Proceeding contribution from Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2011. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.
Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
If there is vexatious litigation, it should be struck out by the court as vexatious and nothing more should be done about it. What I am endeavouring to say—I am not doing very well because I am quoting from a detailed opinion, but I thought the House deserved to have that opinion before it because of the authority that it gives—is that the clarity provision was not necessary because a proper construction of the provisions of the Equality Act makes it absolutely clear that any discrimination claim, either about the provision of services or about the public sector duty, would be doomed to failure. There is one further point. In the case of Pepper v Hart, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity held that, were there any ambiguity in legislation, one could have regard to the parliamentary record to resolve the ambiguity. Quite apart from Section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to, I have no doubt that, were there any ambiguity—in my view, there is none whatever—then the Supreme Court and the lower courts would have regard to statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, when she was leading for the previous Government, to the assurances given by the former Solicitor-General Vera Baird QC and to the statements that will be given shortly by my noble friend the Minister today. Those statements will all be one way. They will all indicate the true intention of the legislation. Therefore, were there to be any ambiguity, it would be resolved, if it had to be, judicially. In my view, which is the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, others who have spoken, the Church of England’s legal advisers and others, there is no conceivable doubt that a challenge would be hopeless. If, as a discrimination lawyer with 40 years’ experience, I were asked what my views would be about this, I would say, ““You have not got a snowball’s chance in hell””.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 733 c1434-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Civil partnerships Ceremonies Equality Discrimination Marriage Registration Religious freedom Religious buildings
- Legislation
- Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:58:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795724
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795724
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795724