|
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman jumps ahead of me, but if I make some progress he will find that we are travelling in the same direction.
If, to use the Joint Committee's example, a local authority were to pass byelaws limiting the extent to which a person was treated in the acquired gender, they could be challenged under provisions in the European convention on human rights. Subsection (3) does not impede such a challenge. The reason for including ''or any subordinate legislation'' is to cover any limited exceptions that may need to be made to the general proposition in subsection (1). There may be instances in which it is appropriate to make such an
Column Number: 143
exception in subordinate legislation, and any exception would have to be consistent with the European convention.
If subordinate legislation were used to change the rights and responsibilities of men and women, and if there were a justification for treating a person recognised in their acquired gender differently from any other person of that gender, it would be odd and deeply impractical if the exception had to be made in primary legislation. It might mean that the altered rights and responsibilities would take effect at different times—at one time for men and women, and another for men and women recognised in their acquired gender. In its second progress report, published earlier this year, the Joint Committee therefore said that subsection (3) does not pose a significant risk to the rights of transsexual people.
Discrimination protection will exist prior to the issue of the gender recognition certificate for things that it already covers, such as employment and vocational training. Schedule 6 discontinues some of the exceptions for people who have recognition, so the Bill enhances protection in existing areas. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Effect on marriage
Andrew Selous: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in
schedule 4, page 26, line 27, leave out from 'clergyman' to 'reasonably' in line 28 and insert
'or any minister of a recognised religious body is not obliged to permit the marriage of a person to be solemnised in the church, chapel or other religious building of which he or she is a minister, if the minister'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 43, in
Amendment No. 45, in
New clause 5—Religious bodies—
No. NC5, to move the following Clause:—
Column Number: 144
Andrew Selous: This group of amendments is primarily concerned with matters of interest to faith communities. Amendment No. 42 seeks to extend the provisions of schedule 4(1)(3). It would extend the protection given to clergymen to ministers of any recognised religious body with regard to the requirement to marry people. There remains confusion about the precise status of churches and all religious bodies as regards marriage. On 20 May 1998, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), said in the House, at column 1017, that churches were viewed as public authorities as far as marriages are concerned. There is, therefore, a worry that the Bill, without specifically extending the scope of the schedule, as amendment No. 42 seeks to do, could subject ministers and celebrants to human rights legislation for declining to conduct the marriages of same-sex transsexual people.
There is also concern about the use of the buildings of religious bodies to celebrate what those religious communities regard as same-sex marriages. I do not want to rehearse the debate about what is a same-sex marriage. I applaud the Government's intention, although I think that they have got it the wrong way round. They are adamant that same-sex marriage should not happen and have gone to considerable lengths to establish that principle throughout the Bill.
Let us just accept that many people of all faiths share that view, but from the perspective of sex rather than gender. Therefore, they find themselves in a position of conscience and would have great difficulty if required to marry people. The members of those religious bodies would be concerned about the use of the buildings in such cases.
Mr. Woodward: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the buildings that ''they'' use, I do not understand. Perhaps he could explain what he means by ''they'' and what this use is that so worries him and his colleagues.
Andrew Selous: As far as Christian organisations are concerned—I do not use the word ''church'', because that can have a specific context; for example, the Free Churches meet in many different types of buildings—I am talking about the buildings used for worship or meeting by any religious body. There should be no difficulty with this. For Christians, those are mainly, but not exclusively, churches.
Many people of faith would be concerned if they felt that a same-sex marriage had been celebrated or taken place in somewhere that is holy and special to them. They might feel violated and upset by that. There needs to be joint respect as far as the Bill is concerned. It rightly—I applaud its intention—gives rights to transsexuals, but what about the rights and sensitivities of people of faith? The sanctuary of a Baptist chapel, for example, would be regarded by the congregations concerned as a special and holy place. The fact that what they regard as a same-sex marriage
Column Number: 145
may be celebrated there against the will of that congregation is capable of causing genuine offence. I ask the Committee to accept that that is so.
In the spirit of a Bill that is trying to ensure that people's rights are protected, I hope we have fair and genuine regard for the rights of faith communities.
5 pm
Dr. Harris: I am listening carefully and do not deny what the hon. Gentleman says. People will feel offended in the same way that many people feel offended if a church is attended by homosexuals. It is their right, if one likes, to hold that view, and their sensitivities may be offended. However, in a free society that respects rights, the question is where the balance lies. We have to recognise that a balance has to be struck—the same idea applies to free speech. People have to recognise that the stronger their views, the more likely they are to be offended by something. That applies to me also, and I respect the right of the hon. Gentleman and that of the people he knows in evangelical congregations to feel strongly about the same things I do, but we have to get the balance right. The Bill does that.
Andrew Selous: I disagree because we have to respect the freedom of association of all sorts of different groups in our society. That should be extended to faith groups as well. The hon. Gentleman digresses when he mentions homosexuals. I welcome them in all faith communities and do not think that there is any difficulty with that.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to take it from me that there are genuine concerns about the provisions among a large number of people of faith, including those from the Christian faith and the Muslim community. It is fair that their views are respected. I am sure that there will be a variety of opinions among religious bodies throughout the country. It will be possible for transsexuals to find some religious bodies that will not have a problem with celebrating a same-sex marriage, as other religious bodies might see it.
Amendment No. 43 deals with an issue of conscience for registrars. There is a precedent in that the Government do not oblige—it is a different case but there are similarities—doctors and nurses to take part in abortions if they do not want to. The Government have not ruled out the possibility of an uncompliant registrar being sacked. I do not think that the issue would be a problem for the Government. I am sure that they could find registrars who would not have a conscience problem in recognising a marriage that other registrars have personal difficulties with. However, the human rights that should extend to everyone should extend to registrars if they have genuine difficulty in carrying out some of the things that they will be required to do under the Bill. Human rights legislation should protect them in the same way that it protects other groups.
New clause 5 is tremendously important. I hope that it will find sympathy in the Committee. Considerable care was taken with its drafting. It states:
Column Number: 146
''Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the rights of individual recognised religious bodies to regulate their procedures and practices in accordance with their ethos and beliefs.''
Churches should be able to regulate their own affairs locally throughout the country. Where there is a wide range of religious view and opinion, different regulations, ethos and practices should be allowed to flourish throughout the country in different ways.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) mentioned the Manchester metro church. The amendment would allow it to regulate its affairs just as it likes. Is it too much to ask that churches and religious bodies are allowed to regulate their affairs as they see fit? That is a basic tenet of British freedom which I hope we will preserve by supporting the new clause.
I want to read out part of a letter I received this morning. It is not from one of my constituents, but from someone from Welwyn Garden City. Other Committee members may have received the letter as well. He writes on this Bill:
''Because of the adverse effect many Christians believe it will have on the scriptural integrity of their organisations, may I ask you to consider excluding all religious groups from its constraints''.
That is typical of a large number of letters that I receive, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members receive similar letters.
|
