Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

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.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

I just want to ask my noble friend to look at history and recall the number of times—as I made clear in the earlier debate—promises have been broken with regard to the conscience. Time and again, from the Abortion Act onwards, people have been promised that they would be protected and that their right to a conscience would not be taken away. However, we have watched that happen for the past 50 years. We must look not just at the Bill when it comes to promises, but at this road full of broken promises that has led up to it.

[Baroness Berridge]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention and I will look back—I am afraid as a newer member of your Lordships’ House—at the history to which she refers.

The decisions where an organisation can be treated less favourably can be in situations where they are refused contracts, denied the use of public halls or denied funding. The Minister reiterated the narrowness of the behaviour covered in the Bill in the Public Bill Committee when he said that Clause 2 would have,

“the effect of preventing any type of conduct that would have the effect of forcing a person to do something protected under that clause”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 280.]

Therefore, as long as the local authority is merely registering disapproval of the organisation’s views, or penalising the organisation, but is not attempting to compel it to opt-in to provide same-sex marriage, then the religious organisation has no protection under the Bill as currently drafted.

However, the Government’s response is that the religious group need not worry as such detrimental behaviour falling short of forcing it to do anything would be unlawful discrimination by the local authority and the charity would have a remedy for this under the Equality Act. As I mentioned at Second Reading, expecting a charity to swap money, potentially from food banks, to legal fees to fight legal claims is not consistent with the state’s duty, performed in this instance by the local authority, to promote a plural civic square. Such funding reallocation is not, of course, in line with any growth in the big society and is diametrically opposed to the impact assessment of the Government which is the aim of removing the threat of litigation. The impact assessment means that the Government do not want religious groups being defendants in proceedings, so why are they advising the same religious groups to be the claimants in discrimination proceedings?

Just on a straightforward dictionary definition of compulsion, such unfavourable treatment as I have outlined is not, despite the Minister’s comments, covered. It is vital that the meaning of “compelled” is clarified in the Bill because the concept of compulsion is central to the Bill’s religious freedom protections and is not as readily understood as the Government assert.

In Committee on Monday there were many assertions about the effectiveness of the Equality Act, ranging from “foolproof” by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to “shot through” by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. This amendment would remove the need for a small charity to incur the expense of legal proceedings to establish that such detrimental behaviour is discrimination under the Equality Act. Surely the avoidance of litigation is a good thing.

This new clause will provide the necessary clarification and thus protect religious organisations from all legal penalties, criminal and civil, if they decide not to opt-in. It will ensure that religious organisations do not suffer at the hands of public authorities by making it clear that public authorities will be acting ultra vires if they penalise religious organisations for not opting-in. The onus is properly placed on the state not to act to the religious group’s detriment and not on the religious group to take action against the state. The new clause enshrines in statute the Government’s assurance that religious organisations will not be penalised in any circumstances for deciding not to opt-in to providing same-sex marriages if they object to them. Without further clarification in the Bill, the lock may not turn out to be much of a lock at all.

In relation to Amendment 18, it may be helpful if I turn from locks to keys. The key to a claim under the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act or judicial review is that the decision or action carried out by the religious organisation is clarified as a public function. Amendment 18 is necessary because, without it, religious organisations will be at risk of legal action on the ground that the decision to opt-in may be held to constitute a public function. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has already explained, ministers in religious organisations outside of the established church can be authorised persons and thus conduct marriage ceremonies that are both religious and legally recognised. Such ministers, therefore, perform a public function. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, outlined, that was the understanding of the right honourable Jack Straw when he introduced the Human Rights Act and spoke in the other place. However, in the context of the established church, this was also the view obiter of four Supreme Court judges in the case of Aston Cantlow v Wallbank. In delivering his judgment, Lord Hobhouse said:

“Thus the priest ministering in the parish may have responsibilities that are certainly not public, such as the supervision of the liturgies used or advising about doctrine, but may have other responsibilities which are of a public nature, such as a responsibility for marriages and burials and the keeping of registers”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alli]

I am a little confused again. Is the noble Baroness saying that the quadruple lock is not secure? Unless I am absolutely wrong, I understood the position of the Church of England to be that the quadruple lock is robust and secure. I am not sure what she is arguing.

[Baroness Berridge]

I thank the noble Lord for that helpful intervention. That has been the Government’s position looking at the established church but there is a different situation for those who are authorised people. Generally in our law, you can get married at the registry office, or at the hotel with the registrar there, or you can marry without any intervention of the state when the banns are read in the Anglican Church. In addition, there is a whole group of people and religious organisations—for example, the Catholic Church and Pentecostal churches—which do those marriages as authorised people. They can decide whether to opt in to do this. First, that places them in a different legal context for conducting marriages. Secondly, the Anglican Church can make no decision at all to opt in; in the Bill it is not allowed to. These groups in the middle, many of which are in the ethnic minority community, are in a very different legal position from the Anglican Church.

The risk that religious organisations face when they move from conducting only heterosexual marriages to also conducting same-sex marriages as a public function is exacerbated by the fact that the decision to opt in is not like a decision by a private members’ club where you can look at the rule book and say that the decision was made based on the rules. The discretion to make a decision is in this statute which lends to the argument that it is a public discretion that these organisations would be acting on. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not come to a firm conclusion on this matter because of a divergence of opinion. However, I believe that helps the case for this amendment. The divergence of opinion makes this amendment necessary because the basis of litigation is a divergence of legal opinion. The Government need to give some reassurance to these religious organisations because without this amendment the lock provided in Clause 1 could be ineffective.

[Lord Alli]

I apologise again to the noble Baroness. I am trying to get to the core of the mischief here and I am just not getting there. Is she saying that Church of England registrars are not covered by this and that this is for the general pool of registrars who are conducting the registration?

[Baroness Berridge]

If you attend a Catholic church, the authorised person is the registrar. No one comes from the local authority’s office. That person performs that public function and the registry office is not involved. It is the obligation of the priest to fill out the register and to return it quarterly to the local authority’s office. No local authority official is present at all. Interestingly, the Catholic Church expressed concern to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I have heard this concern from other religious organisations—that unless we get clarity in the Bill religious organisations may consider not conducting these marriages at all because they believe the only way to protect themselves is to not be the registrar. That, of course, would have resource implications for the Government.

I am asking the Government to throw away the public function key—the key to actions under the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and judicial review—and avoid this threat of litigation which would discriminate against some of the nation’s smallest charities. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has urged the Government to consider formulating a new clause to provide additional reassurance to any religious ministers or office holders who perform the dual function of officiating at a marriage in a spiritual capacity as well as performing the public function of the registrar under the Marriage Act 1949.

We have ended up in a situation, by responding quite rightly to the concerns of the established Church, whereby other Christian denominations and other faith groups believe that they do not now have the same level of protection as the Church of England and the Church of Wales. It is important that other religious organisations and individual ministers of other faith groups have the same level of protection as the Government have now afforded in this Bill to the Church of England and the Church of Wales.

[Lord Deben]

I want to try to bring two sides together on this issue. I hope people will recognise that I am entirely in favour of this legislation and I am a practising Catholic, so I understand exactly what has been said. I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Lester has said about how this might be approached by the Government. Let me say two things to the Minister. First, there is a history here of promises made and broken, as my noble friend made clear. So even if this is absolutely okay, there is a feeling that it might not be okay and we have to recognise that fear.

Secondly, there is also a history of campaigning people who seek all the time to push their point further than is reasonable. For example, campaigners have recently argued that we should withdraw aid from youth clubs run by organisations that take a strong view about homosexual practice. That is a campaign that people have suggested—that if you take that view you should not get any help from the state for your youth club. I say to my noble friend that I understand the fears that people have on this issue.

The position of the Catholic Church is particularly difficult because we have a very odd and rather noble system in Britain that has come out of our history: to ensure that it was no longer true that only Anglicans could marry, we extended it to other people via the mechanism of enabling approved persons to act as registrars. There may be an issue here and it may be that the fears that people have are correct. However, I also recognise what my noble friend Lord Lester has said: sometimes, when we try to correct this, those of us who are not lawyers—and I am proud not to be a lawyer—add things that make it worse. That is the danger here. If we are not careful we will have a sort of argument of the deaf, with one side saying, “We want to do what you want, but if we do it that way we will actually make it more difficult for you”, and the other side saying, “You may say that but we’re still worried about it”.

I ask my noble friend to recognise that even those of us who are not just marginally but very much in favour of this legislation are concerned that we should be very careful about the nature of toleration. Unfortunately, “toleration” has become a very curious word. People talk about toleration as if it means tolerating views that you happen to agree with. One of the things that we have to do is produce legislation that enables a tolerant society to accept that some people have very different views. That is not helped, if I may say so, by some of the language used by people opposed to the Bill. Some disgraceful statements have been made by people who have really not come to terms with the fact that we live in a society that should be inclusive and accepting. The churches have sometimes spoken intolerably and intolerantly. However, the truth is that there is intolerableness and intolerance on the other side as well. I will give way to my noble friend .

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alli]

I apologise to the noble Baroness for taking more than my usual length of time to understand the issue. I think I now understand where the issue arises. What worries me is the nature of what the noble Baroness seeks. It seems to me that she wants cast-iron guarantees and, although I am not a lawyer, I assume that we cannot give those in law. Certainly no government Minister, no Member of this House and no Member of the other place can give cast-iron guarantees that any religious organisation will not be subject to vexatious legal actions.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there is a whole range of people thinking of ways to progress their own politics through the courts, and when they have not succeeded either at the ballot box or in Parliament, they continue to do so. I can put it no better than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in Monday’s Committee in his rather complex and detailed legal argument. He said:

“The fact that idiots in the public sector or private sector misunderstand it is no reason for us to have to amend this Bill to deal with such idiots”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. 69.]

The question is not whether these people will take up a nuisance case; that is a matter for them in a democratic society. They must have the right to take up that nuisance case. I like it no more than anyone else, but they have that right in a democracy. The clear intention of this House and of the other place can be in no doubt. We have specifically created a process to opt in so as to protect religious organisations. The Minister in the Commons made it quite clear during the Commons Committee stage when he said:

“The imposition of any penalties on or subsequent unfavourable treatment of a religious organisation or individual in order to compel that organisation to opt in to same-sex marriage is already unlawful under the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee; 28/2/13; col. 280.]

The locks in this Bill are strong and robust. The intention of this House has to be beyond question. I believe those locks are secure, and I am not sure that we can help the noble Baroness with an assurance that there will be no legal action over these cases.

[Baroness Berridge]

I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I am not seeking a cast-iron guarantee. I have previously been a lawyer, so I know how people can look at us, but there seems to be a case for some sensible, straightforward language in the Bill that could avoid—as we have put it—a situation in which small charities have to take discrimination claims to deal with that kind of behaviour, and it would provide that reassurance.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady O’Loan, and others. My view is that those concerns are unwarranted. As I understand it, three issues have been raised. The first is the public sector equality duty, under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which requires:

“A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard”,

to equality considerations. “Due regard” must require primary consideration to be given to other legislation—in particular, the legislation before us. I regard it as unlikely in the extreme that this public sector equality duty could impose a duty or even confer a power on a public authority to penalise a person or a body for declining to be involved in same-sex marriage, when the whole point of this legislation, and a fundamental feature of it, is that a person should not be compelled to do so for religious reasons. It would be extraordinary for a court to rely on a public sector equality duty.

The second concern was about Clause 2(6) and the exclusion of public functions, and that this does not cover the decision whether to opt in. There is a good reason for that. In very simple terms, marrying a person may well be a public function, as Clause 2(6) recognises. However, a decision to opt in or not is not the exercise of a public function. It is not, of itself, a service to the public but a decision whether to rely upon and maintain a statutory immunity given by this legislation. Any argument to the contrary would conflict with the content and purposes of this legislation, and so is extremely unlikely to be accepted.

The third concern that we are dealing with in this group of amendments is the suggestion that the legislation should clarify the meaning of “compulsion” in Clause 2(1). For a public authority to impose a detriment on a person for refusing to undertake an opt-in activity or to refrain from undertaking an opt-out activity would plainly amount to compulsion in this context. The reason for that is very simple: it would impose legal pressure on that person when one of the central purposes of this legislation is to protect religious freedom.

I entirely understand—I hope courteously—noble Lords’ concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, rightly reminds us that we should be courteous about this, but let us be not just courteous but realistic about the risks and concerns that have been expressed.