Clause 51 - Public authorities: general
Equality Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I shall deal with amendment No. 138 and new clause 13. First, it might be helpful if I respond to some of the general points that have been made, not least by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because it is important for hon. Members to have constant regard to what is happening on this issue, as on many others, in the communities that we represent. A number of things are happening and they are interrelated.
Surveys of people's adherence to particular religious beliefs and institutions show that such adherence remains at a very high level. The vast majority of people in this country regard themselves as members of a particular religion or faith community. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman is right to point out, we live in an increasingly secularised society, so despite the high level of adherence to formal religion, there is an ongoing process of secularisation. An increasing number of people identify themselves in terms of their religious belief and religious community. The fact that we are debating part 2 of the Bill reflects that and the need to protect people from discrimination on those grounds. All three elements run together and there is an interplay between them. We need to have regard to that.
What comes out of the debates that ensue from that is sometimes not helped by the misinformed reporting of some stories that we see constantly dripping through the media. One of the latest examples was the rumour put around in various newspapers that the Home Office had withdrawn funding for a carol service at St. Martin-in-the-Fields for crime victims. That story was complete nonsense. There was never a proposal to withdraw funding, but of course the Home Office wanted to be sure about the range of victims of crime who were being invited to that event order to ensure that everyone was sufficiently and properly engaged.
Such stories play into potential prejudice and the lack of information, which does not help. Our responsibility here is to clarify the issues wherever we can. It is important to recognise the need to ensure that public authorities can support the religious needs and wants of the people whom they serve, in a way that balances protection for people of other beliefs as well. We do not seek to prevent local authorities or any other public authorities from being involved in carol services, celebrations of Diwali or other religious activities in which they feel it is right for them to be involved. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that these things evolve over time and that there is now a broader range of religious faiths and activities than perhaps was the case in the past. We do not think that this part of the Bill stands in any way against that trend. We feel it is right—this is in some measure a response to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—that public authorities should treat people of all faiths and none fairly. That is the limit that I would place on this.
Whether amendment No. 138 is better than new clause 13 is a matter for members of the Committee to judge for themselves. I believe that it tips the balance unfairly. It would have the effect of allowing a public authority to support one religion by organising worship and maintaining places of worship, while refusing, under any circumstances, to do the same for others. There should be chapels in our crematoriums, hospitals and elsewhere and they should be properly maintained for those who wish to use them. We believe that the authorities providing such facilities should be reasonably flexible to the needs of those who need and want to use them.