Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Alli and Lord Waddington

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, brought to the attention of the House certain remarks made by my noble friend in her speech at Second Reading. I will remind the House of some of her words. In particular, she said:

“Teachers will be expected to teach the factual and legal position when teaching about marriage … but they will not be expected to promote or endorse views that go against their own beliefs”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]

That surely means that the teacher must teach the new definition of marriage and must explain the significance of the change. That may be very difficult for some teachers. The Minister says that the teacher does not have to endorse the new definition, and by that I think she means to accept it as right.

[Lord Alli]

Teachers in any context need to teach the legal position. Is the noble Lord suggesting that they should not teach it, whatever the House decides? The law in terms of marriage is the law. That is a fact. Surely they have to teach the law?

[Lord Waddington]

I appreciate what the noble Lord has to say and he will be able to say it in his speech. I wish he would just hear me out on this little piece of the action. He surely must agree that this begs the question as to whether it is anything we should complain about; he surely must agree that the teacher must teach the new definition of marriage and must explain the significance of the change. The noble Lord must concede, whether he likes it or not, that that may be offensive to some teachers. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. I should have thought that after all our debates he knows how divisive this legislation is. Some people find it very difficult to accept that a marriage between two people of the same sex is a proper marriage. It is ridiculous him just shaking his head. We have to face the facts.

[Lord Alli]

I was shaking my head because I do not believe that it is difficult for a teacher to teach the facts. They may not like it, but I believe teaching is a fantastic profession and every teacher I have met is capable of distinguishing fact from opinion. People in this profession are capable of dealing with this issue because that is what they are trained to do.

[Lord Waddington]

A number of teachers will find it extremely difficult to have to explain the new regime. At Second Reading the Minister said that teachers do not have to “endorse” the new definition—by that I think she means accept it as right. She then went on to say that,

“the expression of personal beliefs should be done in a professional way and not in a way that would be inappropriate or insensitive to pupils”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]

I wonder whether some people might judge that any statement to the effect that the only true marriage is one between a man and a woman is bound to be thought insensitive to some pupils and that therefore it should not be allowed. When we come to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which was again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, there is a strong case for giving some protection to safeguard the position of teachers who cannot in conscience teach that the union of two men or two women is a marriage.

As to conscientious objection, there was a debate about that the other night. One thing was not mentioned. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was reported on 12 July 2011 as saying that the court should have done more to protect Christians affected by equality laws. In the case then pending before the ECHR the commission was going to call on the European Court of Human Rights to back the principle that employers should do more to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs like they accommodate staff with disabilities. I am quoting from the commission. Later, for quite unexplained reasons, the commission beat a hasty retreat but we can take some comfort in the fact that for a short time it looked as if we were going to get somewhere. Surely if in the dark days of the war you could give people who had a conscientious objection to fighting the right to opt out of military service we could do something similar here.

There have been so many cases where the demands of equality have been allowed to trump the right of people to observe the dictates of their faith. There may be a case in every enactment for protection of those who would find observance difficult on grounds of conscience. I raised that matter in a Question in the House on 8 July 2010. Unfortunately, I got the usual expression of sympathy followed by a statement that the Government had not the slightest intention of doing anything.

I noted the words of my noble friend Lord Deben earlier this afternoon. He talked about tolerance. I do not see much tolerance in this place tonight—not on that side of the Chamber. The Government would be practising tolerance if they gave protection to teachers who find it difficult to teach the significance of the new law on marriage.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Alli and Lord Waddington

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

I was just getting to the experience of other countries, and it does seem that some people have been put off. Dr Patricia Morgan produced evidence to show that since gay marriage was introduced in Spain in 2005, the decline in heterosexual marriage has been precipitous. It has been just the same in Holland since 2001, and also in Scandinavia. There is not one example of this change going ahead and marriage increasing. The result has been exactly the opposite.

[Lord Alli]

If we are repeating Second Reading speeches, the noble Lord knows that at the same time that same-sex marriage was introduced in Spain, the divorce laws were liberalised. That is what led to the decline in marriage, not the introduction of same-sex marriage.

[Lord Waddington]

I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong about that. It was certainly true that in Spain there was a relaxation in divorce at the time of the introduction of same-sex marriage, but I am talking about new marriages. There was a big decline in new marriages in Spain since the change came about. So it seems obvious that if marriage between same-sex couples is to be allowed, at the very least it should be made clear that it is very different from traditional marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 5, 7, 8 and 19, government Amendment 53 and Amendment 54. This group of amendments seeks to put into the Bill a series of protections for those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, who want to make clear that they believe it is wrong, and who are employed by public authorities or subject to the Equality Act.

Robust provisions in the Bill and that Act already give such protections. Indeed, the Minister made this clear at Second Reading and, if she does not mind, I shall repeat her words. She said:

“It is lawful to express a belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and it is lawful to do that whether at work or outside work. That is a belief that is protected under the religion or belief provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and penalising someone because of such a belief would be unlawful discrimination under that Act”.—[Official Report, 4/6/13; col. 1104.]

The Minister and the law cannot have been any clearer. In addition, as promised, the Government have brought forward—unnecessarily in my view—reassuring language in Amendment 53 regarding freedom of speech. As regards Amendment 37, which was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and Amendment 56 of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, the Government are, in Amendment 53, giving the noble Lords all that they ask for but in more inclusive language. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, who is not in his place, will accept that and move on.

Given that the law is clear and the Government have strengthened the language on free speech, what are Amendments 37 and 56 for? I have a sneaking suspicion that their impact, like many others tabled throughout the Bill, will not be helpful but raise alarm with the public and insert inflammatory language to fix a mischief that never really existed. I accept that that is probably not intended by those who tabled those amendments. However, I call it the “Section 28” effect. What do I mean by that? The last time that such an impact was felt was after the introduction of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. The inflammatory text damaged the reputations of the party opposite and this House. We have come a long way since then. I ask the Committee and the Government that where there is no mischief that they can identify please do not seek to remedy it, as is the case with these amendments dealing with public authority employees expressing their opinions on marriage. Please be wary of those offering helpful solutions, as some of us have had to live with the terrible consequences of those tactics as a result of Section 28.

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others on the other side of the House. My hearing aid, or my hearing, or both, gave way last time and I could not hear a word that was said. I was very fortunate to have a prompter near me. I do not think that anything I say now will provoke a large number of interventions but if that happens, I am now in better shape to deal with them.

The amendment deals with discrimination against someone because he expresses the view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I want to take this opportunity to mention something which has been very much on my mind. This sort of discrimination may become prevalent because it has got about the place that even before the Bill has become law, it is plain wrong to express support for traditional marriage. I hope others were as concerned as I was to read how the Law Society and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre cancelled conferences to be held on their premises by Christian Concern to make the case for traditional marriage, with a very distinguished body of speakers. Each of those bodies had the nerve to say in its notification of cancellation that the nature of the event was,

“contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage”.

It never seems to have occurred to the writers of those letters that they were quite deliberately interfering with the right of free speech in a country where free speech is greatly treasured as the hallmark of a free society. I hope that a clear message goes out from the Government today that the behaviour of those bodies was clearly unacceptable. We must safeguard free speech, whatever we do tonight.