The Equality Bill received the Royal Assent on 8 April.
The full text of the Equality Act 2010 can be found here:
The Act will start to come into force from October 2010. More information on that is here.
The text of the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday 6 April, when all the House of Lords amendments were approved without any voting taking place, can be found here:
During the debate, the Solicitor-General said:
3 CommentsThe House might recall that it was mentioned on Report and Third Reading that the European Commission had delivered a reasoned opinion in November 2009 on two aspects of our implementation of this directive. We have now responded to that opinion, although the correspondence is kept confidential. However, as my noble Friend Baroness Royall explained on 25 January in the debate in Committee in the other place, we did not inform the European Commission that the Bill will amend regulation 7(3) of the 2003 regulations, which paragraph 2 of schedule 9 replaces, to bring the position into line with the directive. We did not say that because the existing legislation already complies with the directive. I ask the House to agree to these amendments.
Doug Chaplin has fisked the witness statement at One law for us, one for you: the Carey-a Sharia revisited.
Afua Hirsch in the Guardian has written Lawyers reject calls for Christian-sensitive judges.
Stephen Bates at Cif belief has written Lord Carey’s bloated conscience.
Earlier yesterday on the Today BBC radio programme, Barrister Dinah Rose and Andrea Williams of Christian Legal Centre discussed the implications. (hat tip SB).
16 CommentsRuth Gledhill has the full text of the witness statement made today in the High Court by Lord Carey, in the case of Gary McFarlane.
Read it at Carey warns of ‘civil unrest’ over ‘dangerous’ anti-Christian rulings.
24 CommentsUpdated twice Thursday morning and twice Thursday afternoon
According to Andrew Alderson in the Telegraph:
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and other church leaders will urge senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings because of “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings they issued in recent religious discrimination cases.
Senior churchmen do not think they have any chance of a “fair” ruling if the latest significant hearing – due on Thursday – is heard in front of those judges who, they argue, have already shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs….
Lord Carey and others will this week support a formal application by lawyers acting for Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor, that a specialist panel of five judges with a proven understanding of religious issues and headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, should be established to hear his case and future cases involving religious rights.
See Church leaders head for showdown with top judges over bias against Christians.
Also, Laura Clark in the Mail reported that:
Lord Carey will back an application by Mr McFarlane’s lawyers for the case to be heard by a specialist panel of five judges with an understanding of religious issues.
It would be headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice.
A spokesman for Lord Carey yesterday confirmed the former archbishop has already prepared a witness statement.
He will warn of ‘disturbing’ rulings and ‘dangerous’ reasoning in previous cases. Other senior church figures are also said to have prepared statements.
See ‘Anti-Christian’ judges should be banned from religious cases, says Lord Carey
Responses to this include:
Ruth Gledhill in The Times It can only harm Christians to bleat about persecution and be sure to watch the video version as well.
In Britain Christians cry: “We are being persecuted.” But the lions don’t exist beyond their imaginations or the arena beyond their story books. Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and his fellow victims are giving all Christians a bad name. It is time for liberals to stand up and say: “We will not be slain by this malevolent spirit, not even when the persecutors are our fellow Christians…”
Andrew Brown at Cif belief Carey’s court is an admission of defeat
…But as soon as the church, or Christianity, becomes just another pressure group fighting its corner, it has conceded the power to grant legitimacy to something else, whether this is public opinion or the political process. And from a position outside Christianity, it is absurd to demand that cases involving Christians and their tender consciences be tried by Christians, but corresponding cases involving Muslims should not be tried by Muslims.
And also there are statements from the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society.
Updates
Telegraph Peter Hutchison ‘Persecuted Christians’ join forces
The letter mentioned in this report can now be read here (scroll down) or in the comments below.
Press release from CCFON, titled (the quotation marks are theirs!) ‘Christian Victims’ of English Judicial System to Challenge Master of the Rolls – today in Court
Frances Gibb The Times Lord Carey warns of ‘unrest’ if judges continue with ‘dangerous’ rulings
Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, warned today of future “civil unrest” if judges continue with “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings in religious discrimination cases.
He intervened in a case being brought by a Bristol solicitor and relationship counsellor who wants a special panel of five senior judges to hear his appeal against being sacked for refusing to counsel homosexual couples.
Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, attacked the courts over a series of “disturbing” judgments and accused judges of being responsible for some “dangerous” reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace.
“Recent decisions of the courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing judgments,” he said in a witness statement.
Lord Carey said it was “but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a “religious bar” to any employment by Christians.”
Lord Carey, who said he had the support of several other Anglican bishops and other leading churchmen, also attacked recent decisions by the Court of Appeal on the right of Christians to wear crosses in the workplace…
And also, Peter Hutchison Telegraph ‘Civil unrest’ warning over ‘un-Christian’ rulings
23 Comments…Paul Diamond, who was applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge an employment tribunal ruling which backed the sacking of Mr McFarlane, said: “There will be a collision between the established faith of this land and judicial decisions which will lead to civil unrest.”
He added that laws protecting religious freedom now “counted for nothing” in the courts.
We reported earlier on the letter from the Archbishop of Uganda to the Archbishop of Canterbury. And even earlier there was a letter from the Bishop of Egypt, which we reported here.
Now the Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean, The Most Revd Ian Ernest, who is Bishop of Mauritius, has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury as well.
Read his letter in full here.
Also, ENS has INDIAN OCEAN: Primate suspends ‘all communication’ with Episcopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada.
51 CommentsThe Cutting Edge Consortium has issued a press release:
CUTTING EDGE CONSORTIUM URGES HOUSE OF LORDS TO VETO MORE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS IN EQUALITY BILL
The Cutting Edge Consortium (CEC) deplores the tabling, yet again, of an amendment to the Equality Bill, this time by Baroness Williams of Crosby, designed to provide an explicit exemption for religious fostering and adoption agencies from anti-discrimination law. The aim of Equalities legislation should be that services targeted at various population groups are provided in the overall context of achieving a more equal society, not to institutionalize discrimination.
(continued below the fold)
1 CommentThe Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Revd John Neill, thinks that a two-tier fellowship may emerge in the Anglican Communion as the member- Churches debate signing the Anglican Covenant.
Dr Neill, who was speaking recently to members of the Marsh Society in the Church of Ireland Theological Institute, Dublin, said: “I don’t like two-tier fellowships, but it may be a way forward at the moment.”
Read the full article from the Church of Ireland Gazette:
Archbishop of Dublin fears emergence of ‘two-tier’ Anglican Communion by Patrick Comerford (scroll all the way down)
4 CommentsThe Republic of Ireland is considering a Civil Partnership Bill.
See this earlier report on what the Evangelical Alliance Ireland said about it.
The Church of Ireland Gazette has a report this week on what the Church of Ireland is doing in relation to it. See C. of I. delegation on Civil Partnership Bill (scroll down for item).
1 Comment…”The group expressed the view that many in the Church of Ireland would welcome the legislation and that it was important that Government legislated for all its citizens. They did, however, raise issues relating to freedom of conscience and property.”
In response to a request for further information on those issues, the Gazette was told that some members of the delegation had expressed concern over freedom of conscience issues for registrars who may have objections to participating in civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples.
The issues of property, we were told, related to the availability of parish halls under the Equal Status Act in respect of goods and services. We were told that clarity was also sought on the issue of Church halls that were not made commercially available, and that Department officials had said they would respond on that point…
First of all, the articles, letters previously listed from last week are now all available without subscription.
Second, this week’s news report written by me can be read now, see Alteration proposed for Bill.
…The effect of the amendment is to require that the approval of individual religious premises for the registration of civil partnerships needs consents from a “person specified, or a person of a description specified” in new regulations to be laid before Parliament after consultation with various religious bodies.
The present rule forbidding the use of any religious premises for civil-partnership registrations remains in force in the mean time. The amendment specifically allows for distinctions to be made, not only between religious premises and “other premises” but also between different kinds of religious premises. For example, the arrangements for Quakers might be different to those for Liberal Judaism. Nor would it be necessary for the regulations governing civil partnerships to be identical to those relating to civil marriages in the same venue.
A spokesman for the Archbishops’ Council confirmed on Wednesday that the amendment took account of discussions held with the Government. The Church of England’s concern, he said, was to ensure that the regulations provided for an opt-in or opt-out at denominational level. The C of E (and other denominations) wanted to be able to nominate a national body to declare a position on this issue, before individual applications could be made. This was what the Quakers themselves had done (Comment, 12 March)…
And the CT blog has noted that Equality Bill: Amendment allowing civil partnerships in church buildings could be lost, and linked to the letter already published here.
1 CommentUpdated
The Chancery Division of the High Court has published its decision in the case of Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales & Ano[the]r.
You can read the ruling in full here, as web pages, or here as an .rtf file.
Earlier documents in the case (mentioned in the above) can be found here.
A press release from Catholic Care can be found here, and one from Stonewall can be found here.
There are newspaper reports:
The Times High Court reverses ban on Catholic Care’s anti-gay adoption policy by Ruth Gledhill and Rosemary Bennett and see also Catholics win latest stage in gay adoption battle on Ruth’s blog.
Guardian Riazat Butt Catholic adoption agency can turn away gay couples
Telegraph Matthew Moore Catholic adoption agency wins gay rights exemption ruling
Press Association Adoption society wins gay ruling
Reuters Catholic charity wins gay adoption ruling
Independent Sarah Cassidy Catholic group granted gay adoption exemption
Updates
Some of the press reports give an erroneous impression of what has happened so far. This report by Joshua Rozenberg is more reliable: While Catholics Care, Children Suffer, and the Christian Institute is remarkably muted in tone in this report: Glimmer of hope for RC adoption agency.
10 CommentsTrying to celebrate civil partnerships
Sir, On February 23 you published our letter, signed also by several senior Anglicans, urging the House of Lords to support Lord Alli’s amendment to permit civil partnerships to be held on the premises of Quakers, Liberal Judaism and Unitarians. You also published a powerful leader, “Equal before God”, in support of our letter.
Lord Alli’s amendment was carried in a free vote by 95 to 21 in the face of opposition from both front benches. Several speakers quoted our letter or your leader. The Government has now accepted it, but if the Equality Bill is incomplete at the dissolution of Parliament, it goes into what politicians call “wash-up”. Only the parts acceptable to both main parties survive; the rest fall.
We hope that, as they start to campaign for the general election, they will all give an express promise to protect the amendment.
Iain McLean, FBA
Professor of Politics, University of OxfordDiarmaid Macculloch, FBA
Professor of the History of the Church, University of Oxford
Previous letter and leader article are here.
4 CommentsUpdated Saturday morning and Monday morning
Both suffragan bishops recently elected in Los Angeles have now completed the process of church-wide consents.
Los Angeles diocesan announcement: Episcopal church consents to Glasspool’s ordination
Los Angeles Bishop-elect Mary Douglas Glasspool has received the required number of consents from diocesan standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction to her ordination and consecration as a bishop, according to a March 17 statement from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s office.
Statements from the Los Angeles bishops-elect: Consent process complete for Bishop-elect Mary Glasspool
ENS report: Los Angeles Bishop-elect Glasspool receives church’s consent to ordination
Some initial press reports:
Los Angeles Times Episcopal Church approves ordination of openly gay bishop in Los Angeles
Associated Press Episcopal church approves 2nd gay bishop
New York Times Episcopalians Confirm a Second Gay Bishop
Update
Living Church Lambeth Regrets Consents for Canon Glasspool
…This is the full statement from Lambeth Palace:
It is regrettable that the appeals from Anglican Communion bodies for continuing gracious restraint have not been heeded. Following the Los Angeles election in December the archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the communion. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion reiterated these concerns in its December resolution which called for the existing moratoria to be upheld. Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision.
Living Church Communion Partners on Bishop-elect Glasspool
Fulcrum Fulcrum Response to Consents being given to the Consecration of Mary Glasspool
Further update
31 CommentsNew amendments have today been filed, for consideration at Third Reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday 23 March.
First, here is the main new amendment filed:
Clause 202
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 125, line 25, at end insert—
“(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.”
Page 125, line 29, at end insert—
“(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.”
Now, here is the wording of Clause 202 as already amended, and showing in bold the effect of the above new amendment on that Clause:
Civil partnerships
Civil partnerships on religious premises
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows. 20
Omit section 6(1)(b) and (2). In section 6A, after subsection (2), insert—“(2A) Regulations under this section may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.” 25
(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.”In section 6A, after subsection (3), insert—
“(3A) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.”
And finally, below the fold is the wording of the amended clauses of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, to show where it would end up, if this new amendment is passed.
There are two other minor amendments filed:
Clause 216
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 134, line 9, after “sections” insert
“202 (civil partnerships on religious premises),”
Schedule 27
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 234, line 24, at end insert—
“Civil Partnership Act 2004 Section 6(1)(b) and (2)”
See earlier article here.
From Cif belief Goodbye to the bishops by Polly Toynbee:
Today an ICM poll for Power2010… shows that 74% of voters think unelected bishops should have no place in the legislature, and only 21% believe that they should. Even more persuasive is that 70% of Christians want the bishops gone, and only 26% are in favour of keeping them.
And, from Ekklesia ICM Survey of attitudes to bishops in Parliament and religion in public life:
The population of the UK is equally split over the importance of institutional religion in public life, but three-quarters believe it is wrong for bishops to have reserved places in the House of Lords.
The findings come in an ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, as part of the Power 2010 initiative of which the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia is a member.
They are the first major survey of public opinion with regard to the place of bishops in the House of Lords. It was carried out on 10-11 March 2010.
Findings included:
- 43% of people believe it is important that institutional religion plays a role in public life, whilst 41% feel it isn’t important.
- Many more Muslims (84%) than Christians (50%) believe that it is important that ‘organised religion should play a role in public life’.
- 74% of the population – including 70% of Christians – believe it is wrong that some Church of England Bishops are given an automatic seat in the House of Lords.
- 65% say it is important that anyone who sits in the House of Commons or House of Lords and votes on laws is elected
- Support for the place of Church of England bishops in the Lords is least in Scotland, where only 20% of the population believe their presence is significant.
Read the full survey results here: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/survey_on_bishops_icm.pdf
13 CommentsI have not posted here about the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill for a whole month.
However, the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda has this week issued a statement. This body consists of: the Roman Catholic Church in Uganda, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, the Church of Uganda, the Uganda Orthodox Church and the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
The statement can be found here (H/T Warren Throckmorton).
See also the analysis of this statement at Box Turtle Bulletin.
The earlier statement from the Church of Uganda was reported here.
Also, this article was published by the Washington Post on Friday In Africa, a step backward on human rights by Desmond Tutu.
15 CommentsThe Anglican Church of Canada has issued a Communiqué from the Dialogue of African and Canadian Bishops.
For a little over a year, five Canadian and six African dioceses have engaged in diocese-to-diocese theological dialogue on matters relating to human sexuality and to mission. With one exception, each diocese has established a theological working group to prepare papers and responses which were shared with their partner diocese on the opposite continent (see below for list of participants). Ontario and Botswana exchanged documents related to sustainability in the context of mission. These dialogues have emerged from, and are a deepening of, relationships established during the Indaba and Bible Study processes at the Lambeth Conference of 2008…
From February 24 to 26, the bishops of these dioceses met at the Anglican Communion Office, St. Andrew’s House in London, England. In a context grounded by common prayer and eucharistic celebration we reflected together on our local experiences of mission and the challenges facing the Church in our diverse contexts. Though the initial exchange of papers had been related in most cases to matters of human sexuality and homosexuality in particular, our face to face theological conversation necessarily deepened to explore the relationships between the Gospel and the many particular cultural realities in which the Church is called to mission…
There is a further report from ENS by Matthew Davies, see African, Canadian bishops engage in theological dialogue.
4 Comments…The Rev. Canon Phil Groves, facilitator of the Anglican Communion Listening Process, told ENS he was “delighted” by the dialogue. “This initiative of the Anglican Church of Canada is a direct response to the call of ACC 13 for participation in mutual listening,” he said, referring to Resolution 12 passed by the 13th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, the communion’s main policy-making body.
Speaking about the meeting of African and Canadian bishops, Groves said: “It was a privilege for me to be invited to participate in their final day and to hear of their common commitment to mission in the way of Christ. Such dialogues build up trust and are a source of hope for the future of the communion.”
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has today published another report which considers the Equality Bill. Read the report starting here, or there is a PDF version here. For their earlier report, see over here.
Here is the summary of their latest findings on the Equality Bill:
In this Report, we return to two issues raised in our autumn 2009 report on the Equality Bill: employment by organisations based on religion or belief and school admissions.
Employment by organisations based on religion or belief
The Bill as introduced (and as passed the Commons) permitted a requirement to be of a particular sex, sexual orientation, marital or partnership status or not to be transsexual to be applied to employment for the purposes of an organised religion, but only if it could be shown to be a proportionate means of complying with the doctrines of the religion. The Bill also included a definition of what constituted employment for the purposes of an organised religion. Both of these qualifications have been removed in the House of Lords and the Government has stated that it will not try to restore them when the Bill returns to the Commons. The original wording of the Bill would have ensured that statute law accurately reflected case law, in the light of the Amicus judgment. The Lords amendments run the risk of generating uncertainty about the law and may mean that this provision does not comply with the relevant EU directive.
We also note further issues concerning the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and question why sections 58 and 60 of the former Act are exempted from the Equality Bill.
School admissions
We do not find persuasive the argument that it is necessary to allow faith schools to discriminate in their admissions on grounds of religion and belief in order to avoid a breach of the parents’ rights under Article 2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention. Another argument is that discrimination is necessary in order to maintain the distinctiveness of religious schools and so maintain the plurality of provision which, it is argued, is required by both Article 9 and Article 2 Protocol 1. This argument is weakened by evidence which suggests, in relation to Church of England schools, that plurality of provision has been preserved even where those schools do not have faith-based admissions criteria. It carries more weight in relation to other faith schools, however. In consequence, the exemption permitting faith schools to discriminate in their admissions on grounds of religion or belief may be overdrawn in this Bill.
In their subsequent detailed discussion of the first of these issues, they refer to the recent EC Reasoned Opinion and in a footnote provide a link to the complete text of it as a PDF. The concluding paragraphs of that discussion say:
1.11 In the absence of any narrowing or clarification of either Schedule 9(2) or 9(3) we share the view of the European Commission that UK law does not comply with the Framework Equality Directive
1.12 We note that further issues exist in respect of sections 58 and 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (SSFA), which in reserving a certain proportion of posts in state-maintained or aided ‘faith schools’ for individuals who adhere to the religious beliefs and ethos of the school in question may be in breach of the Framework Equality Directive 200/78/EC, on the basis that the reservation of such posts is not restricted to circumstances where it can be shown that a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement to adhere to a particular religious belief can be said to exist.
Their Conclusions and Recommendations state:
0 CommentsEmployment by organisations based on religion or belief
1. In the absence of any narrowing or clarification of either Schedule 9(2) or 9(3) we share the view of the European Commission that UK law does not comply with the Framework Equality Directive. (Paragraph 1.11)
2. We note that further issues exist in respect of sections 58 and 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (SSFA), which in reserving a certain proportion of posts in state-maintained or aided ‘faith schools’ for individuals who adhere to the religious beliefs and ethos of the school in question may be in breach of the Framework Equality Directive 200/78/EC, on the basis that the reservation of such posts is not restricted to circumstances where it can be shown that a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement to adhere to a particular religious belief can be said to exist. (Paragraph 1.12)
3. Provisions of Section 37 of the 2006 [Education and Inspections] Act have also widened the ability to reserve certain posts filled by non-teaching staff. These provisions may constitute a breach of the principle of non-regression in EU law. (Paragraph 1.13)
4. We question why sections 58 and 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 are exempted from the Equality Bill. (Paragraph 1.14)School admissions
5. The exemption permitting faith schools to discriminate in their admissions on grounds of religion or belief may be overdrawn in this Bill. (Paragraph 1.21)
There is a leader today, Legal protection for clerical consciences.
A LITTLE historical perspective might help those who are alarmed at the consequences of the amendment to the Equality Bill passed in the House of Lords at the end of last month. The effect of it, if the Bill survives intact, would be to permit same-sex partnerships to be solemnised in Quaker meetings, Unitarian churches, and Liberal synagogues. Much attention was given last week to the fears expressed by the Bishops of Winchester and Bradford that clerics would be compelled to register civil partnerships, under threat of legal action for exercising discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Political parties are considering the possible consequences on votes in the forthcoming election. There is even a petition being got up to have the amendment thrown out.
Two points are perhaps worth bearing in mind…
The article mentioned in the leader Quakers seek liberty for gay couples is subscription-only until next Friday. So also are several letters, and a discussion of newspaper reports in the Press column.
6 CommentsThe Church of England has published a note entitled Lord Alli’s amendment – civil partnerships. I am told that this was published on 5 March.
20 CommentsKey points regarding Lord Alli’s amendment to the Equality Bill:
- the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament so may not yet be in its final form
- even once Royal Assent is achieved Ministers have to decide when each of its provisions are brought into force
- and in this case there will also have to be fresh amending regulations before there is the possibility of places of worship becoming locations for civil partnerships
- so, there is much that remains unclear for the moment and will remain so for quite some time yet.
Lord Alli’s amendment inserts a new clause into the Equality Bill that would remove provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that prevent all ‘religious premises’ being approved for the registration of civil partnerships. It does not, however, mean that anyone who wishes to do so will now be able to register a civil partnership in church – the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament.
First, the Government need to consider whether the amendment, as drafted, is adequate or whether further amendments are needed to achieve what it intends; including the intention that it should not place “an obligation on religious organisation to host civil partnerships”.
Secondly, the new provision, if contained in the Bill as enacted, would not have effect until it was brought into force by order made by the Secretary of State. Given that existing Regulations make it impossible for religious premises to be approved for civil partnership registration, those Regulations would have to be amended before the new provisions could be brought into force. Amending those Regulations will, itself, require careful consideration.
As matters currently stand it remains the case that civil partnerships cannot be registered on religious premises. Precisely how that position may change remains to be seen.
The Mission and Public Affairs Division of the Church of England has updated its guidance note on “Countering far right political parties, extremist groups and racist politics”. You can read the January 2010 version here: Countering Racist Politics. (PDF also available)
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland has very comprehensive information at general election churches getting ready including two resource documents:
These can both be downloaded from here.
And there is a Find a Hustings page.
CCFON has announced that the former Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is to host a series of General Election Hustings across England in order to help local Christians question candidates for Westminster seats.