My Lords, I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady O’Loan, and others. My view
is that those concerns are unwarranted. As I understand it, three issues have been raised. The first is the public sector equality duty, under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which requires:
“A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard”,
to equality considerations. “Due regard” must require primary consideration to be given to other legislation—in particular, the legislation before us. I regard it as unlikely in the extreme that this public sector equality duty could impose a duty or even confer a power on a public authority to penalise a person or a body for declining to be involved in same-sex marriage, when the whole point of this legislation, and a fundamental feature of it, is that a person should not be compelled to do so for religious reasons. It would be extraordinary for a court to rely on a public sector equality duty.
The second concern was about Clause 2(6) and the exclusion of public functions, and that this does not cover the decision whether to opt in. There is a good reason for that. In very simple terms, marrying a person may well be a public function, as Clause 2(6) recognises. However, a decision to opt in or not is not the exercise of a public function. It is not, of itself, a service to the public but a decision whether to rely upon and maintain a statutory immunity given by this legislation. Any argument to the contrary would conflict with the content and purposes of this legislation, and so is extremely unlikely to be accepted.
The third concern that we are dealing with in this group of amendments is the suggestion that the legislation should clarify the meaning of “compulsion” in Clause 2(1). For a public authority to impose a detriment on a person for refusing to undertake an opt-in activity or to refrain from undertaking an opt-out activity would plainly amount to compulsion in this context. The reason for that is very simple: it would impose legal pressure on that person when one of the central purposes of this legislation is to protect religious freedom.
I entirely understand—I hope courteously—noble Lords’ concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, rightly reminds us that we should be courteous about this, but let us not just be courteous but realistic about the risks and concerns that have been expressed.