I want to answer the question put to me before the noble Baroness ends her important remarks. When the then Sex Discrimination Bill and Race Relations Bill were coming in, some in the Home Office and police did not approve at all of the legislation that we were enacting. However, it would have been intolerable if those public offices had said, ““We want to remain an office but not comply with the duty not to discriminate””. It would also be intolerable for those concerned with registrars to have to poll them for their views and conscientious beliefs to see whether they would carry out their public functions in accordance with the law of the land.
It would not be intolerable, however, to do as the right reverend Prelate indicated and have, so far as possible, a flexible system that would do its best to ensure that one could accommodate different views. That is a matter of flexibility, not obligation. The obligation is to obey the law of the land.
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1155 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:57:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261473
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261473
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261473