Baroness O'Cathain's speech to the Lords

In the regulations, the Government are rushing headlong into the incredibly sensitive area of a clash between gay rights and religious freedom, and doing so by secondary legislation which does not allow for amendments and permits only very limited debate.

I believe this circumscribing of people's fundamental freedoms is outrageous. Parallel discrimination laws covering religion are in primary legislation. They were debated at length and substantially amended in their passage through Parliament. Why has such a procedure not been adopted in this case?

Sex for marriage

I turn to the fundamental issues raised by the regulations and how they impinge on people's religious beliefs. I venture to suggest that most religious believers hold that sex is only for marriage. That rules out adultery, sex before marriage and homosexual practice. Churches have believed that for thousands of years. It is profoundly dangerous of the Government to decide to use the law to force religious believers to change their beliefs.

The Christian churches are deeply fearful of what these regulations will mean for them. In the main, churchgoers are sensible, kind, devout people who subscribe to the Second Great Commandment that you should love your neighbour, but believe that love sometimes means saying no. The religious view means a Christian old people's home must say no to two civil partners who want married quarters, just as they would refuse cohabiting heterosexuals. They believe love means not helping people to do things that are morally harmful and against biblical teaching, from the Old and New Testaments. That is their belief. It may not be the belief of all noble Lords, or of Government ministers, but it is their religious belief. Are we to ride roughshod over it because we think we know better? Is it right to say, ‘You must do business our way or not at all’? There is not much tolerance or diversity in that. Surely tolerance means freedom to disagree.

Adoption agencies

At the end of January, we had the unsightly spectacle of the Prime Minister effectively announcing that it is government policy to close down Catholic adoption agencies for not organising gay adoptions. His idea of a compromise on the issue is that the death sentence will not be carried out until the end of December next year. It is not just the Roman Catholics who will be affected. Many Christian denominations have protested about the regulations. It is not just adoption agencies that are affected. Countless Christian welfare projects will be affected, including old people's homes, residential drug rehab centres and community centres, to name just three.

At another level, businesses run by Christians would be affected, including wedding photographers, who could be sued for refusing to attend civil partnership ceremonies, which, as I have warned previously, are now commonly called ‘weddings’. In these areas, the Government is effectively putting up a sign saying, ‘No Christians allowed’.

‘No’ to religious conscience

Of course, in many areas the laws will make little difference; there is no problem in most business contexts. It is only where religious people are asked to endorse or promote a lifestyle which is counter to their beliefs that there is a problem. That does not mean that homosexuals are deprived of any service; they have the choice of many businesses which do not operate on strictly Christian principles. Some people of strong religious beliefs are simply saying there are some things that would involve them in moral compromise or in acting against their conscience.

A Christian printer would be quite content to print materials for people who happen to be gay, but would not want to print the Gay Times, or leaflets promoting gay marriage. That is a crucial distinction which Christians make, but which the regulations will not permit. Others are allowed to carry on in business and keep their freedom of conscience intact: a staunch socialist can refuse to print a Tory election leaflet; a vegetarian printer can refuse to print flyers for his local butcher; and a pacifist can refuse to print a sales brochure for an arms manufacturer.

The Government has taken the view that gay rights trump religious rights. A citizen's right to manifest sexual orientation is absolute, but the right to manifest religious belief is not.

Schools

The human rights committee also says that the regulations could result in litigation against a school if a teacher says homosexual practice is wrong. If a priest is asked a direct question in an RE lesson, there could be litigation if he divulged what he really believes.

The Government and the Minister graciously made the same point; they deny the curriculum is covered by these regulations. In that case, why do equivalent religious discrimination laws have exemptions in the curriculum? The Government may be the only ones who believe the curriculum is not covered.

Exemptions

There are, of course, exemptions to the regulations.

Parliament is exempt; the insurance industry is exempt until the end of next year; and gay welfare groups have an exemption so they can turn away heterosexuals. Noble Lords might like to note that they can put up a sign saying ‘No heterosexuals’ and Regulation 13 will protect their right to do so. Regulation 14 provides some exceptions to organisations with religious purposes so long as they are not publicly funded or commercial. But where a religious body has a contract with the state, Regulation 14(8) blocks the religious exception. It is extraordinarily wide. Regulation 14(8)(a) is so ambiguous that it appears to mean that any contract with a public authority by a denomination may result in the whole denomination losing its religious protections from the regulations. If a Christian organisation receives public funding for carrying out a project for asylum seekers, the organisation loses its religious exceptions, its membership policy is no longer protected and it could be sued.

Preachers?

Regulation 11 makes it unlawful for a person to ‘instruct ... cause or attempt to cause ... or ... induce or attempt to induce another to discriminate unlawfully’.

If a church minister preaching on homosexuality in orthodox terms instructed the congregation not to take part in activities inconsistent with this teaching, and concluded his sermon with an exhortation to act consistently with Christian beliefs, under Regulation 11 the Commission for Equality and Human Rights could launch a legal action against him. It could argue that he was attempting to cause or induce discrimination on the part of his congregation should any of them be put in the relevant circumstances. The Minister may say that the commission would never do that. But should it even be possible to do it? Must we rely on the tender mercies of commission officials? That is a major oversight in these regulations.

No protection

The Government has placed this House in a very difficult position. They have chosen a legislative procedure that means that none of us is in a position to propose amendments. Although the Government claims that they have protected the rights of religious groups in these regulations, I do not believe that that is so.

(This is an edited version of Baroness O’Cathain’s speech as it appeared in Hansard for March 21 2007.)