By Lord Bates
My postbag and inbox were bulging with communications from faith organisations, church leaders and members concerned about a clause in the government’s Equality Bill. The clause proposed by the government would have removed the ability of church and religious organisations to appoint people who adhere to the teachings of the faith community. It was a blatant attack on religious freedom in this country.
As the Archbishop of York summed up:
“If religious freedom means anything, it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine in accordance with their own convictions. They are not matters for the law to impose.”
The Amendment to reject the government clause in favour of preserving religious freedom was argued brilliantly and sensitively by Baroness O’Cathain in front of a packed chamber in the House of Lords. The Government, fearful that they would lose the vote, embarked on some despicable and low parliamentary procedures to try and scupper and defeat the amendment. The manoeuvrings were exposed and blocked by the inspired tactical awareness of Baroness Anelay and messages to supporters communicated by Opposition Whips’ scurrying through the corridors and tea rooms.
The result was the amendment was defeated by just 5 votes (177 for the amendment and 172 against). It was the most astonishing parliamentary victory that I have witnessed in my time in the House of Lords.
After the vote, late at night, I received an email circulated to hundreds of church and faith community leaders declaring that:
“The Lords have defeated the clause and our freedoms had been preserved. Thanks be to God for this wonderful answer to prayer.”
As a person of faith I would of course acknowledge those sentiments; however, this does not begin to tell the full story of what I witnessed here on Monday evening:
- Conservatives: All 102 Conservatives supported the amendment
- Labour: 101 out of 113 voted against the amendment
- Liberal Democrats: 44 out of 47 voted against the amendment
- Bishops: Only 8 out of 26 turned up to vote.
For the record, the Baroness O’Cathain who tabled the amendment so courageously is a Conservative Peer. The Baroness Anelay who out-manoeuvred the Government is a Conservative Peer and Opposition Chief Whip. The Whips’ Office that communicated the instructions to members to support Baroness O’Cathain were the Conservative Whips’ Office. Moreover, it would be unthinkable that a Conservative government would have ever tabled a clause attacking religious liberty in this way.
Were these facts communicated to those who had rightly taken such a deep concern over these matters? Not in any communication I have seen before the vote or since.
Why are church members, leaders and organisations who lobby on their behalf so hesitant to acknowledge that there is a vast difference between the way the three main political parties have acted in these areas? Are they afraid of causing offence by telling the truth? Or, is it that they want to claim all the credit for themselves rather than sharing it with the politicians and the political party who repeatedly stand up against the unrelenting attempts to erode the role of faith in our society?
Do they know that:
- David Cameron has brought personal responsibility centre stage, and nowhere is this more clearly stated as in his unswerving commitment to recognising the value to marriage in our society — the only party to do so;
- Iain Duncan Smith has brought Catholic teaching on social justice to the heart of Conservative social policy formulation in a deep desire to mend the broken society — the only party to do so;
- Michael Gove has defended faith schools and outlined unprecedented opportunities for churches, charities and parents to establish new state schools — the only party to do so;
- Andrew Mitchell has developed ‘One World Conservatism’, making overseas aid a ring-fenced spending priority for the Conservatives along with a commitment to increase overseas aid to 0.7% of GDP — the only party to do so.
At some point the faith communities and church members concerned about these matters need to get off the fence, recognise who their friends are and give credit where it is due - and the run-up to the General Election would seem a good time to start.
