Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Knight of Collingtree Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I will start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge, and the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Hylton, for bringing the amendments before your Lordships’ House in Committee. It has given us an opportunity for a very useful debate, which has been conducted in a very courteous fashion. It was clear that genuine concerns were being expressed. What is interesting is that there is no distinction anywhere in the debate between the objectives of what noble Lords wish to see. It is very clear that religious freedom, including the rights of religious organisations that do not wish to opt in, should be secured.

I will take the advice proffered by my noble friend Lord Lester and not reply to every point. However, it is important that I reply to some of them. My noble friend referred to Pepper v Hart, but we cannot get to that stage if we do not in fact say anything. I will also take up his suggestion, echoed by my noble friend Lord Deben, of putting in written form the points that were raised and my responses.

Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that no religious organisation or individual is penalised by a public authority simply because it has exercised its rights under the Bill to not offer or facilitate same-sex marriages, or because it has expressed the view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. My noble friend Lady Berridge indicated that there was an anxiety that other religious denominations wished to have the same kind of safeguard and security as has been afforded to the Church of England and the Church in Wales. As I indicated to my noble friend Lord Cormack when he moved an amendment on Monday, there is a historic reason for the distinction for the Church of England and the Church in Wales: namely, the duty on priests in these churches to marry people in their parish. This duty is not incumbent on priests, ministers or imams in other religions and faiths.

The specific context of this amendment is Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on public authorities to,

“have due regard to the need to … eliminate discrimination … advance equality of opportunity … and … foster good relations between persons who”,

hold or do not hold a particular protected characteristic.

It is absolutely right—I think that this has been echoed on all sides of your Lordships’ House—that religious organisations and individuals should be free to express their beliefs about same-sex marriage, and to make the decisions protected by this Bill about whether to conduct or participate in same-sex marriages, without fear of repercussion or penalty of any kind. I hope I can clarify for your Lordships that, as the law stands, a public authority would in fact be acting unlawfully if it attempted to rely on the public sector equality duty to treat a religious organisation adversely simply because that organisation did not wish to conduct same-sex marriages, as is explicitly allowed under this Bill.

A policy of penalising people or organisations which have religious or philosophical beliefs with which a public authority disagrees would in itself be discriminatory. One element of the duty is to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. It is not meant to be itself an instrument to discriminate unlawfully. For a local authority, for example, to withdraw meeting facilities from a church because it decided not to offer same-sex marriage would be likely to be unlawful direct discrimination because of religion or belief. We believe that it would be subject to successful legal challenge, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, commented that there is nothing in the Bill which states that it would be unlawful for a public authority to punish a religious organisation which had not opted in. The courts have considered the question of whether a local authority can use equality legislation to punish an organisation with views of which it disapproves. In the case of Wheeler v Leicester City Council, the council banned a rugby club from using its ground after some of its members attended a tour of South Africa. It used the then Race Relations Act to justify its decision. The case went to the House of Lords, which held that the decision was irrational and that it was an improper purpose, because the members of the rugby club were legally entitled to go on a tour, just as an organisation is entitled not to opt in. I believe that the reasoning in that case to have a clear read-over in this particular case. Similarly, a local authority could not have a policy of refusing to promote staff who have expressed a belief that marriage should only be between—

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

On that very point, why is it that registrars who from conscience, from their heart and beliefs, will not conduct this kind of marriage have been sacked?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, obviously they cannot yet have been sacked because of this legislation, because it is not yet an Act. As my noble friend may recall, we debated the position of registrars at some length on Monday evening. The explanation given then was that registrars perform a public function. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, judges, who also exercise a public function, are not allowed to pick and choose which cases come before them. Similarly, a local authority could not have a policy of refusing to promote staff who have expressed a belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This would be unlawful direct discrimination, and the equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate such discrimination. The equality duty cannot make lawful an otherwise unlawful or oppressive act.

My noble friend Lady Berridge quoted the impact assessment regarding the threat of litigation. It is of course not possible completely to rule out any possibility of somebody bringing legal proceedings. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who pointed out—and as my noble friend Lord Lester quoted on Monday—some authorities do idiotic things. No legislation can provide for every eventuality. However, we believe that the Bill minimises this possibility as far as possible by making it absolutely explicit that those relying on Clause 2 are permitted to refuse to be involved in solemnising same-sex marriages. There would indeed be no cause of action. We believe that an application for strike-out could be made early in any proceedings, as there would be no reasonable prospect of success in such claims. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said that the inclusion of Clause 2(5) and (6) and the protection they provide undermine the protection which we believe is already in place with regard to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The amendments to the Equality Act 2010 in Clause 2 provide that it is not unlawful discrimination to refuse to carry out acts specified in Clause 2(2). These specific exceptions are provided to ensure that the Equality Act is not in conflict with the protection provided in Clause 2, so that the law is clear and consistent. This aspect of the Equality Act is the only area of legislation which requires this explicit treatment, as otherwise it would conflict with Clause 2.

We should also remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, that the equality duty is a duty only to have regard. It is not in itself a duty to act, but rather a duty to think. It does not require that particular action is taken or that any specific objective or outcome is achieved. As the noble Lord said, “having regard” also means that we have to have regard to primary legislation, such as what would be in this Act if the Bill is enacted. I hear what my noble friend Lady Knight says about concerns that sometimes guarantees do not always seem to follow through many years later. However, what we are dealing with here—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made this point—is a fundamental part of the architecture of this legislation: namely, that there should be religious freedom not to opt in. Therefore, it would be unthinkable for a court not to have regard to a fundamental piece of the legislation we are passing. I certainly hear what the noble Baroness—