| Care Websites |
CARE for Europe
|
CARE for Scotland
|
CARE for Wales
|
CARE in Northern Ireland
|
International Work
|
Institute for Faith & Culture
|
| Campaigns |
Bioethics
|
Education
|
Equality
|
Family
|
Human Trafficking
|
Prostitution
|
Public Affairs News
|
| Resources |
CARE Today Newsletter
|
Lyndon Letter
|
Prayer Guide
|
Daily E-Prayer
|
Impact Direct
|
| Gareth's Blog |
| Shop |
| Contact Us |
|
|
|
Equality Bill Second Reading
The Equality Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday 15 December. 'Second Reading' is the first major debate on a Bill and no amendments are considered.
 |
Schedule 9 of the Bill makes it an offence for faith bodies to insist that successful job applicants/existing employees must live in line with church teaching on sexual ethics, unless the role in question is wholly or mainly concerned with leading liturgy or ritual or promoting or explaining doctrine.
|
There is major concern that this definition is so narrow that it won’t cover many church leaders, let alone anyone else, and thus make it very difficult for church and para-church projects (certainly in the Evangelical tradition) to continue to operate.
During the debate the Archbishop of York, Baroness Cumberlege and Baroness O’Cathain highlighted the Schedule 9 problem. To read the Archbishop’s speech click HERE
Baroness O’Cathain also spoke at length about the general impact of equalities on Christian Britain. To read her speech click HERE
Helpful faith-sensitive contributions were also made by the Bishop of Chester and Lord Davies of Coity.
Unfortunately Baroness Royal, the Government minister in charge of taking the Bill through the House of Lords, refused to recognise the Schedule 9 problem.
The next stage - when it will be possible to seek to amend the Bill - will be ‘Committee Stage’ which commences on 11 January 2010.
To read the whole debate click HERE
|
|
|
| | Dr & Mrs David C Hart (Guest) | 04/01/2010 19:11 | | We wish to express our deep concern over this
Bill & the implications that would arise were it passed in the House of Lords
|
(page
1
2)
|
|
| | |
