Treaty of Amsterdam: Religious Freedoms (Hansard, 29 July 1997)

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Government strongly supported the inclusion of new Article 6a on non-discrimination in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The article is clearly couched as a legal base which allows for future action, and not as a free-standing unrestricted principle. It should not have any immediate or direct effect. Moreover, all measures under Article 6a must be appropriate and are themselves subject to unanimity. We do not therefore believe that the new article will have any detrimental effect on religious freedoms in this country.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, will he accept that the new article is a wide-ranging extension of anti-discrimination legislation covering, as it does, religion, sex and sexual orientation? It contains inherent contradictions and could cause serious problems in the United Kingdom, particularly for church schools and, I suspect, for the established Church.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I do not see that danger. Every measure brought forward under this provision—which we welcome as a declaration of non-discriminatory principles right across the Union—will clearly have to be subject to some definition and recognition that there may on occasion be conflicts between anti-discrimination in one area and freedom in another. However, since all provisions are subject to unanimity, we believe that we can protect all such freedoms by the use of the United Kingdom vote.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, in regard to the Minister's first response to my noble friend Lady Young, if the article has no immediate or direct effect, why do the Government wholeheartedly support it? Why sign it?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, we believe that the institutions of the Union should have the right to bring forward measures which end discrimination in countries of the European Union. We have long advocated the extension of the gender discrimination provisions under the European Union treaties to areas of race 93 discrimination, as is the case in this country. The article widens that to certain other areas and we supported that also; for example, disablement.

§ Baroness Elles
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the article states that the conclusions will have to be unanimously agreed? Presumably therefore any change in any of the provisions set out in Article 6a will need unanimous agreement before any progress can be made.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Any specific measure will require unanimity.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, is there any move to harmonise the definition of religion throughout the European Union? Is the Minister aware that in some countries of Europe, such as France and Germany, religions have to be registered to be allowed to function, whereas in this country they can be formed ad hoc and do not have to ask anybody's permission?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct in that there are different legal definitions of "religion". Were a proposed measure to emerge under this area of anti-discrimination on religious grounds, there would be formidable definition problems. However, they would not be insuperable. After all, in Northern Ireland we have the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act based on non-discrimination on grounds of religion. Though some noble Lords may think that there are only two religions in Northern Ireland, I can assure the House that in that Province there are many sects and mainstream religions. It has caused no problem there. I believe therefore that we can take measures under this provision.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, even though matters under Article 6a may have to be agreed by unanimity, if they were so agreed, this Parliament would have no say in their implementation? Indeed, even if this Parliament were violently opposed to those measures, it could do nothing about them.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, this Parliament has powers to direct its Ministers when they go into the Council of Ministers. That is the role of national parliaments in relation to conclusions on all areas of European legislation. Indeed, the treaty provides for a longer period for this Parliament to give its views on any proposals for legislation. However, at the end of the day it is the Council of Ministers who decide, on the basis of a Commission proposal and subject to the agreement of the European Parliament, whether such legislation will go through.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, perhaps I can pursue my noble friend on that matter. My noble friend said that our Ministers and the Council of Ministers would be under direction from this Parliament. If that were so, I should be extremely happy. If the Labour 94 Government have any proposals to do that, I shall gladly support them. However, as I understand it, at the present time the position is that this Parliament cannot in fact direct; it can only advise.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, if I used the word "direct" it was a slight exaggeration of the position. Nevertheless, the position must be in this as in other areas of legislation that national ministers are responsible to national parliaments and report back to their national parliaments. But at the end of the day, the European Council, on the basis of Commission proposals, proposes European legislation; accountability is to the European Parliament for that legislation and not to the national Parliament.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that all these measures merely add to the grounds on which one cannot discriminate? One can still decide things on grounds of merit or on grounds of reasonability as long as one does not discriminate. What is wrong with that?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the position absolutely clear. That is precisely why we supported the article and why we believe that the European Union, in adopting it, is moving in the right direction.

§ Lord Moynihan
My Lords, associated with Article 6a is the Declaration to the Final Act which states: The Union will respect and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member states". Does that mean that extreme organisations and cults could apply for legal status; for example, charitable status? Can the Minister assist the House by applying his ingenious mind to defining the "philosophical organisations" which are referred to in the Declaration to the Final Act? I have given him notice of that last question out of courtesy. If he can help the House by defining which "philosophical organisations" might come within this context, it will be appreciated.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, it is beyond me to define "philosophical organisations". The declaration to which the noble Lord refers is, thankfully, not legally binding and therefore is not subject to the same legal definition as any measures under the article would be. As I understand it, it was included because of the concern for humanist organisations in France and Belgium to be treated by the European institutions in the same way as religious organisations. The declaration also includes a reference to "non-confessional organisations", a point which I thought the noble Lord might raise. I wondered whether the Conservative Party was looking for protection under the article as a "non-confessional organisation" on the grounds that it never admits its mistakes.

Baroness Blotch
My Lords, some Members on both sides of the House will welcome what the noble Lord had to say about Ministers signing up to directives in 95 Europe. If Parliament is to have a say in directing or advising Ministers before they do so, that is to be welcomed. The previous government did not recognise scientology as a religion. Is it the case that the present Government will not recognise scientology as a religion? Whatever decision they come to or declare in response to my question, would it be possible under these arrangements, as my noble friend suggested, for scientology to go to Europe and gain recognition as a religion there, over and above the view of the United Kingdom Government?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as I have said before, the definition under any measure will require some negotiation. There will be different national practices. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, in some countries religions have to register. In this country religions do not have to register. There are different legal provisions for different types of religion. In certain respects, the Church of Scientology is not respected as a religion in this country in the way the mainstream Churches are. However, the final version would depend on the particular measure and on the discussions regarding different national practices. We are a long way off that point and it would be dancing on a pinhead to decide it now.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in view of the Government's avowed support of complete transparency in all these matters, can the noble Lord give the House particulars as to the source of this proposal and whether it was given serious consideration after consultation, whether co-ordinated or otherwise, through the party channels in the various member states, which presumably have some connection with the public? Will he give some idea as to the actual impact the article will have on the ordinary people of Europe?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, of itself this article simply allows further measures to be brought forward. The direct and immediate impact is therefore very small. However, the noble Lord will be interested to know that in 1995 the Labour Party in its policy documents agreed that the provisions of the European Community relating to sex discrimination should be extended to race discrimination. That was a major motivation for this article. We also received strong representations from both gay organisations and disabled organisations. That was reflected in other countries, which is why the Dutch Presidency came up with a fairly wide-ranging article. In fact, originally, it was the Irish Presidency which produced the article.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question. Do the Government endorse the previous government's view that scientology is not to be considered a religion in the United Kingdom?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, that is probably a question for the Home Office rather than the Foreign Office. However, there is no current intention to change the position.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what prevents scientology being recognised as a religion at present is a decision of the Court of Appeal?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I believe that to be so; in which case I had better not comment any further.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of us regard this issue as very serious indeed? It really is not good enough to say that it all depends on definition or that it all depends on trusting the decision at the time. There are inherent conflicts where there are two lots of anti-discrimination legislation—on religion and on sexual orientation—and where in some instances one would take priority over the other. The Government should look far more carefully at all of this before signing on the dotted line to something which could cause a great many difficulties.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will look very carefully at any propositions under this article. However, democracy and all law making are about resolving potential conflicts. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which is a model for the rest of Europe, excludes Church ministers and Church employees from its effects. I suspect that other countries besides ourselves would insist on a similar exclusion from any measure proposed under this article, which is simply a legal base at this point.