|
Column Number: 153
Standing Committee A
Tuesday 16 March 2004
(Morning)
[Mr. David Taylor in the Chair]
Schedule 4
Effect on marriage
Amendment proposed [11 March]: No. 42, in
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'—[Andrew Selous.]
9.30 am
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment No. 43, in
Amendment No. 45, in
New clause 5—Religious bodies—
'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.'.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): To date, the Committee has been characterised by a degree of temperance in its discussion of these difficult issues and also by a degree of sensitivity to the individuals involved. I do not think that anybody has paraded partisanship of either a party or a denominational nature. As far as I am concerned, long may that continue.
In relation to the Christian faith in particular, it is clear that there are sincerely held views on both sides of the argument about whether the Bill is acceptable in principle. There is also a good deal of concern about the practicalities of its operation. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has performed a service to the Committee in bringing forward his concerns frankly with this group of amendments.
It is particularly germane to the clause to declare my personal interest: I am a practising Anglican. My wife and I were married under the rites of the Church in
Column Number: 154
Wales, because she comes from Wales. My mother-in-law, who is still with us, successively married two clergymen of the Welsh Church. After the death of my wife's father, her stepfather, who, sadly, is no longer with us, solemnised our marriage in Wales. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is not here this morning, as he was taught by my mother-in-law at school in her spare time from those other involvements. I am sure that both benefited from that. His contributions in Committee have been positive. I mention that because I have both an Anglican and, specifically, a Church in Wales interest in the matter.
Two general points lie across my hon. Friend's amendments. I have been reflecting on them over the weekend. The first is that there can be no absolute licence in the Bill for ministers of religion or anybody else. I do not wish to caricature my hon. Friend, because he is not asking for that. Indeed, the Minister will remember that, on Second Reading, I decided to trawl back to my extremely limited memory of Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, in which Parliament imposed severe penalties on the clergy over the regulation of marriage. Saying, ''I am a clergyman''—or a minister of any faith or denomination—''and I wish to do exactly as I think fit'' may be true under God, but it is not necessarily true under the law. I do not think that it would be reasonable for us to expect that.
That is, of course, subject to an important caveat. I think that it is a general principle of all members of the Committee that we should not restrain the exercise of people's sincerely held, faithful beliefs or the practice of their religion unless there is an absolute or overriding reason to do so. We should not put them in difficulty because of views that they hold or responsibilities that they assume under that religion. The Minister will know the European convention on human rights better than I, but I am sure that if we were to restrain religious practice, we would get into difficulty under another Act.
It is not unthinkable that Churches must be regulated under the law. Indeed, that point almost came up during the debate about the conduct of Churches, and the Minister will be familiar with it. There have been some problems with accountancy—which is not a matter of faith—in some of the charismatic Churches. Those have, quite properly, had to be dealt with under the law. Clearly we should allow people, particularly ministers of religion, doing their job in good faith and decently, as much opportunity as we reasonably can to carry that out.
My second point—again it is not intended to subvert my hon. Friend's argument, but to qualify it—is that it is quite difficult in law to stop people suing other people. As constituency Members of Parliament, we are familiar with somebody writing to us and assuming that we will immediately promote a case for them in the European Court of Human Rights about some aspect of their human rights. If that is unpacked, it is shorthand for saying, ''I've had a rough time and somebody ought to put it right for me. I think I know
Column Number: 155
my rights.'' One may or may not. Simply finding a public interest body that wants to promote such a case is quite difficult, expensive and fraught.
I am not asking the Minister to guarantee that under the Bill there will never be litigation against Churches, denominations or ministers of religion. It would be difficult to sustain that argument. However, we can quite properly ask him for assurances that ministers going about their work in good conscience and good faith, and in the interests of their parishioners, will not find themselves in unreasonable difficulty. That is why, particularly given the correspondence that I suspect all members of the Committee will have received from constituents and others, and the concerns that have been expressed by my hon. Friend, we need to look long and hard to determine whether a balance is struck and to check that people will not be unfairly penalised for doing their job or following their conscience. There must be a specific reason for them to be penalised.
Having reviewed my hon. Friend's amendments, I find my enthusiasm for them unequal. However, the points that he makes are all very serious and need handling. If the Minister cannot respond to them now, we may need to respond to them at a later stage—indeed, sadly, the last stage—to try to get this right. I accept the Minister's good faith. Clearly, he wants to get things right. As he knows, I support the general principle of the Bill, and I hope that he deals with this matter.
There is one other point that should inform everybody's consideration of the issue. It has been made strongly in my representations. People, including members of faith communities, strongly want to welcome transgendered individuals. They wish to extend Christian charity to them and to treat them properly.
Having made those general remarks, I turn specifically to my hon. Friend's amendments. Amendment No. 42 is about the clergy's obligations to marry people. I want to deal with two matters. There appears to be an asymmetry between the reliefs for the clergy in the Church in Wales, and those for the clergy in the Church of England, which remains the established Church. It appears that a clergyman in the Church of England is relieved of his obligation, which I understand is under public law—the Minister is nodding—to solemnise the marriage of a person if he
''reasonably believes that the person's gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act''.
However,
''A clerk . . . of the Church in Wales is not obliged to permit the marriage of a person to be solemnised in the church or chapel of which the clerk is a minister''.
That wording is clearly carefully considered and appears to have a slightly different effect.
My understanding is that English clergymen—I hope that I can use that shorthand, although there will be many clergymen who have come across the border; clergymen can transfer throughout the Anglican communion, as the Minister well knows—are relieved under the Bill of their obligations under public law to marry some people. The issue arises of the church, of
Column Number: 156
which one might be the incumbent or the priest in charge, where the marriage might take place. It seems that there is a possible advantage or greater flexibility for Welsh clergy in their practice over the border. An English clergyman would be able to say, ''I'm sorry. I cannot in conscience marry you.'' He may also say that to persons who have been divorced, but that is a separate issue. A Welsh clergyman might be able to say, ''I am not going to marry you, but I am also going to make sure that my church cannot be used for your marriage.'' I can envisage some difficulties of Church order in relation to that distinction. The Minister will be aware—I mean our Minister, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). I had better say that for the avoidance of any confusion.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Give him a dog collar.
Mr. Boswell: I know that the Minister used to be a choirboy in the cathedral in my constituency, so there are lots of connections in this debate. I shall now get back to the point. In England, someone may not permit a marriage that they would have to carry out, but may not be able to prevent a marriage from taking place in their church.
The Minister knows that in some parishes in England—one is near where I live—there are strong reservations on the quite separate issue of women priests. There is a particular view about Church order and practice—I am talking about the Anglican Church. Those parishes may not wish to have Church order disrupted behind the incumbent's back, as it were. It is important for the Minister to explain the basis for that apparent distinction. Why is the apparent advantage extended to the Welsh clergy not extended to the English clergy? Is there no material difference?
|
