Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Again, amendments on adultery are coming up. I do not know whether we will get to them today. I am really looking forward to that debate. It is going to be great. I urge noble Lords to come back on it. We should be selling tickets for it. I will be able to cover that issue in detail at that time.

[Baroness Berridge]

Will my noble friend the Minister clarify the position on annulment? This matter appeared in a letter written to Peers. My understanding of annulment is that it is not connected to procreation. You can have an annulment of a marriage even if you get married at 65. It is not directly related to procreation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others on the other side of the House. My hearing aid, or my hearing, or both, gave way last time and I could not hear a word that was said. I was very fortunate to have a prompter near me. I do not think that anything I say now will provoke a large number of interventions but if that happens, I am now in better shape to deal with them.

The amendment deals with discrimination against someone because he expresses the view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I want to take this opportunity to mention something which has been very much on my mind. This sort of discrimination may become prevalent because it has got about the place that even before the Bill has become law, it is plain wrong to express support for traditional marriage. I hope others were as concerned as I was to read how the Law Society and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre cancelled conferences to be held on their premises by Christian Concern to make the case for traditional marriage, with a very distinguished body of speakers. Each of those bodies had the nerve to say in its notification of cancellation that the nature of the event was,

“contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage”.

It never seems to have occurred to the writers of those letters that they were quite deliberately interfering with the right of free speech in a country where free speech is greatly treasured as the hallmark of a free society. I hope that a clear message goes out from the Government today that the behaviour of those bodies was clearly unacceptable. We must safeguard free speech, whatever we do tonight.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 54, which is in my name, and, obviously, to government Amendment 53. Much has been said in your Lordships’ House of the need to preserve free speech but, as I outlined in my Second Reading speech, the role of the state goes beyond that. To ensure free speech, there has to be an encouragement and a protection of dissent in the public space. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 53, which was promised in the other place on Report, and was a concern outlined in the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that was published last Friday. I am a member of that committee, and there were very divergent opinions on the principle of the Bill, but we managed to come up with a report of the whole committee about the concerns that remain about the Bill.

I am grateful that the Government have brought forward this amendment to deal with some of the concerns around free speech. It is particularly important when on our statute book there are crimes that can be committed, with the force of criminal law being brought to bear on them, when there is hate speech with a particular mens rea of intending to stir up hatred against, for instance, somebody on the grounds of sexual orientation. I draw attention to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, outlined: this is a necessary safeguard when we look at what people on the ground are actually doing. Members of the other place have already referred to an incident a few weeks ago, when the police were called to a heated exchange around the matters that we are considering. We have to bear in mind that the effect of this legislation, and the potential effect on free speech, has to be policed on our streets by ordinary police constables. Amendment 53 ensures that they have clear guidance around what is and is not a criminal offence. It specifically states the caveat that it is not just about stating your belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is allowing that criticism to take place and thereby not breaching criminal law once the criticism is made. That dissent in the public space is to be welcomed.

In my speech at Second Reading I drew attention to the exchanges that took place between David Lammy MP and David Burrowes MP on these issues. One of the things that are becoming very difficult in speaking on this issue is the analogy, which was the cause of the dispute in the other place, around sexual orientation, same-sex marriage and racism. I am surprised to see the nature of the exchanges we are having today. If that is what ends up taking place in this debating Chamber, what will be happening on our streets when passions get inflamed around this issue? I welcome the Government’s amendment and believe that it brings in an important safeguard.

[Lord Dear]

I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 8, which stand in my name in this grouping. I ask noble Lords to consider the words which case law has held to be paramount in this, that beliefs must be,

“worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity”.

They are words protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, and they cover both religious and philosophical beliefs. There are a clutch of cases which I could quote here, but I will refer briefly to only two of them.

The first is Grainger plc & Others v Nicholson in 2009. The court held that strong philosophical belief about climate change, for example, affected how the claimant lived. It went beyond mere opinion. It was setting out that opinion is one thing, which is not protected by the law, but that serious beliefs which stand above that should be so protected. That case really became the bedrock of this particular set of cases. In a 2005 case in the House of Lords, Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said that:

“A free and plural society must expect to tolerate all sorts of views which many, even most, find completely unacceptable”.

Agreeing with that judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, in accepting pacifism, vegetarianism, and teetotalism as beliefs, went on to say that they are not just religious beliefs,

“but equally … may be based on ethical convictions which are not religious but humanist”.

I galloped through that just to say that the words,

“worthy of respect in a democratic society”,

have a solid bedrock in both European law and the law of this country.

The reason for tabling these two amendments is to focus on the fact that the Government have repeatedly insisted that this legislation before us will not penalise those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has already said, the obvious case to cite at that juncture is that of Adrian Smith and the housing trust. That has been mentioned several times in previous debates on this subject. I will not go into it again but that case, and others, indicate the fragility of the position of those who seek to express a firmly held view, without any intent of causing any disruption beyond—

Disability Services

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate. I agree with the noble Lord that the Government’s response to the serious issues in this report should be seen as part of the legacy of the Paralympics. It was so wonderful, day after day during the Paralympics, to see the achievements of the athletes and also to see disabled TV presenters such as Ade Adepitan. However, one should not overestimate the effect on our country. In my view, the programming has virtually returned to what it was before. Most notable in this regard was the hugely popular “BBC Sports Personality of the Year” programme, in which Paralympians were nominated for the award but all three presenters were from the Olympics coverage. However, during the Christmas holidays, I was impressed to stumble across the actor Christopher Slater, who has cerebral palsy and appears in “Tracy Beaker Returns”. I assure noble Lords that this was the Christmas choice of television viewing of my niece, not me.

This is, of course, a report about not only disabled people but also those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I have had the privilege of getting to know many within the British black community. Therefore, I am not surprised by stories such as that yesterday about Stuart Lawrence, Stephen Lawrence’s brother, who has been stopped by the police more than 25 times. However, I am surprised by the legacy in this area. Often when I talk about these issues I am met with the comment, “You sound rather like the Labour Party”. The legacy here has been the overpoliticisation of the issues around black and minority ethnic communities and racial equality. It is important that these issues are not seen as a matter of left or right, or Labour or Conservative.

It is vital that politicians show national leadership in this area. These issues are complex and nuanced. Leadership is vital so that everyone has the confidence to contribute to the debate. I have also often met people who talk to me about these issues but suddenly clap their hand over their mouth and say, “Was that the wrong word to use? Have I just been racist?”. Usually, I cannot for the life of me identify the word they have just used to which they are referring. Although language is important and racism still exists, this oversensitisation, which we also saw in a discussion on immigration, is helpful neither to free speech nor to resolving the serious matters outlined in the report.

Of course, I have to admit that, in the past, the understanding of my party on these issues has not been exemplary. However, things have changed and continue to do so. Your Lordships have only to wander down the Corridor to the other place to see the number of black and minority ethnic MPs sitting on the Conservative Benches.

Important decisions and actions have also been taken, notably the Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill of Gavin Barwell MP, the removal of innocent people from the DNA database and the emphasis on the need for adoption and fostering of black and minority ethnic children. These are changes to key areas where black and minority ethnic communities have been disproportionately affected for too long. However, these should not be party political issues. I say cautiously to noble Lords that as a Parliament we may have some reflecting to do on accessibility to parliamentary employment and experience. What if you were to lay out the photos, without any further identifying information, of all those who have a security pass issued by a Member of either House? How would we score on ethnic minority inclusion and disability? I am not overly confident in that regard. If lobby journalists have begun to be self-analytical and concerned, as an article in the New Statesman last year indicated, we as parliamentarians should be as well.

I turn to the specific issues in the report. First, it is important to note that the report was issued before the 2011 census results regarding this community were produced. We have seen a rise in the relevant statistic from 8.7% of the people we are discussing in England and Wales having a black and minority ethnic background to a figure of 14% now, so I think it is correct to say that the 1 million BME disabled people mentioned in the report may well be a case of underreporting.

As regards underclaiming of benefits and access to services, much in the report reflects what was reported by the Department for Work and Pensions back in 2010. It is very worrying to read that there is a reversal of the normal maxim that the very poorest are the most likely to claim. Black and minority ethnic disabled people are often in poverty but are not claiming what they need. I wonder whether the Government have thought about trying to enlist the assistance of religious institutions that understand these issues in promoting benefit and service take-up.

An intriguing finding in the report is that there is a lower prevalence of impairments among black and minority ethnic disabled people of working age, but that over the age of 40 prevalence increases dramatically. What are the reasons, rather than hypotheses, for this increase in impairment among members of the BME disabled community who are over 40? I would be grateful to my noble friend the Minister if she would commit to look at the reasons as we could then look at prevention.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, issues arise around language barriers. The report highlights a further legacy: namely, the effects of having placed insufficient emphasis on the need to be proficient in English. Lack of language hampers the ability not only to access services and benefits but to take up many of the opportunities that are available in the UK. Whatever one’s views might be on spending public money on translation, I hope it is not contentious to say that in the future older people who are less proficient in English, and often therefore less well integrated, will require residential care. The report clearly highlights the increased needs of disabled people in black and minority ethnic communities as they age. Can we suddenly expect every person over the age of 55 who has little or no English to learn a new language at that stage? I doubt that. How will residential care homes adapt, given this ageing demographic of the black and minority ethnic disabled population? As schools cater for children with English as a second language, will we need residential care homes that cater for people who speak English as a second language? Have the Government anticipated this matter and what is their response to this ageing demographic issue? We are in the midst of the assessments for PIP, the replacement for the disability living allowance. Are the Government ensuring that language issues are not a barrier here? Will my noble friend the Minister outline the guidance that has been given to Capita and Atos, the head contractors?

It is easy to forget how difficult it can be for people who feel stigmatised, have language problems and are then faced with the language of bureaucracy and end up not claiming what they need. Before Christmas, I had the privilege of meeting a disability rights campaigner, Jane Young, who I think could give any adviser, even my noble friend Lord Freud, a run for his money as regards knowledge of the changes that we have introduced to welfare legislation. However, what struck me most was how upset she was when her disability meant that she was no longer fit for work, after having always worked up to that point. She exemplified a principle that I think rings true for most people—there are times when you give into the pot and times when you receive. It is a privilege to have paid into a system that supports people such as Jane Young.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I have not spoken previously in your Lordships’ House on this Bill, but I briefly practised as a family barrister and as such I hold the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, in the greatest esteem. However, what initially looked attractive when I received his letter has given me pause for thought.

As a barrister, I witnessed how unresolved issues concerning the breakdown of a relationship get played out in matters concerning money as well as children. Although much has been said on behalf of mothers, who are in the majority in this situation, of course it is not as simple to say that just because the mother has the care of the children she is not sometimes at fault for the fact that maintenance is not paid. I would like to put on record before your Lordships the perspective of fathers, which I think is best described in the lyrics of Professor Green’s “Read All About It”, one of the most popular downloads last year. He was referring to his mother when he said:

“After all, you were never kin to me.

Family is something you have never been to me.

In fact making it harder for me to see my father

Was the only thing you ever did for me”.

It is a heart-rending rap about a child caught in the animosity of a break-up. As I am sure your Lordships will agree, avoiding conflict in the courts or in any other forum helps to limit such animosity, greatly to the benefit of the children.

Will there be rare cases where the lack of payment is entirely the mother’s fault? Yes. Will there be cases where the lack of payment is entirely the father’s fault? Yes. However, in the majority of cases it will be to some extent both people’s fault. If I were convinced that this amendment would address only the concerns outlined by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I would support it. Unfortunately, I believe that the unintended consequence of this amendment would result in the adjudication of matters that would not assist or encourage amicable ongoing relationships between the parents, which are of the greatest value to the children at the end of the day.

I am afraid it is not as simple as just catching the cases outlined; nor unfortunately are parents always able, in my experience as a barrister, to separate their role as a parent from the issues of the breakdown of the relationship. I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend could please outline how there will be a determination as to whether or not someone has taken reasonable steps without some kind of judicial process, and how introducing any form of fault-based assessment of the parties’ conduct in relation to the payment of money is possible without inadvertently—and I accept it is inadvertently—providing a forum in many cases for the outstanding relationship issues to be unhelpfully vented. I am afraid I am not convinced by the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I will just take two minutes to deal with that, if I may.

First, I have encountered the break-up of marriage at a variety of levels. I was involved in consistorial legal work before I was elected in 1983, and I spent most of my time in the House of Commons as a spokesman for my parliamentary group and then as a chairman of a Select Committee which endlessly looked at the 1991 Act and all the bits and pieces that flowed from it. It has been quite clear to me as a result of all that experience that if anybody tries to take some lessons and principles from the cases that are conducted in the High Court of the land, dealing with many thousands of pounds at a very high level, where things are fought over and the big silk hanky brigade of the legal establishment makes lots of money, they are a million miles away from ordinary people whose families break up week in, week out. I do not think it is safe to start contemplating the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and its consequences, when seen from that perspective. That is not what this is about.

I mentioned Select Committees. I just want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the current Select Committee in the other place recently produced a report on this which recommended that where parents with care had taken all reasonable steps to investigate a private arrangement but that was not possible or appropriate, no charges should be made. In my view, there has never been an established case made for charging either parents with care or non-resident parents.

The Henshaw report was an extremely scrappy piece of work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rightly pointed to the fact that even the Henshaw committee, upon which most of the Government’s case is made, clearly said that it did not want any disincentive effect to be imposed as a result of charging. It made a different case altogether. Incidentally, the Henshaw committee report was as clever as to say that we should close down the CSA and have a residual body to chase debts. That is about how sensible some of the recommendations in the Henshaw committee report were. As far as I am concerned, it is true that it was discredited before the ink was dry and it went for ministerial consideration.

This issue is about whether charging will assist collaboration and co-operation between separating parties. I can see no understandable circumstances that charges would make it easier for people to stay together longer. I do not see how that case can be made or that it has been made.

The system we are setting up for 2014 will be much cheaper for a variety of reasons. From an administrative point of view, there is no need to put money into the system because the assessment process, the computer systems and so on will make the whole administration of this, if it all works, a lot easier. It is entirely affordable. The way in which some Ministers have been rubbishing the system is disgraceful. It is not a perfect system but it supports 870,000 children—I repeat, 870,000 children. This is not an insignificant institution which could be done without. Nudging 50 per cent of single parents with care get something like only £20 a week. That is the extent of the money that they derive from the system, but it is essential for those who use it.

Quite simply, collaboration between the parents who are separating will not be assisted by charging. It would inevitably result in less money flowing to the children in the charge of the parent with care. There is no case whatever for charging, so I am compromising greatly in supporting the entirely reasonable amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. Speaking for myself, I would scrap the whole idea and not give it house room. I hope that the House will come quickly to a resolution and I encourage noble Lords to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord.