(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
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 schedule 1—‘Consequential amendments—Marriage according to usages of approved organisations—
The following amendments are made to the Marriage Act 1949—
(1) In section 26 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
(ca) a marriage conducted under the auspices of an approved organisation;”.
(2) In section 35 (marriages in registration district in which neither party resides) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(3) In section 43 (appointment of authorised persons) in subsection (3) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation authorised by the Registrar General under section 47A”.
(4) In section 50 (person to whom certificate to be delivered), in subsection (1) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
(da) if the marriage is to be solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registering officer of that organisation”.
(5) After section 52, the following section is inserted—
“52A Interpretation
In this Part of this Act “approved organisation” has the meaning given to it in section 67.”.
(6) In section 53 (persons by whom marriages are to be registered), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
(ba) in the case of a marriage solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registered officer of that organisation;”.
(7) In section 54 (provision of marriage register books by Registrar General), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends,” there is inserted “registering officer of an approved organisation”.
(8) In section 55 (manner of registration of marriages)—
(a) in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and
(b) in subsection (1)(b) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation” and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.
(9) In section 57 (quarterly returns to be made to superintendent registrar), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(10) In section 59 (custody of register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(11) In section 60 (filled register books) in subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the words “registering officer of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; after the words “members of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of the said organisation”, and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.
(12) In section 63 (searches in register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(13) In section 67 (interpretation of Part IV), there are inserted in the list of definitions the following—
““approved organisation” means an organisation approved by the Registrar General under section 47A of this Act;” and
““registering officer of an approved organisation” means a person whom the principal officer of the said organisation certifies in writing under his or her hand to the Registrar General to be a registering officer in England or Wales of that organisation;”;
and in the definition of “superintendent registrar” after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
(ba) in the case of a marriage registered by a registering officer of an approved organisation, the superintendent registrar of the registration district which is assigned by the Registrar General to that registering officer;”.
(14) In section 75 (offences relating to solemnization of marriages) in subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and in subsection (2), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation.”.’.
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
(iA) section 47A (marriage according to the usages of approved organisations).’.
Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 6, line 29, after ‘solemnized’, insert
‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.
Amendment 21, schedule 7, page 49, line 16, after ‘celebrated’, insert
‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.
New clause 14—Civil union—
‘(1) Two people, whether they are of different or the same sex, may enter into a civil union if—
(a) they are both aged 18 or over;
(b) they are not within prohibited degrees of relationship;
(c) they are not currently in a civil union with someone else.
(2) A civil union must be solemnized by a Registrar.
(3) No religious service is to be used while the civil union registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil union document.
(4) A civil union ends only on death, dissolution or annulment.
(5) The Marriage Act 1949 is repealed.’.
New clause 18—Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage—
‘(1) Any marriage solemnized (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 (Marriage under Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate), the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 or an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6 (other than a marriage according to religious rites and usages) shall be termed a Civil Marriage.
(2) The Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor may, by order, make such provision (including provision amending UK legislation) as the Secretary of Sate or Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of this section.’.
Amendment 58, in clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert
‘and such a marriage shall be a civil marriage’.
Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 12, line 15, at end insert—
‘(ba) an order under section (Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage).
Kate Green
I am moving new clause 15 to introduce humanist marriage, along with new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 that are consequential to new clause 15. May I start by paying tribute—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will not say that I was heckled by the Clerk of the House from a sedentary position, as he was rather helpfully advising me from his usual position on a point on which we need to be clear. I am sorry if the hon. Lady thinks this is a pedantic point, but it is quite important procedurally. The hon. Lady can speak to the other amendments in the group, but the only item she is moving at this stage is new clause 15. We anoraks like to get these things right.
Kate Green
Thank you for that exceptionally helpful advice, Mr Speaker. I am, of course, moving new clause 15 and speaking to new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21.
I should like to pay tribute to the British Humanist Association for its support with drafting and its general and wider advice. This proposal seeks to put right a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.
Kate Green
I would like to make a little more progress and then take some interventions. Let us start by establishing the ground on which I shall make my case and I will accept interventions later.
Whereas Christians and most other believers have a choice when they marry of a civil ceremony in front of a registrar, or a religious ceremony that reflects their beliefs, non-religious people have no choice: it is the local registrar at a register office or in a so-called approved place or nothing.
The Government have objections to my proposals. It is important to say this afternoon that we are absolutely crystal clear about what those objections are. If there are problems with the way in which the new clause seeks to achieve its objective, we stand ready to work with the Government to address those concerns. There is a very strong wish for humanist weddings to be recognised and for any perceived problems to be overcome.
It has been suggested that the proposals before us are in some way a wholesale departure from what has been described as fundamental English marriage law. I question whether any such fundamental law in fact exists. Our marriage laws are an accretion of changes and legislative and social developments over many centuries, but I accept that the broad framework in which our English marriage system operates goes back in many regards to the 18th century when Lord Hardwicke introduced his Marriage Act 1753, which required all marriages to be conducted in parish churches and after due notice had been given.
Kate Green
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the general importance of the premises in English law in relation to most faiths, but I think she should bear in mind that in the Church of England the clergy are registered, that registrars are registered in our civil system and that, as I have said, Jews and Quakers already operate in a different legislative framework from that governing religions as a whole.
Kate Green
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I promised that I would.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I know my place.
When I first received communications from humanists supporting this approach, I looked up “humanist weddings”, and discovered from the humanism.org.uk website that there are wedding celebrants who can take services now. It is recommended that people obtain a civil marriage certificate at the register office and then hold the ceremony wherever they want, perhaps in the open air: they are not limited by buildings in any way. I understand that that applies to a number of religions, as well as to humanists. I am therefore wondering whether we need to have this debate.
Kate Green
What the hon. Gentleman says about other religions may be correct, but it is not the case that all religions are required to go through a dual process. Jews and Quakers are not. My contention is that we should recognise the strong popular support for humanism, just as we recognise popular support for other forms of marriage. Many organisations can perform legal marriages in their own right, and do so for smaller numbers than the humanists would and, indeed, than the humanists do now. While I would not for one minute suggest that our marriage laws should be based on some sort of numbers game—although I believe that some Members sought to suggest as much in Committee, an approach that I found somewhat offensive and regrettable—my contention is supported, in this context, by the fact that not only is practice in relation to humanist marriages already fairly widespread, but the numbers are increasing. The popularity is growing.
The Attorney-General
I hope the hon. Lady will accept that I make my comments in a completely neutral way and that I appreciate what she is trying to achieve, but I have absolutely no doubt that the new clause, if passed, would render the Bill incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights, because it identifies a group that is not a religious group and gives it a special status. The first thing that would happen is that all sorts of other secular groups would claim non-discrimination rights under article 14. I realise that that may be capable of being cured, but I can only say to the hon. Lady that the new clause would make it impossible for the Minister to sign a certificate under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, enabling the Bill to proceed to the other place.
Kate Green
First, although of course I respect the Attorney-General’s expert advice, I must point out that the narrow drafting of the new clause follows advice from the Government’s own officials. We had been given to understand that it would be possible to prescribe, very tightly, a mode of marriage for humanists, legally recognised, and we are surprised that human rights objections are being raised now.
Kate Green
I will give way in a moment, but I have not quite finished dealing with the points raised by the Attorney-General.
Secondly, although I am encouraged to learn that the Attorney-General believes that there is potential for some of the objections to be “cured”—
Kate Green
I must say, with respect to Government Members, that I need to respond to the first point before I can respond to points two, three and four.
I understand that the possibility of challenge on the grounds suggested by the Attorney-General exists, broadly, in England and in Scotland, where humanist marriages are already being conducted. While I accept that there is one significant difference between humanist marriage and the religious forms of marriage that are recognised in English law—namely, that they are not religious forms of marriage—they are none the less a belief form of marriage.
I venture to suggest that if we could have the benefit of a fully worked and argued opinion from the Attorney-General, I might be able to take on board his complaint, but, having engaged in a series of discussions with Government officials to reach this point, I am very disappointed to find that we are now being presented with what appears to be one potentially significant legal objection that has not been properly raised with us until now.
Kate Green
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, first proposed this measure as an amendment in Committee.
Stephen Williams
Mine will be a triangular intervention, inviting the Attorney-General to intervene on the hon. Lady again. Given that humanist weddings have taken place in Scotland since 2005, and given that the United Kingdom, rather than England and Wales, is the signatory to the European convention on human rights, why has the Registrar General for Scotland not been subject to a legal challenge under the convention? Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain. [Interruption.]
Kate Green
My hon. Friend—if I may call him that in this context—has raised an excellent point. I hear mutterings from Government Members, who are suggesting that the answer to his question is that in Scotland it is the person who is registered. Let me say, with the greatest respect, that I do not see how that can possibly deal with the human rights point.
The Attorney-General
I do my best to provide advice on the law of England and Wales—Scottish law is unquestionably different historically—but, according to my limited understanding of the position, in Scotland it is not just humanists who may be registered for this purpose; pagans and all sorts of other groups may also qualify. I simply make the point that in the context of the Bill as drafted and as proposed today—I realise that the hon. Lady may be upset about this, but I have no role in it—the new clause undoubtedly introduces a serious human rights problem, which I think is obvious because of its discriminatory nature. That is really all that I can say on the matter.
Kate Green
I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—
Kate Green
I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Minister in just a moment.
Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010 provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.
Maria Miller
I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.
Kate Green
I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an extremely strong and compelling case, and I look forward to expressing my support for it in more detail later. I have here a letter from the Culture Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, saying:
“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover the humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”
Does the hon. Lady agree that that strongly suggests the Government supported this change?
Kate Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I was at a wedding on Sunday. I only attended the evening part, but during the day there was a humanist ceremony, and everyone said it was a wonderful occasion. It was held in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Does my hon. Friend agree that humanists in Scotland cannot understand why their fellow humanists in England might not enjoy the same rights as they do and feel very disappointed about that?
Kate Green
I, too, have attended humanist weddings in Scotland, including that of my niece last October, which was an incredibly special occasion. I can fully understand what my hon. Friend says about the concern and hurt humanists across the UK will feel that these ceremonies that have worked so successfully in Scotland since 2005 have not been replicated here in England.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. There are now 2,500 humanist weddings a year in Scotland. It is now the third most popular form of marriage that we have in Scotland, yet the Attorney-General has suggested that these weddings are somehow illegal under European law. However, the UK is the signatory to European human rights treaties, so what he says is a lot of nonsense. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the UK is the signatory to the European human rights treaties and that, if these weddings are illegal in England, they must also be illegal in Scotland?
Kate Green
Obviously, I do not answer for the Government, and I will not respond to any specific interventions on that point. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a speech later.
Kate Green
I will take one more intervention, and then I am going to develop the compelling case for why we want humanist weddings in this country, not why there are apparently so many legal objections to be overcome.
The Attorney-General
The last thing that I want to do is interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow, but I want to reply very briefly to what was just said. I am not suggesting in any way that what is happening in Scotland is unlawful. Instead, I am highlighting that there is a serious defect in the amendment. Given the discriminatory nature of the favour it gives to humanists as opposed to other secular organisations, it would have the consequence of making the measure incompatible with the convention rights. I think that that is obvious when we examine the amendment.
Kate Green
It may be challengeable under the convention, but I do not think we know at all whether such a challenge would be successful.
Let me develop some aspects of the case for humanist weddings. So far this has been a rather unpleasant and legalistic debate, and in the same spirit as our debates on same-sex marriage, I want to make the case that the House should feel joyful about humanist weddings and celebrate them.
For those who are concerned about protections, the new clause provides that the Registrar General could issue a certificate to any organisation that
“(a) is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising the non-religious belief known as humanism;
(b) has been in continuous existence for five years; and
(c) appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.”
That provision addresses some of the wilder claims that unlikely organisations would or could either qualify or mount a human rights challenge.
The details are closely modelled on the existing law, and they were drafted following conversations with the Government—although perhaps not conversations in which both sides fully understood each other—and address the specific points rightly raised by Ministers in Committee, when the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) first proposed the amendment. We have taken as much account as possible of the concerns that we believe the Government have about this proposition, and we are therefore disappointed and startled to see a whole new front of opposition opened up this afternoon.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
For my own information really, can the hon. Lady say how much consultation she has had with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches on this amendment and its possible implications?
Kate Green
I think that it is fair to say that the Churches are not displaying tremendous enthusiasm for this proposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not easy for the official Opposition to carry out extensive consultations, but the issue was raised in Committee, when we took evidence from some of the Churches, and I detected no great appetite or enthusiasm from them for further discussion of this kind of proposal.
Of course, we would like the Government to adopt this proposal and take it forward wholeheartedly and in a way that delivers a robust and settled legal right to humanist weddings. In the absence of that, we simply need to take the evidence of the number of people who are coming forward asking for a humanist ceremony, the number of humanist ceremonies that are taking place and the very high popularity they enjoy both among those who participate in them and those who attend them.
Let me read the remarks of one couple:
“A humanist wedding offered us the chance to make the wedding ‘ours’, it enabled us to construct our own vows and create a ceremony that felt immediately very personal to both us and our guests, it also portrayed exactly what marriage meant to us and how we see our marriage growing in the future.”
We should be celebrating that in the context of this Bill, and I greatly regret that a sense of celebration is being lost as a result of the way that this afternoon’s debate is proceeding.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I should declare an interest: I am a member of the BHA. Is the hon. Lady aware that civil registrars are increasingly offering full ceremonies, so we already have a secular alternative, and this proposal does not make a new one but just adds one that a lot of people want?
Kate Green
I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?
Kate Green
With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.
Kate Green
No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation in them, either as family or friends.
Kate Green
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; he is next.
Many people of faith—I think this is the position of Ministers—who believe marriage itself to be a ceremony of huge social value and importance would welcome a humanist marriage ceremony founded on belief and commitment in preference to a secular ceremony or to no ceremony at all.
Mike Thornton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) was supporting humanist marriage. As a churchgoer and a Christian, I was privileged to be able to have a ceremony that I believed reflected my faith and my beliefs. I think it is vital that people with humanist beliefs who are not Christian and not churchgoers have the opportunity to have a celebration that reflects their beliefs. It is extraordinary that anyone of faith should oppose someone else having such a ceremony, and I do not understand such objections.
Kate Green
I am grateful for that welcome and helpful intervention and for the intervention from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).
Concerns and doubts have been expressed about the quality of the service, if I may call it that, that humanists would offer, but the British Humanist Association runs a long-established ceremony service. We have already identified that many people, including many of us, have already attended humanist weddings and some of us might have attended humanist funerals or baby-naming ceremonies. There is a very long and extensive experience in this country of participation in such ceremonies and to my knowledge no adverse comment or criticism of them has been made at all—indeed, quite the reverse.
It is also important to note that the British Humanist Association is extremely concerned about maintaining the highest quality. It trains, accredits, insures and provides a form of continuing professional education for its hundreds of celebrants throughout the country. Perhaps we should therefore not be surprised that the ceremonies attract high satisfaction as a result; more than 95% of clients, if I may call them that, give them a five-out-of-five rating. That is not an experience that all people report from their registry office or other wedding.
Humanist weddings, in particular—this is based on the testimony of those couples who have had one—are greatly valued as reflecting those couples’ beliefs and allowing the ceremony to be devised, in collaboration with the celebrant, in a way that meets their own wishes. I have read some letters over the course of the past few weeks from couples who write eloquently about how much the ceremony has meant not only to them but to their relatives and friends. I am sure that over the past week or so, many right hon. and hon. Members will also have heard from the 3,000-plus humanists in this country, including many couples who have had a humanist wedding, about the importance of the ceremony to them. It is clear that we already have in this country a precious form of ceremony that is highly valued by many couples, and my new clause would simply seek to recognise and acknowledge that in law.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I have one fairly fundamental disagreement with the British Humanist Association, which is that I think they are wrong about God, but I fully believe that we need to acknowledge humanist weddings. Two generations ago, the established Church did not allow nonconformist Churches to hold burial rites in their churchyards. This is a dangerous precedent. As an Anglican, I do not feel in any way offended in my faith by knowing that humanists can celebrate weddings in such a way.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Secretary of State has been extremely eloquent throughout the passage of the Bill about the importance that she personally attaches to marriage, so I say to her that my proposal goes with the grain of her position by seeking to extend marriage to more couples precisely because they share that sense of its importance and want to value it.
The whole Bill is about equality, although I recognise that it is predominantly about equal marriage for lesbian, gay, transsexual and, indeed, bisexual people. My new clause is also about equality; it is about the equal recognition of humanist marriages. We should remember that they are already legal in many countries, where they contribute to an increase in the number of marriages, going with the grain of the Secretary of State’s ambitions to strengthen and extend marriage in our society. In Scotland, for example, the number of marriages has been rising in recent years, with an increase of more than 1,500 between 2009 and 2011, more than half of which are accounted for by humanist marriages.
There is plenty of evidence of public demand for reform. I believe that this proposal is a reform that disadvantages no one and costs the public purse close to zero. In an age of equality, it removes an unnecessary injustice based on religion or belief, and it will strengthen the institution of marriage, going with the grain of Ministers’ intentions for the Bill. I believe that today we need to move forward to introduce legal humanist marriages in our country, as they have been successfully introduced in other countries across a range of legal jurisdictions. If the Government have concerns, we need to see a written view from the Attorney-General about those objections, so that they can be scrutinised not just by amateur Scottish lawyers such as me, but by properly qualified expert human rights lawyers and others. That would allow us to see in detail the reasoning behind the view that he has expressed at the Dispatch Box.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kate Green
I will not, as I am just coming to a conclusion.
If during this afternoon’s debate the Government can provide undertakings that they will put before us that full, reasoned legal opinion and give us the time properly to test and explore it, so that the concerns can be taken forward appropriately when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, we will of course be happy to take that time to ensure that the legislation is wholly fit for purpose. Without those detailed explanations, it is difficult for us to accept that there is some endemic objection in principle to introducing humanist marriage into English law, and that I is why I have tabled new clause 15.
Sir Tony Baldry
Let me start by saying that I have great admiration for humanists. My mother was a Quaker and I was brought up and educated at a Quaker school. I often think that Quakers are simply humanists who believe in God—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is going to heckle throughout my speech, he will just indicate the discourtesy he shows for the views of anyone who disagrees with him. If we heard a little less from him, we would all do a lot better.
As the House will know, when the Bill was introduced the Church of England and other faith groups did not greet it with unalloyed joy. However, we sought to engage constructively with Ministers and officials and they constructively engaged with us. Ministers and the Government made it clear at the outset that they wanted to ensure that faith groups that did not wish to perform same-sex marriages would not be obliged to do so. The legislation therefore has at its heart protections for faith groups such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims and others who do not wish to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages. That is enshrined in the quadruple lock for the Church of England, because of canon law, and in the other locks for other faith groups. Those locks are essential to ensuring the freedoms that the Government made clear at the outset would be there to protect faith groups.
Sir Tony Baldry
Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but may I finish the point?
Those locks are based on the assumption enshrined in English marriage law: English marriage law is based on buildings and not on celebrants.
Sir Tony Baldry
I am going to give way to the hon. Lady, but let me finish the point because it is important.
In Scotland, there is celebrant-based marriage, whereas the protections in marriage in England are based on buildings. If new clause 15 is passed, it will in effect unpick all the protections in the Bill that relate to the locks and to the protections for other faith groups.
The Speaker acknowledged earlier that he was an anorak. There are degrees of anorakism in the House, and I too am a bit of an anorak, in the sense that I believe that if public Bills that will make substantial changes to public law are to be introduced, there should be proper consultation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) honestly and properly acknowledged, there has been no consultation with faith groups on the proposed provisions, which would completely unpick the protections in the Bill that Parliament has sought to give to faith groups.
Kate Green
I do not see why faith groups should be singled out for consultation. If there is to be consultation, it should include those of no faith, and other organisations too. I do not understand at all how this proposition unpicks locks which are intended to protect religious institutions and individual celebrants within those institutions. I simply do not understand that, and I do not accept that marriage under English law is confined to religious institutions that have premises. As I say, English law also provides for Jews and Quakers to conduct marriages according to their own rites.
Sir Tony Baldry
My point is that no one has been consulted. I was not praying in aid just faith groups. The hon. Lady has not consulted anyone, but she might at least seek to consult those faith groups for which there are protections enshrined in the Bill—unless she is saying that she is not impressed by the protections to ensure that faith groups are not compelled to perform same-sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. When the debate first started, many of the representations that I received were from people of faith who were concerned that this was a slippery road which would lead to their being obliged at some time in the future to undertake same-sex marriages in churches even if they did not want to do so, and I do not think it helps if the hon. Lady gives even a scintilla of a suggestion that that might be the direction of travel.
The protections are very important. There are historic reasons why Quakers and Jews are treated differently, but they are faith groups. Indeed, Quaker marriages are not celebrant-based, because there are no celebrants in the society of friends. In a sense, the hon. Lady wants to have it both ways. The new clause relates to non-religious organisations, yet it seeks to apply the protections that refer to religious organisations. We therefore have a sort of bolt-on, whereby the hon. Lady is claiming for the humanists, who are clearly not in a religious organisation, the protections in the legislation for religious organisations.
Dr Huppert
I think that the hon. Gentleman has now accepted that he was not correct to say that all marriage in this country is tied to place, because as has been discussed, that is not the case for Jews and for Quakers. He has consistently made the case that the Church of England and other groups should be able to produce ceremonies in their way. Can he explain why, while believing that the Church of England should be protected and allowed to have its ceremonies in its way, humanists should not be allowed to have their ceremonies their way? I can assure him that humanists—the British Humanist Association—are not seeking protection from same-sex marriage; they very much welcome it.
Sir Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend is wrong. I have made it quite clear throughout that English marriage law is buildings-related, except, for historic reasons, where it relates to Quakers and Jews; it has never been celebrant-related.
Let us consider the Scottish example. In Scotland we have seen pagan weddings celebrated, spiritualist weddings celebrated, and weddings celebrated by the White Eagle Lodge. That is a question on which our constituents should properly be consulted. I cannot speak for other Members of the House, but I have had enough problems in my constituency with same-sex marriage. If I go back to the shires of Oxfordshire and tell constituents that Parliament is about to endorse pagan marriage in England, they will think that we have lost the plot completely. If they think that the Opposition support pagan marriage and masonic marriage, they really will think we have lost the plot.
Kate Green
The new clause would not allow pagan marriage to take place. It would allow humanist marriage to take place, and the Bishop of Chester supports it.
Sir Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady is a lawyer so, with the greatest respect, she has no excuse for not listening to the advice of the Attorney-General. He made it clear to the House—any hon. Member would follow the logic very straightforwardly—that it would not be possible in the Bill to give privileges to one non-faith organisation, the humanists, without its being challenged by other similar non-faith groups, such as the pagans or the secularists, who have had weddings celebrated in Scotland. Pagans would say, “We are allowed to have marriages north of Hadrian’s wall. Why cannot we have marriages south of Hadrian’s wall?”
Pete Wishart
I strongly object to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—that we in Scotland could not care less about marriage. We have had 2,500 humanist weddings per year. Marriage is important to people in Scotland. The only thing we want to do is extend it to people who love each other.
Sir Tony Baldry
Nothing that I have said could possibly be construed as implying that Scotland is not concerned about marriage. The fact is that under a celebrant-based system, pagan marriages take place in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asks what is wrong with that. There has been no consultation in England as to whether or not the people of England would wish to have pagan marriages celebrated in England. I am afraid that, if he cannot understand that, there is a great deficit in democracy so far as he is concerned.
Stephen Williams
The new clause as drafted, which has been exhaustively considered by the advisers of the British Humanist Association and passed by the Department, has its own version of a triple lock, one part of which states that the organisation in question, such as humanism, must be registered as a charity. I do not believe that the charity commissioners of England and Wales would register as a charity Jedi knights, white knights, druids, pagans or anyone else whom the hon. Gentleman wishes to conjure up, so they would not come under the provisions of the new clause.
Sir Tony Baldry
The House will know, because it is a matter of record, that I am a freemason. Freemasons are registered as a charity. I do not know whether people in England want to see the introduction of masonic weddings. As the new clause has not been properly consulted on, and there has not been time for proper consideration of all its ramifications, it leads the hon. Gentleman into all sorts of areas that have not been properly construed. There has been no proper opportunity for the House to take the advice of the Attorney-General.
I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda that during the past couple of days I have been a bit confused as to which are wrecking amendments and which are not. I am still trying to work out whether the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment. I am really not quite sure whether this new clause is a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment, because it is difficult to see how Parliament, and certainly the other place, could allow the Bill as amended by the new clause to go forward without a serious delay while there was proper consultation to think through the ramifications.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think the hon. Gentleman united the House in confirming that he is confused. We all agree with him; he is clearly confused. If he thinks that the new clause would lead to pagan weddings, can he explain why the Bishop the Chester—the Anglican, Church of England, Bishop of Chester—supports it? Would it not make sense for us to allow this to go forward to the House of Lords so that the Bishop of Chester can speak on the matter?
Sir Tony Baldry
First, the only point that I am confused about is whether this is a wrecking amendment. Secondly, in this House I speak for the Church of England, not the Bishop of Chester, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, with 44 diocesan Bishops, it is usually possible to find at least one Bishop who will have a view contrary to the other 43. Let me put it on record, lest there is any scintilla of doubt, that the Church of England is strongly opposed to the new clause, not because we do not love or like humanists, but simply because it would unpick the locks in the Bill, which, when we started, were important to ensuring the protections of faith groups in the context of this legislation.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Notwithstanding the Bishop of Chester, does my hon. Friend agree that some very clear problems arise from the new clause, which could indeed turn out to be a wrecking amendment? Is it not therefore inconsistent for the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen yesterday to have promoted a review on extending civil partnerships, but on an apparently similarly problematic amendment such as the new clause before us not to mention such a review? Surely on that score it is a wrecking amendment.
Sir Tony Baldry
I want to conclude by making a further and serious point.
Those of us who were opponents of the Bill and who voted against it on Second Reading have taken on good faith—and it has been delivered in good faith by the Government and the proponents of the Bill—that there would be protections for faith groups and that they would not be compelled to carry out same-sex marriages if they did not wish to do so. My understanding was that that approach was supported by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen as well. With legislation of this kind it is important that people feel confident that it will not in some way be unpicked in the future, and that the protections for faith groups will endure, irrespective of any change of Government.
The Opposition Front Bench’s approach this afternoon causes me concern. I point out that the Church of England has been wholly approachable to the Opposition—of course it would be—throughout the Bill’s passage. It is a matter of some concern that at no time have the official Opposition, who have adopted the new clause—it has not been moved by a Back Bencher; it has been proposed by a member of the shadow Front-Bench team—sought to consult the Church of England or other faith groups, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has acknowledged and admitted, on the import or impact of the new clause.
In every way, this is a bad new clause. It is bad because it has not been properly consulted on; it is bad because it will unpick the protections—
Sir Tony Baldry
No, I am about to finish. [Interruption.] I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. I am sure that he can make his own speech in his own time.
The new clause is bad, because it will unpick the protections enshrined in the Bill, and it is bad because it will lead to unforeseen consequences, upon which no one in this country has been consulted. If Opposition Front Benchers really believe that the new clause is tenable, I challenge them to consult their constituents and ours on whether people in England want to see the prospect or possibility of pagan marriages taking place in England.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome the debate. I strongly support new clause 15 and the associated amendments, and believe that it would be a massive, progressive step if the provisions were enacted. I declare an interest as vice-chair since 1997 of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and as an active member of the British Humanist Association. In that sense, I have a vested interest, but even if I were not a humanist, I would passionately support the proposal to permit humanist weddings.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I have been searching for information but cannot find it on how many humanist weddings there are in England each year on average at the moment. Does the hon. Gentleman have that information?
Kelvin Hopkins
Hon. Members are calling out numbers to me—600 in England and 2,500 in Scotland. Why something is so easy in Scotland and so difficult in England is beyond me to imagine.
One point that the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made quite strongly concerned democracy. Democracy is not dictatorship of the majority. Our kind of democracy accepts freedoms for minorities as well. The humanists are a substantial and significant minority, of whom I am proud to be one. Over the past decade, between the past two censuses, there has been a substantial increase in those professing no religion, and a significant proportion of those people have become humanists. If a number of those professing no faith understood that there was an alternative way of living according to some strong ethical beliefs, they could become humanists themselves. They would only need to find out more about humanism, and they might well become humanists and want a humanist marriage.
Ian Swales
In the 2011 census, 25% professed no religion. That is more than 14 million people. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that they should have the opportunity to celebrate their marriages?
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those figures, which had escaped me for the moment. Indeed, 25% is a substantial number. I do not want to oppress any minorities, or majorities, but I do not want my minority to be oppressed by anyone else.
Dame Angela Watkinson
I do not think there is any question about the desirability of humanist marriages. The issue is that if we embark at this moment on the complexities that others have referred to, it will cause an unacceptable delay in the passage of this Bill.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I suspect that similar arguments were displayed when Catholics became emancipated in 1829. It was argued that it would undermine the constitution, that we have an established religion, and so on—all sorts of arguments against. When progressive changes are made, a year later such pettifogging arguments are forgotten.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
To reinforce the point made in the earlier intervention, there is a great deal of sympathy for the proposed provisions. I went recently to a humanist funeral and it was a marvellous ceremony. I do not think that Government Members would argue otherwise. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, protecting minorities is important, and a great deal of care and thought has gone into the locks in this Bill to protect people of faith and to give them reassurance. The concern is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle in which to make this change, because by implementing a change for the humanist minority, one unpicks the protections in the Bill for people of faith.
Kelvin Hopkins
At some time, somebody can explain to me the difficulties. I just do not accept those difficulties. It is a simple thing to allow a significant proportion of our population to be married according to their own beliefs, in the same way that other people are married according to their beliefs. I cannot see that it threatens anyone else in so doing.
Dr Huppert
A couple of hon. Members have said that the new clause would unpick the locks, but they have so far failed to say in what way—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees—because we already have exemptions for Jews and Quakers, who are not tied to a place. Does he also agree that if Members are to claim that, they should do more than simply asserting it to be true? They should try to provide some sort of evidence and reason why they think it is true.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Those Members sitting on the Government side of the Chamber will no doubt explain that in their speeches, and I will listen with interest.
I like to equate humanism with other belief systems, some religious and some non-religious. It is interesting that in France, a strictly secular country with a strong separation of the state and religion, humanists are treated in the same way as religious organisations. Humanists cannot attain any kind of support at all from the state, in the same way that Churches cannot, because if they did so the Churches might try to claim it as well; so they are treated in the same way.
In my constituency, which has many religions and strong support for them, we have a council of faiths that does wonderful work in bringing people together. It has produced a colourful pamphlet showing a rainbow spectrum of different beliefs and belief systems, including humanism, so it treats humanism on a par with other belief systems. I think that we should do the same by allowing humanists to be married.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I want to intervene while the Attorney-General is in the Chamber. Was the hon. Gentleman, like me, astonished when the Attorney-General advised at the Dispatch Box that extending rights to a particular group of people could somehow fall foul of the Human Rights Act?
Kelvin Hopkins
It is bizarre, but I must say that I am not a lawyer—I am only a humble economist—so these things escape me. Perhaps I can look forward to legal explanations later in the debate.
The Attorney-General
I will say this one last time. It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of wanting to extend marriage to humanist or secular groups. The way the amendment has been drafted confined it to groups promoting humanism, but there are many other secular groups. The local tiddlywinks club might wish to become a registered charity and to conduct weddings, so by its very nature, and for that reason, it is discriminatory, and by being discriminatory it is in serious danger, I suggest, of violating article 14 of the European convention on human rights. I can only say that. It might be curable, and there might be all sorts of other things that can be done—[Interruption.] Well, not in this House. As matters stand, the amendment is in that condition. I made that point simply to help the House.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Attorney-General for that intervention. No doubt Scotland will be drummed out of the convention for what it has done.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her powerful speech, which I think she made extremely well. I only wish that she had been given more time to go through all the detailed objections, which the British Humanist Association has answered at length, but of course there is not always time in debates to answer every question. I assure hon. Members that the BHA has dealt with all the objections it has heard so far. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are too many private conversations going on and I am struggling to hear—[Interruption.] Mr Blunt, order, please.
Kelvin Hopkins
In conclusion, I want to put it on the record that I strongly support new clause 15 and very much hope that it will eventually lead to humanists being allowed to marry in the way they wish and not to be required to get married in any other way.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I want first to speak to new clause 15 and to express my full support for it. After doing so, I will link that with new clause 14, which stands in my name, and the comments I made yesterday on amendment 10 and why it could and should have been dealt with separately.
In expressing my support for new clause 15, I remind the House of my early-day motion 667, tabled in September 2010, which called for humanist marriages to be allowed in England and Wales in exactly the same way as in Scotland. That is something I believe as a liberal, and also because I was extremely fortunate in having the honour of being best man at the wedding of two humanist friends, Derek and Louise, in September 2007. It was an honour to play a role in that ceremony. I was moved by what an appropriate, fitting and solemn ceremony it was. They were married exactly the way they wanted to be, according to their beliefs. They were equally happy to participate in my Catholic wedding a few years before.
As a liberal, I believe that each and every one of us has the right to marry according to our own beliefs. The problem with how the Bill is currently drafted is that we are allowing a situation to continue in which some religions—to be more precise, some sects of some religions—have access to a civil marriage ceremony while other religions, sects of religions and belief-based systems do not. To me, as a liberal, that is simply not justifiable. My opinion is simply that each and every citizen of this country, of all belief systems and religions and none, should have the same right to equal recognition of their relationship.
New clause 14 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), whose support and common-sense approach on this I appreciate. The simple reality is that if the Government had approached this matter in a more rational and common-sense way, the debate we are having now would be entirely unnecessary. Many Members on both sides of the House—interestingly, they include many who have concerns about the Bill and many who fully support it—believe that we should be making a proper separation of the belief-based recognition of a relationship, whether humanist or religious, from the state’s right to confer legal rights and legal recognition on individuals. The trouble is that the Bill, as drafted, conflates and confuses the two. Even worse, it enshrines the confusion we have heard about, such as the various marriage Acts replacing each other, and adds even more layers of complexity, which means legal confusion. At the same time, there is the absurd situation in which the Bill is having to specify in law that some Churches may not marry certain people and having to put in place protections for other Churches so that they do not have to do so. Of course, if we had a proper separation of civil and marriage, those things would simply not be necessary.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 14 and for advancing the argument that I hope to make later in relation to new clause 18, if you call me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the Bill’s real failings is that it does not address the need to separate, for the purposes of marriage, the secular and the religious. Had we gone down that road, there would have been a much better resolution and many more people would have found it far less difficult to deal with this legislation.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent contribution. I support his new clause 18 and the similar way in which he is trying to deal with this issue. It cannot be right that certain people of some religions and, in the case of humanism, belief systems, have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony according to their beliefs while others do not. The Bill, as drafted, will continue to allow that. I am afraid that, as with civil partnerships, it will enshrine the existing inequality in the law, and that cannot be right in something that is supposed to be about equality.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Would the new clause, in essence, abolish marriage and civil partnerships and replace it with civil union? If so, what would be the status of someone who is currently married? Would they become unmarried and move into a civil union?
Greg Mulholland
Technically, in terms of the law, absolutely. As I said yesterday, the new clause cannot be seen in isolation; it has to be seen with amendment 10, which sought the repeal of the Marriage Act 1949. It must also be linked with the amendment that I tabled to remove clauses in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The point is that there would be one single definition of a legal recognition for relationships.
I am not necessarily dictating whether this should be called a union, a marriage, or, as Peter Tatchell suggests, a civil commitment pact. I am not particularly interested in the language. Some people feel very strongly that we should call it marriage; others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), do not like the word “marriage”. That is a debate to be had. The point is that what we need to do, and what the Bill should have sought to do, is give all citizens of this country the right to one single recognition by the state of their union. Of course, that would apply to everyone in an existing marriage or an existing civil partnership. Everyone would have the one single recognition through the state, and the legislation would have been drafted to achieve that. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question very simply, but we are now moving into technical legal questions. In reality, this change would require a separate Bill, but it is currently proposed as a new clause.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Would my hon. Friend’s proposals mean that Methodists, Catholics and others who fought for many years for the right to conduct a marriage ceremony that was valid in law would lose that right and have to go along to the town hall to get validation for the marriage that they had conducted?
Greg Mulholland
I believe that Methodists and Catholics should have exactly the same rights as humanists, Baptists, Jews and Quakers. That is my whole point. I do not accept that some religions should have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony but not others; as a liberal, I find that indefensible. My right hon. Friend has to accept, as do I and all right hon. and hon. Members, that marriage is being redefined; the state has chosen, through its Parliament, to do that. Therefore, now is the time to deal with the complex, multi-faceted and, indeed, confusing and discriminatory current marriage laws and to carry out the reform properly, which is not happening.
I suspect that there is also a practical dimension to my right hon. Friend’s question, and I am happy to address that. In order to have the necessary separation between civil and religious ceremonies, we would need to ensure that no religious minister was able to convey the rights of legal marriage. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, either through the presence of a registrar at a belief-based or religious marriage ceremony, or by another process, to have that conveyed at the same time. If my right hon. Friend is arguing against that separation, he is defending the situation that the Government are proposing, which will mean having to legislate on what certain Churches may or may not do and needing a complex system of law to ensure that other Churches, including the one he belongs to, are not then forced to do things they do not want to do. If we have a proper separation, none of those things is necessary, and surely that is the sensible way to proceed.
I have had support from all sorts of different sources, including ministers from Churches of various denominations and other religions who are saying that this is indeed a sensible way to proceed. On the Gay Leeds website there is an article by Colin Ross in which he says:
“This seems a very sensible approach to me, I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that—without any religion having their opinion on it—but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality—as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well.”
Similarly, in the release that he put out today under the headline, “Gay marriage bill is not full equality”, Peter Tatchell says:
“Instead of bringing same-sex couples fully within the ambit of existing marriage law, the bill leaves some aspects of marriage law different for gay and straight married couples. Although these are relatively minor, they violate the fundamental principle of marriage equality for all.”
He goes on to say:
“While this may be a progressive reform of marriage legislation, it makes the law unequal. If we want marriage equality, that’s what the bill should give.”
We should also have equality of religions and belief systems, and the Bill does not achieve that either.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the debate on this subject; we had a shorter debate in the Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is clearly explaining that redefining marriage raises lots of complications. Perhaps if we had gone back to first base and had a longer, more considered consultation about the redefinition of marriage, although perhaps not quite as long as the one we are about to have on civil partnerships, we could have reached a more consensual view about the state’s involvement in unions. Has he made any representations to the Church of England? Would not his new clause have an impact on the relationship between Church and state, particularly with regard to the right of every parishioner to get married at their local church?
Greg Mulholland
My hon. Friend is touching on the elephant in the room, which is the establishment of the Church of England. That is another matter that is worthy of debate. There will be different views, and I hope that he is prepared to take part in that debate. I am trying to show that it is possible to separate civil marriage and religious and belief-based ceremonies without necessarily having the effect that he suggests. This involves the constitution as well as the Church of England. I suggest to him—I do not know if he would agree—that the Church of England is now in a most odd and uncomfortable position as a result of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Similarly, it is not a particularly happy situation for other Churches. That would not necessarily be the case if we had the separation that I propose.
I will continue to pursue this matter beyond the passage of the Bill, which will of course receive its Third Reading tonight. I share my hon. Friend’s view that had we had a proper and fuller consultation—this is not so much about the time period as about the intent and scope of the Bill—we could perhaps have looked seriously at sweeping away the current framework and coming up with one that is properly radical and fit for purpose, and gives all our citizens the same rights whether they are religious, humanist, or of no belief.
If we want true and exact legal recognition of all adult couples and to convey the same rights to them all, we will not achieve that as things stand this evening. If we want to have clear and proper respect for freedom of conscience, we will not achieve that this evening. Those things are still possible if amendments are made. I ask hon. Members to consider the amendments. I do not intend to press new clause 14 to a vote, but I hope that the views that I have expressed have been heard and that the Secretary of State and her colleagues will note the support that they receive from all parts of the spectrum on this issue.
Geraint Davies
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his interesting comments.
I rise primarily to support new clause 15, which would allow people to have humanist marriages if they so choose. Members will know that that is an established option in Scotland, chosen by about 2,500 couples a year. About 600 couples in Wales and England choose to have a humanist wedding without it becoming a legal marriage.
Religions do not have a moral monopoly on marriage. Different religions have different moral views linked to their faith, and the humanist tradition has its own secular but moral conception of what is right. The members of the humanist community want to be able to join in moral partnerships in which they may express and celebrate their personal ethics, and for those bonds to be recognised in law. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many Members, I have been lobbied by people in my constituency on this matter. Brian Cainen, who conducts various humanist ceremonies, including funerals, is very concerned and passionate about this, as are many people who approach him to ask about the options that are available.
I was drawn into this debate by my interest in the issue, but I was disappointed by the level of emotion expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who seemed to suggest that humanist ceremonies were some sort of pagan ritual, whereas we are talking about moral, ethical people who want to pursue their own ethics.
Sir Tony Baldry
I did not say that. Those of us who oppose the Bill have tried hard, so far as is possible, to make it work within the context of the protections that we have sought. When the Bill was introduced, faith groups were promised protections. It seems to me that we should finish the passage of the Bill where we started and ensure that those protections are still in place. That is all that I am asking for, no more and no less.
Geraint Davies
I accept that the assurances that have been offered to faith groups should be delivered and guaranteed, but what we are talking about is widening the franchise of equality so that people can be married whether they are of different sexes or the same sex and whether they are humanists or people of faith. As I said, faith groups do not have a moral monopoly. A quarter of people say that they have no religion—obviously, the situation is changing over time—and there is no reason why such people should not be embraced within the fraternity of marriage.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am much taken with the idea of having some form of humanist marriage, but I am worried that by agreeing to such marriages, we would cause problems for religious marriage. That makes me think that perhaps we are rushing the proposals through too quickly and that we should perhaps slow down or stop and think again.
Geraint Davies
Clearly, we are here to debate the Bill. The people who push for delays and referendums tend to be those who oppose the Bill in any case. The debate on same-sex marriage has been going on for a long period, and not just in this House at this time. In the run-up to the Bill, there has been an enormous amount of discussion in faith communities, among people of no faith and in political communities. Internationally, we have seen equal marriage proposals move forward in a number of developed countries. I think that we have a role to play in providing leadership.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the concerns that are being raised about process may be quite legitimate, many of us are concerned that it might be many years before we have another opportunity to debate and vote on this issue?
Geraint Davies
I very much agree with that important point. We are all aware of the political difficulties in the Conservative party and the differences within the coalition and across the House. Same-sex marriage is an important measure and it is imperative that we deal with it now. If it does not happen now, political complexions may change as we approach the 2015 election and we might miss the opportunity. People may make the calculated gamble that if the issue is pushed into the long grass, it will stay there. Thousands of people want us to move forward on same-sex marriage, a large and growing community of people want us to move forward on humanist marriage and, as we have heard Government Members say, there are people who want us to move forward on civil partnerships. I hope that the review on that matter makes rapid progress and that the options are provided in a fully informed way.
I was very surprised by the Attorney-General’s intervention in which he seemed to say that new clause 15 would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights and would open the door for people who wanted to marry in the name of tiddlywinks. That was very peculiar. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to which the European Court of Human Rights has regard. I have not heard it suggested in any serious chamber that there ought to be parity between the rights of those who want humanist weddings, which are already an option in Scotland, and those who demand tiddlywinks marriages.
Geraint Davies
I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a tiddlywinks fanatic.
Dr Huppert
I am not a tiddlywinks expert, but I am a humanist. I am a member of the British Humanist Association and the all-party humanist group. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there has been a judgment on the what test should be for serious beliefs in such cases. The judgment in Grainger plc v. Nicholson states:
“The belief must be genuinely held, must be a belief and not an opinion based on present available information and a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”.
None of that could really apply to tiddlywinks.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for that intervention. It elaborates the point that we should not spend too much time talking about tiddlywinks. However, it was brought up by the Attorney-General and I thought that I had better deal with the matter because he said that his best criticism of new clause 15 was that it would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights. That seems very unlikely, to put it mildly. It is scraping the barrel and was a bizarre thing for the Attorney-General to say.
I realise that the intention behind new clause 14 was to start a discussion, but it would abolish marriage and civil partnership and replace them with civil union. People who had been married in good faith would wake up one day and find that they were no longer married. That is not something that we should seriously consider. In the cut and thrust of political dialogue, it was famously said that people who went to bed with Nick Clegg might wake up with David Cameron. This proposal is akin to that idea. One day people would be married and suddenly, after a change in the legislation, they would no longer be married.
Greg Mulholland
After a reasonably intelligent start, it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is making silly, petty party political comments. I say again that there should be and would be one way of recognising all adult couples, including those who are already married or civil partnered. He is being slightly mischievous in another way, because those who believe themselves to be married in the eyes of one religion, Church or belief system would continue to do so, as happens now, regardless of whether the state regards them as married or not.
Geraint Davies
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is slightly lacking in a sense of humour. My point about waking up with David Cameron was not meant as a sharp political point. I am sure a lot of his colleagues would be very happy to wake up with David Cameron.
On the serious point—there is a serious point—I realise that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine point about the need for absolute equality in marriage and civil partnership and asking why, if that is not happening, we do not have civil union. I see the logic of that, but I was simply making the case that in practice, if that came in now and we essentially abolished marriage, people would wake up in a slightly different relationship from the one they anticipated when they made their vows. In parallel, I was making a perhaps not very funny joke about people voting Liberal and ending up with a coalition Government.
This Friday is the 25th anniversary of section 28, which gives us a stark reminder that time has moved forward but we still have not made all that much progress. Gay people are still abused at school, for instance—where my children go to school, the word “gay” is used in an abusive way. We need to move forward and provide equality before the law. I appreciate that we are going to end up with equality for same-sex marriage and that there will still be work to do on civil partnerships, but in the meantime we need to move forward on the humanist agenda, whose delivery is already established in Scotland.
Jane Ellison
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that we need to make progress, but speaking as a supporter of the Bill, I am concerned about the advice that we have received that it may not be the right vehicle to meet humanists’ desires on marriage, even though many Members on both sides of the House wish to do so. The problem is not opposition to that aim, but the risk that the Bill is not the right vehicle and that by including such a provision, we would unpick the locks carefully assembled to protect religious minorities.
Geraint Davies
It is important that we have this debate. My view comes from looking at the detail of the Bill and from the fact that humanist marriage is already established in Scotland and seems to be working well. It seems to me that the Bill provides an obvious opportunity to introduce equality between humanists in Wales, England and Scotland sooner rather than later. I do not see that as a problem.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. He made fun of the advice given to us by the House’s most senior Law Officer. I obviously do not sit on the Government Benches, but I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General’s advice, and he told us clearly that supporting an extension only to humanists would be discriminatory. We have the European convention on human rights, and I say hooray for that—I am in favour of it—but how does the hon. Gentleman excuse the fact that the new clause applies only to humanists rather than having broader coverage? It is discriminatory.
Geraint Davies
The status quo is discriminatory in any case, which is why we are asking for equality for same-sex couples. Humanist marriages occur in Scotland without being challenged in the European Court, so there have been test cases. Like others, I am free to make jokes about the Attorney-General; he has no planet-sized brain that should intimidate us, and his reference to tiddlywinks invited scorn and ridicule, which I thought it was reasonable to supply. On that hilarious note, I will bring my comments to a close.
Mr Blunt
I rise to reassure the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that there is support for him on the Government Benches and to encourage the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to press the new clause to a vote and not be put off by the blandishments that she may hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I say that because I am suspicious when I cannot hear a single argument against the principle of a proposal—there is agreement that it is absolutely reasonable and a proper extension of rights to humanists—but we get a barrow load of technical or legal difficulties and risks, and the idea that there has not been time for consultation. The idea that we do not have the opportunity during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament to sit down and address the technical objections to this suggestion and others, and to get the Bill right before it finally hits the statute book, does not reflect terribly well on us as legislators or on the advice that we can command.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said that the Bill was not the right vehicle for addressing the matter, but I do not think that we will see another marriage Bill coming down the track any time soon. Ministers’ enthusiasm for re-engaging with the issue, after going through the joy of the past 18 months of consultation and processes, will be a little limited. That was why, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested a five-year time bar before the issue would be reconsidered. That was overturned at the insistence of the Opposition, whose amendment she accepted. I rather suspect that that time-limitation arrangement was suggested because Ministers have been somewhat scarred by the process of the Bill.
That makes it more important for us to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with some fundamental points that seem glaringly obvious to me. It seems glaringly obvious that humanists ought to be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies and that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has put forward yesterday and today ought to be addressed. We should take this opportunity to have a fundamental look at how marriage is delivered and to divide civil and religious marriage properly, so that we have dealt with all the problems that we are now wrestling with.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) prayed in aid the advice that we heard from the Attorney-General, but I have to say that although I am a very great friend of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and have huge admiration for his work and his intellect, I have never heard such nonsense on stilts put forward under the guise of independent and wise advice. It was certainly not the product of careful consideration, because it has come to the House at rather short notice. On reflection, his rather strange division between secular people and religious people, with the former not deserving the same consideration for the protection of their rights, would itself fall foul of any convention on human rights worth its name.
My right hon. and learned Friend ought to have the opportunity to give rather more considered advice as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I am sure that when it is considered in another place and then comes back to this House, if there is satisfaction that his arguments hold water, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her colleagues who tabled the new clause will be happy to consider them again. We need to address the technical and legal objections that are being made to a measure to which I have heard no Member put forward principled opposition.
Lady Hermon
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. I am not making this up; I am reading in black and white article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention—”
that includes the right to marry, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention—
“shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”
within the United Kingdom. It could not be clearer. The advice of the Attorney-General is that if new clause 15 is accepted and extends only to those who are humanists, that is discrimination and in breach of article 14. Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?
Mr Blunt
If the Attorney-General’s advice is correct, there is a slight problem because existing laws are already discriminatory in that respect and vulnerable to challenge by the European Court of Human Rights. As I said earlier, it is preposterous to make the point that extending human rights and the right to marry to a group of people will somehow fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights, if our existing laws—which are more restrictive—do not already fall foul of that Court and would be challengeable in that regard. That is why I have a problem with that point. Humanists have a proper belief system and deserve protection under the charter and our laws, just like anyone else.
Sir Tony Baldry
That is characteristically generous of my hon. Friend. He said that there were no principled objections to the new clause, but may I try him on this one? He supports the Bill and wants there to be same-sex marriages, which is its purpose. I am sure that he also wants to ensure that no faith group that does not wish to conduct same-sex marriages is obliged to do so. The Bill sets in place a number of protections, and moving from a buildings-based system of marriage to a celebrant-based system, which the new clause would introduce, would simply unpick all the protections that have been built up through the course of the proposed legislation. If the protection of other groups is not a principled objection, I am not sure what is.
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend speaks for the Church of England in this House and his principled objection is that it should have special protections. I frankly do not think that a quadruple lock is necessary; for me a single lock ought to be perfectly satisfactory. He and I will therefore differ on the practicalities of the protections that need to be given to religious organisations. He does not object to the principle that humanists ought to be allowed to carry out marriages—I have not heard him say that—but he is concerned that the consequences might pose a risk to protections for other religious groups to carry out marriages in the way that they want. I hear and understand that argument, but I think that it is probably technically deficient.
In the time that the Bill will take to be considered in another place, and before it returns to the House, it is perfectly possible for all of us who want the Bill to proceed to test these propositions and see whether they undermine the protections that we seek to put in place. I do not believe that they do, and simply asserting that they would does not satisfy me. I want to understand that such arguments have merit. I do not believe that they do, but I am open to considering the arguments further, which is what we should do.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but may I help him with the tiddlywinks issue? The Attorney-General has referred to this issue as a comparator for humanism, but there is settled legal opinion in the European Court of Human Rights, the British judicial system and the Equality Act 2010 that the protected characteristic of a religion or a belief applies not to an individual belief or the fact that a few people get together, but to a whole belief system that has a structure and is organised and settled. That is why I am certain that the Attorney-General is wrong in the advice that he has given.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and is generous in giving way. There is an issue of how to deal with legal advice. Does he agree that the law is capable of being constructive and not just a constraint and that it would therefore behove the Attorney-General and the Government to come up with ways to change the new clause to make it compatible with the law, rather than saying, “This doesn’t work; try again.”?
Mr Blunt
To be fair to the Attorney-General, that is precisely what he said. He thought it would be perfectly possible to address these issues. He raised objections to the House. I happen not to agree with or believe them, but he said that it should be possible to address the issues being raised. Unless Members are prepared to stand up in the House and say that they oppose humanists being allowed to carry out marriages in principle and explain to me and the rest of the country what their reasons are, we owe it to humanists to do our damndest during the passage of the Bill to enable them to enjoy the ability to marry under their belief system with the same rights that we give to others.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Earlier in my political life I was Minister of Finance and Personnel in the Northern Ireland Executive, and in that capacity, bizarrely, I had responsibility for the Office of Law Reform and for registration. I worked to bring forward measures that were about changing how civil registration and civil law on marriage related to the different religions in Northern Ireland, because it related very differently. Unlike what the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his description of the law on marriage in England, which was that it is entirely related to premises or property, the situation in Northern Ireland meant that for Catholics, as long as a marriage was conducted by an episcopally-ordained priest—it did not matter where—the state recognised it. For the Church of Ireland, only the premises mattered.
Under powers that came from the old position of Lord Lieutenant General in Ireland from the 17th century, I had to sign if a new Church of Ireland church was created. There was a wonderful vellum scroll and illuminated manuscript—so much so that I was able to tell my wife that I felt like a lay bishop in the Church of Ireland. For Presbyterians it was different again: the persons were recognised, for the conduct of marriage, within the geography of a given presbytery, and marriage was not confined to a particular building or anything else.
We brought forward measures to try to equalise things, and in many ways we borrowed from changes made in Scotland. Some of the Churches were shaky on it at the time, but the smaller Protestant Churches were glad of our changes, because many that could conduct marriages on their premises only if a civil registrar was also present to verify it, were then able to conduct them under their own auspices and integrity of their rites and rituals.
At that time I made it clear to my officials that if demand emerged in relation to humanists or another belief system, we would have to address that. It did not emerge during the debates at the time, but I support the principle of it. I have said about other aspects of the Bill that all equality should be equal; the problem that some of us have with this Bill is that it is not equal in all cases in its central thrust of extending equality to same-sex couples. I supported the Bill on Second Reading and continue to support it, but I appeal to colleagues to stop jumping and hopping about here and there on the issue of when they want equality, and when they support and respect belief systems.
I have no problem with this Bill or any other measure respecting the belief system of humanism, and ensuring that people can achieve that. That is happening with legislation in the south of Ireland. I represent a border constituency. I am a Catholic who is part of a cross-border diocese. As a result of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill which passed the Oireachtas, later this year and certainly next year humanist marriages will be conducted in Ireland just over the border from my constituency. Just as many people who are married in church go over the border for those weddings, so too will people from my city for humanist weddings. I therefore have no principled opposition to new clause 15.
The legislation in Ireland gives the registrar general the capacity to recognise a secular body, which can in turn appoint people who would be registered to solemnise marriages. Like new clause 15, the Irish measure defines a secular body as one that must exist for at least five years and as a charity. The body cannot have profit making as one of its purposes. The legislation also describes such a body as
“an organised group of people who have secular, ethical and humanist beliefs in common.”
The Irish Attorney-General felt that that term would cover against any allegation that the provision was so specific that it related to one existing organisation only—the Humanist Association of Ireland. The Irish Attorney-General therefore found a way around—there is a specific and clear definition, but it is not open to the challenge that it is exclusively defined, which seems to be what the UK Attorney-General was saying. Those who support the principle of new clause 15 might want to look at the Irish wording as things progress.
It is right that hon. Members should be accommodating of a belief system that is not properly recognised in our marriage system and that they want such a belief system to be recognised in the Bill, but they should think about the speed with which they rejected emblematic, conscience amendments yesterday. People with other distinct belief systems feel a wee bit under threat and are concerned about slippery slopes. There was an attempt yesterday to make a concession and offer comfort by recognising such belief systems, but hon. Members decided they would not do so. Today, there is an opportunity to accommodate another belief system. Many hon. Members who rejected the accommodation of people’s belief systems yesterday back today’s proposal. I wish they would have supported both measures.
Greg Mulholland
As ever, the hon. Gentleman brings an interesting perspective from his experience. Regardless of the many different views—it is important to say that there are not just two views—it is incredibly disappointing that the Government, despite saying they would engage and listen, have accepted not a single amendment in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I am afraid that that is not an appropriate way in which to make a big change of this nature. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern?
Mark Durkan
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. That will be one of the difficulties. The fewer amendments that are accepted in the House, the bigger the excuse for the other place to take longer, and to go more deeply and more wide ranging with amendments. People should be able to see that the House has given the Bill due consideration and added to it in a number of respects. If people wanted belt-and-braces protections in the Bill, and apps and widgets, to make them feel more secure and comfortable, why not give them? We should want people to feel more comfortable with the passage of the Bill, no matter what their reservations about its provenance. That is why I support amendments that make more people, such as humanists, feel included in the equality that the Bill extends.
Hon. Members should remember that we had a choice yesterday on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. The issue was ducked. We were told that the matter could be complicated and that there could be a review. I would like the people who supported that measure to feel included in the effort to extend equality in the Bill. I hope that that happens if the matter is raised in the other place. I do not believe that this will be the last the House sees of the Bill. The Bill will come back to us, because people are saying that we are being selective in adding to the Bill and widening its scope.
Some hon. Members argued against the civil partnerships amendments yesterday even though they support the principle of equality in civil partnerships. They argued that such a measure was not germane to the Bill, and that it took us beyond the Bill’s scope. However, the same people want an extension for humanist marriage—I agree with them—even though other hon. Members say that there is a risk and that it could raise far more complicated issues. The Attorney-General and the Government are not the only ones who must answer questions as to the inconsistency or strength of their argument. I have noted a lot of inconsistency in the House on how far we go to respect belief systems.
Simon Hughes
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I agree with a huge number of his comments. He and I have voted similarly pretty well throughout the passage of the Bill.
I want to pick up on a comment the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his speech. He and I voted for new clause 10 on the implementation of civil partnerships for straight couples. I voted for the new clause not because it was a wrecking amendment but because I believe in the principle. I signed it before the Government tabled their new clause proposing a review and before Labour tabled its amendment. If people look at my record, they will see that I have argued for that position over many years, yet it is suggested that I was trying to block the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has a similar view to mine.
Stephen Williams
I originally proposed a version of new clause 10 in Committee. I did not see it as an attempt to wreck the Bill; I genuinely felt it was an opportunity to close that loophole.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are obviously not going to reopen yesterday’s debate. We are discussing other amendments today.
Simon Hughes
The proposals appear to be linked, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for that proposal and many others he has made, and for his much-respected work. We do not agree on every single item, but his record is one of which the Liberal Democrats and Parliament should be proud.
Let me put my position on the record. I believe, have believed and was brought up to believe that marriage is ordained by God. I believe that marriage is traditionally ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage was set up by God for the creation of children. I believe that it was to link the biological needs of children with their biological parents. I believe that it was for biological complementarity. I believe that it was for gender complementarity, and that it was a gift of God in creation. That is why I have taken a traditional Christian and other-faith view on how marriage has traditionally been—for one man and one woman—which was the case long before we legislated for such things in this country and made them the law of the land.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes
I will give way, but I anticipate being able to deal with the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are not talking about infertile couples. Unfortunately, we are on the humanist part of the Bill, and that is what we will discuss. Fortunately or unfortunately—depending on which way we look at it—we must try to speak to the amendments if we can. I hope, Mr Hughes, that you are not going to tempt many others down another track.
Simon Hughes
I will not, but with respect I want to say a word about humanism and speak to my new clause 18, which is in this group, on the difference between the church and the state.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that of course marriage is never only for the production of children. Many people get married without that intention, and it might be impossible for some. That is not the argument. In the theological tradition, one purpose of marriage is to have children, and that is not possible, biologically, between two men or between two women. Some churches believe that marriage is a sacrament or holds another special position.
We move from that position of faith to one where we legislate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) intervened earlier to make it clear that Methodists, Quakers, Jews and the Free Churches had to fight for the right to perform marriages in their churches. Now, places that have nothing to do with churches or faiths are licensed to carry out marriages—civil marriages became possible. The position of registrar was set up and people are able to have entirely civil marriages in a registry office. That is still the case. Marriages can be held in a place that is entirely civil—in a state-authorised location—or in a place of worship, which can also include the legislative provisions that the state requires.
In all my time in the House, I have argued that we should try to separate those two things. New clause 18 suggests a way of doing that, just as new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), does. I believe in the disestablishment of the Church of England. I am a member of the Church, but I believe in its disestablishment. Just as the Church in Wales has been disestablished, I have always believed that in England we should separate as much as possible the activities of the Church and the activities of the state. Marriage, therefore, between a man and a woman in a Christian or religious sense is different from marriages, partnerships or unions that are secular, or between people of the same sex.
I pray in aid the view, which has been quoted already, of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It was referred to in the Public Bill Committee and goes back to what he said in 2004. When he was asked whether he agreed with the proposition about same-sex marriage, which is at the heart of the Bill, he answered:
“I do not support that; I believe that marriage is an institution that is ordained of God and should be celebrated between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that in many ways mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical. Therefore, I believe that we should have in law separate institutions that reflect that reality.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 October 2004; c. 68-70.]
That has always been my position too. We should give equal rights to gay and straight couples to form partnerships, unions or relationships that give the same pension rights and status, but are not the same as the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Colloquially, people talk of equal marriage, and I understand that. People who are in civil partnerships talk of being married, and of their husbands and wives. We are not going to be able to put the clock back, which is why new clause 18 talks about “civil marriage” and not civil union. Many of my Christian friends say that that is an unacceptable compromise, because the Christian view of marriage cannot be changed by calling it civil marriage. We have to wrestle with that issue and sort it out, because we could have civil marriage that is different from faith, Christian or religious marriage, and I think that people would reasonably understand the difference.
Dr Huppert
I respect my right hon. Friend on many things, but I disagree with quite a lot of what he is saying. Is he genuinely saying that he would deny faith groups, which believe marriage should truly be equal, the ability to do that, because of his personal belief? Is he refusing to allow them to call it a proper marriage or a faith marriage?
Simon Hughes
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I do not believe that and I am not arguing that. They should of course be entitled to hold that view.
This group of amendments seeks to give humanists the right to have humanist weddings. I support that proposal. I understand the objection to the technical drafting, and perhaps that needs to be considered. However, the principle—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) made the point—of allowing humanist weddings seems to me to be the right one. The hon. Member for Foyle argued that that is what happens over the border in Ireland. Humanists have a belief, and therefore they should be entitled to have weddings according to their belief. Constituents have argued for that, it happens already in Scotland, and, like other people, I too have been to a humanist ceremony—not a wedding, but a funeral.
As a light intervention, we should not be overly afraid of the word “pagan”. My dear late mother, who lived in a village in Herefordshire, in her latter years went to a pagan wedding in the orchard in Hampton Bishop. She said it was one of the most enjoyable weddings she ever attended. Of course, there was a civil ceremony beforehand. People should be allowed to have the practice they want, including humanist weddings.
Susan Elan Jones
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what his proposal would mean to a Nigerian couple on Old Kent road who want to get married in their large, African, black majority church? Would they have to have a separate civil wedding?
Simon Hughes
That is a good question. The hon. Lady, as a former Southwark councillor, knows well the communities I represent. The short answer is that we could do it one of two ways. We could either do what is done in many countries on the mainland of Europe, which is to require everybody to have a civic ceremony first. In France or Belgium, people go the town hall, have the civil ceremony and then go to their church, mosque, temple or synagogue and have their faith ceremony. Secondly, one could separate, in the place of worship—the black-led church on the Old Kent road, my own church or any other—the civic part of the ceremony from the faith part. That is not done in the same way at the moment. In my church in Bermondsey people do not see clearly the distinction between the two parts. The couple going to the church on the Old Kent road would believe they were being married in the eyes of God. They would also want to be married in the eyes of the law. It could be done in either of those ways.
What do I want new clause 18 to achieve? For heterosexual couples, I want us to allow a humanist wedding, a civil marriage or a civil union, and civil partnerships. For same-sex couples, I want full, equal civil rights as a married couple, to be called either a civil marriage or a civil union. I want them to have civil partnerships, too. I hope also that we will not allow the easy transfer between civil partnerships and civil marriage, going from one to the other by signing a form, which is the weakness of clause 9.
New clauses 18 and 14 seek to address an issue that the House has not so far wrestled with: would it not be better to seek to address the need to separate, for these purposes, the faith and belief of people of faith that marriage is ordained by God, and the civil responsibility of the state to provide a place where people can come together and perform a ceremony in the eyes of the law? It is pity that we have not addressed it. I will judge the mood of the House on whether to put that to a vote. I am sure it will be addressed in the other place. I hope we can give everybody equal status in the eyes of the law, and, coming back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the right for each faith group to decide whether to regard heterosexual couples and same-sex couples as able to be married in the context of their faith, which we should allow to all faiths, as well as to those with no faith at all.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having to leave the Chamber earlier.
On Second Reading, I was in a minority among Labour Members in voting against the Bill. I voted against it not because I did not want to see equality, but because, as some saw it, people’s faith and beliefs were being challenged. Again, today, I acknowledge the need to respect people’s faiths and beliefs, but I feel that that should extend to humanist beliefs and that humanists should have the option of a humanist marriage ceremony.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, and I think we can all identify with what he says about the change between generations, but change happens. Only yesterday, we heard that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted to allow gay ministers to be ordained, if the congregations so choose. That is a major change illustrating that equality is now regarded as important even by the national Church of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) are making valid points, but they are Third Reading points and not relevant to the new clauses on recognising humanism, which we need to deal with before we get to Third Reading. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not get teased down the route the hon. Lady wants him to go down and instead referred specifically to the new clauses.
Mr McKenzie
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take your direction and end by simply saying that respecting faith and belief and equality are essential and must be extended to humanist marriages.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), I wish to speak in favour of new clause 15, although I will try not to duplicate the points he made so very well.
As many in the Chamber will know, I have been a strong supporter of equal marriage from the outset. Indeed, in 2010 I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for legislation to be laid before the House. While we are talking about equal marriage rights, it seems logical that we should address the issue of humanist marriages at the same time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, it could be a decade before we revisit this issue. There has been talk about the percentage of various people in the last census, but in a recent YouGov poll, 67% of people—two thirds of the population—said they had no religion. Those in a huge section of our society in England are being denied the opportunity to make a full-scale commitment to one another. Their only option is a register office marriage.
As we have said before, that is not so in Scotland, where it has been legal to have a humanist marriage since 2005. Indeed, last year more people took that route than entered into Roman Catholic marriages, and the expectation is that the figure will pass the number of Church of Scotland marriages in 2014. Clearly there is a huge demand for this change in the law. If my postbag is any indication, I would expect similar numbers to be reflected in England; I can report that I have had many letters in support of humanistic marriages and none against. As has been mentioned, it is also possible to have a humanist funeral—just not a marriage, in the eyes of the law.
For those who are opposed, there is often a fundamental misunderstanding about what humanism is. I did not know much about the definition either until a few years ago. My father was diagnosed with cancer and was told he had six months to live. He calmly set about putting his affairs in order, which included his funeral arrangements. I was surprised when he put down the details of the humanist funeral he wanted. He was an exceptionally honest, hard-working man, well respected in the community and living by what we all know as Christian values. He did not go to church, but then again the majority of people do not.
Throughout recorded history, there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making. Today, people who share these beliefs and values are called humanists and this combination of attitudes is called humanism. Many millions of people in Britain share this way of living and of looking at the world, but many of them have not heard the word “humanist” and do not realise that it describes what they believe.
Just to be clear, a humanist, roughly speaking, has come to mean someone who trusts the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works; rejects the idea of the supernatural, and is therefore probably an atheist or agnostic; makes ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern for human beings and other animals; and believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same. That definition is important, because we have heard a lot about how Jedi knights and so on will be able to do this. We have also heard other definitions and talked about tiddlywinks, but it is important to realise that these are real, strong, belief cultures.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in favour of humanist weddings. I agree with him in principle, but is he not concerned, being a believer in equal marriage—as I know he is—about the Attorney-General’s advice that if we accepted the new clause, we would threaten the religious guarantees that we have given the Church of England?
Mike Weatherley
Of course I have total respect for the Attorney-General’s opinions, but as we all know, in law and legal advice, there is no firm decision or certainty until something goes to court. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I have yet to hear a cohesive argument for why what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) describes would be the case. Just saying it time and time again does not make it right. If someone can say why that would happen, we would of course listen. The last thing I want to do is delay the implementation of same-sex marriage, as my hon. Friend will know, but we are in danger of missing a huge opportunity to extend equal marriage to a huge section of our population who at the moment are being ignored.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should ignore the advice and legal opinion offered by the Attorney-General? Does he think that we should just put that aside and push ahead with this provision?
Mike Weatherley
People ignore legal advice for all sorts of reasons. I am saying that I would like that legal opinion to be put to the test. We should not simply say, “Oh well, if that is the case, we will just sit back and not do this.” It is up to us to find a way of doing it. I do not happen to think that that interpretation is the correct one, and I would like to see it put to the test, as would many other people.
It is evident from what is happening in Scotland that there is a huge latent demand for humanist marriages, as well as for equal marriages. If humanism was right for my father, I for one would like to see equal marriages extended to include humanist marriage ceremonies. I would find it odd if those who supported same sex equal marriage did not also support equal marriage for others, which is why I am supporting the new clause.
Dr Huppert
It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I also want to pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). It has been a great pleasure to work with her during the passage of the Bill, and her speech today set the scene extremely well. I pay tribute to her, although I am not sure whether that will help or hinder her future plans. I thought that she did extremely well.
There are two issues that we need to debate today. One is the principle of whether we should allow humanists to conduct weddings; the other relates to the process of how we might get there. This is all made much more complicated because our marriage laws are incredibly complicated. They have exceptions and exemptions all over the place. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England, and who I imagine knows the Marriage Act 1949 quite well, has spoken of how the rules are all tied to places. Section 26 of the Act states that marriages may be solemnised in
“a registered building…in the office of a superintendent registrar”,
and
“on approved premises”.
It also permits
“a marriage according to the usages of the Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers)”
and
“a marriage between two persons professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.
So we already have an exception and, as far as I can tell, the world has not fallen apart since those provisions were passed in 1949. They have worked without any problems. There are other areas of marriage law that are just complicated. We do not have a simple, clear system, and we are not going to get one as a result of any legislation that we pass today. That will involve further work.
Let me turn first to the question of principle. Is there a desire to allow humanists to conduct weddings? This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt). If any Member here in the Chamber disagrees with the principle of humanists being allowed to conduct weddings, I would be grateful if they intervened on me to say so. If no one expresses such a view, we will take it that there is no dissent on that principle.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is presuming; the fact those people who are currently in the Chamber do not express disagreement with him does not mean that he is right or that they all agree. That is blatantly obvious.
Mike Weatherley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. He is absolutely right to suggest that we cannot speculate accurately about the views of the people who are not in the Chamber. It is clear, however, that no strong views have been expressed that challenge the principle of holding humanist weddings, and I hope that that will be useful if this is discussed further in another place. There has not been a strong chorus of speeches here expressing disagreement with the principle. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the views of all 650 Members have not been taken into account, however. It would be helpful to know whether the Secretary of State supports humanist weddings in principle. She is welcome to intervene on me to give me her view on that. There is a desire for this change among the general public. Indeed, most people I have spoken to have been surprised to learn that humanist weddings are not allowed.
There are problems with how the process would work. People who had a humanist wedding would have to have a register office wedding first. Some registrars are very helpful, and make it easy for that to happen. They make it a seamless experience. Others, however, are difficult. They ensure, for example, that the events take place in different locations, thus breaking up the ceremony, to the detriment of people who should be having one of the happiest moments of their life. Some people who have a humanist wedding celebration do not have a legal wedding. I presume they know that they are not legally married, but that can cause problems for them. So there are concerns about the way in which the process works at the moment.
We know that this is a pro-marriage step. We have heard a lot from the Government and the Minister to say that the aim of the whole Bill is to support marriage. We know that that is what it does. We know that in Scotland between 2005 and 2011 there was a very large increase in the number of humanist weddings—the figure I have for the increase is 2,404—and there was a small decrease of 418 in civil weddings. Overall, that is a very large number of extra weddings. That is surely something that a pro-marriage Government would thoroughly want to support.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making some strong points. Anecdotally, in my constituency, a former member of the Welsh Assembly who is a humanist celebrant tells me that from her experience, if the provisions were made legal, the numbers would increase. She certainly sees a demand from the people of Cardiff South and Penarth.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I should declare that I am a member of the British Humanist Association and an officer of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and I have spoken to a number of people who have confirmed that there is a demand for this to happen. People wish to do humanist marriage and there does not have to be a majority before we think that it is the right thing to do.
What are the problems? This takes us to the process of how to get there. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury, and others have asserted that this would unpick the lock. What I never heard—perhaps we will hear it from the Minister—is exactly why the locks that protect faith groups would be unpicked by allowing humanists to act as registrars for a wedding. It is really not clear. I have heard it implied that it is because this would involve celebrants and it would not happen at a registered place. We have heard that Jews and Quakers are already exempt from the requirement to have a registered place. If the lock has already been unpicked by that, why should it be a problem? We have simply not heard any detailed analysis; it seems that people are saying things because they have been told that they are true. That is not really good enough.
I am concerned about the process that has brought us here. The Second Church Estates Commissioner—sadly, he is not in his place—suggested that the proposal was put through at the last minute and there was not enough time to deal with it adequately. I tabled my amendment initially on 5 February, immediately after Second Reading. I vividly remember it because I was slightly annoyed that somebody else had tabled another amendment before I had even got to the Table for mine. I was delighted that it received support from across the House and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) led on it in Committee with the support of the Labour Front-Bench team.
There was time from 5 February to make comments, and comments were made. There was detailed discussion, for example, between the British Humanist Association and Government officials. A couple of comments were made about how the provision would fit in with the locks and, interestingly, about its breadth. My original amendment would have allowed all approved organisations to participate, with a few safeguards, and did not specify humanism. The Government advice from the meetings with officials was that that should be changed. I know that the Minister disagrees, but it is entirely consistent with the letter and I was very specifically told by the BHA that it was given the advice to limit the provision to humanism.
I am happy to read out again the relevant section from the Minister’s letter:
“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”
The letter went on to say that
“we remain of the view that”
humanist ceremonies
“cannot be dealt with in isolation”.
That is simply not consistent with the idea that the Government had no role in this.
Maria Miller
I am sorry, but I must complete what the letter sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said. It went on to state clearly that
“the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is the wrong mechanism to effect the changes to marriage law that you desire. Therefore the Government is unable to support your amendments.”
I am quoting directly from the letter. That clearly shows no opaqueness in the situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s previous comments were not entirely consistent with what is written in the letter.
Dr Huppert
I thank the right hon. Lady for reading out the rest of the letter, and I am happy for anybody to see it; I see that her Parliamentary Private Secretary has copies of it. She is right that it did not say that the Government supported the amendment or that they had another way of delivering it; it does not say, “Here are amendments that could make it work.” It says that the Government do not support the change because it is the wrong mechanism; it does not say, “We see you have now reduced the scope and we are very worried about this because we think you should broaden it back out again to be ECHR-compliant.” It is quite clear that the strong impression formed by the BHA from the meetings—I am sure there will be minutes—is that it was given strong advice to tighten the amendment. If that is not the case, it is hard to understand why it would choose to change the original version, which is obviously available for anyone to read. There has been ample time for the Attorney-General to consider the new clause, to be consulted on it and to be asked for his ruling on whether it would accord with the European convention on human rights. Strangely, however, that did not happen until the very last moment.
There have been other meetings. For instance, we had a detailed discussion with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and I thank him for his time. As he will no doubt recall, the objections that were expressed did not centre on the fact that the new clause would make the whole Bill non-compliant with the convention, but there was talk of the cost of updating the computer system to allow an extra field for humanist weddings. He is nodding. A number of other issues were raised: for example, concern was expressed about the possibility that the measure would allow humanists to conduct weddings out of doors, which members of other faiths are not allowed to do under our marriage law unless they are Jews or Quakers.
I find it truly bizarre that if there is concern about challenges with regard to the proposals before us, there is not fundamental concern about challenges to legislation under which the rules governing Jews and Quakers differ from those governing any other group. We have plenty of legislation that singles out the Church of England and the Church of Wales, because they are, or were, connected to the state. I would be grateful if the Minister, or anyone else, could tell me how many times the fact that Jews and Quakers are listed, but not Hindus, Sikhs or any other group, has been subject to a legal challenge. In fact, that simply has not happened.
I respect the Attorney-General’s position, but I do not understand how he can have formed his opinions. I hope that we will be able to see a detailed analysis, from him or from the Minister via him, explaining exactly what the objections are. Above all, however, I believe passionately that the law could be constructive. The Government do not have to agree with humanist weddings, and they do not have to agree that this is the best way to legislate, but if they are acting in good faith in relation to the concerns that are being raised, I hope that they will say not just what the problems are but how they could be fixed, because many of us want them to be fixed.
I do not mind whether this wording is retained or other wording is introduced. I do not mind if an amendment is tabled that merely adds an extra line specifying humanists beneath the words
“professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.
I do not mind if the Government present, or find time for, another Bill to deal with the issue. I simply want humanist weddings to take place. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will not just erect barriers, but will help this Parliament to do what it clearly wants to do.
Stephen Williams
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in paying tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). In Committee, the debate took place the other way around: I spoke to the amendment first, and she spoke second.
It has been a pleasure to work across and among parties on this issue, because it is not a divisive issue. We all genuinely want to correct what we consider an anomaly in the law. I am, however, deeply disappointed that we have found ourselves where we are today. As my hon. Friend said, the Second Reading debate took place on 5 February, and the sitting of the Bill Committee during which I proposed the original amendment took place on 12 March. I know that two Departments are considering the Bill, and that No. 10 and the Deputy Prime Minister have been involved as well, but there has been quite a lot of time for the issues to be resolved.
It is disappointing that today, almost at the eleventh hour and 59 minutes, the magic bullet, or nuclear weapon, of the Attorney-General has been wheeled out to tell us that the new clause falls foul of the European convention on human rights. That was never put to us on Second Reading or in Committee, or during the many bilateral private discussions which have taken place between the various parties and Ministries that have been involved in putting the new clause together.
Other, spurious, objections have been made at various times. It has been said, for instance, that the new clause would create an exception. However, as a number of people have pointed out, the law in England and Wales already makes exceptions for the Jewish community and for Quakers. Even more spurious objections have been presented, and leaked to the Daily Mail. Another thing that I find deeply disappointing is that both the Daily Mail and The Sun specifically named both the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and me as being in favour of Jedi weddings—or the pagan ceremonies in Scotland about which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England.
Stephen Williams
Indeed; the force is not with those arguments!
The other argument that has been put forward is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle at the wrong time. I ask this of the Government Front-Bench team: if not now, when? Marriage Bills are not introduced in this place very often. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will correct me if my chronology is wrong, but I think that since the Reformation there was a marriage Bill in the reign of George III to deal with clandestine marriages, there was civil registration in 1837, divorce was legalised in 1857 and there was one marriage law in the 20th century, which was in 1949—and that is it in the whole sweep of hundreds of years of history of this Parliament debating law. This is our opportunity in the first decade of this century to try to get it right.
Chris Bryant
There was more legislation before that as well, not least the Book of Common Prayer, which lays down specific aspects. My main point, however, is that the Hardwicke Act of 1753 tried to rectify the situation that people did not need a Church of England vicar, a minister of religion or a building in order to get married, and that all they needed to do was plight their troth. That is why the situation was tidied up. Unfortunately, a near-monopoly was then given to one religion, and the Quakers and the Jews were allowed in at that point.
Stephen Williams
I suppose I did tempt the hon. Gentleman to intervene, although I did also say “since the Reformation”. As a genealogist in my spare time, I am also very familiar with the Hardwicke Act of 1753.
So, to return to my point, if not now, when? The Government have not addressed that question to our satisfaction. Instead, we are left with a suspicion that there is no good will and no intention to allow a clear pathway towards humanist weddings being given legal status.
The new clause has been very carefully drafted and redrafted since the Committee stage to take account of the objections, of which we were aware at that time. It clearly says that this right will only be granted to an organisation that is a
“registered charity…advancing…the non-religious belief known as humanism”.
It also says the registered charity must have existed for five years and the Registrar-General must be satisfied it is “of good repute.” We have heard of many other locks in the course of our discussions of this Bill, but this is surely a triple-lock that ought to satisfy everyone.
When we were considering whether opposite-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships, it was asked where the evidence was that people would want to do that. In the context of this new clause, there is clear evidence that there is demand for humanist weddings north of the border, where they are now the third most popular means of getting married, and some of the people who are getting married in Scotland are from England and Wales, because they cannot legally do so in Bristol or anywhere else in England or Wales. This new clause certainly meets a need, therefore.
Our current law is completely out of step with society. Sometimes Parliament has to give a lead and bring the public with it. In this instance, however, we are in danger of being seen as behind the grain of public opinion and of public demand for humanist marriage to be legalised. I hope that at the last minute, when the Secretary of State speaks in a few moments, we will grasp victory out of the jaws of defeat.
What I do not want to hear from the Secretary of State is the same old situation from the Government of “Heads we win, tails you lose.” I hope we do not get into that situation. There is good will among parliamentarians of all parties to legalise humanist weddings, and I hope we will take a step towards achieving that today.
Maria Miller
We have had a robust and impassioned debate on a subject about which people feel very strongly. I must make it clear from the start that it is not, and continues not to be, the objective of this Bill to extend marriage to belief groups, which is, to all intents and purposes, what many of the amendments in this group would do. I do, however, join other Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is representing the Opposition on these proposals, because she spoke with passion and eloquence about the importance of humanist ceremonies in celebrating marriage.
The hon. Lady is right to say that for many people who undertake such ceremonies, they can be an important way of marking and celebrating such an event, but it is important to make the point that neither is this the time nor is the Bill the place to make the sorts of changes she is advocating, unless she wants to risk the objective of the Bill, which is to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Humanists can already marry, but same-sex couples cannot, and that is the unfairness that the Bill is designed to remove.
Dr Huppert
There are many points on which I would love to tackle the Secretary of State, including the idea that the amendments are allowing everybody in one version, and not enough people in another, and that either way they fail the Goldilocks test. She makes the case, as I understand it, that if we allowed a route that was not premises-based, it would mean completely redoing marriage law. Does she accept that marriage law already has routes for Jews and for Quakers that are not premises-based, and that to have a route that is not premises-based simply cannot fundamentally weaken marriage law, as it would have done so since 1949 and before then?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend reads my mind, because I was about to go on to that very point. He is right: it is important that we recognise that those of the Jewish faith and Quakers have a particular position, and we have been accommodating their needs since marriage was first regulated in this country back in 1753, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That is a long-standing historical arrangement designed to respect and accommodate ancient and religious traditions. My hon. Friend will understand that because it has been established in time, it cannot be changed retrospectively and it is therefore entirely consistent with the position set out by the Attorney-General.
Kelvin Hopkins
I do not follow the right hon. Lady’s logic. She says that the Jews and the Quakers have a particular position, which has been accommodated. Why cannot we have a particular position, which is accommodated too?
Maria Miller
Because the existing arrangement pre-dates the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is the anomaly. Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict—
Maria Miller
May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?
Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would be vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Kate Green
May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.
Maria Miller
I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.
Mr Blunt
My right hon. Friend has advanced the rather preposterous proposition that the United Kingdom’s accession to the European convention on human rights is now acting to limit the rights of members of our population—humanists—to conduct marriages. That goes to the central point. I will be happy if she can give the House the assurance that the Government are in principle in favour of humanists conducting marriage, and that they will use the resources at their disposal to find a way of getting that on to the statute book. If it is not going to happen in the course of the Bill—I do not want the Bill delayed, any more than anyone else—at least the Government can make that statement of policy intent.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend may not have fully understood the argument being put forward by the Attorney-General. The issue is that the amendments discriminate in favour of one group over another. Humanists are being singled out for particular treatment. I am very happy to set out the argument fully. This is a different situation from—
Maria Miller
Will my hon. Friend allow me to respond to his intervention before he intervenes on me again?
This is a particularly difficult area. Marriage law and the principles behind it have evolved over many centuries, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out. Yes, there are anomalies in some areas, but we are talking about a particular set of amendments relating to humanists and the problem that would be faced if they were incorporated in the Bill. It is not the Government’s policy to extend marriage in the way that my hon. Friend is talking about. Humanists can already get married. The Bill is all about ensuring that people who cannot currently get married—same-sex couples—are able to do so. That should be the focus of our discussions.
I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the confusing and contradictory nature of the amendments. Is humanism non-religious, as suggested in the definition of approved organisations in new clause 15? If so, would the protections in the Bill for religious organisations apply? There was some confusion about that, particularly as to whether this would allow the marriage of same-sex couples. Or is humanism religious, as suggested in amendments 20 and 21, which add reference to approved organisations to the definition of a “relevant religious organisation”? Are we clear what humanism means in legislative terms, and who the definition would catch? The amendments simply highlight some of the problems that would arise from trying to shoehorn a new category of marriage into the current legal framework.
Dr Huppert
I do not think that the Secretary of State quite addressed the question put by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), which was whether in principle—if there was a way that did not involve the Bill, did not have ECHR problems and did not cause any other problems—she and the Government would support the concept of humanist weddings.
I am really rising because I am so shocked at the concerns about the extra amendments, which again were inserted at the suggestion of Government officials. The BHA has changed this to suit the Government, and the Government then complain about the changes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr. Huppert, it is not necessary to restate at length a previous question. I remind you that interventions should be brief, not a series of questions. It would help enormously if we stuck to those conventions.
Maria Miller
I can be very clear. It is not coalition policy to undertake the actions that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I have already dealt with the comments made about the work of my officials. Most individuals who have been dealing with my officials have found their work incredibly diligent and helpful. I am sorry that he does not feel that that has been the case in this instance.
New clause 14 would create a new status of civil union and repeal the Marriage Act 1949. That would prevent the creation of any new marriages: put simply, England and Wales would no longer recognise marriage within the law. It seems that the intention here is that civil unions would replace marriages—a change that would affect everyone who wants to marry in England and Wales in the future. That is simply not a position that the Government can support.
Conversely, the Bill is about strengthening marriage, and the Government strongly oppose any measure that would undermine marriage. New clause 14 would damage the important institution of marriage beyond repair. It would to all intents and purposes abolish it. I therefore note and welcome the intention of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) not to press the new clause to a vote. It is not something that we could support if he were to do so.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my right hon. Friend for that kind acknowledgment. The new clause was very much an attempt to show that we should be separating the state recognition of marriage from the religious. That is the point, not what it is called in the end. We are changing the institution of marriage through the Bill anyway, so to do so properly and more succinctly is something that should be explored in the other place.
Maria Miller
I do not believe that we are changing marriage. Marriage is one state, which we are enabling a new set of individuals to access, so I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not about changing marriage; it is about ensuring that more people can get into it.
Maria Miller
I will make some progress, because we have another string of amendments to get through.
The effect of new clause 18 and amendments 58 and 59 would be to require all marriages not conducted through a religious ceremony to be called civil marriages. The intention seems to be to separate marriage conducted through civil and religious ceremonies into two distinct institutions. Let me be clear that there is one legal institution of marriage in England and Wales that couples —all couples, we hope, as a result of the Bill—can join through either a religious or a civil ceremony. The new clause would create a separate type of marriage without any consideration of the legal impact. The legal consequences of such a new distinction are completely unclear.
New clause 18 contains no reference to same-sex couples, so it does not seem to require that such couples should be limited to access to civil marriage only, which might be thought to have been the purpose of distinguishing between religious and civil marriage for legal purposes. That is simply not something the Government can support. We all want couples to be able to access the important and single institution of marriage, and that is what the Bill is about. The Bill has one clear and straightforward purpose: opening up the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples. It is not designed for the sort of fundamental changes proposed in the new clause.
Simon Hughes
Does the Minister not accept, however, that there are many people who believe that the civil status of coming together in marriage should be open to straight and gay couples alike, but that people of faith and faith groups should be free to define what they understand as marriage? Some of them would permit same-sex marriage, but some of them take a different view and would not.
Maria Miller
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.
I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.
Kate Green
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.
Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.
The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.
I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.
Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.
A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.
The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.
The Attorney-General
Let me make it quite clear that it has to be a belief organisation because unless there are some grounds for belief, I assume that there is no reason for carrying out a ceremony. I am sorry if my point sounded flippant, because it was not intended to be. My point was that belief organisations can be very wide in their scope and are certainly not confined to humanism.
Kate Green
I appreciate the Attorney-General’s concern that there could be human rights challenges on those grounds. It would be useful to know how he assesses the chances of such a challenge being successful and to understand on what basis a challenge might be argued. It would also be useful to know what precedent there is of such challenges being successful elsewhere.
I am prepared to wait for the fully analysed opinion to be presented to the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide that in good time before the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords. I hope that she will take note of our interest in having a proactive opinion, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, that identifies how any defects in the proposal could be cured, as the Attorney-General has mentioned. Given the commitment from the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9
Conversion of civil partnership into marriage
Dr Huppert
I beg to move amendment 15, page 10, line 24, at end add—
‘(9) Where a civil partnership formed under part 1, section 96 of the Civil Partnership Act (Civil Partnership with former spouse) is converted into a marriage under this section—
(a) the civil partnership ends on the conversion, and
(b) if both partners so elect, the resulting marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the marriage dissolved under Schedule 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was formed.’.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 25 to 39.
Amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 33, leave out from line 42 to line 4 on page 34 and insert—
‘(2) Omit sub-paragraph (1).’.
Government amendments 40 to 47.
Amendment 13, in schedule 5, page 36, leave out lines 10 to 37 and insert—
‘Section 4 (successful applications): for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
“(2) The certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate if—
(a) the applicant is not a civil partner and does not request an interim gender recognition certificate,
(b) or the applicant is a civil partner who does not request an interim gender recognition certificate and the Panel has deceided to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership.
(3) The certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate if either—
(a) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the other party to the civil partnership has not made an application under section 1(1).
(b) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the Panel had decided not to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership,
(c) or the applicants is party to a protected marriage, requests an interim gender recognition certificate and the application includes a statutory declaration of consent from the applicant’s spouse.
(3A) If a gender recognition panel issues a full gender recognition certificate under this section to an applicant who is a party to a marriage or civil partnership, the panel must give the applicant’s spouse notice of the issue of the certificate.”.’.
Amendment 14, schedule 5, page 39, line 39, leave out
‘(by virtue of section 4(2)(b) or (4A)’.
Amendment 18, in schedule 5, page 40, line 18, at end insert—
‘One-off compensation payment to couples whose marriages were annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate
9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—
“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—
(a) the marriage was annulled following the coming into force of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the formerly married couple either—
(a) (i) formed a civil partnership with each other within six months of the annulment of their marriage, and continue to maintain their civil partnership, or
(ii) have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage.
(2) The couple shall be compensated from public funds to the amount of £1,000 by way of apology for the distress and costs incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage.”.’.
Amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 40, line 18, at end insert—
‘Reinstatement of marriages annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate
9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—
“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—
(a) the couple have continued to live together in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, and
(b) both partners to the former marriage give notice to a registrar that they wish their marriage to be reinstated.
(2) When notice is given under (1)(b), the marriage shall be reinstated with effect from the date the couple give notice to have it reinstated.”.’.
Amendment 16, in schedule 5, page 40, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
‘(a) the registration of qualifying marriages,
(b) the registration of qualifying civil partnerships,
(c) the issue of replacement marriage certificates displaying the new details of the parties to the marriage but maintaining the original date,
(d) the issue of replacement birth certificates where the application is shown on the certificate, with the consent of the other parent named and—
(i) where the child has reached 16 years of age, the consent of the child to whom the birth certificate relates,
(ii) where the child has not yet reached the age of 16 years, the consent of the other parent named on the birth certificate, where present.’.
Government amendment 48.
Amendment 12, schedule 7, page 50, line 37, at end insert—
‘24A Section 12 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable): omit paragraph (h).’.
Dr Huppert
We now move on to a rather different subject, but it is still an important one that affects a number of people greatly. A range of issues apply specifically to people who change their gender, who transition between genders or who are transgender. There may not be a huge number of people in that category and they may be a small minority, but they have been subject to some of the worst discrimination over many years and decades. Indeed, that has happened partly because there are not as many people in that group as in other groups.
Another group that we will not talk about specifically today is that of people who are intersex and who do not associate with one gender for a range of reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has tabled some amendments to clarify the position for such people. I assume that it is clear that the Government’s intention is that marriage will be equal and will not exclude those who do not identify as male or female. I assume that there is no intention to discriminate. We therefore need to focus on the specific issues for the small group of people who are transgender.
Last Friday was IDAHO—the international day against homophobia and transphobia—and I spoke to people who have suffered such discrimination at an event in my constituency. My constituency is perhaps uniquely blessed in having not only a number of people who are out about the fact that they are transgender—many people, for understandable reasons, are cagey about admitting that they are transgender—but a number of transgender people who have been elected to the local council. Indeed, we had the first transgender mayor in the country. She was very proud of that role.
There is far too much transphobia, which many people have to face. Like other hon. Members, I have worked with Trans Media Watch, which keeps an eye on the truly disgusting articles that appear in the press about people who are transgender. I heard a number of awful stories at a recent event. To give one of the many examples, Lucy Meadows, a primary school teacher, killed herself after a very nasty article came out in the Daily Mail shortly after she transitioned. That is not acceptable in society, and we need to make a stand against it.
Sometimes, such things happen because people wish to be actively nasty. Sometimes, problems are caused for people who are transgender because of problems with the legislation that we produce. We do not always think of people who are transgender when we are writing legislation and there can be unintended consequences. I do not believe that this Government or the last Government have ever intended to discriminate against people who are transgender, but it has happened by accident.
We have had a few specialist debates—for instance, about which gender of police officer should search people who are transgender. I proposed that we should just ask people whom they wished to be search by, which would resolve the problem.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree it is bizarre that a man or woman who is transitioning can have surgery and change their name but cannot have a gender realignment certificate without spousal approval?
Dr Huppert
I find it very bizarre. There are a number of anomalies in the whole process because of how it is set up, but a gender recognition certificate may be applied for only two years after someone has transitioned into the acquired gender full time, so there has already been quite a long time to try to sort out other issues. Amendments 13 and 14 would simply end the spousal veto, so that people who transition do not have to rely on their spouses to give approval. Some spouses will not give permission for that to happen.
Amendment 16 deals with marriage and birth certificates when there are transgender issues. It argues that replacement marriage certificates should be available for people who have transitioned, so that we do not force them to be outed every time they have to show a marriage certificate. We would reissue a marriage certificate with the original date and new names. That is a simple thing, but it will make a big difference. Not everybody who has transitioned wants to be known as somebody who transitioned. Many people just want to be known by their new name and new gender, and they do not wish to explain their past in every case. They already face that often enough when dealing with various institutions and medical issues. We should not force people to out themselves every time that they need to present a marriage certificate.
Bob Stewart
There will be problems with police records, for example, if people change names like that, and that will cause a big problem.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In many cases, of course, there is no problem, and there are technical ways in which the issue has been resolved. It is already possible for people to transition and the state manages to cope—income tax, HMRC and other systems manage to cope and each have detailed arrangements. I do not think that would pose a problem for somebody transitioning to avoid their previous criminal record, but it would avoid their being outed inadvertently or accidently, which is a genuine fear for a large number of transgender people.
At the moment, a child’s birth certificate cannot be reissued on the parent’s transition. Again, that raises concerns about privacy and outing, not just for the transperson but for their families, for example, when applying for school places. Under the amendment, replacement birth certificates could be issued with the new gender and with the consent of the child once they have reached an age at which they are able to consent. Older children should clearly have some say in this. Such a provision would protect the privacy of the person who has transitioned where such information should not be revealed.
Clause 12 relates to an interesting aspect of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which gives grounds to void a marriage. It states that a marriage can be voided if
“the respondent is a person whose gender at the time of the marriage had become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”
If somebody marries somebody who has already transitioned, they can at any point cancel the marriage on that ground. Technically, that applies only if the person did not know that their partner had transitioned, but the problem is that, if someone is not public about the fact that they have transitioned, they are at risk of their partner, at any time, saying, “I did not realise.” There would be little proof, unless we expect transpeople always to tell others.
We could get rid of that anomaly and still allow normal divorce proceedings to be started. The marriage could still be ended if there was an incompatible breakdown when a person discovers the history of their partner—there would still be a way out for them if they feel they cannot continue—but we should remove the automatic sense that somebody has done something wrong simply by being transgender. That is a real concern. There have been such cases in Scotland—they were not to do with marriage, but with other sexual interactions—and there have been sex-by-fraud cases simply because somebody was transgender. We simply should not allow that to happen. Those are small and specific issues, but the proposals will make a difference to a persecuted minority within our country.
Government amendments on pensions and transgender people are welcome. I thank the Government for making that step, which is welcomed by the trans community and is to be supported.
Before I conclude, I want to highlight amendment 49, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope she does not mind my speaking to it before she does. The amendment would end a bizarre anomaly. If I marry somebody and die, they get a survivor’s pension related to the amount of time that I have spent in work. However, if I have a civil partnership with somebody and die, the payment they receive is related not to the time when I started work, but to the time when civil partnerships came into existence. That is bizarre. Any insurer would not know whether I would choose a marriage or civil partnership. It seems odd that one pension is backdated to when I started work, and the other goes only part way. It would make sense if both pensions dated back to the date of the marriage—I can understand the logic, although I do not believe that that is the right solution—but there is a blatant and odd inequality.
Most employers pay no attention to the anomaly because they are keen to be helpful to their employees. Many of them can nominate people to whom they are not married to receive the survivor’s pension. However, we should not have such inequality written in law. I apologise to the hon. Lady for saying that before she has had a chance to do so.
I hope that the Government take those issues seriously, because we can fix anomalies of the past and avoid making further ones in the present.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I will address many of the issues he has raised. As he said powerfully, the amendments seek to provide some small right to the dreadful wrong that has been done to those couples who were forced by the state to annul marriages in order for one of them to avail themselves of their most basic civil rights.
Amendments 18 and 22 are in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who is unable to be in the Chamber today because he is attending the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I gladly agreed to speak to the amendments as the second signatory, because I have long been concerned to see that injustice rectified.
I shall provide the House with the case example that led the hon. Gentleman to table the amendments. His constituents have been married for 35 years as man and wife. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 forced them to annul their marriage, which they did in 2007, so that the male-to-female transsexual in the relationship could obtain a gender recognition certificate in her acquired gender and get on with her life. The legislation did not allow the couple to continue to be married even though they wanted that. Both were extremely clear that they wished to stay together and did not want a divorce. They had cared for, supported and loved each other as a married couple for more than 30 years, and wanted the care and support they mutually offered each other to continue in the years ahead. They wanted to keep their family together for their own sake and for the sake of their children.
Since being forced to annul their marriage, the couple have lived together as two women in a civil partnership. They entered into a civil partnership on the very same day their marriage ended and still live together, but they should never have been made to annul their marriage, even if an alternative legal mechanism was available in the form of a civil partnership. They have lived together continuously for 44 years and it is their marriage anniversary that they still celebrate. For many couples, annulment was deeply distressing and not something of mere technical and legal significance.
As I think we would all recognise, reasons for marrying and making a public commitment are intensely personal and varied. For some, marriage is not just about legal practicalities, and the blunt replacement of one legal mechanism with another is not the end of the matter. Other hon. Members will have similar cases. The number of people involved is not large—a point I will come on to in a moment—but the injustice done to them is real. We ought to take this opportunity to go some way to righting the wrong done.
What can the Government do to make amends? Amendment 18 proposes to require the Government to make a one-off compensation payment from public funds to couples whose marriages were annulled, to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and enter into or continue to maintain a civil partnership; or to those who have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, but who did not choose to go down the route of a civil partnership. It is a simple principle: married couples forced by the state to have an annulment that they did not want should be compensated by the Government by way of an apology for the distress and cost incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage. The amendment proposes a nominal sum of £1,000. The public expenditure implications would be negligible—we know the numbers are small, as I will go on to explain in a moment. The £1,000 compensation payment would be far less than the cost for couples who have had to pay for a divorce and a civil partnership ceremony.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on what is a very interesting contribution. Will she clarify a small point, but one that is of great significance to those in Northern Ireland? I am following the logic of her argument. Under schedule 2 to the Bill, those in England and Wales can avail themselves of same-sex marriage. As soon as they go to Northern Ireland, however, that marriage would have to be treated as a civil partnership. Is the logic of her argument that the state that passed the legislation must also compensate those who regard themselves as married couples in England and Wales, but become civil partners again in Northern Ireland?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Given that we are talking about a symbolic apology, it would be generous and appropriate for it to be offered in Northern Ireland too. My argument is not a narrow legal argument. A wrong was done. To the extent that the wrong was done by the Government, one can make an argument that the measure is relevant only to those who were living in the country at that time.
Lady Hermon
It is very generous of the hon. Lady to take a second intervention. Just to be clear, I was not making a recommendation that compensation be paid by the state. I was simply asking the hon. Lady whether her amendments would oblige the Government to pay compensation in the circumstances she outlined. Is the logic of her argument that she would advocate compensation in Northern Ireland? I certainly am not doing so.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. In that case, my answer is simple: yes, I would.
Amendment 22 would remove any reference to compensation and deal specifically with the reinstatement of marriages in cases where couples had their marriages annulled, so that a person could obtain a gender recognition certificate and continue to live together without forming a civil partnership. In cases where civil partnerships were formed after forced annulment, I am pleased that the Bill provides some assistance. Under clause 9, a couple are permitted to convert their civil partnership into a marriage to be treated as having subsisted since the date the civil partnership was formed.
Couples who were forced to annul a marriage and enter into a civil partnership will not be able to rewrite history—at least not legally—but it will almost be as if there was no break in their marriage, which of course they never wanted to annul in the first place. These are not the only cases, however, and we must ensure that all cases are covered. As a result, amendment 22 is designed to help couples who annulled their marriages so that one person could get a gender certificate, but who did not then enter into a civil partnership. As far as possible, the injustice that they have also faced must be addressed.
When the issue was discussed in Committee, the Minister expressed sympathy for couples who had been required to make the difficult choice of whether to end their marriage to enable one of the parties to obtain gender recognition, but she said that she could not support an amendment that sought to reinstate marriages from the date they were annulled because of the difficulties that could be caused with any rights and responsibilities that the couple had accrued since their marriage was annulled—for example, retrospective entitlements to benefits and taxation.
In order to help the Government and make some progress, in this version of the amendment, I and the hon. Member for York Central are proposing that reinstatement of the marriage be from the date that the couple gave notice to have it reinstated. This would address Ministers’ concern about retrospective legislation. It is not ideal. I would much prefer a fully retrospective measure, but given what the Minister said in Committee, it would be better than nothing for this small but greatly wronged—I still believe—group of people. Couples were forced to make a distressing and appalling choice, largely because policy on same-sex marriage was lagging so far behind what was right and just. I hope that we can use the window of opportunity in this historic Bill to do the right thing.
Margot James
I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on their work in this important area. A couple in Stourbridge came to me two years ago, one of them having undergone gender reassignment treatment and surgery. They were very distressed that their marriage had been annulled and did not want to enter into a civil partnership, for their own reasons. Does this not underline the benefit of the Bill? People who are in this position having had gender reassignment surgery will have the choice, whether they are gay or heterosexual.
Caroline Lucas
Yes, I think it does underline the benefit. As we have said, the numbers are not huge, but for the individuals involved, it was very distressing, so I think it appropriate that we take this opportunity to address the situation.
My amendment 49 would address the continuing discriminatory hurdle in the Bill around pensions. The Bill allows employers and pension providers to award gay spouses and civil partners a fraction of the survivor benefits payable to a partner in a mixed-sex marriage. It is an unnecessary and counter-productive anomaly in a Bill that otherwise makes landmark progress in furthering the fundamental human rights of gay people. The amendment would give same sex couples entering into a gay marriage entitlement to the same pension rights as married opposite-sex couples. It removes both existing discriminatory provisions in the Equality Act 2010 and the subsequent extension of that discrimination in this Bill.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
In tabling amendment 49, the hon. Lady has identified an anomaly that deserves to be rectified in the way she suggests. If the Government and the House want to give complete equality to same-sex relationships, they must address the pension question, otherwise we will have this extraordinary anomaly that if a person in a same-sex relationship today chooses to enter into a heterosexual marriage tomorrow, their new spouse would have full pension entitlement, whereas their former same-sex partner, whom they might have had a relationship with for many years, would get a fraction of that pension entitlement. If the Government and the House want same-sex relationships to have full equal rights, her amendment must be the right course of action.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I know he has had first-hand experience in his constituency of exactly this issue.
Paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 allows employers and pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees made before 5 December 2005 when it comes to assessing survivor benefits for their civil partners and occupational pension schemes. Paragraph 15 of schedule 4 to the Bill would extend that discriminatory provision to same-sex spouses.
As we saw in yesterday’s debate on opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, the Government are comfortable arguing that unforeseen costs to pension schemes are a legitimate justification for sanctioning discrimination, yet their warning that the equalisation of treatment in the provision of occupational pension benefits will cost too much simply cannot be substantiated. No pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals in a pension scheme will be gay, never mind how many of them will marry or form a civil partnership with an individual who outlives them by a significant period of time.
Dealing with uncertainties around length of life, the possibility of illness, the decision to marry and many other issues is second nature to pension providers. Gay married people pose no more uncertainty than their straight counterparts. What is more, according to the Government’s figures, two thirds of pension providers already do the right thing, so any additional liability to pension schemes will surely be minimal. The financial implications of perpetuating discrimination could be very grave indeed, though, for those individuals who have paid into their pension schemes in the same way as other employees, yet will be denied the survivor benefits available to married mixed-sex couples.
One recent employment tribunal found that an occupational pension scheme was directly discriminatory because it provided a civil partner with only the benefit from pension rights accrued since 2004—in other words, when civil partnerships became available in the UK. John Walker and his civil partner have been together for 20 years and registered their civil partnership at the first possible opportunity, yet the pension scheme sought to restrict the survivor benefits available to John’s partner to just £500 a year. If John dissolved his civil partnership and married a woman today, she would be entitled to £41,000 per annum in the event of his death.
With the help of Liberty, John challenged that discrimination and recently won his legal battle to secure equal pension benefits for his civil partner. The employment tribunal relied on European Court of Justice rulings, which concluded that treating married and same-sex couples differently over the pensions payable to a survivor when national law recognises the relationships as equivalent in other respects breached the framework directive on equal treatment in employment. My amendment 49 would ensure full compliance with that directive and, crucially, ensure that the equality rulings made by the courts are applicable to all marriage relationships.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that if people are to have parity before the law, they must have not just emotional parity, but financial parity? Anything less would not be equality in any shape or form.
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We are talking about genuine equality. That means legal equality, as well as symbolic or any other kind of equality.
That tribunal was a landmark case. Interestingly, the Government lost the case, so one could argue that agreeing to my amendment 49 might save them money, as they would not need to pay out in future legal cases that might go against them. If the law remains as it is for civil partners and that inequality is extended to those in same-sex marriages, it could be several decades before gay couples achieve real equality in pension provision. I see no justification for continuing to permit discrimination in this area. I hope very much that colleagues will support amendment 49 and join me in overturning an anomalous and discriminatory provision.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate on this group of amendments.
I have been quite conflicted over this entire subject. I am a godfather to a lovely little boy who has been adopted. His parents are in a partnership and they are both gay. I see myself very much as a progressive Conservative, and I certainly recognise that society’s attitudes have advanced, which is reflected in the fact that we are debating the amendments in such detail today. Of course we do not send children up chimneys any more, or allow only privileged landowners to vote, and we got rid of slavery long ago.
Mike Freer
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Speaking as a gay man in a civil partnership, I had no idea that my pension rights could be curtailed until someone wrote to me about it. The reason my hon. Friend might not have had much about that in his postbag could be that most gay people in a civil partnership have no idea that they are being discriminated against if they are in a contracted-in scheme.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The question is whether the Bill should be the vehicle for making those changes, but I very much respect his views.
I represent the beautiful, very diverse constituency of Bournemouth East. It has a substantial elderly population—some Members of Parliament have chosen to call Bournemouth “God’s waiting room”—as well as a vibrant town centre with a huge gay population. It is also a university town. So it has an elderly population and a young generation, as well as a large gay community. I have talked to members of the gay community about the Bill. I have also made an effort to speak to religious groups, individuals and organisations across the town, not only about pensions but about matters such as gender recognition. We debated those matters in schools as well. I have to say that I heard no significant call for these proposals generally, and certainly not for the provision in amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). There were no planned demonstrations or pent-up anger because the issues had not been addressed.
Many people in the gay community like the general proposals in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has just pointed out, certain aspects in life need to be corrected, and this debate has been helpful in that regard. In general terms, however, most of the people I spoke to said, “Go away and focus on the economy.” They suggested that this was an important issue, but wondered why we were dealing with it right now.
The Bill was not mentioned in any Queen’s Speech, and I believe that the Government could have helped themselves by following the normal protocol of announcing that the measures would be introduced in a particular legislative period. Given that backdrop, I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and her Ministers for their stamina in pursuing the amendments they have tabled. They must have known from the start how controversial the amendments and the Bill as a whole would be. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurances, especially on Government amendment 25.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, as I always do. The Bill as a whole has certainly been controversial—it has divided the parties and the country—but does he agree that amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is not controversial and should attract widespread support across the House and outside in the country? It represents a bit of unfinished business from the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.
Mr Ellwood
I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I step back and wonder whether all these amendments are required right now and whether this is where society wants to go right now. Many Members have been forced to make a decision, and there is naturally a tendency to want to support the Bill and not to view it as out of place. My question is why these issues are being brought to our attention at this moment in time. As I say, I did not see the deluge of calls for this measure, although the trajectory of society moving forward means that this is very much how we would anticipate the Bill and its amendments.
I am pleased that we have this opportunity to conduct this debate, which has prompted us to think about the wider issues of the role, purpose and values of marriage in our society. We are debating amendments relating to gender recognition and so forth, which has educated us about the historic role of the state in respect of the Church.
The Bible is full of commands that are unknown or ignored by many Christians today. That reflects how society is very much moving forward. Wives used to be subject to their husbands; children arguing with their parents used to be taken out and stoned to death; women used to have to cover their heads in church. Those things are either unknown by Christians today or simply ignored because they have no place in modern society. The Church has changed its views over the years—indeed, the Bill has changed as we have debated it over these last few months.
The Church remains divided on many subjects: the burning of witches, abortion, contraception, the status of illegitimate children and so forth. On a wider perspective, it is the role of Parliament to challenge the Church on these issues and through the Bill and amendments, as we did on the grander issues in the past. Slavery was indeed defended by many bishops because of the Bible; the Old Testament regulated for slavery; divorce was clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels, and those who had divorced were not permitted to remarry. In the Church of England, marriage was “Till death us do part”; it was long thought to be lifelong and indissoluble, yet divorce was formally introduced in this place in 1857.
What, then, are my thoughts on this Bill? I am absolutely supportive of the concept, but, like many of the Government amendments, it is ahead of its time. That puts many of us in an awkward position. Do we support the Government amendments and the Bill, which I believe to be somewhat messy and not well handled, albeit on a subject to which I do not object. Should I vote against the Bill and the amendments for which many of my constituents have called? A significant number of them were moved enough to call me to make sure that I did not support specific amendments or indeed the Bill as a whole. Then there is the final option, which is to abstain on the amendments and the Bill, thus honouring many of the calls not to support the Bill’s proposals while ensuring that my vote is honest to myself.
I shall conclude because I know others wish to participate in this important Report debate. I hope I shall not digress too far from the subject matter by mentioning that the FTSE 100 yesterday recorded its highest value in 24 years; despite being a significant economic indicator, it got no mention in this place. I hope that after Third Reading later today, we can back to considering the economy. The subject of gay marriage is significant and should be brought into law, but I remain to be convinced that it should be a priority for now. Those who will benefit from the change in the law are calling for the change now.
Jim Shannon
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 27 and 28. It will not be a surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. I have said that in Public Bill Committee and in this Chamber in the earlier debate, I said it yesterday and I will reiterate it today.
I want to thank the Government for at least listening to me and my party on one issue. The Bill proposes that same-sex marriages formed in England and Wales should be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the way in which overseas same-sex marriages are currently recognised in the House.
I was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. When I say “scrutinised”, I mean that the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) scrutinised it very thoroughly. Most of the Committee’s members, however, sat in silence throughout the five days of our debates on the clauses, and most of them tabled precious few amendments. They seemed to see themselves as cheerleaders for the Bill, rather than the scrutinisers that they should have been. Never before, during my short time in the House of Commons, have I known members of the official Opposition to abdicate their responsibility to hold the Government to account quite so thoroughly.
Some of us did table amendments, and took the time and the trouble to speak. I pointed out to the Committee that Scottish Ministers were to be asked to give their consent to legal changes allowing recognition of English same-sex marriages, whereas Northern Ireland Ministers were merely to be consulted. Amendments 27 and 28 give us an opportunity to align the law with that in Scotland, which is good news.
As I said in Committee and have said in the Chamber, the Bill has generated the biggest single postbag I have received on any issue in all my years as an elected representative—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am trying to be as tolerant as possible, but we are discussing this group of amendments, not previous amendments and what happened in Committee. I am trying to be fair, but we are in danger of not remaining where we should be.
Jim Shannon
Amendments 27 and 28 provide for “consent”, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remove the reference to consultation. Why is that important? It is important to the people whom I represent in Northern Ireland because it introduces accountability to the process. Some 1,700 of my constituents have contacted me about the issue: members of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the Elim Pentacostal Church, Baptist Brethren, evangelical groups, Roman Catholics, Sikhs and Muslims. Members of faith groups throughout Northern Ireland have asked us, as Members of Parliament, to push for consent rather than consultation, and we have done so.
I believe that when we convey opinions about the importance of faith and religious persuasions, as we have in the House today and as we did in Committee, those opinions cannot be ignored. It has grieved me when some members of the Committee, and perhaps some Members in the House, have brushed aside the opinions of those with hard-held religious views.
Several of my fellow Northern Ireland Members have received similar amounts of correspondence from constituents, all of them pushing for consent rather than consultation. Only 17 of my constituents who contacted me were in favour of the changes. Theirs was very much a minority view, but it is one that we must respect and take on board.
The Northern Ireland Assembly will make the final decision on the issue, which is why amendments 27 and 28 are important. The Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage on two occasions under the consultation process. The first occasion was on 1 October 2012, when it was rejected by 50 votes to 45. Then, on 29 April this year, it was rejected by 53 votes to 42.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I have been generous, and have allowed what I thought was a kind of preamble, but we are actually discussing a group of amendments entitled “Gender, benefits and miscellaneous”. That is the problem that I am facing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be getting there. I am sure that he is, and will confine himself to the subjects under discussion from now on.
Jim Shannon
I may have been a wee bit over-ambitious in trying to express some of my points of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate your generosity. I will return to the issues directly.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), confirmed to me, in a letter that I received yesterday, that
“Amendments 27 and 28 to clause 15(6) of the Bill make all orders and regulations made under the Bill subject to the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel if those amendments would otherwise fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
The amendments have clearly given the Assembly the authority to make a final decision on the issue. That is very significant, and I thank both Ministers for what they have done.
This issue is immensely important to us in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to a massive postbag. I thank Ministers again for enabling consent rather than consultation to be enshrined in legislation.
Mike Freer
May I return to the topic of amendment 49, which I was very pleased to co-sign with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)?
Let me start by reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that building a stable and cohesive society is one of the most fundamental roles of Government, so to be doing that today through debating this Bill is a highly appropriate use of parliamentary time. To those who ask whether we should be doing something else, I say that I can, perhaps unusually for a man, multi-task, so I think I can manage both to speak in this debate and to deal with other pressing issues.
Turning specifically to the amendment, it is important to distinguish between contracted-in and contracted-out pensions. This is quite a technical change and it does not apply to contracted-out pensions; it applies only to contracted-in pensions. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, two-thirds of pension schemes already allow spousal survivors in civil partnerships equivalent widow or widower benefits without having to be forced to do so by the law, but one-third of them are discriminating. What is worse, that is an optional discrimination; they are choosing to discriminate against surviving civil partners in contracted-in pension schemes.
Let me try to explain why that is so fundamentally wrong. The hon. Lady gave the example of John Walker. Had he married a woman, she would have got a pension on his death of £41,000, but his civil partner got a pension of just £500 per annum. That diversity is the wrong kind of diversity; that is pure discrimination. Let us assume two men or two women join a pension scheme on the same day, and they both have the same level of service, and they both enter into some form of partnership, but one gets married and the other goes into a civil partnership, and let us also assume that the day after they get married or enter their civil partnership, they are both, by some quirk of fate, killed in a car accident. The pension of the widow in marriage will be go back to the date her former husband joined the pension scheme, let us say some 20 years previously, but the civil partner only gets to go as far back as when civil partnerships came into law. That cannot be right by any stretch of the imagination.
When researching why the Government were resisting this amendment, I was told that one of the issues is the cost factor. Everything we as a Government do has a cost, so I thought there must be some huge cost—perhaps £4 billion, which was a ready price-tag yesterday. In fact, the cost of giving equal pension rights on contracted-in pensions to civil partners is £18 million—not £80 million or £80 billion, but £18 million. It is true that that is a lot of money, and I certainly would not mind having £18 million in my bank account, but let me put that into perspective. The assets under management of the pension industry amount to £360 billion, so the cost of removing this anomaly is 0.006% of assets under management. I do not think that is a price we cannot afford.
I was also told that it is wrong to force pension providers to make retrospective calculations on which they did not base their pension actuarial decisions. That, too, is a flawed argument. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, the actuaries behind a pension scheme make a whole variety of assumptions about longevity, how many of their pensioners will die in service and how many of them will die as a pensioner, and how long they will stay in the pension, and the accrual rate will be based on an assumption that most of their members will get married. It is complete nonsense to suggest that pension providers cannot allow civil partners who survive to get the same benefit as a widow or widower because it has not been accrued, as there is absolutely no evidence that the actuaries have not been able to make that calculation. If they made the calculation that X% of their pensioners would get married, they could simply make assumptions about a man in a civil partnership. They will have had no knowledge of whether that man or woman would have decided to get married or to enter a civil partnership and there is no logical or financial reason why the anomaly cannot be removed.
I hope that the Minister will give some commitment from the Government that the anomaly will be reconsidered. I know it was mentioned in Committee and that the Government are resisting the amendments, but I urge my ministerial colleagues to address the issue.
James Duddridge
I totally support the comments my hon. Friend is making about removing the anomaly. Is there a list of companies that are already doing the right thing and, crucially, those that are doing the wrong thing? Are those companies named and shamed? Often, when we flick through the glossy corporate reports they say lots of glowing things and that the company is doing the right thing, but are they putting their money where their mouth is and supporting equal rights?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have tried to dig around to find out the size of liabilities and which companies are doing this, but unfortunately I cannot find that information. It is fair to say that many corporates take great pleasure in trumpeting in their annual reports what they would regard as their social responsibility, but I think that they should be saying loud and proud—to coin a phrase—that they are treating civil partners in the same way as heterosexual widows and widowers.
I hope that my ministerial colleagues can give some ground and say that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter. The cost is not even a rounding error in the Government accounts or for the pension industry, but the benefit to the recipients is beyond value.
Kate Green
It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), whose contributions to our debates on this Bill at every stage have been exemplary, moving, powerful and reasoned.
I am very pleased to welcome warmly many of the amendments on transgender issues. I particularly welcome Government amendments 40 to 47, and I thank Ministers, who I know have taken on board issues raised in Committee about pension protections for transgender couples. I am pleased that the concerns raised in Committee have been addressed in the amendments. They will create no new liability for pension funds and will remove for some couples the hideous decision about whether a member of the couple should proceed with gender reassignment and, in the process, remove the pension rights of a much-loved spouse. I know that following the debate in Committee, transgender people and their partners are pleased by the Government’s response and I want to put on record my thanks to Ministers for that.
I also welcome the other amendments on transgender issues in the group. Although I have some concerns about the compensation provision, the calculation given to us by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) suggests that there is relatively—indeed, microscopically—little cause for any Chancellor to be concerned. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the whole package of amendments on transgender issues proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. As I think the hon. Gentleman said, many of the injustices that the amendments seek to address are probably inadvertent injustices, but they are none the less deeply wrong injustices suffered by transgender couples. I invite Ministers to look, even as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, at ways in which we might put rectifying action in place.
On amendment 49, on pensions, I too recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married couples and same-sex civil partners. I also recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without difficulty. We have always accepted the estimate of £18 million potential additional cost to private contracted-in occupational pension schemes, and I agree with hon. Members who have already said that in the scheme of overall funds under management for pension companies, that seems a very small amount indeed, although I also accept the concern that extending pension rights to civil partners could have a disproportionate impact in a very small number of cases, particularly in small and often charity employer schemes.
In relation to other schemes and the possible wider effect, for example on contracted-out occupational pensions, where Ministers have suggested a potential impact of £90 million, or in relation to public sector schemes, I must say that I am still puzzled as to why we think there is any further implication. In February I obtained a note from the House of Commons Library which pointed out that civil partners are already entitled to survivor benefits in contracted-out and public sector schemes in relation to benefits going back to 1988. That is a result of the Civil Partnership (Contracted-out and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005. The Library said that the same was true of public sector schemes, as I say. So I am not clear how the exemption would affect those contracted-out and public sector schemes.
Although I have great sympathy for the amendment, the Government should come forward with a full analysis in order for Parliament to take an informed decision on what the cost implications would be. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which was not selected for debate. I understand the reasons for that, but it would have asked for the full report of the pensions costs implications for all forms of occupational pension and the impact on pension funds and pensioner poverty to be presented to Parliament. Although the new clause has not been selected for debate, I join the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green in asking Ministers to present the fullest possible information to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision. I recognise that if we get it wrong, we could drive very small pension schemes out of business, which would exacerbate inequalities in other ways.
As things stand, we are without a proper review of the cost. Ministers have expressed concerns that it could be more—potentially considerably more—than £18 million, and on the basis of the information before us, I regret that I cannot support amendment 49 today. However, I want to place on record my strong support for the principle that underpins it, and I very much hope that information that will enable us to move forward will be available to the House as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is nice to be able to make a contribution at last to this important debate, after sitting on the Front Bench for quite a few hours.
I will first speak to Government amendments in the group. This is a large group of amendments that, in broad terms, concern pension entitlements, gender reassignment, devolution and a number of miscellaneous matters. Government amendment 25 ensures that the protection for the Church of England in the Bill is both full and clear. We have been continuing our discussions with the Church since we knew that it had doubts about whether the power provided in clause 11(5)(c) would be sufficient to enable us to provide full protection for Church of England ecclesiastical law from the effect of clauses 11(1) and 11(2). It is an important part of the protection that Church of England canon law should not be affected by the provisions in the Bill and that references to marriage shall continue to mean marriage between a man with a woman only. Having consulted the Church of England, we have decided to provide further protection by referring to ecclesiastical law in the Bill. The amendment affects only law applying to the Church of England in the limited cases where the effect of marriage is at issue.
Lady Hermon
My intervention relates specifically to Northern Ireland and harks back to the useful advice given at the beginning of the debate by the Attorney-General in relation to the risk of discrimination. The Minister will know that under the Bill as drafted, if it is enacted, schedule 2 means that a couple who avail of the facility of a same-sex marriage will be fine in England and Wales, but as soon as they go to Northern Ireland it reverts to a civil partnership. My concern, mirrored by the Attorney-General’s intervention in relation to an earlier amendment, is that within the United Kingdom, surely that is discrimination on grounds of different status in Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
Perhaps the Minister’s correspondence could clarify the matter. I believe that the authority lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps she might like to reply, if that is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on these devolution matters and for the work the Government have done to ensure that we have our own separate legislation for same-sex marriage. Can she assure me that she will do all she can to work with Scottish Ministers and ensure that everything required for a legislative consent motion will be approved by the UK Government so that we can go ahead with our own process in Scotland?
Mrs Grant
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly work very hard on that together.
I turn now to Government amendments 30 to 32, which are purely technical and simply ensure that the use of the phrase “existing England and Wales legislation” is entirely coherent, so as to remove any possible doubt as to its meaning. Government amendments 33 to 39 are technical and make changes to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 to ensure that it works entirely properly for same-sex marriages. Amendment 33 makes changes to the 1973 Act in relation to what applies to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages and to give effect to schedule A1.
Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38 make changes to ensure consistency of language with the 1973 Act. Amendment 37 inserts a provision into schedule A1 to enable applications for an order to end a marriage because one of the couple is dead to be made under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. Amendment 39 enables schedule A1 to work using the presumption of death provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the 2013 Act is not in force when the Bill comes into force. Amendment 39 also amends schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 provisions on staying—meaning halting—matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales when there are other court proceedings at the same time outside England and Wales about that same-sex marriage. That will ensure that such proceedings on the same divorce, judicial separation or annulment do not give rise to conflicting decisions, which would prevent resolution of the issue.
Lady Hermon
I am listening intently to the Minister and am sorry to interrupt her at this stage, but I must bring her back to Northern Ireland. I really want an assurance from the Government that we in Northern Ireland will not see legal challenges on the grounds of breaches of the European convention on human rights by those who, if the Bill becomes law, avail of same-sex marriage in England and Wales. It is specifically paragraph 2 of schedule 2 that concerns me. It states:
“Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership… (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).”
I just need reassurance from the Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are getting to Third Reading points and I would not want the hon. Lady to use up the points that would be better made then.
Mrs Grant
I am afraid that, as this is a devolved matter, it is impossible for me to give the assurance that the hon. Lady is asking for. Northern Ireland, rightly, has to look at the issue itself.
Government amendments 40 to 47 deal with pension entitlements. They amend part 6 of schedule 4, which provides for same-sex married couples to be treated in the same manner and to be entitled to the same survivor benefits as civil partners. As drafted, that includes couples in same-sex marriages who have preserved their marriage following the change of legal gender of one of the spouses, and it is designed to ensure that all same-sex couples are treated alike for this purpose. We recognise that our policy of treating same-sex marriages in the same way as civil partnerships for occupational pension survivor benefits may create a problem in relation to survivor benefits for a very small group of individuals whose spouses change gender during their marriage. We understand that this could deter a transsexual person from seeking to change their legal gender because of the financial impact on their husband or wife. If the amendments are made, widows of marriages that become same-sex as a result of the husband’s change of legal gender during the marriage will still be treated as widows for the purpose of calculating survivor benefits in a contracted-out occupational pension scheme; and for schemes that are not contracted out, in calculating any entitlement to survivor benefits, the marriage will continue to be treated as opposite-sex marriage.
Mike Freer
If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that any transgender couple who transition will keep their full entitlement from the date of joining the pension scheme, but a civil partner survivor will still be restricted to the point at which civil partnerships became law. Does not that create yet another anomaly?
Mrs Grant
I think that I have made the position clear. The concession is intended to target a very small group of people, and we do not intend to open it up any further. The main reason for giving the concession is that there has been no break in the marriage.
Amendment 49 would remove the exception in the Equality Act 2010 that allows occupational pension schemes to take into consideration only accruals from 2005 for the purpose of survivor benefits for those in a civil partnership. It would also remove the provision in the Bill that extends the exception to same-sex married couples. When civil partnerships were introduced, an exception was added to equality legislation that allowed schemes to restrict access to survivor benefits for those in civil partnerships, so that schemes are required, when calculating survivor benefits, to take into account only accruals from 2005, when civil partnerships were implemented.
We have a responsibility to balance the interests of all parties involved in a pension, so while we are of course absolutely committed to equality for same-sex couples, we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception. We are very conscious that defined-benefit schemes already face difficult economic conditions.
Mrs Grant
I would like to make a little headway, as I have a fair way to go.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the recent case of Walker, which was supported by Liberty, in which an employment tribunal found that a pension scheme had discriminated against a member by using that exception. The Government do not agree with that finding. The decision of the tribunal is not binding and there is nothing in it that leads us to question our policy. We intend to challenge the decision robustly. The Government have recently been added as an interested party in the appeal. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion not to press the amendment.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister explain what the situation will be if the Government lose the appeal, which seems entirely likely given the legal case?
Mrs Grant
As an optimist, I would prefer to decide what action is appropriate if that happens. I do not want to prejudge the appeal.
I shall now deal with the non-Government amendments on gender reassignment. Amendment 15 would enable a marriage to be held to be continuously valid from the date of the original marriage solemnisation, effectively restoring the original marriage. Amendment 22 would allow couples who have continued to live together following the annulment to apply to have their marriage reinstated from the date on which they notify the registrar of their wish to have their marriage reinstated.
I understand the concerns that prompted hon. Members to propose those amendments, and the Government have great sympathy for couples who felt required to make the difficult choice to end their marriage to enable one party to obtain gender recognition. However, it is not possible to reinstate a marriage that has been lawfully ended by an order of the court. It will be possible to backdate converted marriages to the date of registration of the civil partnership, as the civil partnership will not have been lawfully ended.
Couples who have continued to live together will be able to marry by virtue of the changes in the Bill. I realise that that will not be a reinstatement of the original marriage, but I sincerely hope that couples will feel able to make use of these important provisions. I realise that some transsexual people in this situation may be disappointed, but we need to ensure that a person’s legal relationship status is completely clear at all times in the eyes of the law.
Amendment 18 would enable a one-off payment of £1,000 from public funds to be made as compensation for the distress caused to and costs incurred by couples who had their marriages annulled to enable one or both parties to get gender recognition. I cannot support that amendment because we have to take the law as we find it. It is not fair arbitrarily to compensate couples who decided to end their marriage under the law that applied at the time. There will be other couples who felt unable to end their marriage and who may have suffered distress as a result of not being able to obtain gender recognition. We have taken on board the issues that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) have raised, and we will continue to listen carefully.
The first part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General to make regulations about the issuing of new marriage certificates to couples in which one or both parties have obtained gender recognition that reflect the trans party’s acquired gender, but retain the original date of registration. That could include the date of registration of a marriage that had been annulled. I assure the House that that part of the amendment is unnecessary because the power provided in the Bill is wide enough to deal with those matters. We will give serious consideration to the registration date that should be referred to on any new marriage certificate issued to a couple who are to stay married following gender recognition. We will also need to ensure that the certificate does not inadvertently reveal that one party has gender recognition.
The second part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General of England and Wales to make regulations providing for amended birth certificates for transsexual people’s children to reflect the transsexual person’s acquired gender. The amendment does not seem to be directly related to equal marriage, and in any event I cannot accept it as section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it clear that gender recognition does not affect the status of a transsexual person as the father or mother of a child. That section is necessary to ensure the continuity of parental rights and responsibilities and to protect the right of children to know the details of their biological parents.
Amendment 12 is intended to remove the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that makes a marriage voidable when a transsexual person marries a non-trans person but does not inform that person of their trans status prior to the marriage or at the time when it takes place. I cannot accept the amendment, because the current provision in the 1973 Act and the corresponding provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provide important protection for the non-trans spouse. If a non-trans person finds themselves in a marriage to which they did not fully consent, it is only right that they should be able to apply to annul the marriage rather than have to wait to bring time-consuming and often costly divorce proceedings.
Amendments 13 and 14 would require the Gender Recognition Panel to issue full gender recognition certificates to all applicants in protected marriages, irrespective of the non-trans spouse’s views. It would then be open to the non-trans spouse to issue divorce proceedings. I understand that the amendments are intended to remove the so-called “spousal veto” in schedule 5. However, let me be clear that non-trans spouses will not be able to veto their spouses obtaining gender recognition. I also understand that the amendments are intended to deal with the problem of hostile or obstructive non-trans spouses who deliberately seek to delay nullity proceedings. I have not seen any evidence that that is a widespread problem. If the grounds for the marriage being voidable are met, the hostility or absence of the non-trans spouse should not delay a court in issuing a decree of nullity. If there is evidence that unnecessary delays are occurring, we believe that it should be a matter for the court.
It must be remembered that a marriage is contracted between two people who should have an equal say in the future of that marriage. We consider that it would be unfair to remove the right of every non-trans spouse to have a say in the future of their marriage before gender recognition takes place. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments relating to gender reassignment.
Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I am conscious of time and know that I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to respond, so I will conclude my remarks.
Dr Huppert
We have discussed some important and detailed issues that matter intensely to a range of people. I am grateful for the tone in which the debate has been conducted by almost everybody; it has been productive. I know that people from the trans community and other minority sexual communities who have been watching are impressed that Parliament is able to discuss these matters.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is no longer in his place, said that there is no pent-up anger about some of these issues. I would quote comments sent to me by some of my transgender colleagues, but I suspect the language would be rather unparliamentary. There is certainly pent-up anger among people about their stolen marriages.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, I disagree on some of the detail about these amendments and I maintain that there are some concerns. I was worried by some of the language about not fully consenting to a marriage, although I am sure the Minister did not mean to imply that people need to be protected from transgender spouses or transgender people—I am sure that is not what was intended. I was grateful to hear her say that the Government will continue to listen carefully on such issues. I hope there will be further discussion in another place and that the Government will reflect on what more they are able to do.
There has been some progress and I acknowledge some of the Government amendments. On stolen marriages, amendment 15 was always an ideal, and I am well aware of the Government’s objection to backdating. It would be wonderful if it were possible to do so, and I am sure the Attorney-General is a good enough lawyer to find a way to do that. The Minister highlighted the fact that couples will be able to backdate their new marriage to the date on which their civil partnership was formed, so there is some form of backdating, which is welcome. In many cases, there will be a one-day gap between two otherwise identical marriages, which is slightly odd, but I am grateful for that progress. Amendment 15 was always somewhat optimistic, but I hope we can make progress on some of the other issues.
Amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is critical. It has been noted that the current position gives rise to some truly odd anomalies. We are introducing—quite correctly—protection for someone who is transgender and transitions, so that they do not lose out on pensions by virtue of that, but we are leaving in place a slightly bizarre anomaly, mentioned by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), regarding people who have a same-sex relationship, because we are not backdating that to before 2005. That seems deeply anomalous and I am sure the Attorney-General will give clear advice about discrimination on that basis.
Mike Freer
I raised that question because of the anomaly that a gay man or a straight man joining the pension scheme will pay contributions at the same rate but receive different benefits, which is discrimination.
Dr Huppert
It is absolutely discriminatory. It is also the case that a bisexual man or woman would pay at the same rate and would get a different pension transferred depending who they happen to end up with. That seems truly bizarre. The position is not at all sustainable and if the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion presses her amendment to the vote, I expect that I and my colleagues will support her. It is a free vote but I promise my support. However, given that Opposition Front Benchers have said they will not support the proposal, I will understand if the hon. Lady wants to leave her amendment for consideration in another place. The situation is completely unsustainable and it should not last the passage of this Bill. Amendment 15 is right in principle, but I accept that it will not win support, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11
Effect of extension of marriage
Amendment made: 25, page 11, line 8, leave out from ‘other’ to end of line 10 and insert
‘ecclesiastical law (whether or not contained in England and Wales legislation, and, if contained in England and Wales legislation, whenever passed or made).’.—(Maria Miller.)
Clause 15
Orders and regulations
Amendments made: 26, page 12, line 36, leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 38 and insert
‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.
Amendment 27, in clause 15, page 12, line 40, leave out ‘consult’ and insert ‘obtain the consent of’.
Amendment 28, in clause 15, page 12, line 41, leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 42 and insert
‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.—(Maria Miller.)
Clause 17
Extent
Amendments made: 51, page 14, line 1, at end insert
‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.
Amendment 52, in clause 17, page 14, line 5, at end insert
‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 2
Extra-territorial matters
Amendment made: 29, page 21, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 3
Interpretation of legislation
Amendments made: 30, page 23, line 30, leave out from beginning to ‘legislation’ in line 32 and insert
‘In existing England and Wales’.
Amendment 31, page 24, line 7, leave out
‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2)’.
Amendment 32, page 24, line 21, leave out
‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2) and’.—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 4
Effect of extension of marriage: further provision
Amendments made: 33, page 26, line 28, leave out from ‘courts)’ to end of line 30 on page 27 and insert
‘is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
‘(2) Subsection (1): after “entertain” insert “any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a man and a woman”.
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Schedule A1 (jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples) has effect.”.
(4) Subsection (6): after “Wales” insert “(whether the proceedings are in respect of the marriage of a man and a woman or the marriage of a same sex couple)”.
7 Section 6 (miscellaneous amendments, transitional provision and savings), subsection (3): after “Act” (in the first place) insert “, or by virtue of Schedule A1 to this Act,”.
8 Before Schedule 1 insert—
“SCHEDULE A1
Jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples
Introduction
1 This Schedule shall have effect, subject to section 6(3) and (4), with respect to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a same sex couple—
(a) proceedings for divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage;
(b) proceedings for an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead; and
(c) proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage.’.
Amendment 34, page 27, line 32, leave out ‘a divorce order’ and insert ‘divorce’.
Amendment 35, page 28, line 3, leave out ‘a nullity order’ and insert ‘nullity of marriage’.
Amendment 36, page 28, line 28, leave out from ‘for’ to ‘even’ in line 29 and insert
‘divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage’.
Amendment 37, page 28, line 32, leave out from ‘for’ to end of line 38 and insert
‘an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead on an application made by the other of the couple (“the applicant”) if (and only if)—
(a) at the time the application is made, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application by the applicant under section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 for a declaration that the applicant’s spouse is presumed to be dead, and’.
Amendment 38, page 28, line 44, leave out ‘of validity’ and insert
‘as to the validity of a marriage’.
Amendment 39, page 29, line 47, at end insert—
8A (1) Schedule 1 (staying of matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales: interpretation), paragraph 2: after “kinds” insert “(whether relating to a marriage of a man and a woman or a marriage of a same sex couple)”.
Transitory provision until commencement of Presumption of Death Act 2013
8B (1) This paragraph applies if section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 has not come into force at the time when the amendments of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 made by the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule come into force.
(2) Schedule A1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 has effect with the following modifications until section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 comes into force.
(3) Paragraph 1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph (b)—
(b) proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved in pursuance of section 19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and”.
(4) Schedule A1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph 3—
3 The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved if (and only if)—
(a) the applicant is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings are begun,
(b) the applicant was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or
(c) the two people concerned married each other under the law of England and Wales and it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.”.’.
Amendment 40, page 34, line 4, at end insert ‘, or
(c) married to a person of the same sex in a relevant gender change case.
“(1B) The reference in sub-paragraph (1A)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the married couple were of the opposite sex at the time of their marriage, and
(b) a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to one of the couple under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”.’.
Amendment 41, page 34, line 13, after ‘(2)’ insert ‘—
(a) paragraph (a): after “man” insert “, or a woman in a relevant gender change case,”;
(b) ’.
Amendment 42, page 34, line 18, after ‘woman’ insert
‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.
Amendment 43, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
‘( ) After subsection (9) insert—
(10) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
(11) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.
Amendment 44, page 34, line 29, after ‘woman’ insert
‘or a woman married to a woman in a relevant gender change case’.
Amendment 45, page 34, line 32, after ‘woman’ insert
‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.
Amendment 46, page 34, line 34, at end insert—
‘( ) After subsection (3) insert—
(4) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
(5) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.
Amendment 47, page 34, line 35, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—
20 (1) Section 37 (alteration of rules of contracted-out schemes) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (4) substitute—
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to a person entitled to receive benefits under a scheme includes a person who is so entitled by virtue of a qualifying relationship only in such cases as may be prescribed.
(5) For that purpose a person is entitled to receive benefits by virtue of a qualifying relationship if the person is so entitled by virtue of being—
(a) the widower of a female earner;
(b) the widower of a male earner;
(c) the widow of a female earner, except where it is a relevant gender change case; or
(d) the survivor of a civil partnership with an earner.
(6) In relation to a widow of a female earner, the reference in subsection (5)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
(7) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.
20A Before section 39 insert—
“38A Regulations about relevant gender change cases
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for—
(a) section 17,
(b) section 24D, or
(c) section 37,
to have its special effect in relevant gender change cases only if conditions prescribed in the regulations are met.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe conditions that relate to the provision of information by—
(a) one or both of the members of married same sex couples, or
(b) the survivors of such couples.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about cases where (because of regulations under subsection (1))—
(a) section 17,
(b) section 24D, or
(c) section 37,
does not have its special effect in relevant gender change cases.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for the section in question to have its ordinary effect in relevant gender change cases.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may, in particular, modify or disapply any enactment that concerns information relating to—
(a) the gender or sex of a person, or
(b) the change of gender or sex of a person,
including any enactment that concerns requests for, or disclosure of, such information.
(6) In this section, in relation to section 17, 24D or 37—
(a) “relevant gender change case” has the same meaning as in that section;
(b) “special effect” means the effect which the section has (if regulations under subsection (1) of this section are ignored) in relation to relevant gender change cases, insofar as that effect is different from the section’s ordinary effect;
(c) “ordinary effect” means the effect which the section has in relation to same sex married couples in cases that are not relevant gender change cases.”.’.—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 6
Marriage overseas
Amendment made: 48, page 45, line 31, at end insert—
‘(2) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament) be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Scottish Ministers have been consulted.
(3) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Department of Finance and Personnel has been consulted.’.—(Maria Miller.)
Title
Amendment made: 54, title, line 4 after ‘overseas,’ insert
‘and for the review of civil partnership,’.—(Maria Miller.)
Mr Speaker
It is always so encouraging to see such a display of enthusiasm at this hour.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.
Maria Miller
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by thanking the Front Bench speakers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as those from other parties located in their area of the House, who are too numerous to mention, for the good natured way in which the Bill has been discussed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill has excited many different views, but we have always conducted ourselves in the best ways of this House.
While I am giving thanks, I also thank the officials who have worked very long hours to ensure that the proceedings of the House took place in a seamless manner, that questions were answered, and that papers were made available. My heartfelt thanks go out to them all for the hard work they have put into the Bill.
I have spent some time thinking about how I would address the House on Third Reading. As I have said, for many reasons, the subject draws strong opinion from Members on both sides of the House. Just as the Civil Partnership 2004 Act was discussed in pubs, homes, church halls and communities throughout the country, so has the Bill. Over the past few months, I have listened carefully to many different voices within and outside Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had passionate but fair debates. In the best traditions of the House, we have maintained respect for one another’s views, and had open and constructive discussions with all involved.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend makes an important point on discussions with constituents. It might be wrong to generalise, but does she agree that there is a generational aspect to approaches to the Bill—the younger generation very much supports it, but the older generation is concerned about the society in which they have grown up?
Maria Miller
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am not sure whether he puts me into the older generation —I hope not. There are differences in views across the generations, and differences in views in different parts of the country and different communities. We must accept that people have different views for whatever reason. The most important thing is that we maintain respect for people’s different views. Such an open approach, which we have taken throughout proceedings on the Bill, has meant that the Government have been able to take action to improve the Bill, and to reassure hon. Members on some of the issues they have raised.
The Government have throughout remained committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from marriage simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society. Over the years, as society has evolved, so has marriage. As such, it has remained our bedrock. The values of love, commitment and stability underpin marriage—they are the values on which our society is built. Despite our differences in opinion, no hon. Member would dispute that those are the values we should promote. If the values of marriage are the values on which we want to build our society, they must be available to all, and they must underpin an institution that is available to all couples. Our country is renowned the world over for its tolerance. We have a rich tapestry of faith, belief and culture. That is unique—it is part of what makes us British. Those strong traditions will enable same-sex couples to marry.
In no way will the measure undermine those who believe—for whatever reason, whether religious or philosophical—that marriage should be between a man and woman. They can continue to believe that. That is their right. No religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so, and nor will religious organisations or individual ministers be forced to have same-sex marriages conducted on their premises. The quadruple lock that the Government have designed provides robust and effective protections. The Government are also clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right. Teachers will still be able to express their personal beliefs about marriage as long as they do so sensitively and appropriately. Employers will be unable to dismiss or discipline a person simply because they say they do not believe in same-sex marriage.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. The right for people legitimately to express their beliefs is why we have committed to do all we can to clarify or strengthen the protections on freedom of expression. I understand the importance that right hon. and hon. Members place on that.
If, through the Bill, we can strengthen marriage and protect it as the bedrock of our society in these changing times for the decades to come, provide protection for those religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to marry same-sex couples, and reassure those who disagree with same-sex marriage that their right to express such a belief is protected, then we should do so confidently and assertively. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and we have made changes on the basis of those concerns.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State speaks of changes. Will she clarify how many Acts of Parliament will have to be amended as a result of the Bill?
Maria Miller
Many pieces of legislation will have to be amended, which is why we have provisions in the Bill, particularly on ecclesiastical law, to ensure that all required amendments are made. My hon. Friend is right that this is complex. That is why I have been at pains, particularly yesterday and today, to ensure that we do not introduce new concepts into the Bill. We want to keep clarity and focus, and ensure that we do the job. I believe that in the years ahead we will look back on the passage of the Bill, as we now look back on the introduction of civil partnerships: we will be in no doubt that equal marriage is right and we will be proud that we made it happen.
It is important that we debated in detail some difficult and challenging issues. Yesterday, we talked about civil partnership. Equal marriage will correct something that is fundamentally unfair, and remove a barrier that prevents a whole group of people from access to an institution that underpins society. Civil partnerships were created to give same-sex couples equivalent legal rights to marriage at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Although I am clear that taking a decision on the future of civil partnerships now would not be a responsible thing to do, I have listened to Members’ clear concerns, particularly in the comments expressed yesterday. As such, we have agreed to undertake an immediate review of civil partnerships. That will be an important way to ensure clarity on how that aspect of legal recognition of relationships is taken forward.
We have had further discussions today, with Members drawing on issues concerning humanist ceremonies. The system of marriage in England and Wales, as we discussed in great detail, is based on a system of premises, and not, as in Scotland, celebrants. A change of the nature proposed in today’s amendments would, as we heard from the Attorney-General, be a fundamental change to the current structure of marriage. As has happened in Scotland, it would also open to the door to a range of other belief organisations being able to conduct marriages. Such decisions are a matter for Scotland—this is a devolved matter—but if we are to discuss these matters it is only right that Members are aware that the amendments tabled could not preclude opening up the ability to conduct marriages to belief organisations other than humanists. The Attorney-General made an important contribution to the debate. New clause 15 would have given preferential treatment to one particular belief group and made the Bill incompatible with the convention on human rights, so I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for not pressing the new clause. I welcome that decision.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the provisions of the European convention on human rights will not be compromised by the fact that the Bill makes unequal provision for civil partnerships?
Maria Miller
Yes, I can. I am glad that I can make that clear for my hon. Friend, and may I apologise to him for not taking his intervention yesterday? I could not quite hear who it was. Had I known, I would definitely have accepted it. I sincerely apologise to him.
I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs are an insurmountable barrier to supporting the change, but to other colleagues I say, “Now is the time”. Let us not be sidetracked or distracted; let us not expand the remit of the Bill beyond its original intention; let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do; and then let us move on. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I should point out to the House that I have had indication of no fewer than 14 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to contribute on Third Reading, in consequence of which I am imposing a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I am proud that the Commons has reached the Third Reading of this Bill, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House also feel proud to support it and to be on the right side of history. I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for introducing the Bill. I am proud, too, that Labour votes passed the Bill on Second Reading and will do so again this week. We are strongly committed to the Bill.
The Opposition have, of course, disagreed with the Government on some issues, including on the Bill’s handling of humanism, which we hope will be discussed further in the Lords. We also wanted early progress on opposite sex civil partnerships as an issue of equality before the law, but I hope that we have now agreed progress there. Nevertheless, the Minister will know that we have approached each of these issues, even when we have disagreed, in a considered way to ensure that the Bill can make progress, and I am glad that votes from Labour and across the House have ensured that no one now has any excuse to ditch or delay an important Bill that I think will bring happiness to many people.
I thank, too, all Members who, because it is the right thing to do, have championed the Bill even when they have faced pressure in their constituencies not to do so. I thank hon. Members who sat on the Committee and worked hard at every stage to get the Bill through. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who have done immense work on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friends who supported them in Committee. I think that they, and certainly the Government, will agree that nothing makes us more grateful for the normal presence of the Whips—I am glad they join us today—than being charged with taking through Bills that depend on free votes.
This is the right thing to do. This Parliament can now join Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay, France, which has just passed its own legislation, and New Zealand, whose MPs last month celebrated their gay marriage legislation in fabulous style by breaking into song. We can only wonder what would happen if the Minister and I leapt up and started leading a Eurovision-style chorus of “Congratulations” or perhaps Abba-style—probably not “One Man, One Woman”, but certainly, “I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.”
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will begin with an appropriate Abba song.
Daniel Kawczynski
The shadow Minister highlights other countries that have already introduced similar legislation. If we did not pass this legislation, would we not have to recognise the marriages of citizens from those countries who came to live or work in the United Kingdom or those who came here on holiday anyway?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We should recognise those people’s marriages. We should be proud to do so, and we hope that other countries across the world will join us, including countries where there is still terrible homophobic discrimination, which we should be fighting against. I hope we can lead the way by championing this Bill. We should remind people why we are doing this. It is time to give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples to get married. It is time for equality in marriage.
Mike Freer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking a chance on me. This week alone, two more countries and six states in America have approved same-sex marriage. Is not the tide of history with us and not against us?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the work he has done to champion this legislation. I think we are on the right side of history by taking it forward. It is time to celebrate, not discriminate, when a couple decide they want to make a promise to stick together for as long as they both shall live.
I have had many letters and e-mails since Second Reading; I want to share some briefly with the House. One man wrote to me describing the difficulties he had had being accepted by his family because of his sexuality. He said:
“'My partner of 14 years is neither recognised nor accepted. It is however fantastic to hear politicians…standing up for people like me, ensuring that we can become equals at least in the eyes of the state, if not in the eyes of our parents and our religions.”
Another wrote to me to say:
“I’m a 23 year old gay man…I’ve had people tell me all my life that I am less worthy, wrong and sinful because of my sexuality, and although I’ve been incredibly lucky to have supportive family and friends throughout, it does grind you down. And it can hurt, really and truly hurt.”
He, too, described the importance of seeing politicians in this House
“so publicly and passionately support the rights of people like myself and many others to have a more equal standing in society is really one of the most empowering things that can be done—political leaders standing up for those whose voices so often get silenced. I truly feel it is an historic moment in Britain and all I can say is thank you.”
That is what this Bill is all about. Rarely is legislation so personal. Rarely does this House have the chance strongly to reaffirm the equal respect we have for every human being, regardless of their sexuality, and the equal respect we have for their loving, long-term relationships.
We have heard strong objections to the Bill in the course of these debates. In this House we show respect for each other’s views, even though we disagree with them. Some have been concerned about the impact of the Bill on their faith and some have objected to aspects of it on grounds of their faith. It is important for us to respect freedom of religion, and I believe that the Bill has done exactly that. I hope those Members will feel reassured that their concerns have been respected. Of course, no religious organisation or priest can be required to conduct same-sex marriage and there are multiple locks in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
It is also important to remember that many people with strong faith, of all faiths, strongly support this Bill. We should not see it as something that promotes a secular-faith divide, because it does not. I am pleased, too, that Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism have said that they want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. I am pleased that they will be able to do so as a result of this Bill. I hope that other faiths will change their minds over time, because that is freedom of religion too.
We have heard other objections to the Bill in these debates. We have heard people claim that allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married will somehow undermine the marriage of heterosexual couples, but how will it? There are MPs in this House who want to get married who will be able to do so as a result of this Bill: excellent—I personally hope I get an invitation to the reception—but does that undermine my marriage? How could it—unless, of course, they want to marry the shadow Chancellor, which could pose a few challenges. This Bill does not undermine the marriage of anybody in this House or across the country. The idea that two brides tying the knot says anything about the relationship of their neighbours next door is simply ludicrous. Nor is it good enough to say that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, because marriage has rightly changed before and it can do so again. That is not a definition; it is discrimination.
We have seen this subject become part of the internal debates within the Conservative party. To Conservative Members I would simply say that fighting over Europe is one thing—they are welcome to that—but I hope that they will stop fighting over this. I hope that they will join Members across the House in being proud of this Bill. I have heard many Conservative Members talk about the anger in their constituencies and the anger among their party members. I hope that they will now feel able to stop talking about the anger and to start talking about the joy. This is about the joy that we can deliver for those who want to get married just as their parents did, the joy that we can make possible for the couple who want to get married just as their sister or brother did last year, and the joy that we can provide by saying to couples across Britain, “We won’t discriminate against you on the ground of your sexuality. We respect, support and celebrate your relationship.”
Members might recall that I argued on Second Reading that marriage was about the joy and the sorrow, about the excitement and the tragedy, and about the romance of the wedding day as well as the deeper romance of growing old and grey together, even once the party has faded. I gave the example of an elderly couple, one of whom was caring for the other who had dementia. I described the love, commitment and duty that that showed, and said how powerful that was, whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women. In response to that, I received an e-mail from a man who wrote:
“I was particularly touched at your reference to a couple enduring dementia. This is precisely what my parents are now facing after 54 years of marriage. The example they have shown me over my lifetime and now that my mother suffers with the disease is precisely what marriage is all about. I try every day to live up to their example, as I enjoy a wonderful relationship with my partner whom I love very much. I expect in this day and age, and for generations to come, that we should be able to have our commitment to each other acknowledged in law in an equal way with our straight friends. Your argument is truly Christian in nature, entirely humanist and on the right side of history. My partner and I, our families, and our future children thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”
I thank all those who are supporting the Bill. Let us be loud and proud. Let us start the singing. Let us celebrate, not discriminate. Let us pass this Bill. Let us put aside the anger, and let us hear it for the joy.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Earlier today, while the Health Secretary was responding to an urgent question on accident and emergency departments, I had to take myself along to the A and E department at St Thomas’s hospital because something was wrong with my eyes. I am told that everything is fine, but I had some drops put into my eyes and, as a result, I am now unable to see the official Opposition. The only thing I can see, and have sought to remark on, is the loud and proud and typically revolting tie of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). However, I notice that you are wearing the same tie, Mr Speaker. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my remark.
The most serious concern that has been advanced about the Bill relates to ensuring that religious freedom is protected. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) are surely genuine, and we were right to pay attention to them. I would not support any measure in this House that would force a Church to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. That principle of religious liberty is immensely important. The fact that the Bill protects Church organisations and that the Church of England has expressed its confidence in the locks that have been put into the Bill should give the House confidence that we can proceed with this measure. Of course there are other aspects of religious freedom that we need to protect. They were discussed yesterday and will be the subject of further discussion in the House of Lords.
The essence is that no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. Religious freedom cuts both ways, and those who have rightly spoken on behalf of religious freedom cannot ignore the cause of religious freedom for Churches that do wish to conduct same-sex marriages. What about the Quakers, the Unitarians or the liberal Jews; what about their religious freedom? My argument is that the Bill extends religious freedom and does not restrict it and that those who are concerned about religious freedom should support it. Those advancing these arguments need to say why they have not been interested in Churches such as the Quakers and why they believe that the law of the land should prevent those Churches from doing what they seek to do.
Other arguments have been put against this legislation—that it redefines marriage for everyone, so that even if Churches are protected, the concern remains that it changes the definition of marriage for others, too. As has been said on a number of occasions here, how exactly does it harm or affect those who enter into a heterosexual marriage if a same-sex couple enter into a marriage, too? How does it devalue, change or alter the marriage they have? The truth is that this is not a measure that can remotely be held to do any harm to people at all. Absolutely no harm is done by this measure and a very great deal of good can be done by it.
Less impressive arguments have been advanced in respect of this legislation. It has been said that because same-sex marriages cannot be consummated, there is some problem or lack of equivalence, or that because adultery provisions will not apply directly, there is a lack of equivalence. Actually, most heterosexual marriages are, sadly, ended by the cause of unreasonable behaviour, which could apply just as easily to same-sex couples. I think there was an unfortunate implication behind that criticism, which was that somehow same-sex couples were seeking a licence to enter a marriage in respect of which they sought to escape or avoid the vows undertaken. Of course, the absolute opposite is the case. It is right to extend same-sex marriage to gay couples precisely because it is a good thing if they enter into a loving and permanent commitment to each other. That is a good thing for them, for society and for families, and we should celebrate and support it.
Daniel Kawczynski
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a consensus across the country that this legislation is important and that we should back it? Even in my rural county of Shropshire, a recent opinion poll taken by the local media showed a majority in favour of this legislation.
Nick Herbert
I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree with him.
I was about to say that it has been suggested that the public are not with this legislation. Of course an element of the public are concerned about it. That much is clear, but it is also clear from all the independently conducted opinion polls—not those conducted by the pressure groups opposed to the Bill—that a majority of the public support this legislation and that the majority is increasing, as we have seen throughout the world. As for the idea of holding a referendum on such measures at any time, apart from being a bad idea in itself because the House of Commons decides these matters, such a referendum would be likely to pass this measure in any case because the public are in favour of it.
When homosexuality was decriminalised, some Members of Parliament objected. When civil partnerships were introduced, some Members of Parliament objected. They were found to be wrong because society moved on. Attitudes change and attitudes to gay people have changed. The Bill will do no harm and a very great deal of good by celebrating love and commitment and by treating a minority equally. That is why we should welcome it.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
As is well known in this House, the Democratic Unionist party opposes this legislation and continues to oppose the Bill in principle. I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who served in Committee and faithfully put forward the perspective that we hold on the need to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I also want to thank other hon. Members who share that view, including the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who also served in Committee and did a commendable job in putting forward our perspective.
I believe that marriage is foundational, that it is for one man and one woman, and that it ought not to be redefined. I believe that marriage is universal and not just for Christians, although I am a Christian and my stance on this issue, like that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is influenced by our Christian faith. I believe that marriage is for everyone, man and woman, who wants to take up that right in law. I believe that the definition of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman should stand. I believe that marriage is beneficial, and that it is for the mutual help and support of husband and wife and for the procreation of children.
Our opposition to the redefinition of marriage is not born of prejudice. It is not born of homophobia. It is born of a deep sense of our Christian faith, and I hope that that can be respected. Our Christian faith is important to us. It is what motivates us to take the stances that we take on many issues. It is shared by many people in our native Northern Ireland, where a high proportion of the population still go to church and more than half our children attend faith schools.
The Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted not to introduce same-sex marriage in our part of the United Kingdom. I welcome the commitment that the Minister has given to seek the consent of the Department for Finance and Personnel, which is responsible for this matter in Northern Ireland, before implementing any amendments that would have an impact there. Notwithstanding that, however, we remain opposed to the legislation in principle. I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004. I remember pointing out at that time that civil partnerships would inevitably lead to a demand for same-sex marriage and being told by the then Government that that was nonsense, that we were scaremongering and that it would not happen.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tells us that marriage has changed and will change in the future. When we talk about equality in marriage, where do we draw the line? There are some in this country who believe that marriage should be between a man and more than one woman. Will we not, in time, hear another demand for equality—the demand that a man who wants to be married to more than one woman should have that right enshrined in law? If marriage is to change in the future, will not the House, in time, be presented with proposals to give effect to the demand for equality for those who want to be married to more than one partner?
We are told that we are on the wrong side of history. Well, time will tell whether those of us who take the stand that we are taking are on the wrong side of history. I have heard that argument many times in the past, and I have watched as the House has legislated time and again to undermine some of the fundamental building blocks of our society. I look around me, and I see the harm that that does to our society.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Who would the right hon. Gentleman say was on the right side of history as a result of the 1967 legislation that decriminalised homosexuality?
Mr Donaldson
I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the Abortion Act 1967, I know that Northern Ireland is on the right side of history, because we refused to accept that legislation. The fact is that 8 million unborn children have not had the opportunity of life because of bad legislation in this House.
I think that, when it comes to the wrong side of history, time will tell, and the judgment will come. I am happy, and my party is happy, to stand on our beliefs, and we ask for them to be respected. We may, in the end, lose the vote in this House, but that does not alter our opinion that this is bad legislation and that it is wrong.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Some of the arguments about the right side and the wrong side of history were advanced at the time when civil partnerships were introduced. I was not in the House then, so I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman made the case or whether other members of his party did, but the case was made by some that the introduction of civil partnerships would lead to the decline of society in some way. In my urban constituency in Battersea, it is not people coming together in love to form committed relationships who cause a problem; it is families breaking up in rancour who cause real distress in my community.
Mr Donaldson
I hear the hon. Lady’s point, but in the context of this Bill, I simply do not agree that when we tamper with the fundamentals of our society, the result is necessarily a good thing for our society and beneficial in the long run. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage; I believe in the traditional concept of marriage and I believe that the Bill undermines that. I therefore believe that the House is making a mistake in pressing ahead with it.
The stance that my party takes is not without support out there across this nation. We may be a small party in a small region of the United Kingdom, but on this issue we speak for millions of people across the United Kingdom who share our view. We tamper with these things and change these laws, and we may well come to regret the things that we sometimes do in this House and the legislation that we pass. Our party makes no apology for taking this stance, therefore.
This evening, we stood outside with some of the Christian people who have gathered outside this building. They are very hurt. We talk about pain and hurt. There are a lot of Christians across this country, and also Muslims and Jews—people of strong faith—who are hurt by this Bill. I hope that will be borne in mind.
I want to thank the hundreds and thousands of my constituents who have written to me in support of the stance I and my colleagues have taken on this issue. Tonight, they will feel very sad indeed.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
First, I want to thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office for their patience, diligence and fairness in dealing with all the draft amendments that were submitted in the Bill Committee and the remaining stages.
We are in an extraordinary situation for what is the Third Reading of a Bill that redefines marriage, and I never thought our Government would have done this. There was no clear manifesto commitment, no coalition agreement on it and no Green Paper—there was just a sham consultation—and there are no significant amendments to the Bill beyond the civil partnerships review. We have had programme motions that have denied all MPs the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail. Consciences have been constrained. Indeed, a recent private poll of MPs showed that at least one third of Members did not believe they had a free vote on Second Reading. Let us see what happens on Third Reading, but that will no doubt create a concern in the other place when it comes to discuss the Bill on 3 June, if it passes its Third Reading tonight.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their diligence in Committee. If we had not served on the Committee, there would have been almost no scrutiny of the Bill at all.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We find ourselves in the unusual situation that none of the political parties put this in their manifesto. Does my hon. Friend agree that the other place will have complete legitimacy if it chooses to reject the Bill because the Salisbury convention should not apply here?
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.
I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
Jim Shannon
I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?
Mr Burrowes
I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.
There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:
“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”
Mr Burrowes
Unfortunately, we are running out of time.
What is pernicious is equating hon. Members’ opposition to redefining marriage with previous discrimination on the basis of race. That plays into the hands of those who have accused me and many hon. Members of being homophobic or bigoted simply for standing up for marriage—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for Tottenham shortly. Such intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of being fomented by the state orthodoxy in the Bill about the new gender-neutral meaning of marriage. For our constituents—those who really matter—those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they certainly will not get the protection they deserve under the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Lammy
I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman chose to use the term “playing the race card”. My comments were merely sited in an understanding of equality. There have been many battles on equality in this House. The battles against slavery, racism and sexism were noble, and many people outside the House will recognise that the fight for gay rights is one of equality; it is not playing—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must have a chance to finish his speech.
Mr Burrowes
The Bill is triumphed over as being all about inclusivity, when what it has done has caused division, not just in the Conservative party—that is not the most relevant point—but in the country. The settled, respected position on supporting civil partnerships and the previously united concept of marriage between Church and state have now had a wedge driven between them by the Bill. Indeed, we had late resolutions to try to deal with the inequalities that are still apparent. What unites the opposition to the Bill is an unshakeable belief that will not accept the state’s redefinition of marriage and will recognise only the distinctive value of marriage as the bringing together of one man and one woman.
Throughout its passage through the House, the Bill has lacked legitimacy and scrutiny. I urge all hon. Members to exercise their consciences, listen to the real concerns of their constituents and join me in voting no on Third Reading.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
This is a great day for Parliament and for the country, and I pay tribute to the Government and the Prime Minister for showing the political courage necessary to prioritise this legislation. I pay tribute to those on my Front Bench for their constructive approach, which will make it more likely that the Bill will eventually become an Act.
My only regret is that the debate is taking place in the absence of David Cairns, the late Member for Inverclyde, who was known, liked and respected by Members from all parts of the House. David was never defined by his sexuality, but he certainly found happiness and completion in his relationship with his partner, Dermot. I have no doubt at all that were he alive today he would be voting enthusiastically for the measure before us. Even though his name no longer appears on the list of voting Members of this House, I will feel David beside me as I walk through the Aye Lobby at 7 o’clock.
Mr Speaker
Order. In view of the level of interest, I am reducing the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes with immediate effect.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
On Second Reading, I talked about many of the letters of concern that I had received from constituents and reflected that that conflict was one that I had had in my life. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) talked movingly yesterday about the freezing effect, and she is right about that period. To realise that you were gay in that climate was difficult, to say the least, but I was one of the lucky ones. I had two great parents who supported me through that difficult time.
Religious faith is not just the preserve of heterosexuals. One of my hardest challenges was balancing my sexuality with my faith. It has taken me years to do that, and as I said at the time, some of those battles were the hardest and darkest in my life.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the vote in the Church of Scotland this week to allow gay ministers?
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful for that intervention and yes, I certainly welcome that.
In the context of the Bill, I understand the anxieties of people involved in religious organisations, but I am convinced by the evidence sessions and the questioning that the locks in place secure and protect those religious freedoms. We have heard a great deal about the Church of England in these debates; there are debates within the Church of England too. I went to my own church and was a little anxious about facing people there and discussing this issue, but the majority in the room supported the Bill.
Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I disagree, I pay tribute to him for his diligence in his analysis and scrutiny of the Bill. I sincerely appreciate his calm and measured tone. I just wish that that tone could have been adopted by everyone. The extremes on both sides of the cause have not acted well, and it has been disappointing, to say the least, over the past few months to hear some of the phrases used. Yesterday, the term “aggressive homosexuals” was just one such phrase.
To that I say this: I am not an aggressive man, but I have had the misfortune of facing aggression in a violent, physical form, and no, I am not referring to that incident. [Interruption.] In 1997, I was attacked and beaten unconscious by three men because of who and what I am. That had a profound effect on me at that time, but in time I fought back, and what helped were the decisions taken in this place. Through a series of Acts, this House brought equality nearer. Where legislation led, society followed, and over time that balance changed and our society became more tolerant. Each small step forward felt like a huge leap forward for me personally.
I joined the Conservative party for a host of reasons, two of them being a belief in freedom of choice and in allowing people to live their lives as they choose. This Bill has the protections for religious organisations that mean that they have the freedom to choose not to marry same-sex couples, but people like me and many others have the freedom to choose to marry the person they love. It therefore strikes the right balance.
Caroline Lucas
So much has been said about same-sex marriage over the past couple of days. It is important on the occasion of Third Reading to return to the fundamental principle that underpins what we are trying to achieve. That principle is equality. Ultimately, this is about basic human rights. Nobody should be denied on the basis of their sexuality the opportunity to be legally married.
We are righting a wrong and I urge Members in the other place to remember that when they consider the Bill. Peers, including some but not all bishops, recognised the justice of introducing civil partnerships back in 2004, and I hope they will also recognise the justice of now granting same-sex couples the choice to enter into marriage, especially as the Bill has gone to great lengths to protect important religious freedoms.
Colleagues have remarked on the historic nature of the decisions being taken, and I agree. We live in a world where 85 United Nations member states still have repressive laws against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, where same-sex marriage is still a distant dream, and where being L,G, B or T can in some cases be a death sentence. But some dreams come true, and today is an important symbolic as well as practical step forward for equality and human rights.
I met a very inspiring campaigner at a trans networking event in Parliament the other day whose business card carried the strapline, “Tolerance is not good enough”. That neatly sums up what I want to say. Tolerance is important, yes, but we need to carry on for more than that. We need to fight for true justice, for true equality, for true LGBT rights, as well as for tolerance. For me, that also has to include the issue of equal pension rights for those in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships. I am saddened that we have not made more progress on that here today, but I hope very much that it will be taken forward in the other place, as I hope will righting some of the injustices that still remain for the trans community.
But today on Third Reading is a time for celebration. For many hundreds of constituents from Brighton, Pavilion who have written to me in support of same-sex marriage, this Bill is about their lives, their loves and their futures together. I have heard many stories about why this legislation is important, including from one constituent who simply said, “Everyone should have the right to marry the person they are in love with.” Another told me that she hopes Brighton and Hove will be the first city to perform a gay marriage. To her I say, “Watch this space.”
I also thank those people against changing the law who have lobbied me, all of whom have been respectful of my position and my right to support same-sex marriage. I know it is difficult for some to square the Bill with their understanding of marriage, but I maintain that it is wrong for gay couples to continue to pay the price for that by being denied equality. Equality and justice must underpin everything else—a principle and a priority, not just something tacked on to existing pledges to try to attract more votes. The majority view in the House today has reflected that, and I hope that it will continue to do so as we vote on Third Reading.
Mr Bone
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) who puts her case, as usual, with great sincerity. I will be voting against Third Reading tonight, partly because I think that the Bill is wrong; marriage is between a man and a woman. My real motive for voting against Third Reading, however, is the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We are yet again dealing with an amazing piece of important legislation that owing to the programme motion is going through without proper scrutiny in the House. Yesterday, whole parts of the Bill could not be amended because consideration of the amendments were not reached. I cannot even talk about those amendments tonight because I would be out of order. So we have again to allow the other place to decide on the amendments to a hugely important constitutional Bill.
It seems extraordinary to me that for the Third Reading debate Back Benchers have been allowed 40 minutes, and you, Mr. Speaker, have had to impose a three-minute limit to allow as many as possible to speak. The idea that we can compare this to the days of Wilberforce, when he would talk for three, four or five hours, is absolutely ridiculous. I would go back to that system, and I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) might agree. We should not have had the closure every evening. Why could we not have talked until 10 or 11 o’clock tonight on Third Reading so that Members could have made their points? I would then have been much happier when the Division came that all the differences had been properly considered. I will end there, because other hon. Members want to speak, but I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of Parliament, to oppose Third Reading.
Ms Abbott
I simply wanted to say what a momentous piece of legislation this is. Some things we do in the House of Commons do not affect ordinary people at all; some things we do in the House of Commons are best ignored; but this Bill will make a lot of people’s lives much better. I have supported this cause all my political life, long before it was fashionable on the Labour Benches, and I never thought I would live to see the day when the Bill would approach its Third Reading.
Members have talked about their constituents. I remind the House that I represent some people who are troubled by the Bill. Some of them come from countries where homosexuality is illegal. Some of them come from countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. I have had to say to them, “I respect your views, but I have stood for human rights all my life and I stand for human rights on this issue too.”
We could not let this debate pass without mentioning all the ordinary people, all the grass-roots campaigners, who made it possible for us to reach this point. I think not just of people involved in their local or national campaign, but of the ordinary people who have showed kindness and decency and who accepted a child when that child was not expecting acceptance. They all played their part. We could not have this debate without mentioning Peter Tatchell, not always the easiest of comrades, but someone who has devoted his life to human rights. We could not have this debate without mentioning Ken Livingstone, who was the first local authority leader to bring in civil partnerships and show the wider political world that we could have civil partnership without the end of the world as we knew it. And of course there is Tony Blair, who brought in civil partnerships in the last Parliament.
Some people listening to this debate will be thinking, “This is all very well, but there is war in Syria, climate change and a huge economic crisis, so why does this matter?” Let me tell the House why it matters. When this legislation finally goes through, there will be adolescents going to bed that night who are struggling with their sexuality and who, knowing that the law has gone through, will think as they go to sleep, “Maybe it’s not so bad. Maybe my life isn’t ruined. Maybe I can find some acceptance. Maybe I can come out to my friends, and maybe even to my mother and father.” If this debate and this legislation makes the lives of so many hundreds of thousands of young people just a little better, we will have done great work in the House tonight.
Mr Speaker
Order. I call Dr Julian Huppert. If he can speak more briefly—he does not have to—more Members will get in.
Dr Huppert
I will try, Mr Speaker.
On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we believe that the state should not bar a couple who love each other from marrying just because of their gender or sexuality, whether they are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or whatever, and that the state should not ban groups who wish to conduct same-sex marriages from doing so.
This is an important day, and it is a day to celebrate. When my party passed a motion on equal marriage in the UK three years ago, I did not think that we would be able to get to this legislation so quickly. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), the previous Equalities Minister, for her determination which has transformed the issue and made sure that we could get here. I also pay tribute to the two Stephens, my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who served on the Bill Committee. The Bill is right today and will seem even more right in future. In five, 10 and 20 years’ time, we will look back and see that it was the right thing to do.
I am proud of the Bill as it is, although it could be better, and we have discussed some of the possible improvements over the past two days. Equal civil partnership is the right thing in theory and in practice, so we need to find the right opportunity and the right vehicle for introducing that. We have heard no good reason why in principle humanists should not be allowed to conduct weddings. The Attorney-General is an excellent lawyer, so I am sure that he will be able to find a way to ensure that we allow that to happen legally.
This is a very positive day, but we should remember that there is still homophobia and transphobia in the UK, and it is even worse in other parts of the world, where people fear for their lives and it is illegal for them to be who they are. We must take steps to ensure that that finally ends. We must not send people back to places where they will be persecuted for who they are. I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
This is not the most important thing to come before the House in this Parliament, or even this year, but it is a really good thing. I am delighted that the most celebrated friend in my household, loved by me, my wife and my three children, will have the chance, if he wants, to marry the man he loves. I did not come into politics to be defined by what I am against; I want to be defined by what I am for. Tonight is a good night.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I know that for some this is a day for self-congratulation. Others in our society and our country are deeply wounded. I humbly and unashamedly confess that I am a born-again, Bible-believing Christian. I fear that in many ways our nation is swiftly turning its back on many of the great principles it was built upon. Some suggest that we hold on to our traditional views of marriage because of culture or tradition, but I do not believe that that is so. I believe the biblical definition of marriage. I did not make it up; God gave it to us in his precious word.
Some have suggested that over the years religious organisations and church councils have changed their mind on a number if issues, and indeed some have already changed their opinion on the definition of marriage. That might be so, but the word of God, by which all men and women shall be judged on the day of judgment, and the standards revealed therein have not changed. Man may have changed, but God’s word has not. We may be a nation that seeks to go back to the days of Judges, when
“every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
I suggest that this legislation will bring our nation many problems, whether for teachers or in our day schools. Indeed, I certainly pray that God will deliver us even when the Bill goes to another place.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We are on the edge of a profound social change. What a pity there was nothing in the manifesto. What a pity we did not have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. What a pity we had only two hours to discuss the protection of people in the workplace. This change has been made tonight without full discussion; now it is over to the other place.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The Bill passed its Second Reading by 400 votes to 175. The amendments wrecking it were rejected by seven to one.
We last redefined marriage in 1973 when we brought in the prohibition on same-sex marriage. I think it is time to undo that and define marriage as being between two people who are qualified to marry.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.