Clause 51 - Public authorities: general
Equality Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister, who has gone a considerable distance towards allaying the fears. I tabled new clause 13 precisely because I was conscious that others have greater fears than I do and feel strongly on the issue. Therefore, I wanted to make sure that the matter could be fully and properly debated in Committee.
The Minister provided considerable reassurance, but I remain troubled. We must face the fact that we live in a litigious age. People's tendency to use the courts to assert rights, often in perfectly trivial matters, appears to be a growth industry. Once one provides an opportunity for that to happen, experience suggests that people come along with agendas of their own and seek to prevail. We are living in a society that in many respects is in rapid transition, and there seems to be a willingness to use the courts and to behave in a rather un-neighbourly and unnecessary way to assert rights.
Therefore, I do not entirely share the Minister's confidence. In fairness, I think that he accepted that one consequence of the Bill may be that legal challenges will be made. We shall have to rely on the common sense of the judiciary to ensure at an early stage, as has happened before, that unreasonable challenges are thrown out of court so that a reasonable and happy mean is maintained.
I have some anxieties, because I believe that the Government may have to face the consequence that if institutions that are essentially non-denominational or non-religious in nature but maintain elements of Christian heritage begin to feel threatened, some of them may decide to convert themselves into more overtly religious organisations. There is an issue here, as we try to find the happy mean that enables people to live together in harmony. As a lawyer I have to say that, on the whole, harmony does not come through the courts. I try to dissuade people from litigating, and I am sure that other members of the Committee with a legal background will agree. It is a weapon of last resort, not of first resort. I have an anxiety that the provision will give rise to unnecessary litigation. I understand the Government's position, which is not unreasonable, but if the provision is used in that way, we shall have cause to regret it.
I shall consider the matter, and if I can come back on Report with something that might be helpful to maintain the thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve and to provide a safety net of sanity, I shall return to it. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.