights of religious freedom of employers and sexual expression of employees, for instance, could be resolved.
Nor did he deny claims made by the Catholic bishops that the Bill would allow non-Christians who work in church premises to sue for victimisation if they were offended by crucifixes on walls. Instead, he said he thought such a scenario “unlikely”, even though an atheist last month successfully sued the Italian government over its policy of having crucifixes in schools.
But in the paper handout issued at the meeting, it says this about the crucifixes issue:
MYTH: Religious organisations that display holy images in the workplace are vulnerable under the Equality Bill.
RESPONSE: Religious organisations are free to display holy images. Some people have suggested that the Equality Bill willl mean that workers will be able to sue religious organisations for harassment because they are offended by religious images ih the workplace. This is just mischief-making.
An example often used is that of a cleaner working in a care home who is offended by crucifixes on the walls – it is completely untrue to suggest that the care home would be required by the Bill to take them down. The cleaner should expect to see these images in a religious organisation.
Additional information
This suggestion first appeared in the briefing on the bill issued last June by the RC Bishops, which said this:
9 CommentsHarassment
9. Harassment is defined as ‘unwanted conduct … with the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment’ (clause 24). The burden of proof for this highly subjective definition is reversed in legal proceedings.
10. In relation to religion or belief, the provision is only applicable to employment (clause 37). The practical consequences of this are that a Catholic care home, for example, may have crucifixes and holy pictures on the walls which reflect and support the beliefs of the residents. A cleaner may be an atheist or of very different religious beliefs. Nonetheless if a cleaner found the crucifixes offensive there would be no defence in law against a charge of harassment. To avoid this provision having serious unintended consequences, a test of ‘reasonableness’ is essential.
There have been some rather odd articles about this bill recently.
Telegraph Simon Caldwell and Martin Beckford Minister predicts legal battles between churches and atheists over Equality Bill and later George Pitcher Equality legislation means our very right to believe is under fire
Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell Get ready to be sued, Minister tells Christians
And various repeats in the blogosphere, of which this is perhaps the most extreme headline: The Equality Bill: Will A New Law Essentially Outlaw Evangelical Christianity And Roman Catholicism In The U.K.?
Leading to items from the lobbying organisations:
Christian Institute MP: Equality Bill will lead to legal action against churches and Equality Bill could drive faith from ‘public sphere’
Christian Concern for our Nation Act to protect employment freedom for Churches
Much of this criticism is unjustified by the facts (I was present at the press briefing with Michael Foster), and I will write more about this soon.
Meanwhile, the BBC has published a helpful reminder of the main objectives of the bill: What the new Equality Bill means for employers
3 CommentsYou can read the entire debate here at Hansard and continued here, or at TheyWorkForYou it starts here, and then continues here (the debate was interrupted for a discussion of the Defence Statement).
The following individual speeches are interesting:
Archbishop of York and also this.
Bishop of Chester, and also this.
Lord Alli
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen (questions about women bishops)
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, summing up the debate for the government.
More about this later.
4 CommentsUpdated Thursday morning
The Court of Appeals (Civil Division) has today dismissed the appeal of Lilian Ladele from the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision of December 2008, which found in favour of the London Borough of Islington.
The full text of today’s judgment can be found here. A printable version here is in .rtf format.
Initial press reports:
Press Association Registrar loses discrimination case
Reuters Christian registrar loses gay wedding appeal
Islington Tribune Registrar who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies loses appeal
Ekklesia Partnerships registrar loses case in Court of Appeal
BBC Christian registrar loses same-sex partnership case
Updates
Press Association Pressure groups welcome same-sex discrimination ruling
Symon Hill Cif belief A judgment Christians should celebrate
Christian Institute Court rejects appeal in Christian registrar case
Christian Concern for our Nation Court of Appeal rules against Christian Registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships
63 CommentsThe Evangelical Alliance Ireland writes:
Evangelical Christians and the Civil Partnership Bill 2009
The Irish Government has published a Bill that will establish Civil Partnerships for same sex couples to give them rights, obligations and protections once they are registered with the state. Many of the rights are similar to those currently offered to married couples under Irish Law. In response to this Evangelical Alliance Ireland has just produced a four page paper. Read this document here. [PDF]
The government proposals can be found here. Or in more easily digested form here.
A recent Associated Press report: Irish lawmakers open debate on gay rights bill.
23 CommentsThe Equality Bill that was passed in the House of Commons recently is now before the House of Lords. The first debate, i.e the Second Reading, will occur on Tuesday 15 December, starting soon after 2.30 pm.
Earlier reports of the Commons debate can be found here.
My own report is in today’s Church Times at Attempt to remove ‘religion’ clause in Equality Bill fails. That is currently available only to subscribers, but the full text is below the fold.
Meanwhile, the RC bishops have issued a briefing, which has been reported in a somewhat alarming tone in several places:
Catholic Herald Equality Bill threatens integrity of the priesthood, bishops tell Harman by Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service English, Welsh bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest also by Simon Caldwell
There is also a less sensational report by Isabel de Bertadano in the Tablet but that too is subscription-only.
More on this topic to follow.
2 Comments