Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I refer to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The examples raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, all seem to relate to the manifestation of somebody’s religious beliefs. The report states that the holding of religious beliefs by any individual is an absolute right under both the European convention and in international law, under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is only the manifestation of one’s religious or humanist beliefs that can be restricted by a country on certain grounds, as defined in European and international law. Would the Minister please outline why the Bill, as currently drafted, only allows prohibitions and requirements to,

“so far as is practicable … avoid any conflict with the respondent’s religious beliefs”?

It should, surely, be the manifestation of those religious beliefs that the Bill is aimed at.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in standing up and responding I feel like the Jedi knight next to the Jedi master. May the Force be with us all.

Amendments 20F and 22CA raise an important point in respect of the duty on the court to ensure, so far as is practicable, that any prohibitions or requirements attached to an injunction do not conflict with the manifestation—as my noble friend so eloquently put it—of the respondent’s religious beliefs. In line with the Equality Act 2010, reference to religious beliefs should go further than so-called “traditional” religious beliefs. I believe that this can be covered in guidance but I would like to go away and consider further the points made by my noble friend. We can return to the wording of this section if required. I hope my noble friend will accept my assurance that we will further consider this point and those made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I support the words of my noble friend Lady Hamwee: he raised bold and challenging concepts. As I said, in response to an earlier amendment, what may be perceived as perfectly acceptable to one person may not be acceptable to another. The courts are used to considering a person’s religious beliefs and do not need to be told that they can reject beliefs if they are spurious. In addition, to try to second-guess what would, in the words of the amendment, constitute activities “that would normally arise” is very difficult given that two people of the same religion may have different ways of practising their faith. I am a Muslim and there are 73 different denominations within Islam. During Ramadan, the time of your fast can differ depending on where you are. One obviously prefers to be at a place where the fast closes as the sun sets rather than when the sun is set totally. That is a practical illustration from a faith which is widely recognised.

The crucial point here is that, in considering an injunction, the court must avoid, so far as is practicable, any conflict with the manifestation of a respondent’s religious beliefs. If that is not practicable because, for example, avoiding the conflict would result in the respondent engaging in further anti-social behaviour purporting to be religious practice, the court would not be prevented from imposing prohibitions or requirements that it considered appropriate. This is something we can safely leave to the courts; they are more than capable of assessing the bona fide status of a respondent’s religious practice without express provision and, indeed, we have recently seen examples of that.

Amendments 20G and 22CB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, raise another important point. As we have made clear, the injunction should be available to help turn a troubled person’s life around, especially when they are young and impressionable. As such, it would not be helpful for requirements or prohibitions to unnecessarily stop them engaging in constructive training.

However, what is considered as training by some may not be worthy of special consideration by the court and some will try to use this term to delay the court’s process. Where training is worthy of consideration it is likely to be linked to an educational establishment or even a formalised work placement and, as such, is already provided for in the Bill. My noble friend also raised the issue of different wording in different parts of the Bill. We recognise that Clause 34(3) imports the word “training” whereas Clause 5(1) does not. I will certainly reflect on those two variations and return to them as required.

For the reasons I have given, I hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris—notwithstanding the important issues that he raised—will not press his.

Religion in the United Kingdom

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, the role of religion in society is recognised in our charity law, but this has become contentious in the case of the Preston Down Trust. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this is not the thin end of the wedge for the charitable status of our churches. I say that due to a comment in the decision letter from the Charity Commission, which says the question,

“will turn on the doctrines and practices of this particular religious persuasion”.

This also explains why, to my knowledge, none of the main denominations are at all concerned. This religious persuasion is the Exclusive Brethren, which sits under the universal leadership of Bruce Hales, in Australia. In August, this group incorporated in the UK as the Plymouth Brethren (Exclusive Brethren) Christian Church Ltd. I have family in this Hales Exclusive Brethren, which is not to be confused with any other brethren groups. The Hales Brethren hold to the doctrine of separation, so exclusives cannot live in semi-detached houses, as they share a party wall with non-brethren. They cannot eat with non-brethren, cannot have friends with non-brethren; they have no TV, radio, cafes, restaurants, etc. They can attend only brethren schools and they now work only for brethren businesses. Attending university is banned. Is it not contradictory to give gift aid to charities struggling to encourage young people into university and also to groups whose beliefs prohibit that choice for their young people? This is a very controlled environment to live and grow up in. Unsurprisingly, the preliminary findings of Andrew Mayers from Bournemouth University and Jill Mytton are that the mental health outcomes for former Exclusive Brethren are poor. I await with eager interest their full report.

Only last night I spoke to a gentleman who told me about someone who is currently in the Exclusive Brethren. The man had been to a pub and unfortunately he was spotted by a brethren brother, so he has been “shut up”, a term which means that no brethren can live with him. His wife and family were removed from the family home by the leadership and he has no contact with them. The brethren have also stopped doing business with him. The man has left the Exclusive Brethren, but his parents are still in. The only contact he has had with them is a five-minute conversation and he said to me, “They will not even have a cup of tea with me”. He also said, “I miss my parents so much”. But what about his children? That was the position I grew up in: cut off from my only living grandparent who was eight miles away because I was not in the Exclusive Brethren. This is why Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia, once said:

“I believe that this is an extremist cult and sect … I also believe that it breaks up families”.

If this is Christianity, it is not as we have ever known it before. I commend the Charity Commission on seeking to deal with this Christian sect, but many who would give evidence to the First-tier Tribunal fear the implications for families still in the brethren. The Charity Commission must ensure that victims can give evidence and tell their stories anonymously.

The Exclusive Brethren is a matter for the church collectively. I believe there needs to be a church-led inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren; a theological and psychological inquiry perhaps chaired by a former Archbishop. It is not a noble or honest response to seek to deal with a fudgy law in a decision letter than turns a blind eye to these victims. The Exclusive Brethren maintain that these assertions are without foundation, so they should welcome such an inquiry. Victims can be hard to find, but I hope that many former Exclusive Brethren will hear this debate and so will know that I am hosting an event in Parliament for former Exclusive Brethren so that parliamentarians can also hear their stories.

Groups about whom there is credible evidence that they harm health, split families and send no one to university can exist in a liberal society, but whether they should be charities is very much open to doubt. The religion and public benefit guidance needs to be clarified, but we also need clarity on the outer limits of what is acceptable behaviour for all religious groups.

I offer my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, not to have delivered a celebratory speech, but I cannot get out of my mind that there might be a young person listening to this debate in a brethren school who just wants to go to university. It is important that we should say that that is not wrong.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, rises to speak, I know that we are here to talk about faith, but if we could keep faith within the time limit, that would be appreciated, otherwise we will eat into the Minister’s time.