If I may, I shall make a little more progress.
I welcome Lords amendment 53, which is the sole amendment that has resulted in this group’s title on the selection list including the phrase “freedom of expression”. It deals with such freedom beyond the marriage ceremony, and I commend the other place for amending the Public Order Act 1986 by extending section 29JA to ensure that there is protection for
“discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage”.
The amendment plainly states that such discourse cannot possibly
“be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
The explanatory notes make the important point:
“To the extent that this provision removes any discouragement to discourse about marriage which relates to the sex of parties to marriage (where that discourse is not threatening and intended to stir up hatred), it could be argued that it has a positive effect on the Article 9 and 10 rights of those wishing to engage in this discourse.”
8.15 pm
It is important that we do not overstate the extent of that protection for freedom of expression, because Lords amendment 53 does not necessarily address the situation faced by teachers and public sector workers. In 2004, in the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said:
“I believe that marriage is an institution that is ordained of God and should be celebrated between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that in many ways mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical…I do not think that one is more valuable than the other—they are simply different.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 October 2004; c. 70.]
If someone were to engage in such discourse publicly and loudly on the public square in any hon. Member’s constituency, they would be protected from criminalisation and prosecution under the Public Order Act 1986, which is welcome, but would such a person be protected if they were engaged in public sector employment, or working in a school or charity? Will such people be free from public authorities compelling them not to express their conscientious view?
The Secretary of State acknowledged these concerns when she said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“such an uncertainty perhaps, in people’s minds, can create a chilling effect in terms of people bringing cases. I do think that there is a continuing requirement to make sure that people have clarity that any such discrimination would be not right and not lawful.”
She and her Ministers have been at pains to give us assurance after assurance that the Bill gives adequate protection for freedom of expression and the manifestation of such views, but even at this late stage, even though we will probably have to rely on order-making powers, I ask her to ensure that there will be clear freedom of expression.