Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I declare an interest because I, too, was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and had the great misfortune to find myself in a completely opposite place from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, as she knows. During the 10 years I have been on that committee, I have never before had such an experience, where we were totally unable to secure a totally common position. Unlike previous committees, we decided not to take a vote, but to produce a compromise document. I did so in the spirit of conciliation and compromise, but I have to say that I do not agree with the views expressed by the committee in some of its parts.

I also do not agree with the very detailed speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. That would be quite impossible in a debate of this kind, before a body of people who have the great fortune not to be lawyers, judges, experts on the Equality Act or experts on the Marriage Act 1949, and who do not really understand the argument that the Catholic Church deployed and which has been deployed before us today.

I do not propose to answer that with the seriousness that it requires and I advise my noble and learned friend who is replying also, perhaps, not to answer every single point today. A sensible outcome of this might be to give a rebuttal in writing before Report stage on some of the detail. In my view, none of the amendments is necessary; all would create uncertainty and obscurity. The approach adopted by the church reminds me of a curious kind of person who goes around wearing trousers with not just one belt, not just two belts, not just—as in the case of this Bill—four belts, but also with a pair of braces. It is completely unnecessary.

I totally agree with the Government’s legal analysis, as expressed by the Minister in her evidence to us and in writing. On these issues, the Equality Act is quite clear. Of course, you can never prevent people bringing challenges in courts on any basis whatever; that is true of all legislation. I think that if these amendments were carried, it would create great uncertainty.

The document that is being discussed in the dinner hour, produced by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, When Laws Become too Complex, states:

“Good law is necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible. It is about the content of law, its architecture, its language, and its accessibility—and about the links between those things”.

That is all there in the architecture, language, content and accessibility of the Equality Act—this is a tribute to the Opposition, whose Act it was, with our support—and in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Quite honestly, if these amendments were accepted, it would create great uncertainty and damage the object of the Bill.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 17 and 18, which are in my name. Although they have both been given the heading, “Meaning of ‘compelled’”, each raises distinct points. First, I wish to state my appreciation that the Government are keen to listen to concerns over the current drafting of the religious freedom protections in the Bill. The Secretary of State said in the other place that she,

“would never introduce a Bill that encroaches or threatens religious freedoms”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/12; col. 157.]

The Government’s impact assessment helpfully outlined that the Bill should,

“ensure that protections are in place for religious bodies who do not want to perform same-sex marriages, not just from successful legal claims, but from the threat of litigation”.

I am grateful for the Government’s stated intentions but put my name to both these amendments as I believe that the Bill may encroach on such freedoms and that there is a threat of litigation.

I will deal first with Amendment 17. The Government have widely publicised the quadruple locks that supposedly protect religious individuals and organisations. One of those so-called locks is the protection from compulsion, which is supposed to ensure that religious individuals and organisations will not be required, under any circumstances, to conduct same-sex marriages if they object to them. This protection from compulsion is given for two different situations. First, in Clause 2(1), there is a prohibition against compelling any organisation to take the necessary procedural step of opting in, which would enable them to go on to conduct the actual ceremonies. Secondly, in Clause 2(2), there is a prohibition against compelling any person to “conduct” or “participate in” the same-sex marriage ceremony. At first sight, the lock appears comprehensive and wide-ranging, and the Government would have us believe that this is so. However, in reality, the lock is very narrow in scope because there is absolutely no definition in the Bill of “compelled”. That omission creates uncertainty and possibly limits the scope of protection offered by the clause.

This concern was recognised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in its recent report on the Bill. The report is perhaps interesting in that it is unanimous, despite members of the committee holding different views on the principle of the Bill. Paragraph 69 recommends that the Government reconsider the issue,

“as to whether religious organisations”—

or people—

“may suffer some form of detriment as a result of their position on same sex marriage in a number of contexts which fall outside the scope of the Bill”.

Such reconsideration would, in my view, include considering whether to bring forward amendments such as those that we see today.

The new clause proposed in Amendment 17 would clarify the meaning of “compelled” for the purposes of Clause 2 and thus ensure that the lock provides the breadth of intended protection. The need for clarification was made more evident by the Minister during the Public Bill Committee, when he said that the meaning of “compelled” was,

“absolutely not borrowed from the Matrimonial Causes Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 280.]

This statement makes it unclear where, if anywhere, the word “compelled” has a legislative precedent. In the limited case law that is available in other contexts, protection from compulsion essentially provides protection only from the imposition of a criminal penalty.

For example, individuals are protected from being compelled to incriminate themselves when giving evidence in court. Clause 2 is therefore likely to protect individuals and organisations from criminal punishment but it is unclear what else individuals and organisations are protected from. The Explanatory Notes state that compulsion,

“would include, but not be limited to, attempts to use criminal or civil law, contractual clauses, or the imposition of any detriment to force a person to carry out such an activity.”

However, Clause 2 as currently drafted does not reflect the Explanatory Notes and may not prevent public bodies treating religious organisations less favourably if they decide not to opt in to the same-sex marriage provisions.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, in a sense, we have been through this before. This is another means of tackling the problem. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in raising issues of public confidence. It is a matter of great concern to me that what we call civil society—often very uncivil civil society—has reacted to the Green Paper and the Government’s proposals in extreme terms, it even having been suggested that we should deny the Bill a Second Reading. There is a great deal of cynicism and suspicion about the work done by our security and intelligence agencies. The fact that the press feel aggrieved that the principle of open justice is necessarily limited by the Bill that we are now considering again leads to the impression that something perfectly unconstitutional and disgraceful is being put forward.

I have never taken that view and have agreed with the Bingham institute and Tom Hickman in particular in the way in which they have approached the problem. However, the Government have not done themselves any service by the way in which they produced a Green Paper and put forward far too broad terms, which gave rise immediately to a justifiable negative reaction, and they are now rightly narrowing what they originally sought to do. We have to be careful to realise as we sit in this Chamber at this hour that what we are now doing will probably not enhance confidence outside but, rather, do the opposite, much as we regret it. We must do what we can to combat cynicism and lack of confidence in the work done by the security and intelligence agencies.

I sometimes worry that, unless we give our judges appropriate powers and discretion, we will in the long run also undermine public confidence in the judiciary. It will be most undesirable if the judges are seen merely to be rubber stamps. I just want to give one example. The only time I took part in closed evidence material proceedings was when I represented the People’s Mujahideen of Iran, which had been proscribed by Jack Straw and was seeking to have the proscription removed. It was prevented from collecting funds, having meetings or publishing material. I turned up as its advocate. There was a special advocate but the special advocate was unable to be of any use at all because what we needed to know was the gist of the case against the People’s Mujahideen of Iran.

After two days, my clients came to me and said that this was a completely unfair procedure, that they did not have the faintest idea of the gist of what they were supposed to have done and that they were now going to withdraw from the proceedings and withdraw my instructions. I perfectly understood their view. Later, they chose another counsel, David Vaughan QC, who went to Luxembourg. The Court of Justice in Luxembourg eventually found in their favour, as a result of which I think that the organisation is no longer proscribed.

I say all that because, having lived through that experience, I understand perfectly why the closed material procedure causes such anxiety to the press, to members of the public who take an interest, to those who go through the procedure and to the special advocates. It is no use saying that special advocates underrate their own capacity. They have to live with this procedure and do the best they can, and I perfectly understand why they have these reservations.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I rise briefly to concur with the comments of my noble friend Lord Lester, as well as my noble friend Lord Hodgson, particularly bearing in mind his quote about the possible impact on our society. Although we had an incredibly in-depth legal discussion on the previous group of amendments, I felt some frustration as what we were rightly considering was whether we can in particular cases get the least imperfect solution. That is the purpose of the Bill. However, I believe that there is a wider purpose—that of public confidence in our judicial system, which, along with the Royal Family, is one of only two institutions in our society that have remarkably high levels of public trust.