Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
19:00 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 150 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 339 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 391 / Noes: 57 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 375 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Conscientious objection—
‘(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no registrar shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, a relevant marriage ceremony to which he has a conscientious objection.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the duty of each registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of relevant marriage registrars for its area to carry out in that area the functions of relevant marriage registrars.
(3) The conscientious objection must be based on a sincerely- held religious or other belief.
(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.
New clause 3—Conscientious objection: transitional arrangements—
‘(1) No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct a marriage to which he has a conscientious objection if he is employed as a registrar of marriages on the date this Act comes in force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “conscientious objection” exists where the refusal to conduct a marriage is only that it concerns a same sex couple, and is based on the person’s sincerely held religious or other beliefs.
(3) This section is without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars in that area to carry out the required functions.
(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.
New clause 4—Chapter 2 of the Equality Act 2010—
‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 19, insert the following section—
19A For the purposes of this Act discussion or criticism of same sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be discrimination.”.’.
New clause 5—Public sector equality duty—beliefs about marriage—
‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 149(9), insert —
“(10) Compliance with the duties in this section requires ensuring that a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is respected and that no person should suffer any detriment in respect of the holding or the reasonable expression of such a belief.”.’.
New clause 6—Beliefs about marriage—
‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 10(3), insert —
“(4) The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”.’.
New clause 7—Legal proceedings against a person—
‘(1) A decision by a person not to undertake an opt-in activity shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
(2) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as the expressions used in section 2 of this Act.’.
New clause 8—Domestic protection for persons—
‘(1) For the purposes of this Act “compelled” includes, but is not limited to—
(a) less favourable treatment of a person by a public authority,
(b) the imposition of any criminal or civil penalty, and
(c) any legal proceedings against a person as a result of a decision not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages.
(2) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as the expressions used in section 2 of this Act.’.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, leave out lines 21 and 22.
Government amendment 23.
Amendment 4, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the avoidance of doubt, a person does not provide a service or exercise a public function when the person—
(a) refrains from undertaking an opt-in activity, or
(b) undertakes an opt-out activity.’.
Amendment 3, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
‘(6) For the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, no regard may be had by any public authority to any decision by a religious organisation not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages.’.
Government amendment 24.
Amendment 50, in schedule 7, page 52, line 26, at end add—
‘Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)
42 (1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) For Section 29JA (protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)) substitute—
“Section 29JA (protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation))
In this part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices or the discussion or criticism of same-sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intend to stir up hatred.”.’.
Mr Burrowes
This is undoubtedly a significant Bill that Ministers have said has at its heart the aims of equality and religious liberty. The amendments we will debate today will put to the test whether those laudable aims are indeed real. Indeed, the amendments, including new clause 1, which stands in my name and those of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, will at least ensure that we can take the Secretary of State at her word. She has said from the beginning that she would never introduce a Bill that encroached on religious freedom. Here is her opportunity to make good that commitment by supporting the amendments.
It will not have gone unnoticed—indeed, it was mentioned in the debate on the programme motion—that there is limited opportunity to scrutinise, debate and ensure that the new clauses enable us properly to respect the crucial issues of freedom of speech and conscience. Nor will it go unnoticed, including in the other place, that Labour Members lack a free vote, ironically denying them the freedom of expression regarding their consciences that is at the heart of the new clauses for which I, and many other hon. Members, seek the support of the House.
New clause 1 goes to the heart of one of the many serious issues regarding the Bill’s implications for freedom of speech in schools. The law requires that schools and teachers must not only relay the legal facts on marriage but promote legal understanding of it. John Bowers QC, one of the leading counsel who have given this opinion, has said that the Bill would create a duty to promote and endorse the new definition of marriage.
I do not propose to speak for long about these new clauses, or other amendments, because I have had my say, particularly in the Bill Committee, and this debate is an opportunity for other Members to have their say. However, I must point out that this issue is different from divorce or abortion, for example, in relation to the guidance provided to teachers. Teachers are required to teach about marriage and, as the guidance says,
“its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”
in a way that they are not required to teach about abortion or divorce. This issue already matters to teachers. According to a recent poll, 40,000 teachers are not happy to promote or endorse a different understanding of marriage and would risk their employment if they were required to do so. New clause 1 focuses particularly on seeking to ensure that Church schools are not obliged to promote or endorse same-sex marriage, which would be contrary to the religious ethos of their school.
New clauses 2 and 3 address similar concerns in relation to registrars. No registrar should be compelled to act against their conscience or be sacked because of their views on marriage, which are held not only by a majority of the parliamentary Conservative party but by millions of others in this country. It is important to ensure that the state should not marginalise those citizens.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
If the Bill goes through all its stages here and in the other place, it will be the law of the land. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be appropriate for teachers, in the course of any lesson that covers these issues, to make it clear that it is the law of the land? What would be wrong with that?
Mr Burrowes
I welcome that intervention. I am merely seeking, with the support of other hon. Members, to provide a conscientious objection clause that would not necessarily have any detrimental effect on the Bill. This is not unprecedented. For example, section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows individuals with a conscientious objection to abstain from participating in abortions. Section 38 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—the right hon. Gentleman will remember the debate on that—allows any person conscientiously to object to participation in work involving the treatment and development of human embryos. Paragraph 2(3) of the relevant national health service regulations allows medical staff to refrain from providing contraceptive services. Atheist teachers are not required to conduct collective services or to teach religious education. Those are just a few of the conscientious objection clauses that are already enshrined in law and do not seek to go against the principle of the legislation concerned. What is appropriate for GPs and teachers should also be appropriate for registrars.
The new clauses would strike a proper balance between the right of marriage and the right of conscience. If the Bill is passed, they should not in any way hinder the ability of same sex-couples to marry. As a precondition, an appropriate number of registrars should be available. That is a reasonable proposal.
New clause 3 is even more reasonable. It is a transitional measure similar to a provision in the Netherlands, which has led the charge in legalising same-sex marriage.
Mr Burrowes
I am afraid not, because I want to make progress to allow other hon. Members to speak.
Dutch registrars who were already employed before the legislation was passed are able to exercise their conscience and object. If it is good enough for those Dutch registrars, it is good enough for UK registrars. During the Bill Committee, one hon. Member suggested that people should realise that the writing is on the wall for their employment and that they should jolly well recognise that they will have to stick to the law and not exercise their own conscience, or get out now while they have the chance. That is disgraceful and amounts to serving people with a notice to quit. It means that this will be not just a marriage Bill, but an unfair dismissal Bill.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Is not the situation worse than that? In Committee, the Government, in effect, designed a hierarchy of exemptions. A Catholic surgeon is perfectly entitled to refuse to conduct an abortion paid for by public funds, but a Catholic registrar, who is similarly in public service paid for by public funds, could lose his position if he declined, out of a conscientious objection, to perform a same-sex marriage. Where is the fairness in that?
Mr Burrowes
I agree. This Bill is supposed to be about fairness and ensuring appropriate freedom and liberty, which goes beyond what happens in a marriage service.
Mr Burrowes
No. The hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Committee, where we had a chance to have our say. I will not give way, because I want people to be able to have their say. That is the point of this debate. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] Opposition Members are calling for me to give way, but I am not sure whether they will be allowed to exercise their conscience when it comes to voting on the Bill, or whether they are even free to get involved in this debate. They will be whipped into voting against me whatever I say or think, so I am not sure whether it is worth listening to them at this precise moment.
New clauses 4, 5 and 6 and amendment 50 seek to protect freedom of speech, which, along with freedom of conscience, we should all cherish dearly. We should cherish the fact that we are able to stand up and make our points, whether they be for or against the Bill’s principles, and that we can all—Liberal Democrats and Conservatives can, at least—exercise our conscience on the amendments. We are concerned about constituents who will not be able to do that as easily, so we need to ensure that the Bill has clarity.
The Bill has provoked undoubtedly strong feelings across the country. People from all strands and strata of society have deeply held, carefully considered and, indeed, principled views. Some have tried to say that this is an issue for the young, not the old, and for metropolitan, not rural areas, but people—whether they are young or old, or deeply religious or assertively secular—have real concerns. Polls come up with a different figure for the numbers for or against, depending on the question asked. The nation is as divided as the Conservative parliamentary party on this issue. Indeed, we have picked an issue on which our division shows that we are very much in touch with the nation.
At the very least, we need to ensure that we properly protect those who do not agree with the way in which the state wants to redefine marriage. This Bill is undoubtedly a divisive measure, but it is meant to be permissive. However, due to a lack of attention or time, it does not provide against causing further division and isolation or against ostracising the millions out there who are passionately against the principle of the Bill.
This country has a great and honourable tradition—a civilised and progressive belief that we do not censor or ostracise those who hold different views from our own. Indeed, we will defend that right however much we might disagree with those views. The new clauses ask the House a basic and reasonable question: will we stand firm in that tradition? Will we stand with the greats of our political heritage to defend the whole breadth of society, or will we consider only our own particular views, needs and rights? Tomorrow we will gather again to debate the Bill’s Third Reading and we will divide in our usual way to vote on whether we agree with its very principle. We need to ensure that we stand together, despite the Labour Whip, and provide clarity.
The Bill Committee heard a lot of evidence and I am not sure whether everyone has had the chance to pore over the minutiae of our deliberations. We heard from a solicitor called Mark Jones, who represents a number of campaigners whose beliefs are being trumped by equality. When asked about freedom of speech, he replied that the Bill will have an impact
“anywhere where there is a conversation.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Marriage) Public Bill Committee, 14 February 2013; c. 161, Q417.]
I was reminded of that just three days ago—on Friday—when a street preacher in Cambridge was nearly arrested for arguing for the traditional view of marriage. A member of the public called the police and told the preacher:
“Anyone who believes in man/woman only marriage should be sent to jail. Equality overrides free speech”.
The street preacher was filmed on mobile phones and a small crowd declared that they had evidence to put him in jail. Two police officers duly arrived and were shown the evidence. A police officer listened intently to the preacher’s words. Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the police went away, but it was a close call and that was before the change to the law. [Interruption.] The Minister of State may well laugh, but if he saw somebody exercising their freedom of speech and experienced that chill factor, I hope that he would stand alongside them and defend their right. I am sure that he is as concerned as others. Amendment 50 aims to avoid the extraordinary situation of somebody being criminalised for exercising their right to support traditional marriage.
Mr Burrowes
I will make some progress.
Mark Jones warned that individuals without the benefit of pro bono leading counsel arguing their corner will be terrified that their careers and reputations will be swept from under them. As he said,
“The majority of them simply resign quietly.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 14 February 2013; c. 163, Q421.]
We do not have sight or sound of them.
I will make one final point because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak. New clause 8 and amendment 4 relate to whether the Government’s locks will apply properly. I commend the Government for doing all that they can, particularly through working with the Church of England, to ensure that the locks are adequate. The Church of England is satisfied that the Bill will do what it says. However, it shares the concerns of others that go beyond that. Large denominations such as the Catholic Church and small independent Churches are concerned that they may be discriminated against because of their decision to opt out. The Bill takes us on to new terrain, and not just with regard to the definition of marriage; there is the new terrain of legal challenge. The Government need to be as clear as possible to avoid encroachments on religious liberty.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There was apparently a great degree of merriment when my hon. Friend said that nobody was arrested in the case that he mentioned. However, that misses the point. The trouble is that most people will do anything to avoid a scene and are terrified of the police being involved in any way. There is therefore a danger of self-censorship and of people being worried about speaking up. In this country, people should not be so worried.
Mr Burrowes
Whether it is laughter or jeers that we hear, there is a chill wind blowing.
Mr Burrowes
I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will have a free vote on my amendments.
Mr Burrowes
Will the right hon. Gentleman have a free vote? Will he be exercising his conscience? If not, I will carry on.
There is a chill wind blowing for those who uphold traditional marriage. All the new clauses and amendments tabled in my name and supported by other hon. Members would ensure that the Government mean it when they say that they support religious liberty. Actions speak louder than words. The Government have the opportunity today to use both: they can act to put the right words in the Bill.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to re-emphasise the point that the Bill received detailed, respectful and expert scrutiny in Committee, in contrast with the objections expressed by Government Members. I appreciated the scrutiny that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) gave to the Bill and we all listened to it extremely carefully. There were disagreements in Committee and there will be disagreements in the House today and tomorrow, but that does not mean that the Bill has not received the scrutiny or the time it deserves.
I am grateful that the Government have responded to the concerns of people on both sides of the debate about a range of issues, including the position of religious organisations, teachers, schools and civil registrars. I have been reassured by the responses to a number of those concerns. If anything, my view that this is a permissive and protecting Bill has been reinforced. That view was certainly reinforced by what I heard in Committee. I urge the House to look at the evidence that was presented.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman record his distaste at those who sought to shout down the preacher to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred? Will he and his colleagues put it on the record that it is utterly unacceptable to intimidate people by calling the police in order to shut down freedom of expression on this issue?
Stephen Doughty
I believe in freedom of speech in this country and in people’s ability to say what they want. It has been made clear that no further was action was taken in that case, and the person was not prosecuted. I believe in that and in people in this House being able to express their views, as I have said on a number of occasions.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I find the example given very distasteful, just as I find fanatics who attack British troops on the high streets of our towns distasteful. However, if we are to protect freedom of speech, do we not have to tolerate that sort of thing, unless an obvious offence is being committed?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to the verbal and written evidence presented by Lord Pannick, which I think addressed many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and other members of the Committee regarding the protections and legal status of various people in the Bill. His memorandum to the Bill states:
“The legal position is clear beyond doubt. The Bill states, in unambiguous terms, that no religious organisation or representative is required to marry a same sex couple;”
and he mentions the opt-in and opt-out mechanisms. He also makes clear that:
“For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same-sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea”.
He made that point clearly and ended his submission by stating:
“For the reasons set out above, the arguments of those who oppose the Bill are not assisted by legal concerns.”
Mr Bradshaw
Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that some Government Members do not seem to believe the Education Secretary who, in clear evidence about freedom of speech for teachers, said:
“If I thought any legislation, however well intentioned, would make life more difficult for great teachers and great schools, I wouldn’t support it. I have complete confidence in the protection our law offers freedom of conscience and speech.”?
He said that no change to the proposed legislation was necessary.
Stephen Doughty
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. The Education Secretary made his point clearly and was put under detailed scrutiny by Government Members.
I have held conversations with members of the Church of England and the Church in Wales since the Public Bill Committee, and they seem reassured by a number of the measures put forward and the questions raised. I also point to the simple passion of witnesses such as Alice Arnold, who stated their clear wish to get married and not to have to answer questions about that ambiguously, as they do at the moment. I remind the House of the passion for equality that exists.
I regret that there have been further attempts to muddy the waters by opponents of the Bill outside the House. As I said, the debate in Committee was respectful, but matters have been raised in the press and media over the past few days that cause concern. I have received a number of confused and concerning e-mails and e-mails from people who are absolutely behind the House and the clear majority expressed on Second Reading and behind the polls that show the public’s clear support for the Bill, notwithstanding their respect for those who feel differently. I therefore feel that there is simply no need for a number of the amendments proposed, and having seen some of the evidence presented I would have thought some of them might have been withdrawn.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
In relation to teachers, surely we must also think about the children of same-sex couples who could be made to feel in the classroom that the love of their parents is in some way less worthwhile and valued.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend and we heard passionate evidence from school representatives on issues of homophobic bullying and the position of LGBT staff. I believe that a dangerous precedent would be set by giving special exemptions to registrars in particular, and for state employees not to have to apply the law of the state.
Stephen Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way as it allows me to say what I would have said to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who did not give way but who obliquely referred to me by saying that someone said in Committee that registrars should perhaps rethink their position. The difference between a registrar and an abortion surgeon is that a registrar’s sole duty is to conduct marriage. If they are unhappy about the central purpose of their job, then of course they should reconsider what they are doing. A surgeon has lots of things to do and—hopefully—abortion is a tiny, tiny part of what they might be called upon to do. That is why the exemption is there; that is the key distinction.
Stephen Doughty
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I should point out that registrars have never previously been given opt-outs, including on performing civil partnerships or re-marrying divorcees, even on the grounds of profoundly held religious beliefs. There is an important distinction to be made.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Like a number of Opposition Members, I tried to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I wanted to ask him whether he believed that registrars should have a right not to re-marry divorcees. I believe they should not have such a right, but he did not mention it. Will my hon. Friend allow the hon. Gentleman to respond on that point now?
Stephen Doughty
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate wishes to respond, but I worry about the precedent such a measure would set. Things could go further: if people with strongly held objections to marrying divorcees have an opt-out, those with objections to marrying those in inter-faith relationships might ask for one. That is an important distinction when we are talking about state employees.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the registrar trade body has not made representations to the Government to ask for such an arrangement? It is somewhat bizarre that the Government are offering the trade body something for which it is has not even asked.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed—the hon. Gentleman makes a strong point.
New clauses 2 and 3 undermine the fundamental concept that everyone should be equal under law, regardless of their sexuality. Public services—we should remember that registrars perform a public service—should be available to all without discrimination. We risk undermining that concept.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman believes it is right that the Church of England has a quadruple lock to protect its religious freedom, why will he not accept small amendments to protect people of other faiths who wish to be protected under this Bill?
Stephen Doughty
My understanding from the evidence presented is that the Church of England, as the established Church in England, has special requirements to marry people who come to it. It has other statuses under canon laws. The situation of the Church in Wales is different—it is disestablished, but also has special provisions. Other religions will not be compelled by the law to marry people if they do not want to do so. As has been made clear at numerous points, the Bill is a permissive Bill that will allow those who wish, such as liberal Jews, the Unitarians, the Quakers and others, to opt in, and others to do so in time if they so wish.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I wanted to emphasise that point. I agree with my hon. Friend. Other religions can opt in if they so choose. On the other hand, they are not forced to do anything.
Jake Berry
I probably did not make my earlier point correctly. I was speaking to the proposals that seek to protect people in faith schools. Given that the hon. Gentleman believes that a direct provision in the Bill on the protection of religious freedom is worth having and necessary, what is his objection to a specific protection in the Bill for people of belief who work in faith schools?
Stephen Doughty
I once again draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Secretary of State for Education’s statements. He has been clear about the protections that exist and how they should be applied.
On amendment 24, on the Church in Wales, I am pleased that the Government listened to the evidence presented in the Committee by a number of my hon. Friends and I, and that the Lord Chancellor will introduce legislation so that the Church in Wales can choose to allow same-sex marriages at a future point—I hope and pray it will do so. I am not entirely sure why the Government did not accept that proposal in Committee, but I am nevertheless pleased they have introduced that measure now. Many in the Church in Wales to whom I have spoken this weekend and others will be pleased with the amendment.
In conclusion, I shall address the idea that the Bill has been railroaded through and that we have not had enough time. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that opponents of the Bill took up the vast majority of time in Committee raising their concerns, which have been heard—there has been a deep degree of listening. I have responded with respect to many in my constituency who are opposed to the Bill. I have had many positive comments for the way in which I have responded, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends have had.
I draw the House’s attention to the significant international developments—in some US states and in New Zealand—since we last debated the Bill. Hon. Members would be wise to consider the celebrations and happiness in the House of Representatives in New Zealand when same-sex marriage legislation was signed. We heard the singing of love songs, and some Members of that House achieved equality. I hope hon. Members feel such happiness when we pass this Bill, although perhaps there will be no singing.
Mr Leigh
I wish to speak to new clause 6, which has 44 co-signatories and is based on a ten-minute rule Bill I introduced earlier this year. It states:
“The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”
It addresses the important issue of what would happen to people who believe in a man-woman marriage and goes to the heart of the concern many have about the Bill, irrespective of our views on same-sex marriage. We are told that the Bill is all about freedom, but what about the freedom of those who disagree with it? Surely their freedoms are as precious as the freedoms of the people who support the Bill. We believe that new clause 6 provides the bare minimum of protection that such people would need.
The Equality Act 2010 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment and so on—it is pretty comprehensive. One would have thought that a person’s belief on traditional marriage, which may go to the heart of their most sincere beliefs, was covered by “religion or belief”. However, the evidence of all the cases I have studied and that we have seen in recent years is that it does not: there is no protection for these people. Whatever our views on the Bill, we are worried about what will happen in the workplace and ensuring protection for people who take a traditional view of marriage.
The Government have apparently done a lot of work to protect churches from being compelled to approve same-sex marriage by having to solemnise them. I give credit to the Government, although they overstate the case slightly when they say that the Church of England is now entirely happy. The Church of England briefing on Second Reading stated:
“we doubt the ability of the government to make legislation watertight against challenge in the European courts or against a ‘chilling’ effect on public discourse.”
It is important to bear in mind that “chilling” effect, something I mentioned in my intervention.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the chilling effect, I think he has fundamentally misunderstood the original Equality Act. No belief—transubstantiation, the virgin birth, the resurrection or any other belief—is expressly mentioned in the Act, so to elevate this single viewpoint, which may be held by a religious or non-religious person, is surely bizarre.
Mr Leigh
No, I do not think it is bizarre. We are at the centre of public discourse and I will deal with precisely that point. Is what I am proposing a step too far? I do not believe so, and I want to refer to recent cases. I will finish my point on the Church of England and come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is serious and I want to address it.
The Church of England briefing went on to state:
“We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable. Too much emphasis, we believe, is being placed on the personal assurances of Ministers.”
To be fair to the Government, they have at least put something in the Bill to protect churches, but what about individual conscience? There is not a word in the Bill about that.
I have to say straight away that new clause 6 is absolutely not a wrecking amendment. It does not stand the remotest chance of blocking the Bill, nor would it elevate or bring the law into an area wholly different from where it has been before. I want to make it absolutely clear that at 7 o’clock hon. Members can be strongly in favour of the Bill and still vote for new clause 6. Those who support the Bill but are worried about freedom of conscience should back new clause 6, because it is about an individual’s freedom in the workplace to say, “I’m sorry, but I think that marriage can only ever take place between a man and a woman.” In a moment, I will outline the case law and explain the problem.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I support the Bill, but I also have some concerns, which is why I have signed new clause 6. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to start understanding people’s sensitivities, instead of trying to impose a secular consensus on the faith organisations?
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. In the last few weeks, on a very different subject—a deportation case—we have seen another example of the courts making it clear that neither the views expressed by Ministers nor a resolution of the House are enough to persuade them, when they have taken a fixed view on a human rights point. Only legislation can pin this down.
Mr Leigh
Absolutely. The courts made that quite clear recently.
Before somebody leaps to their feet and tries to make out that we are defending people being beastly to gay people in the workplace, let me deal with this important point and make a statement of the obvious: protecting freedom of conscience does not mean protecting the freedom to be beastly to anybody. Equality law protects sexual orientation, gender, race and belief, but no one would say it provides for the right to be horrid to people who disagree with on any of these things, so there is no danger of that happening with new clause 6.
Mr George Howarth
On the logic of his argument, does the hon. Gentleman think that a science teacher, for example, should be free to teach creationism?
Dr Huppert
Is the hon. Gentleman actually saying that if a teacher believes in creationism, they should be allowed to teach it to pupils in their class? That is very different from a privately held belief.
Mr Leigh
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is deliberately trying to take me down a track completely out with what I am arguing about. I am not arguing in favour of creationism or against it; I am simply making the point that if someone has a profound religious belief—having read the Koran or the Bible—that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if they state that on Facebook, in the classroom or anywhere else, they should be protected. That is the profound and simple point. Let us not get dragged down various alleyways and byways, because we need to do something.
It is true that people talk about controversial issues in the workplace all the time, but I think that same-sex marriage is different. It seems to many of us that if someone dares to disagree with the new orthodoxy that gay marriage is the best thing since sliced bread, they are somehow breaking a new social taboo and doing something in their workplace, particularly in the public sector, that they should not be doing. Some people say that the new clause is not necessary, but it is, because, as we all know, the tenor of debate on same-sex marriage is often characterised, I am afraid—not here, but in the public marketplace; we have heard of cases in the past —by hectoring, bullying and name calling. Given that, as I have said, most decent people will do anything to avoid a scene or do anything that risks the police getting involved, it would have a chilling effect.
Mr Bradshaw
Why does the hon. Gentleman doubt the word of the man who is often described as the darling of the Conservative right—the Education Secretary—on this very matter?
Mr Leigh
No, no; the right hon. Gentleman is making a silly point. He is just trying to play games with something that is very important.
The hatred that is sometimes poured on those of us who simply believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is rather sad in many ways. We are elected politicians. We are tough enough to put up with it, and we get reinforcements from our own constituents who, by the way, overwhelmingly—certainly in my constituency —support my point of view. We are tough politicians, but what about ordinary members of the public who are picked on at work in this way for believing in traditional marriage? Some refuse to believe that this happens, but we have evidence to prove it does.
In January, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which was backed by a good 86 votes to 31 on a Division. I called it the “Adrian Smith Protection Bill”—I said I would come to the evidence of what is now happening in the workplace and this is it. I named the Bill in honour of a gentleman who was demoted for “gross misconduct”. This was a man with a perfect work record who lost 40% of his salary. What did he say? Was he guilty of homophobic behaviour? No; all he said was that same-sex marriage in a church was an “equality too far”, and he put that on a Facebook page. He said it on his private Facebook page, but a colleague at work took umbrage. He raised it with his superiors at Trafford Housing Trust and they pounced on it. They were up, I have to say, for some new gay rights award—nothing wrong with that—and clearly they wanted to burnish their PC credentials. They threw the book at poor Adrian Smith—just a chap with a perfect work record who had not said anything nasty, beastly or homophobic in any sense. He had simply expressed his profound beliefs.
Adrian Smith was told by his bosses that he deserved to lose his job, but that they would commute his sentence to demotion, in view of the high quality of his work. He did not have the money to take the case to an employment tribunal and—this is the important point—on the basis of existing case law, lawyers said that he would not have won anyway, because of the current state of employment and equality law. When there is a clash between gay rights and religious freedom, I am afraid that gay rights come first in our case law. Then an organisation came along that offered to cover his legal bills and, with some expert creative legal advice, he was able to take a High Court action. He won a ruling that his employers had breached his contract. The Government say, “Well there you go—he won. What’s the problem?”
The problem is that employment and equality laws were not in Adrian Smith’s favour. He won only a contract action. The court did not have the power to give him his job back—he never got it back. It could not even give him proper compensation—he never got that either. In fact, the judge lamented the fact that he got the enormous sum of £100 for all the upset he had been caused, simply for expressing a very moderate point of view. The whole exercise cost £30,000 in legal fees, which would have been well beyond his means if he had not had the backing of campaign organisations, and he was one of the lucky ones.
The Government are refusing to recognise that they are not legislating to redefine marriage through this Bill in a vacuum. They are legislating in a culture that has been so coloured with political correctness that people such as Adrian Smith—mild-mannered people expressing reasonable beliefs in moderate tones—are treated like villains. The outlandish views of the loony left of the 1980s—the views of the Lambeth councils—have now become embedded in high places. In typical leftish fashion, all those who disagree with those views are treated with hatred and contempt in order to marginalise their point of view.
My wife says that as I get a bit older, sometimes, very late at night, I get a bit cross-eyed, but if you accuse me of being swivel-eyed, Mr Speaker, I could take you to court on disability grounds. Unfortunately, many people with traditional points of view—whether on gay marriage or immigration—somehow feel that they are being marginalised in political debate. This leads to alienation and more people voting for protest parties. This is going on and we should recognise it. These people are dismissed as bigots because they object to having their marriages redefined over their heads by rewriting the Marriage Act, under which they got married, which is the most important thing in their lives.
Mr George Howarth
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. May I give him some reassurance? I do not think for one minute that he is swivel-eyed—just myopic.
Mr Leigh
I take that as a serious intervention, but I do not think I am myopic. There is a real sense of alienation in this country among people with traditional views. They are decent people and I believe that they have a right to feel comfortable in society, and particularly in their workplace, expressing those views and speaking out for what they believe in. I do not think that that makes me myopic at all.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that the real alienation, which has taken place over centuries, is felt in schools by people who are homosexual? Sexuality is fundamental to who children are, and that should be acknowledged and they should be made to feel that they have equal rights and equal value in our society.
Mr Leigh
My hon. Friend makes an obvious point, and of course we have moved on from the 1950s and 1960s. People have to feel comfortable with their own sexuality, but surely they should also feel comfortable expressing a traditional viewpoint. That is all that the new clause is trying to achieve.
If cases such as that of Adrian Smith can happen now, before the law is changed, we can be absolutely certain that there will be many more in the future. We cannot yet be sure what will happen in churches and elsewhere, but we can be sure that there will be more such cases if the Bill is passed unamended. Equality law is meant to protect all beliefs, religious and otherwise. Some people believe in man-woman marriage for religious reasons, and they have a right to that belief. Others believe in it for non-religious reasons. Both ought to be protected, but case law so far suggests that neither is. Apart from Adrian, no traditional marriage supporter who has been on either end of a legal action has ever won.
I have already said that Adrian’s victory was somewhat pyrrhic. Equality law was no help to him. He won an old-fashioned contract law claim. New clause 6 would address the obvious inequality in the law by ensuring that a belief in traditional marriage was protected on the “religion or belief” ground. It would not, of course, guarantee that a person with traditional views would win in every case. I am not suggesting that. All other considerations of equality law would still apply, as would all the other discrimination grounds. The new clause would not guarantee that a person with traditional views would win the race; it would simply get them a place on the starting blocks. That is all we are trying to do. This is a moderate, sensible measure and I hope that the Government will consider it, because we are about to create a whole new generation of victims.
Let me read what Mr Smith said:
“I tried reasoning with my bosses, but they dug their heels in. I was left with no option but to go to court to clear my name. It took the better part of two years, which was a living nightmare for my family and me. In November the High Court ruled in my favour. But they didn’t have the power to order my reinstatement so I was left in a demoted job which carried a lower salary. I have now found a job with a different employer. I shouldn’t have been treated like an outcast, and my family shouldn’t have had to suffer like they did.”
All the warm words of Ministers are worthless if someone is sitting in a housing association office in Bury being told that they are some kind of villain for saying that same-sex marriage is an “equality too far”. Ministerial assurances from the Dispatch Box are no help when people are stigmatised for a sincerely held belief and struggling financially because they have had 40% knocked off their salary. They need real legal protection against the bullies. New clause 6 would give them that protection, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I have been moved to make a small contribution to the debate. It is important, in responding to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), to put it on record that there are many religious people who do not recognise the caricature that he has put before the House today. They understand that the House is deliberating on what will become law if the Bill passes through another place, and that, at other points in history, Members have had to make similar difficult determinations about what should become law. Once this measure becomes law, there will be an obligation on public servants such as registrars, and certainly on teachers, to understand this matter and to teach it as the law. We should therefore draw a distinction between the promotion or endorsement of a personal view and what is the law.
Mr Lammy
I am not going to give way.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough should also recall that this House deliberated for 20 years—he will know the name of William Wilberforce—on the abolition of the slave trade. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may tut, but they know that this House was split for 20 years on the issue of whether black human beings were human or chattel. There were Christians in this House who sought to suggest that black human beings were chattel, and that somehow it was a matter of conscience and we should not end the slave trade. That is why this is a noble fight and why no hon. Member should have truck with the exception that is being put forward.
Sir Gerald Howarth
It is rather disappointing to hear the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) introducing such an emotive subject of 180 years ago, but let me get to the point of the amendments.
I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), and I want particularly to home in on two issues: education and the armed forces. First, on education, I think that there is complete confusion. To a certain extent, the right hon. Member for Tottenham put his finger on the point: those who have a view contrary to his will not be allowed to express it in our schools, without being punished for so doing.
Richard Drax
May I confirm that the view stated by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is, in essence, a direct attack on free speech in this country, which has been held dear for hundreds, nay thousands, of years?
Sir Gerald Howarth
With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is attacking free speech, but he is professing a view of which ordinary people out there will take note. That is what is leading to the chilling effect, the intimidation—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) looking in astonishment; she should talk to some of the staff in this place and find out how intimidated they feel about expressing a view on these matters. Surely Opposition Members have also had the experience of expressing a forthright view when talking to constituents —I am not politically correct, and given my certain age, I tend to express a forthright view—and of being told that we may say such things but that they cannot do so. They tell me in words of one syllable that they fear they will lose their jobs if they articulate the same view as I express.
Sir Gerald Howarth
No, I will not give way yet.
The House ignores at its peril the chilling effect that already exists out there—although it is now okay for us to discuss immigration, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, who has recognised that there is huge public concern and has graciously sanctioned our speaking about it in terms that, in previous times, he might have dismissed as being racist.
There are people out there who will be intimidated by this legislation. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who made the point that, at the end of the day, his assurances, and those of his Front-Bench colleagues, are utterly worthless. We have ceded the power of the House of Commons not to the courts of this land, but to the European Court of Human Rights. That Court will be the ultimate determinant of what is to prevail, the right of the teacher expressing a profoundly religious view or the public equality duty.
Opposition Members speak effortlessly of their belief in freedom of expression, but I am afraid that the reality out there is very different. Our constituents do feel intimidated. They fear that they will be accused of a hate crime. That, in my view, is a new and wholly pernicious development of the law.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The notion of a “chilling effect” is new to me, but I recall in the 1980s, and even the 1990s, what I would describe as a freezing effect on the lives of gay people and other minorities. At that time, the majority were at liberty to discriminate against us in employment, and in practically every other walk of life. As for speech—goodness! I recall some outrageous verbal aggression from those days. Let me ask my hon. Friend this. Does he not think that some of the legislation that has been passed over the years and to which he seems to object, historically, has actually levelled the playing field rather than going too far in the opposite direction?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I greatly respect my hon. Friend, whom I consider to be a very decent person and who has expressed her view very courteously. However, I warn her, and Members in all parts of the House, that I fear that the playing field is not being levelled. I believe that the pendulum is now swinging too far in the opposite direction. There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who see this as but a stepping stone to something even further.
Sir Gerald Howarth
No, I will not give way.
I say to my hon. Friend that striking the right balance is, of course, important—[Interruption.] Now I am being shouted down for expressing a view in the House of Commons with which others do not agree.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I will not give way, no.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said this, issued four days ago:
“Let me make it absolutely clear that no teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. Teachers will teach the factual position that, under the law, marriage can be between opposite sex couples and same sex couples, but, as is the case now, can make clear that their faith teaches that marriage can only be between two people of opposite sex.”
We have been assured time and again that the Church of England—the established Church of these islands, of which Her Majesty the Queen is the supreme governor—is happy. Well, actually, the Church of England is not happy. The briefing that we have just received from it—also dated 16 May—points out:
“The Secretary of State for Education has a duty, under section 403 of the Education Act 1996, to issue guidance so that pupils in maintained schools ‘learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’.”
The guidance also states, at section 1.7:
“Schools of a particular religious ethos may choose to reflect that in their sex and relationship education policy.”
Let me give another quote:
“Whilst Church of England schools will fulfil the duty to teach about the factual nature of marriage in its new legally redefined form, there is residual unclarity over how that will interact with the continuing need for schools to reflect their religious ethos in their SRE policies. There is also at present nothing to prevent future Secretaries of State withdrawing Section 1.7 of the guidance, or amending the guidance as it currently stands.”
The Church of England is concerned that teachers in Church of England-maintained schools will not be able to preach as the Bible says—that marriage can only be the union between a man and a woman—and who in this House feels that even if the European Court of Human Rights does not intervene, some other court will be on the side of a teacher who fears they cannot express their view? As Charles Moore said:
“If marriage is redefined by statute to include same-sex marriage, then a teacher who refuses to teach this as right is in breach of his public sector equality duty.”
The Minister must answer these questions—to the extent that he possibly can, of course, as I submit that he cannot answer them, because at the end of the day it will be up to the ECHR. There is complete confusion about what is actually going to happen in our schools.
Before I move on to the issue of the armed forces—
Sir Gerald Howarth
No, I will not, as the right hon. Gentleman made rather a silly intervention last time.
Let me give another quote:
“Marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman that cannot be redefined. We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of family life and the only institution within which to raise children.
We are concerned that this radical change to the institution of marriage will impact on what is taught in schools. Muslim teachers will be forced into the contradictory position of holding private beliefs, while teaching a new legal definition of marriage.”
For the word “Muslim”, insert “Christian”: they are interchangeable here. The faiths—whether Muslim or Christian—have real concerns about the impact on their ability to teach centuries-old tradition to our children, and I fear the Government are just going to leave it to the courts to decide who will win.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am sorry, but I will not give way.
I want to address the matter of military chapels. As Members will know, I am one of the churchwardens at the Royal Garrison church of Aldershot. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the sterling work he did in Committee, where he raised on my behalf the concerns in the military. There are concerns about what will happen to chaplains. I understand that amendment 23 is designed to meet the concerns about chaplains, whether employed in the NHS or the armed forces, who express a view. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is what amendment 23 is designed to do?
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
With the hon. Gentleman’s leave, I can confirm that is correct.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am your hon. Friend, Minister.
I have now had the benefit of having read the delegation of powers memorandum produced by the Department to deal with this issue. It says:
“Since military chapels are Crown land, used for the purposes of the State, it is necessary not only to accommodate the concerns of the religious organisations which use them but also for the Secretary of State to ensure that the interests of same sex couples who may wish to get married in such a chapel are taken into account. In relation to shared civilian places of worship, the Bill requires that in certain circumstances all of the organisations using the building must consent to its registration for marriage of same sex couples. However, it is not possible to replicate that provision as military chapels are Crown land, used for the purposes of the State. The regulation-making power is designed to offer maximum flexibility to the Secretary of State in balancing the…considerations.”
There we have it: “in balancing these considerations”. The state, in defining such matters, will surely err on the side of the legislation and not on the side of those of us with profound beliefs.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the considerations should be the pastoral care that those chaplains owe to the gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and airmen who have openly served our country in conflict for many years now?
Sir Gerald Howarth
Yes, of course, and I am sure that they are perfectly capable of doing that, but their first allegiance is to their religion. They are men and women of the cloth and our religion is absolutely crystal clear on this point. The Church of England is clear that it does not support same-sex marriage and that is why the Government have had to go to inordinate lengths to try to preserve its position.
Let me ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State about the other people working in the office. What about the organist? What about the choristers? If they say that they do not wish to provide their services, what will happen to them? Will they, as public employees, be subject to some form of legal action? My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I do not think that he is in a position to give me the assurance I seek, although I will welcome his endeavours to do so. These are fundamental points about how the legislation will have a practical impact.
Let me finish, as I have spoken for 15 minutes. It is unacceptable that a measure that will have such an impact on our national life and that strikes at the heart of 1,000 years of religious and cultural tradition in this country has been restricted to a couple of hours’ debate in which we can explore its practical consequences, some unintended. I hope that the Minister has some good answers because, as he is a former serving soldier, my constituents will expect him to have them.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I rise to speak in the debate not because I have an entirely unequivocal view on the issue or because I believe strongly that either side of the argument is absolutely right, but because I can see both sides. I have deliberated long and hard before deciding to speak and how to vote, both on the amendments and on Third Reading.
My views, like those of many people in the Chamber today, are inextricably bound with my experience, as is the case with any conscience vote. I come from a large Roman Catholic family and am the third child of eight. They say that the family that prays together stays together and that is very much the case with us. We are a close-knit unit, sometimes to the point of that being overbearing, but whenever there is a crisis or something to celebrate, we are all there in droves.
A big part of my childhood was spent with my brother, who is two years older than me and he shared with us the fact that he was gay in his early 20s. He was my best friend growing up—my playmate, my partner in crime and my defender when in trouble—and I found it challenging when the announcement came because of my Catholic faith. It has been a journey in which I have had to question my faith and understanding of the world, but I believe that the experience has not only kept my faith intact but renewed and enriched it.
My children have been growing up alongside their uncle and his partner, as just that: partners in life. My children do not put titles on it, or boundaries on its meaning. They do not put judgments on its worth. They see two people who love and care for each other, and who face the joys and trials of life together.
I appreciate the intention behind the amendments and new clauses that have been brought forward, and I have studied them at length. I have heard many representations from constituents who have concerns about marriage being redefined. I have not always agreed with the constituents who have contacted or come to see me, but I hope that they feel that they have been listened to with sincerity and respect. The Bill will not serve the cause of equality if it creates intolerance on either side of the debate.
I will always fight passionately for religious freedom. I believe that our society is richer for its diversity, and enhanced by the mutual tolerance that is, for the most part, shown. I therefore contemplated the scenarios in which that freedom might be compromised by the Bill. I have spoken to teachers on the front line, both those in faith schools and those in other schools. I understand the pressures; it is always a challenge to explain the world to children in a way that promotes their understanding without shattering unnecessarily soon any illusions that they may have. I also feel strongly that however they are taught about relationships, it should be done in an inclusive and tolerant way. Children should have the opportunity to learn, as I did, what their Church’s teaching is, and what the reality is for couples, individuals and families living together, up and down the country.
My religious education—in an all-girls convent school, I might add—was thorough but balanced. We were taught the Catholic Church’s view, the humanist view, the atheist view, and the views of other faiths, and we discussed and debated issues, from abortion to euthanasia, with a broad and balanced approach. That is what I want for my children, and I believe that that is entirely possible as a result of the Bill as drafted.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree—I speak as someone who supported the Bill on Second Reading—that there are concerns about some issues, including how the subject will be dealt with in schools? If the Minister cannot accept new clause 1, perhaps he can give us some assurances on the subject from the Dispatch Box, because Catholic schools in particular will want to teach what is legal, but will also want to ensure that the Church’s view is put to their pupils. None of us would want that not to happen.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She anticipated my next remark; I was about to say that I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarity on whether my understanding is correct.
I want to put on record that I will support the Bill, but I have taken on board the issue of receiving confirmation regarding faith education and having protections in place, so that people are free to learn of different views—views about Christian marriage and what the state teaches. Also, I seek clarification on protection from compulsion, which is dealt with in new clauses 7 and 8, and in Government amendment 23, which acknowledges that clarification is required in that regard.
I believe in a society and state that do not discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief. I appreciate that those rights must always be balanced, and the state has a role to play in ensuring that that balance is always struck, so I am otherwise reassured that the Bill provides for those with a religious view of marriage to practise and teach their understanding of marriage, where that is done in an open, inclusive and tolerant way. My greatest hope is that one day we will reach an understanding that we all share, and will no longer even have to engage in this debate.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is interesting how the debate about religious freedom has moved on during consideration of the Bill. Before, the debate was very much about whether the protections being given to religious institutions were sufficient, and there was a strong claim made that those protections would be challenged or would be too weak. Interestingly, by and large, that is not the substance of the new clauses and amendments tabled today. It seems to have been broadly accepted that the protections written into the Bill are indeed substantial.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The religious institutions—the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church—do not accept that the protections are there, and that is why amendment 4 has been tabled: to make that clear in the Bill.
Nick Herbert
I said “by and large”. By and large, it is accepted by the religious institutions that they will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, which is of fundamental importance to those who, in conscience, object to the Bill, particularly religious groups. The Church of England, in its latest briefing, of which hon. Members from across the House will be aware, says:
“The ‘quadruple lock’ does, in our view, achieve the Government’s policy intentions in this area”,
and that is important. The substance of the amendments tabled goes beyond the direct effect of whether religious organisations should be required to conduct same-sex marriages. It is common ground in this House that no religious institution should be forced to conduct such a marriage, and that is what the Bill achieves.
Instead, the amendments relate to the fear that my hon. Friends have expressed about whether there will be what they describe as a chilling effect, or interference with the reasonable exercise of conscience when people set out their views. Free speech is, of course, curtailed by legislation in all sorts of areas in this country. In the main, we would all agree on the areas in which it should be curtailed. We do not accept that people have the right to exercise free speech in a way that is inflammatory in respect of race relations—that is outlawed—or that is hateful. The House of Commons has passed successive measures to ensure that incitement to hatred—whether racial hatred or, most recently, hatred on grounds of sexual orientation—is outlawed, but the bar that we rightly set in that legislation was high. Members on all sides of the House of Commons felt at the time that it was perfectly proper that hatred towards gay people should be outlawed, but that reasonable comment and free speech, which may be unwelcome to people, should not be outlawed unless it actually incited hatred and violence in a way that properly brought in the province of the criminal law.
Those debates have given rise to a concern that the criminal law, or legislation, may be used in a way that steps further than the intention of Parliament. A number of cases have been cited in which public authorities have behaved in a way that hon. Friends—I think with some cause—fear has been heavy-handed, and in a way that interferes with the reasonable expression of views that may not be welcome to particular communities, but should not be classified as amounting to a criminal offence. That is my hon. Friends’ concern, and I understand it. So often, this amounts to a question of the sensible application of the law by the public authorities—for instance, by the police. If it turns out that arrests can be made, or investigations pursued, that were not merited—and one of my hon. Friends gave an example of such a case—it is not necessarily that the law has drawn the line in the wrong place; it is that the application of the law has been unfortunate.
It should not be the purpose of any legislation to prevent the expression of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) described as forthright views, particularly in relation to schools. There is a case for the Government helping to explain what the proper balance is. My understanding is that teachers will be under a legal duty to teach the fact of the law of the land and that same-sex marriages are available to people and lawful, but they will also be able to exercise their conscience and say that the belief of the institution for which they work is that same-sex marriage is wrong.
Mr Leigh
My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) seemed to imply that teachers should not be allowed to express a separate point of view. May we get this clear? My right hon. Friend thinks that if I am a teacher in a Catholic school and I say that same-sex marriage is wrong, I should be allowed to say that. If that is the case, why can he not accept one of the new clauses to make that absolutely clear?
Nick Herbert
I am waiting to hear what the Government say about the implications of the new clause, but I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. I agree that it is important that we have clarity in this area and I am sure the Minister will respond.
There should, however, be no doubt about the position of public employees in the application of the law of the land. It is much more clear-cut that registrars, for instance, should not be able to discriminate against people who are gay, as new clause 2 provides that they should, on the grounds that that would be to exercise their conscience. They are delivering a public service and the principle that this House has tended to apply—for instance, in relation to the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation—is that once the law is passed, it should be applied in an even-handed way. One has only to think through the implications of licensing an individual to exercise his or her conscience and to turn somebody away, decline to admit somebody for bed-and-breakfast accommodation or decline to conduct a same-sex marriage. One must think through the implications of other grounds on which they might decline such an application to realise the dangers of pursuing this approach.
What if a registrar were to turn down on the grounds of race an application from somebody to get married? What would we think about that? Is it the position of my hon. Friends or of any hon. Member in the House that that registrar should be free to do so? If it is not—I hear a deafening silence—why do we think a registrar should be free to do so in relation to same-sex marriage, when that same-sex marriage will be lawful, according to the Bill which we expect will be passed?
Richard Drax
Does my right hon. Friend think racism is the same as stamping on conscience and religious belief? Personally, I do not see how the two are connected.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend has a point to this extent: for example, the bar that we set in relation to racial hatred is the highest bar of all, and when we came to the incitement of hatred in relation to sexual orientation, a lower bar was set as to the speech that would be allowed. A stronger free-speech threshold was built in, precisely because it was recognised that religious organisations might otherwise have difficulty in expressing their objection to particular attitudes. That in itself is controversial.
I return to the question that I posed. If, in the case of an application to have a wedding, it is wrong for a registrar to turn someone away on the grounds that they are black or a member of an ethnic minority, why would it be right for a registrar to turn away a gay person? That is the essence of the question and that is why new clause 2, in seeking to protect the conscience of that registrar, who is performing a public service, goes too far and opens up the possibility that we would provide all sorts of protections for the exercise of conscience, most of which—maybe not all—Members of this House would find deeply unpalatable.
Mr Burrowes
I take seriously the views of my right hon. Friend and particularly welcome his comments about new clause 1. Like him, I wait to hear the Government’s response on clearing up issues of guidance. With reference to new clauses 2 and 3, he should be careful not to misguide the House on the purpose of new clause 3. It is not about turning away any couple. No same-sex couple would be turned away and prevented from having their marriage registered. The point of the new clause is to enable registrars privately to express their objection. Another registrar would have to be available to conduct the marriage. Where would the discrimination or the grievance be for that same-sex couple?
Nick Herbert
I accept that distinction from my hon. Friend. The couple would not necessarily be turned away from the register office, but that individual would have been able to object to performing that service, whereas we would not accept such an objection in relation, for instance, to race.
Chris Bryant
I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to accept the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), because there are plenty of local authorities where the register office has only one registrar. If that person turns the couple away, they have been turned away from the register office.
Nick Herbert
That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak.
In conclusion, we should not dismiss concerns about the reasonable expression of views with which the majority may disagree. Public attitudes to homosexuality have changed extraordinarily rapidly in this country. Not everybody approves of homosexuality, still less of same-sex marriages, but, as we have seen across the western world, the majority of the public now approve of homosexuality. That, in my view, has been a welcome change, and it seems increasingly clear that a majority are in favour of same-sex marriage. That trend is reflected across the western world. Since the vote on Second Reading of the Bill in February, two nations have passed same-sex marriage legislation, New Zealand and France, and last week two more states in the United States of America passed such legislation.
Attitudes are changing fast, but there are people who do not agree. It should be possible for them to disagree reasonably, but not in a way that is hateful or goes beyond the bounds of the proper exercise of free speech. That is the balance that we need to strike. My hon. Friends should remember that if a child in school is gay, just to hear that their teacher disapproves of homosexuality is, believe me, tough enough to hear. Their teacher is free to say to them that being gay is wrong or that homosexual conduct is wrong and the House is asking for a licence to enable that teacher to say that, but do not underestimate how difficult that will be for the child to hear. We must take care that in providing these protections for the exercise of conscience, we do not do a great injustice and allow the continuation of language and attitudes that have caused a great deal of unhappiness for a long time.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I point out to the House that there is much interest, but it is only right that there should also be an opportunity for those on the Front Benches to set out their position? There is a balance to be struck. I am keen to accommodate everybody and I am in the hands of the House. Members need to help me to help them to help each other.
Mr George Howarth
Throughout this debate I have made a practice with my constituents of arguing that whatever our views we should express them with respect and sensitivity. In that context it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who made his case very well.
The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was a model of how to put that case in a balanced way and without causing offence while, at the same time, arriving at a conclusion. I congratulate her on doing so.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) refused to give way to me because my previous intervention, he claimed, had been “silly”. I must say that to be called silly by the hon. Gentleman, given the speech he made, brings to mind an expression involving pots and kettles. I do not believe that my intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was in the least bit silly. If the argument is that a person can exercise religious conscience by teaching in any way, right across the spectrum, then it would be perfectly reasonable, were the get-out clause to be introduced, for a science teacher to teach creationism. I can think of a dozen more examples where that could apply.
The fact is that we have a national curriculum. We teach bodies of knowledge that are specified and known. There is the opportunity, certainly in faith schools—I am sure the Minister will confirm this later—to say, “This is the legal position on same-sex marriage, but the Church’s teaching is this.” It seems to me that the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aldershot are covered by that statement, as I am sure will be confirmed. In fact, he was—unintentionally, I am sure—slightly disingenuous. He read out a statement from the Church of England indicating that a future Government could of course repeal that or change the regulations. That applies to all legislation. It could be argued that no legislation should be passed because it might be changed in future.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I meant no slur on him. He and I have worked together, not least on the Armed Forces Bill many years ago, and I have great respect for him—after all, he has a splendid surname. The principal point made in the Church of England submission was that there is “residual unclarity”. I am not sure whether “unclarity” is a word in the dictionary, but we know what is meant.
Mr Howarth
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has sought to give that clarification, but in fact it has not in the least changed the argument I am making. I think that that argument is disingenuous.
I will finish with another point the hon. Member for Aldershot made. He chose to introduce into his speech the old chestnut of political correctness. Political correctness, as far as he is concerned, seems to be anything he does not agree with. If someone does not agree with him, it is because they are pursuing political correctness. He referred to conversations he has had with constituents. I accept that his constituency is dramatically different from mine, but I must say—I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will agree—that it is very rare that constituents ever complain to me about political correctness. In the handful of conversations I have had on that, usually at election time and in heated conversations in the town centre or on a doorstep, I have asked, “What exactly do you mean by political correctness?” I will not quote some of the responses I have had, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that when people use the term as a defence, it usually means they are unable to use inflammatory or incendiary language when discussing some subjects. It is a very easy phrase to use as a defence, but I find that it is often applied to protect people from being penalised for holding grotesque views.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman decided to accuse me of being silly. I decline to enter into any kind of tit-for-tat discussion, other than to say that I do not think that he proved his case with his speech or enhanced his argument by making it.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I will make a short contribution, in the same vein, I hope, as the last three. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her extremely helpful and sensitive contribution and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I hope that those listening to the debate will draw some obvious conclusions: not all gay people take a strict view that everything in this set of proposals is absolutely perfect and that there are no questions; not all straight people think that the Bill is a terrible abomination; not all Christians share the view of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England; and not all people who do not have faith might not have problems with the Bill. I hope that we have got across the message that the debate is much more complicated.
I have three relevant interests. First, I have struggled with the issue of sexuality since I was a teenager, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). I remember that at school it was not an easy issue in the slightest. Everybody knew that there were gay people at school, but it was never taught or spoken about formally. Secondly, I am chair of the board of governors of a Church of England primary school. Thirdly, I am a trustee of a Church of England secondary school. We have excellent teachers who do their jobs very well, but I have to say that there is still some nervousness.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport very courteously appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week. She knows that there is still some nervousness that the safeguards are not yet sufficient, and that nervousness is still felt by the Church of England formally and by the Roman Catholic Church. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was very fair when he said that he, too, is looking for some reassurance that teachers will have the protection of being able to get the balance right and to teach that God loves everybody irrespective of their sexuality, whether they are 11, 14 or 17, but that the Church should be able to say not that homosexuals are sinners but that it takes a different view on who should be married and that civil partnerships or unions are fine but same-sex marriage is not.
There is still a lot of prejudice to confront. Only yesterday a member of a church in my constituency told me that anyone who is gay is defective. We still have to challenge that sort of prejudice, which thinks than an individual can do something about being gay and that it is easy to deal with. I am just asking for a little reassurance—or perhaps more than a little—from the Minister on the issue of guidance for schools. The churches do not yet think that we have the necessary protection, so I am sympathetic to the amendments, although I have not signed them. I hope that the House will take them seriously.
Fiona Mactaggart
I might be the only Member in the House who was a primary school teacher when section 28 was in force. I am concerned that in this debate we are thinking much more about the conscience rights of teachers, rather than the rights of children. In my class there was a child who was being brought up by same-sex partners, but I could not talk about her family because of section 28. We must ensure that the rights of children being brought up by same-sex partners are as protected as teachers’ rights of conscience.
Simon Hughes
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s view and am grateful to her for that prompt. I was here when clause 28 was being debated and opposed it on the record, including in Committee, where I served with my hon. Friend the then Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, now Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. We opposed it and spoke and voted against it. I understand exactly that hope. It is absolutely important that we do not prevent the discussion of homosexuality and different sexuality in the context of a loving and supporting school. I absolutely share her perfectly proper view and believe that I have always been as consistent on that position as she has.
My second question is about public officials. I have not signed new clause 2 but I have signed new clause 3, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Down is also sympathetic. There is a difference between saying to somebody, if this Bill is passed, “The law of the land says there are same-sex marriages and you can’t expect to be a public official and not carry them out”, and expecting somebody who is currently a registrar, having taken the job not knowing that there would ever be same-sex marriages, to perform them. The transitional new clause is a good one, and I ask the Government to accept it, or something along those lines.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I voted against Second Reading and the programme motion because we wanted to test these and other issues. Is he aware that if the new law were extended to Northern Ireland there would be a big difference between new clause 2 and new clause 3, because new clause 2 would lead to people being asked about their religious beliefs during recruitment?
Simon Hughes
That is why I ask the Minister to look at this issue. We do not yet necessarily have the right balance.
We must have free speech. People may still be arrested because of, or quizzed about, what they say. People should be able to say that they think that homosexuality is wrong or right and whether this Bill is appropriate. Although the Committee did a good job, as has another Committee in taking evidence, out there in the real world a lot of people think that there is not yet sufficient protection for people in expressing their views. I hope that Ministers will give thought to that to see how we can better protect the freedom of speech that people wish for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me say unequivocally that I am opposed to same-sex marriage, as most Members will know; it is not a secret. I am here to speak on behalf of the many millions of people with religious views who also oppose it. Specifically, I want to speak to new clauses 3 and 4.
New clause 3 deals with marriage registrars. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, there have been similar changes to the law in lands across the whole of Europe and, indeed, all over the world, so precedents have been set. In Holland, protection of the religious views of registrars on same-sex marriage is enshrined in the law. The Dutch courts recently ruled that registrars should not be compelled to solemnise same-sex marriages against their conscience if they were employed as registrars before the law was introduced. A month or two ago, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I went to an event in Portcullis House where people on a panel gave their legal opinions. One person said that marriage registrars would not be covered by the new law, while the other two people said that they are covered. We are very conscious of the Ladele case. The Church of England has produced a paper in which it is very clear about its position on marriage registrars.
I want to talk about the importance of freedom of speech for all. Unless an amendment such as new clause 4 is made, freedom of speech could be unduly restricted. It is difficult to be comprehensive about the circumstances that may give rise to a breach of freedom of expression as a result of such detrimental treatment. However, there is a real danger that a teacher, for example, might be accused of discriminating against a person because he or she has expressed a view against same-sex marriage. There is a risk that employees might be limited in their freedom of expression inside and outside the workplace because their criticism of same-sex marriage could be considered to be unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Equality Act 2010. This is a particular danger in the context of education, where a teacher may criticise same-sex marriage inside or outside the classroom and be found to have discriminated as a result. These are very important issues that we must be concerned about.
Jonathan Reynolds
We dealt with this in some detail in the Bill Committee, and I recognise that it is one of the principal issues that has been discussed today. It is already clear that someone can express a view—a personal opinion—to which no one would have any objection, but if they did so in a way that bullied or stigmatised, or in any way went beyond what is reasonably acceptable, they would be going too far. This is no different from many of the issues that teachers deal with every single day. On all those issues, yes, we issue guidance, but we never do anything as prescriptive as putting into primary legislation certain rights and responsibilities that would be unacceptable in any other field.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman and I clearly have a difference of opinion; he will not be surprised about that. In the Bill Committee, we heard that in a poll 40,000 teachers had expressed concern about this. We cannot ignore that number of teachers.
The danger is made more real in the light of the case of Stewart v. Cleveland-Guest (Engineering) Ltd, where the court interpreted
“discrimination on the grounds of sex”
as including some conduct that would fall into the category of “harassment”. Therefore, by analogy, the use of so-called offensive language may be held to amount to sexual orientation discrimination. Moreover, under EU anti-discrimination law, the European Court of Justice held in the case of Firma Feryn that offensive statements may sometimes amount to discrimination. John Bowers QC has raised similar issues in his advice to the Coalition for Marriage. Members heard the same legal opinion expressed in the Bill Committee, as I did in the seminar that I went to with the hon. Member for Congleton.
The Secretary of State has responded to these concerns by saying that her clear understanding is that
“discussion or criticism of same sex marriage would not be ‘of itself’ discrimination under the current law.”
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need this protection, and it must be enshrined in legislation by this House to ensure that it means something. We cannot just depend on an interpretation that some people might have.
The Secretary of State continued:
“This would only happen if the discussion or criticism took place in an inappropriate manner or in a context which resulted in discrimination against, or a detriment to, a particular pupil or group of pupils.”
She said that the same is true of discussion or criticism of same-sex relationships generally, and concluded:
“Nothing in the Bill affects people’s ability to hold and express their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
However, this assurance fails sufficiently to protect freedom of expression, as my hon. Friend suggested.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Perhaps we should go further. For example, is there protection of freedom of speech for preachers who fundamentally believe that the scriptures teach that such things are wrong?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is right: we desperately need that protection.
Other questions are likely to arise, such as whether the expression of a view on the superiority of opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage will be regarded as resulting in detriment to a particular group of people—namely, those who are homosexual or who are raised in families in which the parents are in a same-sex marriage. The answer is quite possibly yes. There is therefore likely to be a chilling effect on freedom of speech in particular contexts. The case of Smith has already shown a marked move in that direction. He was, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, deemed to have discriminated against same-sex couples after he wrote a comment on his Facebook wall. Surely hon. Members do not intend there to be such a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
One of the ways in which this can best be addressed is by putting the Secretary of State’s reassurances in the Bill.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jim Shannon
I am sorry but I cannot.
That can be done via new clause 4, which would ensure that freedom of expression is protected by stating that discussions of same-sex marriages cannot be regarded as unlawful discrimination for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. I commend the new clause to the House and ask Members to support it.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Much of this debate has revisited the issues that we discussed on Second Reading, but we need to put that into context. On Second Reading, I voted against same-sex marriage, as did many colleagues, but the House voted for it. It is in the interests even of those who voted for it and want this Bill to be passed that we get this right.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) correctly stated, the Church of England acknowledges that the quadruple locks that the Government have introduced will give protection not only to the Church of England but to other faith groups. We are grateful for that. The Government have delivered on what they said, which is that no faith group will be obliged to celebrate same-sex marriages if they do not wish to do so.
The new clauses seek to ensure that down the line, if and when the Bill is passed, we do not find ourselves in situations that no one would want. The Government have tabled further amendments and I am grateful to them for amendment 23, which will protect ministers of religion employed by secular organisations, such as hospital and university chaplains, who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriages from claims being made against them personally under the employment provisions of the Equality Act 2010.
Sir Tony Baldry
No, because others want to get in.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, who supports the Bill, will not want it to have unintended consequences six or nine months or a year down the line. That would not help anyone.
Secondly, reasonable expressions of opinions or beliefs on the nature of marriage ought not to be the subject of claims against individuals under existing discrimination or harassment provisions in the Equality Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has pointed out, some high-profile cases have highlighted the potential risk in the workplace, and I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Member feels comfortable about the details of such cases. All we are suggesting is that if the Equality Act were amended to put it beyond doubt that someone’s expression of an opinion on or belief in traditional marriage did not of itself—I accept entirely that context and the way in which views are expressed are important—amount to discrimination or harassment of another, that will provide reassurance and a degree of legal protection for both employers and employees who express their views in a reasonable way.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that those suggestions will ensure that the Bill, if enacted, will not cause division in the country—nobody wants that—and that it will work. I hope he will not say that everything is covered, but that he will reflect on today’s contributions and that, when the Bill goes to another place, he will give the specific clarity and reassurance needed to help improve the Bill, from anyone’s point of view, if it is passed.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I have about five minutes to make a 10-minute speech, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not take any interventions. I wish to discuss protection from compulsion and the meaning of “compelled”. I would have liked to have spoken to new clause 7, on protection from legal proceedings, and amendment 4, but time is against me.
The Government have sought to reassure religious individuals and organisations that they will not be required in any circumstances to conduct same-sex marriages if they object to them. Clause 2 provides one of the main ways in which the Government have sought to make good on that reassurance by giving protection from compulsion. The term “compulsion” is, therefore, central to the protection provided by the Bill for religious individuals and organisations, and constitutes one part of the Government’s widely publicised quadruple lock.
At first sight, the term might appear wide ranging and comprehensive, which is what the Government would have us believe. However, in reality, the protection may be very narrow in scope, because there is no definition of “compelled” in the Bill. This omission creates uncertainty and potentially limits the scope of the protection afforded by the clause. Although the recognition that protections are necessary is welcome, the Bill does not adequately address the problem. Without further clarification, this may turn out to be not much of a lock at all.
New clause 8 and amendment 5 are identical, but they relate to different parts of the Bill. They would clarify the meaning of “compelled” for the purpose of clause 2 and thus ensure that the lock provides the intended protection. The need for clarification was made all the more pressing when the Minister said in Committee that the word “compelled” was
“absolutely not borrowed from the Matrimonial Causes Act.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2013; c. 280.]
That made it unclear from where, if anywhere, the word “compelled” has been borrowed. Apart from the Civil Partnership Act 2004, in which the word is used but the scope is much narrower than in this Bill, the obvious source was section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, which uses the term in a similar way to this Bill.
If the word was not borrowed from the 1965 Act, perhaps we should consider other sources from which it may have been borrowed. According to case law, which is limited, compulsion seems to provide protection only from the imposition of criminal penalties—for example, individuals are protected from being compelled not to incriminate themselves. Clause 2 as drafted, therefore, may not provide protection to religious individuals and organisations from civil legal penalties; may not prevent public bodies from treating religious organisations less favourably if they decide not to opt in to providing same-sex marriage; and may not protect religious organisations from the threat of other legal actions, such as judicial review, if they decide not to opt into same-sex marriage. For example, a religious organisation could be refused contracts, denied the use of spaces such as halls or denied funding in an attempt to compel it to opt in to providing same-sex marriages. The protections in clause 2 may in reality be narrow in scope and provide relatively little protection.
The Minister has made it clear that the Government intend to provide greater protection than mere protection against criminal penalties. Indeed, in Committee the Minister said that clause 2 would have the effect of
“preventing any type of conduct that would have the effect of forcing a person to do something protected under that clause…The imposition of any penalties on or subsequent unfavourable treatment of a religious organisation or individual in order to compel that organisation to opt in to same-sex marriage is already unlawful under the Bill”.––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2013; c. 280.]
The assurances are welcome: it is comforting to know that that is the Government’s intention. However, clause 2 does not seem to provide that level of protection.
I would love to speak at further length on this issue but, given the time and the fact that at least half a dozen more Members want to speak to this group of amendments, I will move to a conclusion. I could go through a long list of areas that need to be adequately addressed. I urge the Minister to accept new clause 8, but if he does not do so I hope we will be allowed to test it in the Lobby, because even people who support the Bill—my position is clear—want to ensure that such fundamental protections are in place.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just explain that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the Opposition Front Bench must start his speech no later than 6.40 pm?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise in support of new clause 5, which says that
“no person should suffer any detriment in respect of the holding or the reasonable expression”
of a belief in marriage as that between a man and woman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has reminded the House of the hatred, abuse, aggression and, indeed, the discrimination that she and others have suffered. That was wrong, so it is with humility that I ask her to bear in mind that others who take a contrary view to hers on the Bill may also find themselves subject to discrimination.
The question is this: should there be space in public life for people who hold to the current definition of marriage? That is not a theoretical question. The case of Adrian Smith has already been discussed. I will not go through it again, because time is short, but I remind hon. Members that he was a dedicated local authority housing officer who then worked for a housing association and was very well thought of. He served everyone, regardless of their situation, but he lost his job because of private remarks on his private Facebook page, and he is now doing charitable work in Africa because his job was taken away from him. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said in her excellent contribution that she hoped that people will be dealt with in an inclusive and tolerant way. I say to her, with great respect, that I hope she would want such inclusiveness and tolerance to be given to people such as Adrian Smith, who did not receive it.
I say to colleagues on the Government Benches that unless we get the legislation right, this issue will run and run until 2015 and will keep coming back. I gently remind colleagues on the Opposition Benches that no less a campaigner for homosexual rights than Peter Tatchell supported Adrian Smith. He did not agree with his views, but believed passionately in his ability to state them and thought it wrong that his job was taken away, as was that of Rev. Willie Ross, the chaplain to Strathclyde police. It is such things that we must guard against.
Chris Bryant
I want to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Although I disagree with him passionately on every element of the Bill, I none the less enjoyed sitting on a panel with him at a school in his constituency to tackle the problem of homophobic bullying in the area. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on that issue.
I understand that many people of religion disagree fundamentally with every element of the Bill. I hope that one day they will be amazed that they ever held those views. Some have said that the Church used to support slavery and that it no longer does. A better analogy might be the Church’s attitude to the role of women and, for that matter, women in marriage 100 years ago, compared with its views today. For those who have a strong religious bent, I note that the Church of Scotland has voted today to allow homosexual clergy. I think that Churches will change and I do not want to lock them in so many ways that they are not able to do so.
I and my hon. Friends believe that equality under the law is a vital principle. The Equality Act 2010 is a subtle and intelligent piece of drafting which ensures that people’s religious belief is as protected as their sexual orientation. I worry about some of the new clauses and amendments before us, because they would upset that balance.
Hon. Members have referred to the chilling effect of what they call “political correctness” and of this kind of legislation. I say simply that if they look around the world and listen to the experiences of many gay and lesbian children in schools, they will see that hateful speech is alive and well. That is why a gay or lesbian child is six times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual child. We need to take seriously the fact that the language that people use merely because they oppose same-sex marriage adds to that sense of hatred and unpleasantness. To make the point, one has only to mention the names of Stuart Walker, who was burned to death only a few years ago for being gay, and Jody Dobrowski, who was murdered not far from this House.
I want to deal with the new clauses and amendments. New clause 1, to which many hon. Members have referred, is fundamentally ill-conceived. I do not doubt that some people are concerned about what teachers will be able to teach in schools. However, some of the understandings of teaching that I have heard this afternoon are completely misplaced. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), belted knight that he is, elided preaching and teaching. My fundamental point is that not much teaching should be preaching. That is the experience in every religious school in this country. Such schools want people to embrace the central understanding of every religion, which is that conscience trumps everything else. If that is the case, why would they want people to adhere to a line or to be indoctrinated? They would not. They want people to learn how to understand the facts and the world in which they live so that they can make good decisions for themselves.
The Education Act 1996 states very clearly:
“The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools…they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. Secondly—and this is vital to the point that some hon. Members have made—it states that pupils must be
“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.”
Therefore, the Act already embodies precisely what new clause 1 seeks to achieve.
Where new clause 1 fails is that it undermines the next bit of the Act, which states:
“In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance.”
The new clause would make the Secretary of State’s guidance completely and utterly irrelevant.
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the hon. Lady if she does not mind. I would normally be very generous, but there is not much time.
A registrar is there solely to register that which is lawful. They are paid by all taxpayers, not just by some taxpayers. If Parliament decides that same-sex marriages are lawful, how can it be right for somebody to be rejected? Why do we not introduce a clause that says that sextons, who are public employees, can refuse to bury suicides, or that a registrar can refuse to marry a divorcee? Of course we have never done that, because we believe that everybody should be treated equally under the law. How can we say that commercial enterprises, such as bed and breakfasts, cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services, but that the state can discriminate in the provision of marriage services? I hope that hon. Members will think twice about supporting those new clauses.
Likewise, hon. Members should think twice about supporting new clauses 4, 5 and 6, which would effectively drive a coach and horses through the Equality Act 2010. I say to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that there is a fundamental misconception about how the Act works. It does not protect the individual belief within religion; it protects the religion. It is not transubstantiation that is protected, but Catholicism. It is not a belief in the afterlife that is protected, but Christianity. It would be invidious to introduce any special provision that breached that.
Chris Bryant
I will not, I am afraid, because we are very short of time.
I gently suggest to hon. Members that the language that is used in some of the new clauses and amendments comes far too close for the liking of many people to a repeat of section 28. That did damage and we do not want to see it again.
I urge Members not to drive a coach and horses through the equality legislation, which treats everybody equally, regardless of their religion or sexuality.
Hugh Robertson
The Government have listened extremely carefully on Second Reading, in Committee and today to the concerns that have been expressed. We will do everything that we can to provide the safeguards that are necessary to meet colleagues’ concerns, where those concerns are justified.
Time is short because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) wants to speak at the end of the debate, so I will quickly go through a few of the issues that have been raised. I ought to start by speaking to Government amendment 23, which will provide further protection for chaplains, such as hospital and university chaplains, who are employed by secular organisations. We made a commitment in Committee to look at that matter again and we have accepted that something further can be done. If the possibility of a marriage conducted by a chaplain is a benefit to employees offered in the context of that employment, a refusal to conduct such a service by a chaplain for an employee could conceivably fall foul of provisions in part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. We have therefore tabled amendment 23, which I believe puts the issue beyond doubt.
Amendment 24 addresses a point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the Church in Wales and places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor. Once he or she is satisfied that the governing body of the Church in Wales has resolved that the law should be changed to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples according to its rites, he or she “must” by order make such a provision. That meets a commitment made in Committee and is a simple amendment that gives the Church in Wales the reassurance it sought.
Let me turn to education, faith schools and new clause 1. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for his speech, and hope to provide him with some reassurance. As he knows from Committee, no school or individual teacher is currently under a duty to promote or endorse a particular understanding of marriage, or would be as a result of the Bill or any revised future guidance. There are two clear reasons for that. First, the guidance is to secure that pupils
“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children,”
not to secure that teachers promote or endorse any particular view of marriage—in a sense it is the difference between explaining and promoting. Secondly, teaching in this area should always be balanced and sensitive to pupils’ backgrounds, which for many will be reflected in the school’s ethos. Guidance contrary to that ethos would not meet those criteria.
If Members want further reassurance, I draw their attention to Lord Pannick, who I think is universally recognised to be an expert in this area. He said that it is “inconceivable” that a teacher could be lawfully disciplined for explaining to a child of an appropriate age that the law allows for same-sex marriage but that many religions—or indeed the teacher—do not believe in it. Finally, I draw the House’s attention to evidence given to the Committee by the Secretary of State for Education.
However, it is clear from the number of hon. Members who have signed new clause 1 that many remain concerned about the level of protection for teachers. Although I am confident that the existing protections are sound, I am aware of concerns raised by the Church of England and mentioned by many hon. Members. With that in mind, I commit to the House that we will take the issue away and discuss it further with religious groups with whom we have been engaging throughout this process. We have been in close contact with all of them, and will consider all available means—including an amendment if necessary—to put the issue beyond any doubt in the other place.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for tabling amendment 50, which amends the Public Order Act 1986. We debated it at some length in Committee, and since then we have been thinking further to try and meet the concerns of many colleagues. Regrettably, the wording used in the amendment could—no doubt entirely unintentionally—give the impression that this aspect of criminal law is not to be applied even-handedly, and for that reason I cannot accept it as it stands. The provision is already there, however, and we fully understand the concerns and will work to table an amendment in the other place to try and satisfy them.
Let me turn briefly to marriage registrars, although the news is rather less promising. We debated the issue at length in Committee and I am afraid my views rather hardened as the debate went on. I do not believe it is appropriate or right to allow marriage registrars to opt out of conducting same-sex marriages either permanently or on a transitional basis. Like it or not, they are public servants who should carry out the will of Parliament, and allowing exemptions according to conscience in my view sets a difficult precedent. Furthermore and crucially—this is important—the consultation with the national panel for registrars revealed absolutely no concerns whatsoever about conscience, and it would be unusual for the House to pass a new clause if the national representative body did not ask for such an exemption.
On new clause 4, I know that some Members continue to have concerns that employees and organisations will risk action being taken against them under the Equality Act if they express the view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. However, discriminating against someone because they hold such a belief, whether for religious or philosophical reasons, is unlawful under that Act, and I am happy to place that on the record.
The case of Adrian Smith has been mentioned by a number of Members. He won his case in the end but his award was so small because he failed to bring the case within the time laid out in the employment tribunal. We looked into the case carefully in Committee, and the judge made it absolutely clear that had Adrian Smith applied in time, there was every reason to suggest that the tribunal would have been able to award him “substantial compensation”. The fact that the case was not brought in time led to that particular result.
Andrew Selous
I believe that Adrian Smith had to find £30,000—or it was found for him. What happens to poor people who suffer that type of discrimination and do not have that money?
Hugh Robertson
That example shows the danger of trying to make law on the basis of one individual case, particularly when—as in that case—the litigant failed to apply and follow the relevant legal processes, making it difficult to take further action on that basis.
On amendment 3 to new clause 5, the important thing about the public sector equality duty is that it is a duty to think, rather than to achieve, a particular outcome. It could not possibly be used to justify an act of discrimination because of a belief by a public authority. New clause 6 seeks to make it explicit that the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman may be a religious or philosophical belief, and that is indeed protected by the Equality Act 2010. Philosophical beliefs are protected if they are genuinely held, and we are entirely confident that the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman meets those criteria 100%.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate would like a few minutes to wind-up the debate, so I will finish where we started. We ran through all these issues in Committee at some length and we will take note of the will of the House tonight and listen to it carefully. Where we find a need to act, we will take action.
Mr Burrowes
I appreciate there is limited time for a debate on serious issues, and what I believe is a consensus across the House—to ensure that religious liberty, and liberty in general, is properly protected. I welcome the recent good news: after weeks of toil in Committee we now have progress from the Government on new clause 1 and an undertaking given to the House that they will take away and seek to amend any guidance. That will ensure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) properly said, that the Bill is crystal clear and that we understand the balance, and further clarity is welcome. I recognise that as I am sure does the whole House.
New clause 1 is not objectionable in any way and I encourage all hon. Members to read it and see that we are trying to make it clear that no teacher should be obliged to promote or endorse a view of marriage that is contrary to their belief or, as in the new clause, to the ethos of the school. I welcome that undertaking from the Minister and do not wish to take up the House’s time by pressing new clause 1 to a vote. I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that he is concerned, as are a number of hon. Members, to ensure that we have freedom of speech not just for Members but for our constituents, and that he will work on amendment 50 and the Public Order Act 1986.
This has been called the live-and-let-live Bill, but we must ensure that it is not a live-and-let-live Bill only as long as someone agrees with the state’s redefinition of marriage.
On the basis of the assurances that have been given, I will not press new clause 1 to a Division. However, on new clause 3, on registrars, there is a tradition and a precedent for conscientious objections. I therefore wish to press new clause 3 to a Division, along with new clause 6, which was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). Equality legislation did not give justice to Adrian Smith, who had to rely on contract law. We need to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 is fit for purpose to protect belief in respect of marriage. Finally, I wish to press new clause 8 to a Division. It will ensure that the Catholic Church and others will not be compelled—we need a clear understanding of “compelled” so that they are not discriminated against for their decision to opt out of same-sex marriage.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby and see if he can unblock it?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 16, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of clause and insert—
‘and include a full public consultation.’
New clause 10—Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—
‘(1) Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, subsection (1), leave out “of the same sex”.’.
New clause 11—Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—
‘(1) Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3, subsection (1), after “if—”, leave out—
“(a) they are not of the same sex”.’.
New clause 13—Repeal of Civil Partnership Act 2004—
‘(1) The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is repealed.
(2) Secondary legislation made under that Act shall continue in force unless it is subsequently amended or repealed, and any such amendments or repeals may be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) This section shall have effect from the date that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act comes into force.’.
Amendment 10, in schedule 4, page 26, line 12, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
‘Divorce
3 (1) Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage) is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out subsection (2)(a).
Annulment of marriage
4 (1) Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (grounds on which marriage is voidable) is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).’.
Government amendments 53, 51, 52 and 54.
Maria Miller
The Bill has a single important and straightforward purpose: to extend marriage to same-sex couples. I am delighted that the major political parties’ Front Benchers are unanimous in the view that that is an essential objective, and I am grateful for their unwavering support. It has been reassuring to see the other parties sharing my determination to ensure that nothing derails or delays this important measure.
Marriage is the bedrock of our society, providing a stable foundation for families and communities. We want to ensure that people are not prevented from marrying, simply because they love someone of the same sex. But as a result of the Government’s determination to tackle this unfairness, other arguments have been put forward, including the idea of an extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I have listened carefully to the different views of hon. Members on that issue, and I respect the strength of feeling of some Members. However, our principal objective here today is to open up marriage to a group of people who have never had that opportunity before, and I do not want anything to delay, deflect or distract from achieving that objective. New clause 10, which would shoehorn in an extension of civil partnerships, would run the risk of doing precisely that.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister explain why she thinks that the proposal would cause such a delay? Many of the consequential amendments about including civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples were considered when civil partnerships were first introduced, so why are we suddenly being told that this would create a huge delay?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is getting to the core of the issue in her own style. If she will bear with me, I will come to those matters later in my speech.
Hon. Members will be aware that a large number of questions emerged when we looked in more depth at the issue of extending civil partnerships. After all, the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 contained more than 250 sections and 30 schedules and took more than two years to pass into law. It is an enormously complex area and the legislation cannot simply be transposed to opposite-sex couples.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the Minister, as always. She says that it is not clear what the implication of such an extension would be for pension rights, so please will she explain where the figure of £4 billion has come from? We all understand that these are times of great austerity, and we do not want to vote for something that would cost the taxpayer £4 billion that we do not have.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), attended the Joint Committee on Human Rights with me last week, and he has gone into a great deal of detail on this matter. He and his Department have estimated that the potential liability could be some £4 billion. It might be less, but at the moment we simply do not know. The cost of the equalisation of survivor rights in contracted-in and contracted-out schemes could account for about £90 million. We would also need to look at the equalisation of the rights of widowers with the rights of widows, at which point the bill would start to rack up. It would not be right for Parliament to legislate when so many issues are outstanding.
Tim Loughton
Of course, it would also not be right to be putting out spurious figures. The figure of £4 billion is not the result of an official cost impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is an entirely hypothetical figure based on every cohabiting opposite-sex couple choosing to convert to a new civil partnership, with maximum pension liabilities. Is not that actually where the figure has come from?
Maria Miller
I really do thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has made my point for me. At this point in time, there is of course no independent impact assessment because the issues have not been looked at in the kind of detail that hon. Members would expect before legislation is enacted. I hope that I will be able to change my hon. Friend’s mind about pressing his new clause to a vote. I hope that he will see that we need to get more evidence on this issue.
Dr Huppert
My right hon. Friend is arguing that there is a cost to the state whenever people get married or enter into a civil partnership. Is this part of a new austerity drive in which she will try to persuade people not to get married or have a civil partnership so that we can save on the pensions bill? That does not seem to be a very sensible approach.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend seems to be driving at the same issue—namely, that we do not have the necessary information to hand. I think that hon. Members expect us to legislate based on fact, not on supposition or hypothesis. Much of what has been said on this matter has not really been based on facts. He is right to suggest that we want to encourage people to get married, but at the moment we do not know the exact implications of the proposal to extend civil partnerships. I think we would need to amend other legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which show that it is not just in the area of pensions where we would need to look at making significant progress in our understanding of the impact, as it would apply across a number of different pieces of legislation. It would be wrong for us to take decisions today without first having done that work.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
May I clarify that one issue preventing us from rushing into immediate implementation and explaining why there has to be a review is that of civil partner pension rights? In a heterosexual marriage, people accrue survivor spouse pensions from the date the pension scheme was joined, not from the date of the marriage. For a surviving civil partner, however, the partner might have been in the scheme since it was joined but the pension rights accrue only from the date the civil partnership became law. That is one of the basic problems that we need to review.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right that there is an anomaly here, and these decisions were taken at the time of the Equality Act 2004. My point is a much broader one. Inasmuch as many assertions are being made that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples could impact on many different areas of policy, my simple point is that we do not have the evidence base at the moment, and a great deal of work needs to be done.
Sir Tony Baldry
Do not all these exchanges simply highlight the fact that extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples was never consulted on and was never part of this Bill when it first came to the House? There has never been a proper opportunity for consulting on the matter. Let me make it clear that the test must surely be whether this is going to enhance the institution of marriage, and it is difficult to see how extending or setting up a rival competition to marriage will enhance the concept of marriage. Let me make it clear to my right hon. Friend, too, that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England strongly oppose extending civil partnership to heterosexual couples simply because it will further undermine marriage.
Maria Miller
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to put that on the record so that my hon. Friends know the position of important organisations such as the Church of England on this matter. I think my hon. Friend is right that the detail of the potential impact of these measures has not been looked at in the way I think Members would expect. An enormous amount of work would need to be done on the legal status of opposite-sex civil partners when they travel abroad or even respecting their legal status in the constituent parts of the UK. At the moment, we have not done that work. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, will know that it is important to have alignment both with Scotland and Northern Ireland on how to move forward; at the moment those issues have not been discussed. On each of those issues and more besides, it will take time to work out the detail and to get it right.
Mark Durkan
When the civil partnership issue came up on Second Reading and in previous stages, the Government’s argument was that it was not germane and that there was no real demand for it. The argument the Secretary of State is making now, however, implies that there could be too much demand for civil partnerships, with all sorts of costs and consequences. Which is it: either it is an issue or it is not; is there a demand or is there not a demand?
Maria Miller
That shows why we need a detailed look at the issue: we simply do not have the answer to the question about the potential liabilities around pensions. We may be able to say that there is a potentially significant liability, but we do not know whether this extension of civil partnerships would meet the needs of an important constituent group of heterosexual couples. We do not have that evidence base either. That is my answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
Maria Miller
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), but then I must make some progress.
Sir Peter Bottomley
We greatly appreciate how the Minister is allowing the debate to evolve. One consideration that would need to be taken into account in respect of civil partnerships—whether it be in five years’ time or straight away—is some of the tax implications. We should think of the elderly orphan who gives up their own home and work to care for an elderly parent, lives in the parent’s home and then suffers capital gains tax when the parent dies. Alternatively, what of elderly siblings who have cared for each other for 50 years and do not know how to save capital gains tax so that the one who survives can go on living in the home they have shared? Those are the issues where the potential unfairness needs attention, but I do not believe that we can solve such issues tonight.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, but it is not really the right place to discuss it in the context of this Bill. My message is that if we really want to make sure that we make progress on this Bill, in this place and in the other place, we need to focus on what it is trying to deliver, which is to make marriage available to people who have not had that opportunity before. The issues surrounding the extension of civil partnerships and the issue just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West have a great deal of importance and legitimacy, but now is not the time or here the place to discuss them.
Maria Miller
Will my hon. Friend allow me an opportunity to make a tiny bit more progress?
As I said, now is not the time to legislate to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples and, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has said, this position is clearly supported by the Church of England and, indeed, by Stonewall. That is why I propose to undertake an immediate review of this area. I have moved new clause 16 to allow such a review to take place so that we can answer the many questions that my hon. Friends have raised this evening. The review will provide the answers on legal policy and implementation that are currently unanswered. Without those answers and without that evidence, it is not responsible for the House to legislate at this point.
Margot James
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I believe in principle that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples. However, I think that the nature of the debate over these short 20 minutes demonstrates that considerably more thought needs to be given to the proposal that the Minister outlines. May I ask her why this needs to take five years? Would she consider at least a slightly shorter time frame within which to consider these matters, which I readily accept require consideration outside this Bill?
Maria Miller
I know my hon. Friend will have studied the new clause in some detail, so she will see that there is an opportunity for us to conduct a review after five years. Equally, there are provisions within it for us to ensure that the review is immediate. That is what I would like to say today—that in bringing forward new clause 16, we would plan for an immediate review to take place. I was delighted to see the Labour party deciding to commit its support for this approach this afternoon, and the Government’s original amendment, which allows for an immediate review, could stand altered, but I am more than happy to accept the Opposition amendment to clarify the point if that will provide them with further comfort. I am very happy to do that.
Mr Burrowes
Given that the issue of extending civil partnership was raised in Committee and an amendment was tabled and voted on some months ago, why did the Government not provide any assessment of the impact of its going through Committee? In the time between then and now, what assessment has there been to ensure that the Government are fully informed of the costs so that they can decide how much is too much when it comes to a price for equality?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right that we have, of course, done some preliminary work on this issue. The Committee concluded at the end of February, and he will know that through March and April we looked in detail at many of the issues raised. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) showed evidence of that in the proposals he made in the earlier debate this evening. The evidence on pensions is another matter I would draw to my hon. Friend’s attention. Now is not the time, however, for full discussion with officials and other groups that have a clear interest in how this might move forward. I encourage the hon. Members concerned to withdraw new clauses 10 and 11.
Maria Miller
I would like to make a bit of progress before my hon. Friend intervenes. If new clause 10 is not withdrawn, I urge Members to vote against it.
I was pleased to learn that the Opposition would not support new clause 10. It would be a very odd state of affairs if the House supported an immediate review, and in the next breath prejudged the position and announced that it would vote in favour of an extension of civil partnerships. I am sure that that is not lost on the House, and that all Members want to proceed in a sensible fashion that has been thought through properly.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us—even on this side of the House—are firmly in favour of same-sex marriage, and voted and will vote for it on Second and Third Reading, but are none the less very concerned about the lack of equality that applies to civil partnerships? We want the Government to act on that with some urgency. However, we also want to make clear that those of us who would otherwise have supported some of the Government’s amendments are trying not to wreck the Bill but trying to make it better, and to ensure that the concept of equality applies to civil partnership as well as marriage.
Maria Miller
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s intentions. I assure him that we intend to proceed swiftly with the review of civil partnerships, although we naturally want to take full account of discussions of the Bill in the other place. We would not want to pre-empt those discussions by embarking on a review before their conclusion, but we will certainly consider how we can proceed with a consultation speedily, given the strength of feeling.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I do not for a moment doubt the Minister’s commitment to marriage between same-sex partners, but let me point out that her Department conducted, for the Government, a massive consultation exercise, and at the end of last year found that a majority of the public supported the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. The Government, however, were not convinced. What will be different about this review? Will it be genuinely open, so that if a majority is again found to be in favour, the Government will introduce legislation to extend civil partnerships to everyone?
Maria Miller
I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the review would be genuine and open. I would not undertake a review on any other terms. I think that this review will provide the sort of policy detail that was not provided by the earlier consultation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be party to legislation that had not been subject to that degree of thought and detail. I can give him a strong undertaking that we will look carefully at the detail of policy implementation, and at how it would affect the various issues that we have already discussed. However, we simply cannot legislate on something for which we have no evidence base. It is important for us to understand what the demand is among individuals who might wish to embark on such an arrangement.
Simon Hughes
As one who supported civil partnership and voted for it, I want to be certain that the Minister understands that there are currently differences in law between civil partnership and marriage. It would be helpful if we could confirm that she and the Government understand that.
I also want to make it clear that there is a strong wish for the two issues to be dealt with at the same time, not just among people who do not necessarily support same-sex marriage but among members of the gay lobby, such as Peter Tatchell, who think that equality in respect of marriage requires equality in respect of civil partnership as well. Will the Minister explain why those issues are not being dealt with at the same time?
Maria Miller
I agree with my right hon. Friend that there are differences between the concept of marriage and the concept of civil partnerships—by definition, given that they are set out in different pieces of legislation. However, I must take issue with what he says about equality. We are trying to create ways in which individuals who have never had access to marriage can have that access, at a time when those who are in heterosexual relationships already have it. There is no inequity, as such, in what we are trying to do. We are trying to right the inequity that prevents same-sex couples from having access to something which we know that society values very strongly.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)
I support the Bill because I believe in equality, but a direct consequence of that equality is a new inequality for heterosexual couples. That is why I think that we need to think about whether the issues can be considered at the same time.
Maria Miller
Let me gently point out to my hon. Friend that what we are trying to do is provide access to marriage for a group of people who have not had that access to date. It is clear that there is an inequality affecting individuals who are in same-sex relationships and who have not had access to marriage.
We are not trying to create two tiers of marriage; we are trying to right a wrong of the past. It does not strike me as entirely logical to want to delay the Bill and give rise to more debate in the other place and more issues involving policy development in order to provide for something that straight couples would not necessarily want anyway. We do not have the evidence base that that would require, and the research that has been carried out so far suggests that we do not have a clear line of sight in terms of the end result.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very gracious in giving way. Does she not accept that there is an inequality in the fact that same-sex couples will have a choice between a civil partnership and a gay marriage, whereas heterosexual couples will not have that choice? Are not the Government creating that inequality?
Maria Miller
There is currently a glaring inequality, in that same-sex couples have no access to the civil marriage that those of us who are in heterosexual relationships take granted. That is the issue with which the Bill is designed to deal. What the review will do is examine the issue of civil partnerships in more detail to ensure that if there is a requirement for them, we can deal with it in a measured manner.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Maria Miller
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. We have only a short time for this debate, and I want to end my speech so that others have a chance to contribute to it fully.
Same-sex couples have waited for a very long time for the right to marry, and I think that they have waited long enough. Using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must gently say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has had three goes at it, that there is no evidence at this stage that the Minister will give way. If she does not, he must not hector from a sedentary position—or even from a standing position. Is the Minister going to give way? No.
Maria Miller
Only because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.
I think that using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension of civil partnerships risks its progress, and that supporting the review proposed in new clause 16 will give us an opportunity to find an informed way forward—something that those on all sides of the argument can support.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
We were grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for accepting our manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16 this morning.
Let me start by repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made very clear in Committee: the Labour equalities team supports the principle of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We recognise that it would provide equality before the law. It would also recognise the choice some opposite-sex couples want to make not to marry but none the less to formalise their relationship. As civil partnerships will rightly continue for gay and lesbian people under this legislation, it would ensure, too, that they are not perceived simply as some sort of residual arrangement pending everyone moving to same-sex marriage. We can expect that many existing civil partners will want their civil partnerships to continue; they will not want to regard the history of the past nine years as a history of second best.
Dr Huppert
Does the hon. Lady also agree that some people will still prefer to have a civil partnership now, even if marriage is available? This is not just about the history; there will be people who will still want a civil partnership in the future.
Kate Green
I entirely agree. There are many reasons why some couples may feel that the historical or religious connotations of marriage are not for them, but who none the less wish to make the public commitment to each other that gay and lesbian people already do through civil partnerships.
Sadly, Ministers have until now been reluctant to recognise that the position they have been taking—in effect, privileging marriage—has led to the situation we are in now. There are a number of concerns about moving forward to regularise opposite-sex civil partnerships, but there is a complete absence of analysis of, and evidence for, the concerns Ministers have raised. Yet we have been raising the issue of the genuine concerns about opposite-sex civil partnerships ever since the introduction of this Bill.
On the face of it, the anxieties highlighted by the Secretary of State today are not insignificant. On 14 May, her colleague the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), put a high potential price tag on the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples: the sum was between £3 billion and £4 billion. The Secretary of State has also suggested there may be international and devolution implications. The predicted costs involve some big and untested assumptions, however. We do not know how many opposite-sex civil partnerships will be formed. There is uncertainty about the number of public sector pension schemes that do not already allow a cohabiting partner to be a named recipient for survivor benefits. There is also uncertainty about the assertion that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples will reopen the whole question of widowers’ pension entitlements. Following the Cockburn case, we might feel somewhat sceptical about that.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Given the hon. Lady’s principled support for the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, does she not have concerns that the proposal is a promise of jam tomorrow through a review, rather than a guarantee of the inclusion of heterosexual couples, which is what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said he wanted?
Kate Green
The hon. Lady is right about our concerns about unwarranted delay. That is why I tabled the manuscript amendment this morning. It enables us to move forward and reach a proper conclusion much more swiftly.
While we support the principle of opposite-sex civil partnerships, we agree with the Government that the issues should be properly reviewed before Parliament reaches a decision. Indeed, we say they should have been reviewed already.
Geraint Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. Does she agree that there is a large, and potentially massively increasing, constituency of people who may be interested in this, in particular couples with children, who have not chosen to make the jump into marriage but who might welcome a civil partnership? If we are to go along this path, we need to get things costed and get the detail right so that it fits their particular needs. We should therefore carry out the review and not delay equal-sex marriage.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we adhere to the principle and that we get the detail right so that we achieve the outcome we want, which is to offer the protections of civil partnership appropriately to opposite-sex couples and their families. That is why we have tabled manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16. We believe the Government proposal for a review that would not even start until five years after the legislation had been implemented introduces an unnecessary delay, and we are very pleased that it appears there is now agreement to move to a swifter review.
We also propose that the review must include full public consultation. There has been a degree of that in relation to the Bill. Although it was rather cursory, it did show support for the principle, but we want the public to have a full opportunity to express their views.
Caroline Lucas
There is, indeed, strong support for the principle. I welcome the review to the extent that it speeds up the process, but it should only be about the details; it should not be about the principle. The principle is about equality, and that is what should be enshrined in the Bill tonight.
Kate Green
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope the Secretary of State will take on board her comments.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is, typically, demonstrating courtesy. Does she agree that the review should be carried out in time to enable any consequent amendments to be brought forward in the other place? Is she not amazed that the Government think this needs to take an enormous amount of time to achieve, when in France there is equal access both to civil partnerships and now to marriage?
Kate Green
It is very good to hear the hon. Gentleman holding up the situation in France as an example of the practice to which we should aspire, and I could not agree with him more. We see no reason for this review to be excessively protracted. Indeed, we think it can be conducted very swiftly. It would be welcome if it could be completed well before we have completed the passage of the Bill, so that we can take account of the outcome of the review and we can swiftly—indeed, within the next few months—make both opposite-sex civil partnerships and same-sex marriages available .
This morning there were some who were concerned about the fate of this Bill if new clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to. We are anxious to ensure that same-sex marriages arrive on the statute book as swiftly as possible, and we know the Secretary of State is, too. We would not want anything to put that ambition and the Bill’s progress in jeopardy, but this morning it appeared that the failure of those on the Government Benches to reach a common position might do so. We are pleased that by this evening it had been recognised that the best way to deal with the concerns the Government have—late in the day—raised while also ensuring things are dealt with speedily is to introduce the most rapid review possible.
I therefore hope Members will support new clause 16 as amended by manuscript amendment (a). I hope that they will also recognise that new clauses 10 and 11 are, if not wrecking amendments, at best premature and should not be supported, and that they will follow the Secretary of State in relation to the other new clauses and amendments.
Tim Loughton
An awful lot of rubbish has been spoken and reported in the media over the last few days: not all of it has been attributed to me. There have been claims of wrecking amendments, of leadership bids, of Front-Bench mischief and of U-turns. Members will be forgiven for being in a state of some confusion as to where we have arrived at tonight, therefore.
Let me explain what I can make out from the late amendments put before us. We appear to have a last-minute amendment from the Government to kick the whole issue into the long grass. The Government have now put the frighteners on the Opposition, who have tabled a last-minute manuscript amendment to a last-minute new clause on the basis of spurious figures and non-existent delay, aimed at kicking the new clauses into the slightly less long grass. We have now just heard from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) that the Opposition would like the review to be done and dusted and to have reported before the Bill is passed, so that such a provision can be added through amendments to it. I do not think that that is the grubby deal that those on the Front Bench have negotiated and there is a degree of misunderstanding that must be clarified.
Today we have also heard the Deputy Prime Minister urging hon. Friends in his party to vote against a measure that is party policy for the Liberal Democrats— but we have been there before. We have also had the extraordinary scene of certain hon. Members, who have signed up to new clauses 10 and 11 and have spoken in favour of them in other places, to opinion pollsters and in Committee, now being apparently prepared to do a complete volte-face by voting this evening against something with which they apparently agree in principle. I am very confused.
Mark Field
I hope that I will not add to my hon. Friend’s confusion, but does he not accept that the amendment proposed by the Opposition—even though it is late in the day—at least means that there will be some urgency about the issue of equality in civil partnerships, which is close not just to his heart but to mine? With that, we can at least begin to make some progress.
Tim Loughton
I hope that we have achieved something, in that a provision that the Government thought was not necessary only days and weeks ago has become a matter that merits review, albeit at least five years away and with no guarantee that it will take place. Now it has apparently become a bit more urgent. We seem to be moving in the right direction, but the extraordinary thing is that everyone seems to agree that the change is right in principle. If it is right in principle, it should be right in practice and this is the Bill through which it can be achieved.
Mrs Main
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that tonight we will vote to enshrine an inequality in law with the hope that a review will redress it? Rather than voting for what people think is right in principle, we would be waiting for a review to see whether it is cost-effective.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is right. The trouble is that, given that there has been such fast movement in various people’s positions, goodness knows what the position will be after the vote has taken place.
I want to support new clauses 10 and 11, tabled in my name and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument, and in doing so I must oppose the last-minute Government new clause and the manuscript amendment from the Labour party. This is a Back-Bench debate—let us have a Back-Bench debate without Whips and party politics trying to put pressure on hon. Members to change their votes, which should be based on their free will.
Let me be clear once and for all that the new clauses are not wrecking amendments. They are supported by passionate supporters of the whole Bill. If the new clauses are passed, they will remove some of the anomalies and flaws in the Bill and make it more palatable. If that is wrecking, I am not doing a very good job of it.
Mr Tom Harris
Does the hon. Gentleman understand why there are those who are briefing the media and accusing him of tabling wrecking amendments, given his full-throated opposition to the principle of the Bill in the first place? It is hard to believe that his motivation is anything other than to stop the progress of the Bill when it gets to the other place. If that is not the case, he has been ill-used and ill-spoken of, but does he at least understand why people are reading that into his motivation?
Tim Loughton
I can understand why people are trying to cause mischief on that basis. I approach the new clauses in the expectation that the Bill will probably become law, whether I and other hon. Members like it or not. We must therefore plan on that basis. I think it could become better law if it provided for equality in civil partnerships which we could give to opposite-sex couples, and I now want to explain why.
The idea was proposed in Committee three months ago by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Bizarrely, neither of them voted for it. In our witness sessions, it was strongly supported by experts such as Lord Pannick and Baroness Kennedy, who clearly said that they thought that the addition of the extension of civil partnerships would greatly improve the Bill. Supporters of the proposals have included those in favour of the Bill, those against it and those who have abstained. They have not just come out of nowhere. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Government’s consultation on the original Bill. Many people responded and 61% said that they were in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. This is not an idea that we have cooked up at the last minute to wreck the Bill; the Government’s research shows that the public—our constituents, our voters—are in favour of it. However, the Government went into the subsequent production of the Bill completely and utterly ignoring the clear wish of the people as shown by their own consultation.
There are two rationales, as far as I am concerned, for supporting the amendments. First, they will correct what is, I am sure, an unintended but glaring inequality that would result from the Bill in its current form. If the Bill goes through, as I expect, same-sex couples will be entitled to continue in a civil partnership, to take up a civil partnership or to take up the new form of marriage. Opposite-sex couples will have only the option of traditional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair. It gives rise to an inequality in what is intended to be a Bill about equalities. Secondly, a very positive reason for pushing forward with the amendments is family stability, and I will come to that in a minute. Highly divisive as the Bill has been, particularly on the Government Benches, surely that is one issue on which we can all agree and rally round.
I acknowledge that the quadruple lock that the Government have put in the Bill largely does the job that they intend it to do. That is why many of the Church institutions have been reassured by the safeguards that they have been given. Earlier, we also heard about amendments that tried to give safeguards to people in public service who might fall foul of the legislation.
Let me return to why people seem to be in rather a difficult position. ComRes carried out an opinion poll among 159 Members of this House—quite a large sample—and some 2,012 members of the public. Interestingly, that recent opinion poll found that 73% of hon. Members in this House support the amendments. Among Conservative Members, there was 72% support; among Labour Members, 76%; and among Liberal Democrats, 67%. If the amendments do not get the full backing of 73% of hon. Members tonight, what has changed in the space of just a few days, since that opinion poll was carried out in private?
In 2010, an Office for National Statistics report said that there were almost 3 million—2,893,000, to be precise—cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country. That is almost double the figure reported some 15 years earlier. Some 53% of all birth registrations are to married parents, but 31% are to unmarried parents who are living together, and 40% of unmarried couples living together choose to have children. Indeed, cohabitation is the fastest-growing form of family in this country, and we need to recognise that our society is changing, whether or not we approve.
People choose not to get involved in the whole paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons: it is too much of an establishment thing to do; it is too much of a religious institution for some, and even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations; there is a patriarchal side to it; it is a form of social control—there are a whole load of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route. They are mostly still in committed, loving relationships, but they have no way of demonstrating that in the eyes of the public and the law, if they do not want to go down the traditional marriage route.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) made a very good point about the common misconception that there is such a thing as a common-law wife or husband, as a woman typically finds out abruptly on the death of a partner, when there is a tax bill on the estate, and potentially on the family home. Even a couple engaged to be married have more rights than a cohabiting couple. I have received many e-mails and letters in support of this proposal, and one summed up the position:
“I am 60 yrs and have been with my partner for over 20 years. We have two boys ages 16 and 18 yrs. Neither of us wish to get married but we would like to have the same rights as a married couple. We see the civil partnership as discriminatory towards us as a couple, especially as we have children. A great number of friends and acquaintances are in a similar position to ourselves and do not wish to be married although we are all in a lifelong family commitment. My other issue with this is that, as I am much older than my partner, I will probably die before her and she would not receive the same tax benefits as a married woman or those in a civil partnership, which in turn would be discriminatory towards our children.”
Why should those who have chosen not to go for a traditional marriage not have the opportunity to have the same rights, responsibilities and protections in the eyes of the law that we rightly, and not before time, extended to same-sex couples back in 2004?
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. In fact, I have not detected any resistance to the idea in any part of the House, so there seems to be agreement that it would be beneficial. The point of argument is when it can be achieved, for the many reasons that he touched on. Benefits, pensions, inheritance and tax are very complex; it will take time to cost the proposal properly, rather than introducing it before we know exactly its implications.
Tim Loughton
I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes and it has been made before. I will come on to say that all that work was done in 2004. I am trying purely to mirror the sort of arrangements that were made back in 2004 when civil partnerships were introduced.
If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples were to enter a civil partnership, that would be some 300,000 or so couples and their children, giving them greater security, greater stability, less likelihood of family breakdown, better social outcome and better financial outcome. That surely is progress.
One interesting witness, who has been named already in our deliberations in the witness stage, was Alice Arnold, who is in a civil partnership with Clare Balding. She is very much in favour of the Bill. I entirely respect where she is coming from. One thing she said was that when she is asked, “Are you married?” she has to say, “No, but—” because she is in a civil partnership, not what she regards as a marriage. There is currently a problem with civil partnerships. If someone fills in a form, goes for an interview or responds to a question and says that they are in a civil partnership, they are automatically admitting their sexuality which, for some people, is uncomfortable. If civil partnerships were extended to everybody, people could be in a civil partnership and their sexuality would not be questioned or questionable.
There is a further application. Many people who have strong religious beliefs, particularly if they are Catholics, and have ended up getting divorced, which is in conflict with certain religious teachings, may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new partner, because supposedly their Church believes they should be married for life. They would, however, in many cases be able to square that position by entering into a new formal commitment through an opposite-sex civil partnership. So there are a number of practical applications where civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples will achieve something very positive—not wrecking, but achieving something for which people have a requirement.
Opposite-sex civil partnerships are not something cooked up in this country. Let us look at various overseas experiences. In South Africa the Civil Union Act 2006 gave the option for some same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register a civil union by way of a marriage or a civil partnership on the same basis. In France, as has been mentioned, the pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, as it is known, was introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of the same sex or the opposite sex, and now gay marriage has been added to that. Interestingly, 94% of PACS that took place in 2012 were between opposite-sex couples. Even more interestingly, in France one in 10 PACS has been dissolved, against one in three marriages ending in divorce. There is evidence to show that some of these civil partnerships have created greater stability, whether those are opposite-sex or same-sex partnerships.
Many people would not want to do such a trade-off for religious reasons. We need to recognise that society is changing. What does not change is the desire to create as much stability as possible for couples and children in those families. In the Netherlands in 1998 registered partnerships were created for same-sex and opposite-sex partners which provide the same rights and responsibilities as married partners, except in relation to children, to do with overseas adoptions and so on. This is not rocket science—it already happens.
I contend that a great deal of work was done at the time of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—complicated work, as the Secretary of State said, which took a while to bring into operation, but that work has been done. I want identical terms to apply, as applied back in 2004. The Government also say that the proposal would require big changes to lots of other legislation. Introducing same-sex marriage will require big changes to lots of other legislation; why cannot the two types of change be made in parallel?
Last year, as we said, the Government consulted on the whole issue, as the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) reminded us, and a clear majority said that they were in favour of it. Surely the Government, as a contingency at least, have done some preparatory work on what would be involved if there was a call to change the law, as all the opinion polls show and as I am now calling for.
It was reported in a newspaper this morning that one of the Ministers involved, in objecting to my amendment, had
“said such a radical change must not be introduced in a ‘rush’. She added that civil partnerships should be reviewed once gay marriages had been operating for five years.”
If we take it to 2019, civil partnerships will have been operating for almost 15 years, which seems more than enough time to gauge whether they are working and should be extended. I must say that there has been some pretty scurrilous and disingenuous last-minute scaremongering by certain parties on the Front Bench.
Mr Woodward
I accept in good faith the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He has obviously thought about the matter in some detail, so what is the maximum time frame in which he would instruct civil servants to conduct and complete such a review, and what process would he recommend by which the Government could bring forward the proposals to ensure that same-sex couples are not obliged to wait an undue time for the Bill to proceed?
Tim Loughton
There is a trade-off, because if the Bill goes through in its current form an inequality will be created and there will be a delay—we do not know for how long—for opposite-sex couples, who are unable to access civil partnerships, with no commitment that it will be addressed, while same-sex partners will be able to access marriages in fairly short order.
I have a few more remarks to make on how quickly I think that can happen. I think that the whole argument about delay is a complete red herring. The cost of £4 billion is completely and utterly spurious. I asked for a Library note on the cost impact assessments done at the time of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Part of it says that the cost to the Government was divided between total one-off fixed costs of £19.8 million for changes in administration and rising annual costs each year in both low and high take-up scenarios. The annual cost to the Government in 2010 was estimated at £1.5 million for the low take-up scenario and £3 million for the high-take up scenario, and that that would rise to £11.6 million and £22.2 million a year in each scenario by 2050. The components of the annual costs were state pensions for spouses and bereavement benefits for surviving civil partners, and public funding for civil partnership dissolutions. The note refers throughout to tens of millions of pounds, but nowhere near the figure in the billions that has been plucked out of the air with absolutely no empirical evidence and which was never intended as an official impact assessment from the DWP when the Pensions Minister made his statement to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week.
Mark Field
Does my hon. Friend not see that the amendments proposed tonight, particularly from those on the Opposition Front Bench, would go a considerable way towards what he is trying to achieve? I share some of his concerns about the spurious figures in the billions that we all heard quoted on the radio this morning, which seem to have been plucked from the sky, and about the talk of a massive delay, but does he not realise that the urgency with which we are now looking at this, because of amendment (a), means that in the House of Lords there will be a rapid sense of trying to move ahead in the time frame he has in mind? I regret, as he probably does, that these things often happen in the other place, rather than here in the House of Commons, but does he not recognise that he has won most of the battle? Instead of making the strong case he is making, with which I think many of us agree, why does he not recognise that he has won much of the battle and can happily withdraw his new clause?
Tim Loughton
If what my hon. Friend has just said were true, I would be delighted, but I think that what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said might have raised a few eyebrows on the Government Front Bench. If she is saying that part of the deal is that the review, which would be an added consultation on the back of the one we had before the Bill was introduced, will take place and result in concrete proposals coming forward that can be added to the Bill before it completes its passage through both Houses, I would be perfectly happy, but I do not think that will happen. I do not see how it can happen given the complexities that the Secretary of State has claimed still need to be addressed as regards all the legislative changes, costs, and so on.
Mr Woodward
The amendments deal with some extremely important principles, such as equality, but we are also dealing with the absolutely essential need to correct a gross injustice that has lived for far too long and prevented gay men and women from enjoying the same rights as everybody else. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke extremely eloquently and this House would be wise to take him at his word when he says that his proposed new clause 10 is in no way a wrecking amendment. At the same time, we must understand that many people out there have waited far too long to enjoy a principle that many hon. Members take for granted. I therefore hope that tonight he will join us in voting for the manuscript amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
The hon. Gentleman must understand that fear continues to play an important part in this country. Although I take at face value everything that he has said, he will know that, for some, this is an opportunity for a wrecking amendment. He will know that some people paid close attention to the Government’s consultation last year, which found that a majority of people were in favour of extending the principle of civil partnerships to everyone in this country. He will know that the Government’s response was to say simply, “We are not convinced.” For some, there is a genuine worry that the Government will launch into another review, take months if not years to conduct it and, even if they find that the cost is not that great, conclude that civil partnerships cannot be extended to everyone in this country. Alternatively, they might give the old excuse that there is no time in the legislative timetable.
Mrs Main
The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Has he not presented a greater argument to vote for new clauses 10 and 11, because otherwise he will be voting for a review that he has said he has no confidence in? Tonight is the time to say that if there is to be equality, there must be equality for heterosexual couples as well.
Mr Woodward
The Secretary of State made it clear that the new review will be very different from the last review, which reached conclusions that were dismissed by the Government. I can only take at face value what the Secretary of State has said. I believe that the compromise that has been found by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is the best way forward.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that to rectify what he calls one blatant unfairness, he will create another obvious unfairness?
Mr Woodward
I understand the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. I understand that some will see the delay to the extension of civil partnerships as unfair. However, let me be very clear that same-sex couples have no justice at all. It is not about fairness; there is no justice, because they cannot be married. It would be grossly unfair to perpetuate that injustice, especially if the spirit of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston were accepted tonight.
I fear that some—I say again that I do not believe that this is the sentiment of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—want to use the principle of extending civil partnerships to delay indefinitely or wreck this House’s enactment of same-sex marriages.
Tim Loughton
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. No doubt there are some Machiavellian Members of the House who have such motives. He knows, because of the clear votes that we have had on Second Reading and this evening, that there is every likelihood that the Bill will pass through this House and the other. I will undertake to do everything in my power to stick to the Government’s timetable if my proposal is part of it. That is not wrecking the Bill.
Mr Woodward
Again, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s word. I simply ask the Secretary of State to hear what her colleagues are saying about the spirit and speed with which they wish the review to be conducted. She is far more qualified than I am to give the hon. Gentleman and the House comfort by saying how quickly it would be possible to conduct such a review and when the Government would intend to implement it. She could give an assurance that if a majority were again found to be in favour of the proposal, instead of remaining unconvinced of its need, she would introduce it.
None the less, in passing this Bill it is important that the Government find time to introduce legislation for civil partnerships for everyone. It is also important to look in the review at a glaring injustice of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—the second-class pension provision for same-sex men and women. That is clearly iniquitous and should be addressed, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will make an undertaking that, should this Government not do it, a future Labour Government will seek to put right that injustice.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this subject, but I have been working with others to deal with some of the obvious flaws in this albeit well-intentioned Bill. I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues for the way in which they have engaged and listened without question. As a result of that, however, I find it disappointing that they have failed to make some of the obvious—and in my opinion necessary—amendments to deal with the Bill’s flaws.
I have been called anti-gay rights and anti-Christian; I have been called homophobic and at the same time accused of not being a proper Catholic. I have been accused of being worryingly conservative, yet at the same time dangerously libertarian. I am none of those things. What I am, very proudly, is a liberal, and I want to support a sensible, liberal way of dealing with the inequities that we undoubtedly have in our current system with regard to the recognition of adult couples in a relationship. We have not gone about this Bill the right way, and many of its flaws are because it has been pursued from a very conservative perspective, rather than a radical liberal one.
For the avoidance of doubt, the role of the state, very simply, is to decide how to recognise relationships between adult couples, and which adult couple relationships to recognise in that way. That should be entirely separate from any consideration of how religions and belief-based organisations recognise relationships in accordance with their own beliefs. Instead of dealing with that point, however, the Bill has sought to build on the confusion and conflate the two issues even further. The result, I am afraid, is something of a mess.
I want to vote on, and will always support, the state giving equal right to equal recognition of adult relationships, which then conveys equal rights as a result of that equal legal recognition. However, not only does the Bill not do that, it makes a complicated and unequal situation worse. Let me be clear about what the Bill will produce if it is passed, as it inevitably will be tomorrow. There will be two different definitions of civil marriage for same-sex couples, and another definition for opposite-sex couples. There will not be an equal definition. The Bill will allow two different legal recognitions of a relationship for some couples but not for others. It will fail to equalise pension rights for some couples, which is one reason we are having this debate and why legislation is needed. The Bill will continue to allow ministers of some faiths to conduct a marriage in the eyes of the law, and yet people of other religions and faith-based systems will not be allowed to do so. The Bill is unequal on four counts. As I have made clear, there is a better way. Any liberal would suggest finally properly separating the civil and the religious rather than building on what we have. I will speak about that more when we debate another group of amendments.
My new clause 13 must be seen in the context of the amendment I have tabled for debate tomorrow—both are part of dealing with the situation properly. The measures are radical. They would repeal—this might not make me popular with anyone—the Marriage Act 1994 and the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 so that we end up with a single definition for all couples. We are not at that point, which I accept, but we cannot institutionalise a new inequality during the passage of a Bill that is supposed to be about equalising marriage. Hon. Members should remember that civil partnerships were introduced to give same-sex couples another form of relationship. In many people’s eyes, it is a lesser form of relationship. We must not institutionalise that. If civil partnerships are worth having, we must allow them to be a different form of legal recognition for all, or do what I suggest in new clause 13 and abolish them altogether. Either way, we would end up with proper equality.
Ministers and shadow Ministers and others have suggested that the Bill is not the measure with which to deal with that inequality. I am afraid that that argument is simply absurd. Some say that we should not introduce that equality because of the cost—the figure of £4 billion has been mentioned. That is entirely to fall into the trap of those who oppose any change to traditional civil marriage. They argue that we should not introduce any measure because of the cost. As a liberal, let me be clear that we change civil rights and introduce genuine equal legal recognition because it is the right thing to do, not because it costs the state money. The argument that we should not do something because it costs the state money is a slippery slope. I should tell the Minister that whoever introduced that argument to the debate made a huge mistake.
My amendment 10 would be the genuine, liberal way of dealing with the situation—properly redefining how the state recognises adult relationships. The amendment would get rid of clearly Christian concepts that come directly from Church of England canon law and are shared by certain other Christian faiths. It would mean that we would not count on the statute book adult couples’ sexual practices with each other. Currently, adultery is a reason to allow some couples but not others to dissolve their civil marriage. Most absurdly of all, lawyers dictate that certain couples and not others must consummate their marriage in a certain way.
It is embarrassing and ludicrous, when we are rightly dealing with the inequities of the current civil partnership regime that does not bestow the same rights, status or recognition on same-sex couples, that the Bill will continue to enshrine ancient Christian concepts in the statute book and apply them to some couples only. If there had been more listening and more acting on that listening, new clause 10, which has been discussed at some length, would not be necessary. It should not be necessary. A clear part of any redefinition of how the state defines and recognises adult relationships should have always been either to keep civil partnerships and make them open to all adult citizens, or wipe them away and have a single, equal definition for all.
For all the sophistry and arguments from those on the Front Benches, in their heart of hearts they know this to be true. That is why I urge everyone in this House who regards themselves in any way as a liberal and who wants to see equal rights and recognition to vote for new clause 10. That is the only way people can have confidence that the real motivation—I believe it is the real motivation, even though it has been expressed badly—is to deal with the inequities currently in the Bill. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to listen, disregard the cost of human rights and, either through changing marriage or changing civil partnerships, ensure that all adults can have their relationships recognised in one equal or two equal ways.
Mr Speaker
Order. Several colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them. The House will appreciate that it is only right that the Minister should have a reasonable opportunity to wind up on her own lead new clause in the group, at approximately 9.50 pm. I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them to help each other.
Caroline Lucas
I will be brief.
I put my name to new clauses 10 and 11 in good faith. Opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is something that I have campaigned on for years, so I am hugely disappointed to see such political games being played.
I put my signature to those new clauses because I want to promote equality. It is important to allow everyone—same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples—to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage as they choose. This is a question of equal love. It is not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples; it is about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality. It is worth noting that equal rights are already enjoyed in countries such as France, where many heterosexuals want and can get the legal security of a civil union if they do not want to get married. I do not understand why straight couples in Britain should not have that right, too. That is why, for several years, I have been writing to the Government—for example, back in May 2011—and calling on them to support civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. I have done so on a number of occasions, so this is not a new idea or one that has only just now come on to the agenda.
The Government have had time to consider the cost implications and should not now be using their failure to do so as an excuse for denying people equality, especially when the projections on the pension costs are so speculative—in the space of five days they have gone up from £3 billion to £4 billion. One gets the sense that they are being done on the back of a cigarette packet. If civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples really would generate £4 billion of cost liabilities and cause more than two years’ delay, let us see the evidence, but so far there has been none.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I could begin my remarks by saying, “I don’t want to say, ‘I told you so’”, but that would not actually be true. I said on Second Reading that if we did not deal then with the equality issue, elaborated very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we would have to do it all over again at a later date. Regrettably, that is the position in which we seem now to find ourselves.
Personally, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West and for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie)—the latter also signed the new clauses—said about the intention of the new clauses. If we want to do the job properly, we need to differentiate religious and civil marriage. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked whether the word “marriage” and its associations might prevent people from taking up a civil commitment of legal union. Without dancing on the head of a pin, however, over the different legal obligations of a union between two people of whatever sex, it should not be beyond the wit of the House or the Government to introduce measures to achieve the equality objective in a way entirely congruent with the position put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West. However, I have to tell him that my judgment is that where we have got to on this—the work done in Committee and, frankly, the failure to take the opportunity to address the issue properly—means that it will not get done. I am influenced to a degree by the position taken by Stonewall and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who, along with others, is extremely anxious to get this Bill on the statute book.
In the end, the conclusive position is that of Opposition Front Benchers. It is their decision that will dictate what actually happens. I would have come to a conclusion that agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West: that if we cannot do it properly, which is how he wanted to do it, then doing it in a second-best fashion and having two levels of union or marriage—civil partnerships or civil marriage, with religious marriage associated with it—would at least deliver equality. Understandably, the Opposition have—in my view properly and responsibly—made a judgment about whether the route offered by new clause 10 might threaten the timely passage of the Bill and thereby delay matters for those who are anxious to get on and take advantage of the opportunity to enter a same-sex marriage.
It is a messy compromise, but I will support the Opposition’s amendment, to ensure that we get on with the review in as timely a fashion as possible and drop this five-year business from the Bill. I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the way in which we have managed this whole process has not reflected very well on any of us. Frankly, it does not reflect terribly well on Opposition Front Benchers that they have undertaken this manoeuvre right at the last moment. All this was predictable and was predicted, not least by me. The conclusion is that we will have the opportunity to have all this entertainment all over again at some future date, when we finally address the issue of equality and put a measure that promotes complete equality on the statute book. I regret that that is where the corpus of opinion appears to be now. If we could rescue things and introduce a proper measure of equality—which is what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West and for Leeds North West would do—that is what I would wish for. I regret that we are in this position, but I am going to bow to the inevitable, accept second best and look forward to the opportunity to do this all over again at some future date.
Mr Tom Harris
I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—who may or may not have been about to leave the Chamber as I stood up. I would have been proud if the work he did as children’s Minister, particularly on adoption, had been done in the name of a Labour Government. I was disappointed to see him leave the Front Bench—although presumably not as disappointed as he was. He has started, in an excellent speech, to open my mind on this issue with his arguments—I am not yet convinced, but I am happy to support new clause 16 as amended.
When we legislated in this House 10 years ago, we stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage for the simple reason that it was considered a step too far. We did not legislate for civil partnerships because we had arrived at a perfect alternative institution to marriage. We stopped at that point. We deliberately and intentionally created something that was not as good as marriage, because politically we did not feel we could get it at that time. We did so for the best reasons possible and it was a huge step forward, not just for gay couples but for the whole nation. I am extremely proud to have voted for that legislation, but let us be honest about what civil partnerships were. They fell short of marriage—they were second best—because we could not get as far as marriage. That is why, a decade later, we are debating this reform. In a perfect world, it would have been delivered long before now. The case for allowing same-sex couples to marry is not that they have been denied it so far; it is that marriage is better than a civil partnership.
Kate Green
I do not think that many of the people who have entered into successful and happy civil partnerships would agree that those partnerships were in some way second best. In 2004, we might not have known where this journey would lead us, but nine years on we can see that the civil partnership legislation has been extremely successful in its own right. It ought to be celebrated.
Mr Harris
I accept what my hon. Friend says, but let me ask her a question. Had we been able to legislate to allow same-sex marriage 10 years ago and had such a law been put on the statute book, would we be having this debate today? Would we be spending more than a few seconds debating whether to introduce civil partnerships for straight and gay couples? Of course the answer is no.
Like every other Member, I have received letters and e-mails warning me that legislating for same-sex marriage will, in some undefined way, undermine the institution of marriage. I take a very different view. I believe that the real threat to marriage will come from the continuation of civil partnerships and their extension to heterosexual couples. As things stand today, the legal security and recognition offered by marriage can be enjoyed only by straight couples. The legal security and recognition offered by civil partnerships can be enjoyed only by same-sex couples, although I hope that that is about to change. Needlessly telling all couples that they can now opt for a second-best arrangement that nevertheless offers all the same legal privileges and protections as marriage would surely undermine marriage far more than extending the qualification for marriage to same-sex couples. From the day the Bill becomes law, the choice offered to all couples will be the same as the choice that has up to now been offered to all straight couples: either get married or don’t—it is your choice.
Because we have indulged in this debate, we have failed to address anther issue. Many individuals—mostly, but not always, women with dependent children—need to be offered more security when they are living with a partner and perhaps depending on him financially. But if that partner is unwilling to commit to marriage, he will probably be equally reluctant to enter an alternative arrangement that offers the same level of legal and financial responsibilities. What those partners and families need is some kind of passive legal recognition, perhaps similar to what used to be known as common law marriage, a state that used to prevail in Scotland but which, since 2006, no longer does so. Moves to make civil partnerships available to all might, on the face of it, look like a progressive move, but they will do nothing to help those vulnerable women, and their children, who are in relationships with partners who simply refuse to bind themselves with legal red tape.
As for those who have already entered into a civil partnership and who do not wish to enter into the state of marriage as provided by this Bill, I have to say that it should not be beyond the wit of the Government or this House to frame legislation that would recognise each existing civil partnership until it was dissolved either legally or by the death of one partner, while preventing any more civil partnerships from being entered into. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that he wants full equality. I concede that making civil partnerships available to straight couples is one way of achieving that. Another way would be to make civil partnerships available to no one.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I want to put on record that I support new clause 10, because the Bill is fundamentally about equality and, to some extent, equality must mean symmetry. If we are going to make the dramatic and historic move to exercise equality across marriage, we must have symmetry. It is extraordinary that, despite the alarms that have been raised and the warnings that have been given about the failure to extend civil partnerships symmetrically to different-sex couples, three amendments have been tabled on this subject only at the eleventh hour. This does not seem to have been thought through before now. That is a disappointing state of affairs for a Bill that so loudly claims to have equality at the centre of everything it does.
If we are to be logically and intellectually consistent, I do not see how we can pass a Bill that extends equality in marriage without extending civil partnerships to different-sex couples. It is not as if such symmetry was a surprise or not much covered in the debate. When would the next opportunity be? We have already seen the amount of controversy created by rearranging marriage, which is so connected with the fundamental roots of our establishment and the relationship between the state and the Church. It is unlikely, I think, that many Governments will rush to introduce such legislation again.
Mark Durkan
Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I signed new clause 10 in good faith and I stand by it in good faith. As someone who voted for the Bill’s Second Reading and who has defended my position on the Bill since, I am quite clear that if provisions are there to extend equality, then equality is what should be extended and provided for. The fact that some supporters of new clause 10 oppose the Bill will not intimidate me into not supporting it. Equally, the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who will be supporting new clause 16 as amended, wants to emerge from the review the abolition of civil partnerships for anyone will not intimidate me into not supporting the review if it is intended to look at some of the issues that arise.
It is perfectly possible for Members to vote for new clause 16, as amended, and for new clause 10 precisely because, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made very clear, the two could be reconciled if the Government committed with Opposition support to bringing forward an additional amendment with a qualified commencement date for new clause 10 that relates to the review provided by new clause 16. An entirely false tension has been created between them. Sensible good legislators can support both, and sensible good legislators should demand that both Front-Bench teams get their acts together properly and come out with a competent Bill that not only gives equality now for those who need it, but promises equality in the future for those who are clearly saying, “Why are we being left behind and left in limbo?”
Nick Herbert
I have no objection in principle to the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples—far from it—but I am concerned about what is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the effect that it could have.
First, let us look more carefully at the policy intent that lies behind new clause 10. It has been claimed that some 3 million cohabiting couples have not married and that the new clause would give them an incentive to formalise their arrangements, but why do they not wish to formalise their arrangements at the moment? What evidence or assessment should lead us to believe that any proportion of those 3 million people would seek to enter into a commitment that is as exacting as a marriage commitment, with all that it entails?
The fact is that none of us, on either side of the House, can quantify the demand. We are struggling with the figures relating to the potential pension and taxation impact, for instance, because we do not know the extent of that demand. If we are honest about it, we must acknowledge that no group or lobby is telling Members of Parliament that this is what they want. Indeed, very few people are doing so. That stands in stark contrast to those who have been urging for some time—
Nick Herbert
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I make some progress.
As it does not appear that there is a constituency that is in favour of the change, we do not know how many people would enter into such a commitment. The findings of a poll that was conducted by YouGov at the weekend suggested that the uptake would be relatively low. Given the number of cohabiting couples, we must start to consider what are the proper policy solutions.
In 2007, the Law Commission produced a set of proposals that would have imposed duties on cohabiting couples when it came to separation and their responsibilities for children. My hon. Friend—who I know has a fine record, having been a children’s Minister—did not mention that. According to the Law Commission,
“cohabitants have not made the distinctive legal and public commitment that marriage entails.”
The truth is that the arrangement into which they enter is completely different from the arrangement that we would create in respect of civil partnership. I think that more work needs to be done to assess the real level of demand and determine what are the right cohabiting policy solutions.
The second issue that I wish to raise was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) as the need to ensure symmetry. Let me point out that no symmetry will be created even if the Bill is passed, as I very much hope that it will be. If passed, it will be a huge step forward in allowing marriage for same-sex couples, but no symmetry will be created, because the principal Churches will not allow marriage for same-sex couples. The Church of England will not be allowed to do it, and the Catholic Church will choose not to do it. It is a false argument to suggest that a symmetry will be created, or that the Bill will create an asymmetry that it will be possible to correct by extending civil partnerships to a completely unquantified and unknown group of people.
Ian Paisley
Is it not the case that in a mad rush to put same-sex marriage on the statute book, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to ditch and discard everyone else’s rights irrespective of the cost?
Nick Herbert
I have already said that I have no objection to the principle, but there is no evidence that there is a demand for the measure.
That brings me to the third point that I wish to make. We now have the prospect of achieving an incredibly important step forward for same-sex couples by introducing marriage for them, and I am very anxious about the possibility that that will be put at risk—I do not put it any more strongly than that—if we add to the Bill an uncertain and unquantified element for which there does not appear to be a genuine demand. I believe the other place may then add greater difficulty into the Bill than would otherwise be the case. It will have two issues to deal with, rather than one. I therefore urge all of good faith who support marriage for same-sex couples to be very cautious before supporting the amendment in question. Indeed, I urge them to oppose it, and to do the straightforward thing of agreeing to the review. I support the Opposition amendment to ensure that the review is immediate. Given the complexity of these issues, that is an eminently sensible way forward.
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend clearly said we do not know the cost of the proposals in the amendments. Will he therefore put on record that it was entirely irresponsible and misleading for the Government to brief that the cost could be £3 billion, £4 billion or, as they said today, between £4 billion and £8 billion, and that that may have falsely swayed the argument?
Nick Herbert
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour—indeed, my constituent —for whom I have a lot of time, he cannot have it both ways. He suggested that the proposal would be a way of dealing with the £44 billion cost of family breakdown. If the impact is small and very few heterosexual people want to take up civil partnerships, it will have little impact on the cost of family breakdown. The answer is that he does not know, the Government do not know and the Opposition do not know, because the work has not been done.
I fully accept that some Members genuinely wish to support the amendment because they believe it would somehow provide an extension of equality, and that they would therefore do so for the best of intentions, but let us be clear: some Members are supporting this amendment for precisely the opposite reason. I do not include my hon. Friend in that. Some Members are breathing the word “equality” for the first time. It sticks in the craw of many of us to be lectured suddenly now about equality by Members who have been opposing this Bill and equality and every single measure that has come forward to promote equality in the first place, including civil partnerships.
Some of the Members who have put their name to this amendment and who intend to vote for it, proclaiming the need to ensure equality and symmetry, voted against the civil partnerships legislation in 2004. One of those Members described that civil partnerships legislation as a buggers’ muddle and thought that was a funny thing to say at the time. Suddenly, within less than a decade, almost no Member of this House will say that they did not support the civil partnerships legislation, and suddenly some of the Members who did not support it stand up now and say, “Oh, it’s terribly important on equality grounds that this category of civil partnerships”—which they did everything they possibly could to oppose—“is extended to heterosexual couples.” It is a faux attachment to equality and it should not be taken at face value.
I do not take anything away from those who genuinely think that it would be a sensible status to create. I am with them, but we must not imperil this Bill by allowing others to play their political games. I assure Members on both sides of the House that those in the other place are waiting for the opportunity to declare that this Bill will need more time and they will have to look at it in much greater detail, and then suddenly we will find that it will not be returned to us, or that it will be returned to us in a form we do not like.
I urge those who wish to see a very important and genuine step forward for equality to recognise the sense of the compromise that the Government and the official Opposition have agreed, which is to review this matter immediately in order to assess whether there is a genuine need for such a change. Let us make sure we genuinely take forward this step for equality now, and that we are not seduced by false arguments.
Dr Huppert
It is a great honour and a privilege—and also a challenge—to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is very passionate about this issue and who has championed the cause of same-sex marriage with great authority.
People will want to arrange their relationships in a number of different ways. Some will want to have marriages; some will want to have civil partnerships; some will simply want to cohabit. The state should enable all those things to happen. The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the Law Commission report and the Bill proposed in the other place by Lord Lester, and I hope we will see progress on that. I am delighted that my party acknowledges those different options. Three years ago, in a conference motion entitled “Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom”, we said that the Government should:
“Open both marriage and civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples.”
I absolutely stand by that.
Maria Miller
Clearly, we have had a vigorous debate today. Let me wind up before we move to a vote.
It is clear that adding the whole new concept of the extension of civil partnerships threatens delaying and even potentially derailing the Bill. New clause 16 offers a considered way forward, ensuring that the questions that hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly asked can be answered. There has been a great deal of talk about fairness, and the fairness that this Bill enables is that same-sex couples can marry for the first time. We should not be trying to rectify other issues before we rectify that.
We must make it clear, as those on both Front Benches have done already, that an immediate review is possible to assess the need for the extension of civil partnerships. I am absolutely happy to accept the manuscript amendment tabled by the Opposition and to make it clear that we will facilitate a speedy review. It is clear from today’s debate, however, that there are policy and cost implications and we should ensure that we know them before we move forward. I will not allow the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples to delay the Bill, and I think that all three main parties agree on that.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) rightly said, in her considered contribution—I welcomed the tone that she took—that to date there had been “cursory” consultation in this area. I welcome her desire for further elucidation of the issues that we have talked about, and her desire for the Bill’s passage not to be delayed. New clause 16, and amendment (a) to it, will give us a considered way forward. I also welcome the fact that she will not support new clauses 10 and 11, and I hope that those proposing those new clauses will consider not pressing them as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) gave an interesting and passionate display of argumentation. He will see that there is a clear undertaking around new clause 16, and that a review will take place while the Bill is in the Lords, which will provide a prompt response, in terms of a consultation; perhaps that will give him the reassurance that he is looking for.
Tim Loughton
We have a dilemma here, because if my right hon. Friend goes ahead with new clause 16 on the basis that the review could take until 2019, we must vote against it. She has just said that an immediate review is possible. Will she clearly tell Government Members whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has made it clear that she thinks a review can have taken place come Report in the Lords, and that its findings could be added to the Bill before it has gone through both Houses? If that is the case, I would be delighted to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and drop my new clauses, but she needs to make it clear whether she thinks that is practically doable.
Maria Miller
What I can be absolutely clear about is that I am committed to undertaking an urgent review, and that the review will come through promptly, and in the way that my hon. Friend would expect. The Bill is due in the House of Lords in two weeks. It would not be feasible—no Member of the House would expect it—for me to undertake a proper consultation in that time frame, but I undertake further to discuss the timetable for the review with my hon. Friend, and it will absolutely go forward in a prompt fashion. That is what he would expect us to say.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made an impassioned speech. He properly talked about the importance of getting the right solutions for cohabiting couples, and the extension of civil partnerships may or may not be that right solution. We need to do the right policy work to ensure that we take these decisions for the right reasons, and in the right way.
The right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) put his finger on it when he said that the gross unfairness is the fact that same-sex couples cannot get married. That is what the House needs to focus on today. By voting for new clause 16 and amendment (a) to it, we can get to a position in which we can deal with the issue of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples without it getting in the way of making sure that the unfairness that he rightly identifies is dealt with swiftly. He talked eloquently about the inequities in pension provision. If that was a simple issue to rectify, presumably his Government would have addressed the issue back in 2004.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) talked about same-sex marriage being a step too far in 2004. I was not a Member of the House at that point, but I understand the sentiment behind his comments. I can say to the House today that this is not a step too far. It is not something that we should shy away from. We have to be clear in our commitment to focusing on extending marriage to same-sex couples, and should not be distracted by trying to incorporate into the Bill, at this point in time, issues that would create further delay and debate in the other place.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Will my right hon. Friend provide the House with her assessment of the fundamental difference between a civil partnership and same-sex marriage, save the marriage bit?
Maria Miller
That issue has been raised at every stage of the debate—on Second Reading and in Committee. My hon. Friend will know by now that there are some technical differences in the way the Bill will work, but the biggest difference of all is that we are for the first time enabling same-sex couples to have access to something that heterosexual couples have taken for granted for many decades and hundreds of years and that society values intrinsically. We have to ask ourselves why we should deny people the ability to take part in something that so many of us know is a rich and important part of our lives.
Ian Paisley
Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House the special arrangements that she has put in place for Northern Ireland—that if a same-sex couple get married under new laws here and move to Northern Ireland, in law it will be regarded as only a civil partnership?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. These are matters that have been decided in Northern Ireland and I respect entirely the decisions that have been taken. I will continue to work with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly to make sure that the will of that part of the United Kingdom is dealt with in the appropriate way. What he rightly describes is the situation for civil partnerships that take place in other parts of the world already. The Northern Ireland Assembly recognises, as we would expect it to, a civil partnership that took place, for example, in Canada or Spain. We are simply asking for marriages of same-sex couples to be recognised in the way that civil partnerships from other countries are recognised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
Maria Miller
Perhaps my hon. Friend would forgive me if I draw my remarks to a close, as the House has had a great deal of discussion on the matter today and I am not sure he was available for the earlier discussions on this group of amendments.
I say to colleagues across the House that we must show our commitment to the ability of same-sex couples to be married. We have to show that we are not diverted but that we will make sure that we consider in full the opportunities of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. We can achieve that if colleagues vote through new clause 16, as I said, but we need to make sure that we are prioritising now the need for the choice for same-sex couples to be able to get married, not further choice among heterosexual couples. That is an important measure that the Government can put forward today and it has support from those on the Labour Front Bench and on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Many of the issues that we have discussed today were discussed when the Bill was before the House back in 2004. When the issue of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples came before the House, the then Minister, Jacqui Smith, ruled it out, saying:
“That is not a matter for the Bill”—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 179.]
That is the stance that we are taking today. The then Minister in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland, said:
“This Bill does not undermine or weaken the importance of marriage and we do not propose to open civil partnership to opposite-sex couples.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 388.]
Maria Miller
I think that my hon. Friend has heard me say already that what we are very clear about and focused on is ensuring that the passage of the Bill is not impeded and that we will look carefully and in detail at the way civil partnerships could be taken forward in future but we have to do that in the right way. The House would expect us to come forward with a considered recommendation that has been fully consulted on, and that is what we intend to do.
I think that we have had a full and frank debate, and I thank all Members who have taken the time to contribute. I think that the manner of the debate has been in the best fashion of this House. We have listened to each other and considered the arguments. We will ensure that the Bill, as it goes forward for its second day on Report tomorrow, can be considered in the proper manner.