Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alli]

I will repeat my offer. I am really happy to work with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. If a conscientious clause to allow registrars to opt out in civil marriage is so important, I will work with him to craft a similar clause to allow registrars in the Church of England to opt in. Conscience is not a one-way street. It goes both ways. If you want to opt out, we must come back and question why we cannot opt in. It is about more than just one conscience. We all have a conscience and mine tells me that this amendment is wrong in principle.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I, too, confess to having some sympathy with the amendment, particularly as diluted by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. However, I hasten to add, I do not have enough sympathy actually to support it. It would represent the thin end of a dangerous wedge and set a troubling precedent. I recognise of course that there are some limited exceptions to the obligations on doctors and certain others but I think that, without exception, they relate to cases where there is some physical relationship between the person being exempted from a public duty and somebody else.

The closer analogy is perhaps with incumbent judges. It has never been suggested that judges should be free on grounds of conscientious objection to refuse to take certain cases. Proposed subsection (3) in the amendment refers to “religious or other belief”. Suppose that a judge strongly objects to indeterminate sentences, whole-life tariffs, automatic sentences, rules such as “two, three strikes and you’re out” or, in days past, to divorcing people. Catholic judges were from time to time, as the noble and learned Baroness will confirm, obliged to pronounce in divorce cases. Indeed, those of us who sat here as Law Lords, and then across the square as Supreme Court judges, routinely as part of our duties sat on Privy Council appeals. From time to time we would be confronted with final appeals, often from the Caribbean, in capital cases. Is it suggested that it would have been open to a member of the court to decline to take such a case on the grounds of a religious or other strongly held belief?

Very simply, public servants should almost without exception—save in these physical relationship cases—serve the public according to the law as democratically enacted. They should not seek to shed what they regard as their less palatable duties on to long-suffering colleagues.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Am I correct in saying that it is not a question of a judge declining to sit on a particular case? If a judge had a particularly well founded objection in principle, and that was well known, it is likely that the case would not in fact be allocated to him.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I do not believe that to be so.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am not so sure about that. Those who arranged the judicial calendar did have some regard to questions of that sort when there were a number of judges to be allocated.

I want to draw attention to the facts found in the Ladele case about certain local authorities. It was found practical, in some local authorities, to respect the conscientious objection of particular registrars. If it is possible to do that and still provide the service, it seems to me that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights apply in respect to religious belief. As I understand it, people’s religious beliefs are to be given effect except when they conflict with the rights and obligations of others. Where a local authority was able to make that kind of adjustment it was perfectly reasonable for it to do so, and that is what it did. I think this clause as proposed is intended to do that.

I agree that it may be wise to restrict it to those who are already registrars, as the changes to the law affect their situation. However, the idea that it should be ruled out altogether because you could object on other grounds strikes me as not a particularly attractive argument. I remember having a discussion about this very sort of thing with the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench when the Equality Act 2010 was a Bill. I did not get any further with them then than I am likely to now.