Equality Bill still a threat, say bishops
By Simon Caldwell

22 January 2010

Archbishop Peter Smith has said that a government amendment to protect the Churches does not go far enough (PA)

The bishops have rejected Government concessions designed to allay fears over a Bill they say could force the churches to accept women, sexually active gays, and transsexuals into the priesthood.

Ministers refused repeated requests by the Catholic and Anglican bishops over a period of months to consider an amendment to the Equality Bill that would have been acceptable to them.

But they have decided to act in the face of a protracted battle in the Lords that could result in the Bill falling as it runs out of time. They have tabled an amendment designed to reassure the churches that the Bill does not represent a threat.

But Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, chairman of the Catholic bishops' department for Christian responsibility and citizenship, said the concession did not go far enough.

He said it would be better for peers to vote for a rival amendment tabled by Baroness O'Cathain, a Tory peer and an evangelical, which would remove entirely the clause threatening the "moral integrity" of priests and lay employees.

The archbishop said he was "sorry" that Ministers "were not willing to sit down earlier with religious groups and work out an amendment with the right wording".

He said: "As it is, legal advice indicates that a court might construe the wording too narrowly and if there was a doubt about the legal effect then the only prudent course is to support the rival amendment which deletes the definition entirely. That is the only sure way of guaranteeing this Bill neither widens nor narrows the scope of the current exemption."

Church leaders had complained bitterly that the Bill, which is overseen by Equality Minister Harriet Harman, narrows the definition of a priest so radically that none of the clergy would qualify for an exemption.

They say they could be sued by anyone who was turned away as a candidate for the priesthood on grounds of gender or sexual lifestyle - and would be powerless to stop priests from entering civil partnerships. leading promiscuous lifestyles or even having sex-change operations.

They fear that if they defied the Government and disciplined errant clergy they could not only be sued for sexual discrimination but, in the worst-case scenario, they could also face imprisonment, unlimited fines and have Church assets sequestrated.

As The Catholic Herald went to press both the Government amendment and that of Baroness O'Cathain were due to be debated in a committee stage hearing in the House of Lords on Monday. At present paragraph 2 (8) of Schedule 9 of the Bill says that only those people who lead worship or teach doctrine can be expected to lead lives consistent with the moral teachings of the Christian faith - but they must spend the majority of their time engaged in such activities.

The Anglican and Catholic bishops argue that this definition is unrealistic - and say it was arrived at without consultation - because most priests spend more time involved in such things as caring for sick and other pastoral work, private prayer and study, administration and building maintenance. The new definition that will replace the contentious section allows priests to be exempt from the law solely by virtue of their office as an ordained minister.

Church officials are understood to be satisfied with that change - but they contend that the new amendment would still have the effect of scrapping existing legal exemptions that allow bishops to insist that lay employees in high-profile positions in Christian institutions live lives consistent with the faith. They fear that people appointed to such posts as heads of Catholic agencies or schools would have to demonstrate that they spend most of their time promoting and explaining doctrine to qualify for an exemption, a definition they consider to be unrealistic.

Legal advisers have informed them that, in spite of the assurances of Ministers, the courts are likely to interpret the legislation in a way which denies the Church such freedoms.

The Bill has the aim of consolidating previous legislation against discrimination in the workplace but critics have accused the Government of going further and changing the law to fit its ideology.