Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord McColl of Dulwich and Baroness D'Souza

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment 11A by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16 of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I do so very much as a doctor. In another place at Report, the Minister, Mr Hugh Robertson, rejected the suggestion that space should be made for registrars with a conscientious objection to officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies. This will mean that once the Bill is passed, those registrars will be confronted with the choice of either acting in violation of their conscience or losing their livelihood and vocation. The Minister said:

“I do not believe it is appropriate or right to allow marriage registrars to opt out of conducting same-sex marriages either permanently or on a transitional basis. Like it or not, they are public servants who should carry out the will of Parliament, and allowing exemptions according to conscience in my view”—

said the Minister—

“sets a difficult precedent”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/13; cols. 963-64.]

I have to say to that Minister, like it or not, that there are already precedents in this country to accommodate the consciences of public servants who are paid by the taxpayer, as the noble Baroness has already said. Quite rightly, the conscientious objections of doctors who are public servants and paid for by the taxpayer are respected so that they do not have to perform abortions if this violates their consciences. This has been operative since 1967. No one ever told me as a doctor that I must choose between being willing to act in violation of my conscience to perform an abortion or being sacked and losing my livelihood and vocation. I was always rather thankful for that arrangement.

Moreover it is not just public servant doctors whose consciences are protected. Teachers have the same kind of protection and for much longer. Quite rightly, the law makes space for atheist teachers so that they do not have to lead school assemblies or teach religious education. We do not tell atheist teachers that they must either be willing to lead a religious assembly or lose their livelihood or vocation. That again would be deeply illiberal.

It seems to me that the Minister, certainly in another place, has a problem. There is no new precedent in the excellent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It is simply a continuation and reaffirmation of the very important liberal, democratic principle that we allow mainstream conscientious objections of public servants.

The other point that the Minister made during Report in another place was that the Government had received no representations from the national panel for registration asking for conscientious objections. Moreover, the panel has sent noble Lords a briefing ahead of today’s debate which repeats that very point. I have to say I find it deeply disturbing that a body, which is, I presume, supposed to represent the interests of all registrars should be content to affirm the passage of legislation that will effectively say to registrars with a conscientious objection, “Choose between either being willing to violate your conscience or lose your job”. If it is supposed to represent the interests of all registrars, it does not seem to be doing a very good job. This has been underlined by paragraph 25 of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Ladele case, which states:

“Some other United Kingdom local authorities”—

that is, other than Islington, where Miss Ladele worked—

“took a different approach, and allowed registrars with a sincerely held religious objection to the formation of civil partnerships to opt out of designation as civil partnership registrars”.

Exactly the same point was made by paragraph 23 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal document on the same case. These other authorities found it necessary to make these accommodations with respect to officiating at civil partnership ceremonies only because there is a widespread conscientious objection problem, which obviously applies equally to same-sex marriage, about which the national panel appears to be unaware.