28 January 2010

Equality Bill

Following engagement with the Evangelical Alliance and other Christian organisations, the Lords have rejected an ambiguous Government amendment to the Equality Bill which could have prevented churches and Christian organisations from appointing practising Christians to key roles.

On Monday 25 January the Lords voted by a significant margin - 216 to 178 - for a different amendment, from Baroness O'Cathain, which will maintain the status quo.

There is much in the Bill that promotes justice, fairness and equality, all hallmarks of a modern society that the Evangelical Alliance enthusiastically supports.  However, it is also important that fundamental liberties, such as freedom of religious belief and expression are maintained.

The Evangelical Alliance's role in explaining the implications of the Equality Bill to Parliament was highlighted in the House of Lords by the Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, as he argued for the rights of Christian churches and organisations to employ key staff who can represent their employers with integrity.

Following the vote, the Bishop thanked the Evangelical Alliance, alongside the Archbishops' Council and RC Bishops' Conference teams and the Christian Institute, for: "over 6 or 8 months of demanding and concerted Godly work, that lay behind the outcomes on Monday afternoon that I pray will prove significant for the Churches and for others."

Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, said: "We're grateful to the Lords for this result. The Government's amendment was unclear and would have left churches and organisations unsure whether they could preferentially appoint practising Christians for the majority of their key roles.

"Now, they can continue to appoint people who are committed to the ethos of the organisations they are supposed to represent. It's a victory for common sense. I hope the government will accept this and not prolong the issue by asking the House of Commons to challenge the Lords' vote."

The rejected amendment stated that religious organisations could only prefer candidates if they were applying for the job of minister of religion or posts that "exist to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion."

The Alliance was concerned it would be unclear how the courts might interpret the word "exist" - few religious posts actually exist wholly or mainly for the purposes stated.

Read more on how the Evangelical Alliance and other Christian organisations were involved behind the scenes on this Bill.