Points of Order
Wednesday 19th July 2017
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday’s Order Paper said that the debate on drugs could continue until 7 o’clock. The final speaker sat down four minutes early. The normal practice in this House is then to use that time for other speakers to contribute. It was particularly interesting that the final speaker, the Minister, had denied interventions on the grounds that she did not have enough time to finish. The Standing Orders are not clear on this point. Is it not right that we get some definition of past practice in relation to cases where speakers do not have anything else left to say and other Members can contribute to what would then be a full debate?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice somewhat earlier of his intention to raise it. I am loth to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable authority on matters parliamentary, as evidence by the well-thumbed tome on how to be a Back Bencher of which he is the distinguished author. That said, I am inclined slightly to quibble with him on his proposition that it is normal or commonplace, if a ministerial wind-up concludes early, for other Members to be invited to contribute. In my experience, that is not commonplace. I would not say that it never happens, because you can almost always find an example of something if you try hard enough, but certainly when I am in the Chair I tend to work on the assumption that the ministerial wind-up is indeed the conclusion of the debate.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the conclusion of this debate taking place earlier than listed on the Order Paper, although I am sure that he will readily accept that the Official Report—that is to say, the verbatim account of what was said; there is no question of misleading anybody—will show that the debate concluded a little early. The Chair does not normally allow a further Back-Bench speech, and—this is not directed at the hon. Gentleman; it is just a wider point—certainly not from a Member who had already made a substantial speech in the debate.
As for interventions, the hon. Gentleman, as the author of “How To Be An MP”—available in all good bookshops, and of which I am myself a noted admirer, as he knows—he will appreciate that a Member is free to take interventions or not. I note what he tells me—that the Minister said, “No, I can’t take interventions because I haven’t time”—but that is not something on which the Chair can rule. Sometimes Ministers can be a tad neurotic in these circumstances, it is true, as can sometimes, perhaps, shadow Ministers, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Whether the Member seeking to intervene likes it or not, the situation is as I have described.
Let me take this opportunity, in a positive spirit, to encourage all new Members—I am not sure the Whips would agree about this—to read the hon. Gentleman’s books on being a good parliamentarian. [Interruption.] “No!” says a Government Whip, chuntering from a sedentary position, in evident horror at what bad habits new members of the flock might pick up. I think that they are fine tomes. The hon. Gentleman has used his position as a Back-Bench Member to stand up for his constituents and to fight for the principles in which he believes. That has sometimes pleased his party and sometimes not, but that is what we are supposed to get here—Members of Parliament who speak to their principles and their consciences. That is a good thing, and, as he knows, I like to encourage it. In fact, when I was a Back Bencher, I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Department of Health accounts were finally laid before the House, after a week of to-ing and fro-ing that prompted no actual changes, as I understand it, to them. The Comptroller and Auditor General has raised some concerns about the accounts. I seek your guidance on two points, Mr Speaker. First, the accounts have again been laid late. Last year, they were laid on the final day on which Parliament sat; this time, they were laid only a couple of days before the final day. Secondly, what can we do to ensure that a Minister turns up to the House to explain the Department of Health accounts and address the financial concerns that many Members of the House, and not least the Public Accounts Committee, have about the Government’s handling of health finances?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who has put her concern on the record. It will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, and I suspect that the contents of her point of order will wing their way to Health Ministers ere long. The truth of the matter is that there is no resolution of her grievance available from the Chair. The Select Committee on Health may wish to return to this matter if it is dissatisfied, and the Public Accounts Committee, of which the hon. Lady is herself the distinguished Chair, may wish to pursue this matter further. Realistically, I fear that that will have to wait until September, although if the hon. Lady—she is of course a London Member, and a very assiduous attender—is present in her place tomorrow for the summer Adjournment debate and wishes to expatiate further on her concerns, she may well find she is able to catch the eye of the Chair.
If there are no further points of order—I think that there are none—we come now to the presentation of Bills.
Bills presented
Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Bryant, supported by Holly Lynch, Stephen Crabb, Mr Graham Brady, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr Dominic Grieve, Jo Stevens, Diana Johnson, Tulip Siddiq, Lilian Greenwood, Carolyn Harris and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about offences when perpetrated against emergency workers, and persons assisting such workers; to make certain offences aggravated when perpetrated against such workers in the exercise of their duty; to require persons suspected of certain assaults against such workers which may pose a health risk to provide intimate samples and to make it an offence, without reasonable excuse, to refuse to provide such samples; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 7).
Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Steve Reed, supported by Norman Lamb, Mr Charles Walker, Jim Shannon, Keith Vaz, Sarah Jones, Mr David Lammy, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Marsha De Cordova, Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and Heidi Allen, presented a Bill to make provision about the oversight and management of the appropriate use of force in relation to people in mental health units and similar institutions; to make provision about the use of body cameras by police officers in the course of duties in relation to people in mental health units; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed (Bill 8).
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Afzal Khan, supported by Joanna Cherry, Hannah Bardell, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Lady Hermon and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 December, and to be printed (Bill 9).
Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ms Karen Buck, supported by Luciana Berger, Jess Phillips, Matthew Pennycook, Shabana Mahmood, Heidi Allen, Marsha De Cordova, Andy Slaughter, Alex Sobel, Kate Green, Diana Johnson and Clive Efford, presented a Bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to require that residential rented accommodation is provided and maintained in a state of fitness for human habitation; to amend the Building Act 1984 to make provision about the liability for works on residential accommodation that do not comply with Building Regulations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2018, and to be printed (Bill 10).
Mr Speaker
Friday 19 January is a splendid day—it is my birthday.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Loughton, supported by Mr Graham Brady, Dame Caroline Spelman, Mrs Anne Main, Frank Field, Heidi Allen, Caroline Lucas and Antoinette Sandbach, presented a Bill to provide that opposite sex couples may enter a civil partnership; to make provision about the registration of the names of the mother of each party to a marriage or civil partnership; to make provision about the registration of stillborn deaths; to give coroners the power to investigate stillborn deaths; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 11).
Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Geoffrey Robinson, supported by Paul Flynn, Sir Vince Cable, Caroline Lucas, Michael Fabricant, Liz Saville Roberts, Dr Philippa Whitford, Kate Green, Sir Oliver Letwin, Jim Shannon, Angela Rayner and Crispin Blunt, presented a Bill to enable persons in England to withhold consent for organ donation and transplantation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 12).
Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angus Brendan MacNeil, supported by Stephen Twigg, Robert Neill, Stuart C. McDonald, Tulip Siddiq, Tim Farron, Jim Shannon, Caroline Lucas, Anna Soubry, Ian Blackford, Stella Creasy and Hywel Williams, presented a Bill to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection; to provide for legal aid to be made available for such family reunion cases; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 13).
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Hollinrake, supported by Will Quince, Sir Nicholas Soames, Craig Tracey, Carolyn Harris, Antoinette Sandbach, Jeremy Quin, Huw Merriman, Victoria Prentis, Diana Johnson and Rebecca Pow, presented a Bill to make provision about leave and pay for employees whose children have died.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 14).
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Vicky Foxcroft, on behalf of Jim McMahon, supported by Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Watson, Peter Kyle, Diana Johnson, Lucy Powell, Sir Peter Bottomley, Stephen Gethins, Jo Swinson, Jonathan Edwards and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to reduce the voting age to 16 in parliamentary and other elections; to make provision about young people’s education in citizenship and the constitution; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed (Bill 15).
Overseas Electors Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Glyn Davies presented a Bill to make provision extending the basis on which British citizens outside the UK qualify to participate in parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 16).
Parking (Code of Practice) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Greg Knight, supported by Kevin Brennan, Pete Wishart, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Daniel Zeichner and Graham Jones, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 17).
Mr Speaker
I think the nation should be aware that, perhaps because the right hon. Gentleman’s Bill relates to parking, he is sporting a notably colourful tie, which features a very large number of cars. Knowing his penchant, I assume that they are classic cars.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
They are, indeed.
Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Stewart Malcolm McDonald, supported by Ian Murray, Lady Hermon, Caroline Lucas, Christine Jardine, Patricia Gibson, David Linden, Alison Thewliss, Chris Stephens, Patrick Grady, Carol Monaghan and Martin Whitfield, presented a Bill to prohibit unpaid trial work periods in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 18).
Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Esther McVey, supported by Andrew Selous, David T. C. Davies, Kirstene Hair, Trudy Harrison, Philip Davies, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mr Christopher Chope, Paul Farrelly, Mr Kevan Jones, Mr Stephen Hepburn and Sir Edward Davey, presented a Bill to make provision about interference with wireless telegraphy in prisons and similar institutions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 December, and to be printed (Bill 19).
Stalking Protection Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Sarah Wollaston, supported by Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Ms Harriet Harman, Alex Chalk, Antoinette Sandbach, Luciana Berger, Richard Graham, Victoria Prentis, Maria Caulfield, Mims Davies, Jess Phillips and Vicky Ford, presented a Bill to make provision for protecting persons from risks associated with stalking; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2018, and to be printed (Bill 20).
Mr Speaker
Friday 19 January—I do hope I am here.
Employment and Workers’ Rights Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Stephanie Peacock, supported by Louise Haigh, Rachel Reeves, Dan Jarvis, Ellie Reeves, Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy, Jo Stevens, Ian Mearns, Mike Amesbury, Laura Smith and Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to make provision about employment conditions and workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 21).
Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daniel Zeichner presented a Bill to make provision about the exercise of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing functions in relation to persons about whom there are safeguarding or road safety concerns; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 22).
Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andy Slaughter, supported by Dan Jarvis, Jo Stevens, David Hanson, Ian C. Lucas, Ruth Cadbury, Christian Matheson, Clive Efford, Stephen Timms, Ms Karen Buck, Louise Haigh and Kate Green, presented a Bill to make providers of social housing, local safeguarding children boards, Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and the Housing Ombudsman public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; to make information held by persons contracting with public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000; to extend the powers of the Information Commissioner; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June 2018, and to be printed (Bill 23).
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Peter Kyle, supported by Nicky Morgan, Norman Lamb, Sir Peter Bottomley, Rachel Reeves, Ruth Smeeth, Wes Streeting, Anna Turley, Holly Lynch, Conor McGinn, Caroline Lucas and Jim McMahon, presented a Bill to reduce the voting age to 16 in parliamentary and other elections; to make provision for auto-enrolment onto the electoral register for people aged 16 to 24; to make provision about the use of educational establishments as polling stations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 24).
Physician Associates (Regulation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anne Marie Morris presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of physician associates; to make physician associate a protected title; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October 2018, and to be printed (Bill 25).
National Living Wage (Extension to Young People) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Holly Lynch, supported by Chris Bryant, Jo Stevens, Anna Turley, Wes Streeting, Jess Phillips, Tulip Siddiq, Ruth Smeeth, Gareth Snell, Conor McGinn, Naz Shah and Graham Jones, presented a Bill to extend the National Living Wage to people aged 18 to 24.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July 2018, and to be printed (Bill 26).
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Friday 2nd February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is good to see you in your place for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. In proposing this Bill, I have not made things easy for myself. It contains four separate main proposals spanning four different Government Departments and potentially four different Ministers. It is not a Government handout Bill, and to complicate matters, three of the four original Ministers involved were moved as a result of the recent reshuffle. It has been a stressful few weeks. I know how hard it is to get a private Member’s Bill on the statute book, even when it contains a straightforward single measure, let alone four, so on the face of it I am being greedy—but for good reason.
In more than 20 years of entering the private Members’ Bill ballot at the start of the Session, my name has never once come out of the hat, and it probably will not again in whatever years or months I have left here. So as this is likely my only opportunity, I have been ambitious in trying to include as many of the good causes that I have tried to promote in this place, in two cases through ten-minute rule Bills in recent years. So I am a private Member’s Bill novice after almost 21 years in this House and I ask the House to be gentle with me.
It has not been easy to keep all the ducks in a row across four Government Departments, but I am grateful that they have all in turn met with support from Ministers such that the Bill can now proceed into Committee, with the will of the House. I freely admit that it has not been an easy process and at times it has been a very frustrating one. I place on record my thanks for the advice, support and patience of Farrah Bhatti in the private Bill Office, which has been invaluable.
The frustration has been that, from the very start, I offered to be as flexible as possible with Ministers with the wording of the Bill, and to sit down with departmental officials to agree on the terminology so that we could make progress with a Bill that had Government support. While at various times I secured agreement in principle to the main contents of the Bill from the revolving cast list of Ministers, it has literally been only in the past week that officials have sat down with me to talk turkey and final details have been thrashed out. Hence my apologies for the very late publication of the Bill just in time. It is only in the last week that we have secured the lead Minister, and I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), to the Dispatch Box; I am sure that all is going to end well.
The upshot of all this is that there is not as much detail and commitment in the Bill as I would originally have liked. There will be much work to be done in Committee and thereafter, but I am confident that we have a Bill containing robust principles that we can pass on to closer Committee scrutiny, with the will of the House. Notwithstanding those reservations, I am grateful to all those who have helped to produce the Bill today, especially those individuals and organisations outside this place who have campaigned long and hard on the various issues, based on powerful and often heartbreaking personal experiences.
To summarise, the four component parts of my Bill are as follows. The first is a provision intended to undertake further work on how the Government can extend civil partnerships to opposite sex couples as per my previous amendments, ten-minute rule Bills and presentation Bills. Equal civil partnerships are unfinished business from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, and change requires only a straightforward amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which this House enthusiastically passed, with my support.
The second is a provision that mothers’ names, or second parent names, should be included on marriage and civil partnership certificates, based on previous Bills introduced by a number of hon. Members, which would bring England and Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, for the first time in about 180 years.
The third is a provision on the registration of stillbirths. My previous ten-minute rule Bill would have amended the definition of a stillborn child in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to include the formal recording of a child who is stillborn in the usual way but before the current threshold of 24 weeks’ gestation. The fourth is an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to give coroners the power to investigate late-stage stillbirths if, for example, there is suspected medical negligence.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the Bill makes progress, people will be able to get married to, or have a civil partnership with, anybody of any sex. I have been written to by two sisters—this is also a long-standing campaign of my own—about the burning injustice in this situation. The two sisters have lived together all their lives, but when one of them dies, the other one will have to move out of their home because they will not be able afford the inheritance tax. Only the Treasury stands in the way of righting this injustice; it is about money. I hope that when my hon. Friend works on the detail of the Bill, he will try to ensure that it helps siblings to stay in the homes in which they have lived all their lives.
Tim Loughton
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, which has been raised on several occasions. It is not my intention, at this stage, to extend civil partnerships to people other than cohabiting couples who are in a relationship. I want to mirror the existing terminology in the Civil Partnership Act 2004. I hope that we will entertain proposals such as my hon. Friend’s in Committee and on Report, and I have no doubt that he will want to raise the matter.
Sir Edward Leigh
Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is an injustice for everyone apart from siblings to be able to have whatever legal relationship they want? I am not asking him to say now that he will include the matter in the Bill, but does he at least accept that this is a worthy cause, on which I have campaigned for many years?
Tim Loughton
I understand that it is a worthy cause, but it is different from enabling people to have their relationship recognised by the state. There are clear financial disadvantages and implications in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. I entirely sympathise with his view and I think that the injustice needs to be dealt with, but I do not propose to deal with it at this stage in my Bill. Doing so would make the Bill even more complicated than it already is. In addition, it is highly likely that the long title of the Bill will need to be amended in Committee, particularly to reflect the change that will be required to the electronic record of marriage certificates.
Let me start with the extension of civil partnerships to include opposite-sex couples. The 2004 Act was long overdue, and it was enthusiastically supported by me and the great majority of hon. Members from all parts of the House. At its heart, the Act tackled a clear obstacle to equal rights for loving couples who just happened to be of the same sex.
Subsequently, the House decided in 2013 that it was time for equal marriage. That has happened, the skies have not caved in and we have moved on. I certainly do not want to reopen the bruising debates that we had at the time, especially across my party. However, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 gave rise to an unintended new inequality, and it is surely time for equal civil partnerships—a natural extension that was supported across all parties when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was introduced and that has just as much support now. In the consultation that the Government conducted before the introduction of that Bill, 61% of respondents were in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Alas, for some inexplicable reason, the proposal never made it into the Act. If it had done, the Act would have been better; that is why change is necessary today.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many people entered that consultation?
Tim Loughton
Quite a lot, although I have not got the figures. The consultation was one of two, and the result of the second consultation was different. As a result, no action was taken, but this is clearly unfinished business.
Michelle Donelan
To help my hon. Friend, the second consultation had only just over 11,000 entries. One could argue that that is not representative of the population or a gauge of public opinion.
Tim Loughton
Given that there are 3.2 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples, it is a very small proportion of those who might be affected, so this is unfinished business. More than 80,000 people have signed a petition in favour of the change, and that is a small indication of the demand that exists.
There are three main rationales for supporting the measure. First, it will correct the unintended but glaring inequality that results from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, whereby same-sex couples are entitled to continue in a civil partnership, take up a civil partnership or enjoy the recent extension of marriage while opposite-sex couples have only the single option of conventional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair, and it gives rise to an inequality in an Act that was billed as promoting equality.
Secondly, a positive reason for pushing forward with the Bill is family stability. As a former children’s Minister, that has always been at the top of my priority list. According to the latest estimate, there are some 3.2 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country. That is more than 4,900 couples per parliamentary constituency, and it is about double the figure that was reported just 15 years ago. Those couples are responsible for more than 2 million children. Some 53% of birth registrations are to married parents, but about a third are to unmarried parents who are living together.
Cohabitation is the fastest growing form of family in this country, whether we like it or not. We need to recognise that our society is changing and we need to adapt in order to promote family stability, in whatever form, to provide a continuum that gives children the best and most stable start in life.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
On that point, has my hon. Friend seen the families manifesto by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)? It raises the importance of stability in the family for bringing up children. Does he support that manifesto?
Tim Loughton
Not only do I support it, but I think my name is on it. My proposal will help to create greater stability, with the ultimate aim of giving the 2.2 million children in such relationships the very best opportunities and the best start in life.
The Centre for Social Justice has calculated that the cost of family breakdown to this country is some £48 billion a year, or some 2.5% of gross domestic product. That is a big and growing problem, which is socially and financially costly for our society. Fewer than one in 10 married parents have split up by the time their child reaches the age of five, compared with more than one in three of those who are cohabiting but not married, and 75% of family breakdowns involving children under five result from the separation of unmarried parents. The CSJ has produced a raft of statistics showing that a child who is not in a two-parent family is much more likely to fall out of school, to become addicted to drugs, to get into trouble with the law, to be homeless and not to be in employment, education or training. Let me be clear: that is not to be judgmental about parents who find themselves, through no fault of their own, having to bring up a child alone, but two partners make for greater stability.
We know that marriage works, but civil partnerships are also showing evidence of providing greater stability for same-sex couples, including those who have children through adoption, surrogacy or whatever means. There is a strong case for believing that extending civil partnerships would improve that stability for many more families in different ways. If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples entered into a civil partnership, that would amount to more than 300,000 couples and their children. The extension of civil partnerships would offer the prospect of greater security and stability, lower likelihood of family breakdown, and better social and financial outcomes. That, surely, would be progress.
Understandably, some people will ask, “Why can those couples not just get married?” People choose not to get involved in the paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons. For some, it is too much of an establishment thing to do. Many identify marriage as an innately religious institution, and even if it is done in a registry office, it still has religious connotations. Some see marriage as having a patriarchal side, and some see it as a form of social control. For others, it is rather expensive. Marriage is not seen as a genuine partnership of equals, as civil partnerships are. Those are not my views, but they represent how many people see marriage. Many people have lobbied me—I am sure that they have done the same to other hon. Members—about why they would like to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into a civil partnership, and why they have not got married.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Some may argue that in effect, the idea of commitment would potentially be undermined, but does my hon. Friend agree that probably in reality, people who might opt for civil partnership might otherwise not have made any commitment?
Tim Loughton
It is interesting. I recorded a television interview this morning with a couple who have been together for 26 years; they have teenage children and, for a variety of reasons, do not want to get married. They travelled to the Isle of Man, which is the only part of the British Isles that recognises civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples, and have become the first couple from mainland UK to have a civil partnership through the Isle of Man. Obviously, it is not recognised in the UK proper.
They made a very interesting point. They said, “We want to show our commitment in the eyes of the state. We want the stability and the protection, and the legal protections, that we just don’t have as a cohabiting couple, but marriage is not right for us. If we are going to be forced into a marriage as the only way of getting that legal protection, we would effectively be undermining marriage, because we would be doing it for the wrong reasons.” Civil partnership is a way to show that commitment and get the protections without having to conform in a way that they do not believe in.
Whether we agree with them, that is their right. Surely in an age when families take many different forms, the key thing that the state should be interested in is doing whatever creates stability and the best opportunities for loving couples to thrive and for children, when they are involved, to be brought up in a stable environment. This is surely another opportunity to get more people to be able to take advantage of such a situation.
Rebecca Pow
The consultation did not have any consensus that we should go down the civil partnership line, but will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that in France, religious marriages are not recognised and have to be preceded by a civil ceremony? I wonder whether any data have been gathered about how many split-up families they have there, or whether they have a better record than we are likely to have, because this is really all about family stability.
Tim Loughton
I have precisely the statistics that my hon. Friend is looking for. If she is patient for a few minutes longer, I will give her exactly that information.
Such people are mostly in committed loving relationships, but if they do not want to go for a traditional marriage, they have no way of having that recognised in the eyes of the state. That brings me on to the third main rationale for this reform—I promise that I will then come to my hon. Friend’s point. Particularly worrying is the common misconception that there is such a thing as a common-law wife or husband, as a woman typically finds out abruptly on the death of the partner when there is an inheritance tax bill on the estate and potentially on the family home. If a woman has a child with her partner and the relationship breaks down, she is not entitled to any form of financial support if they are not married. There is no automatic entitlement to property, even if she had been paying into the mortgage.
When one partner is much older than the other and there is a reasonable expectation that one will die some years before the other, the long-term survivor would not receive the same tax benefits as a married woman or those in a civil partnership. That would be discriminatory towards the couples’ children. The same vulnerabilities can apply if one partner does a runner. Even a couple engaged to be married have more rights than a cohabiting opposite-sex couple.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but he will be aware of the work of Resolution, the family solicitors group, which has a Cohabitation Awareness Week. It has drawn my attention, and I am sure that of many other hon. Members, to the lack of rights and the fact that people are totally ignorant about their lack of rights, if there is a breakdown or a loss of one of the cohabiting parents. Hopefully this change in the law will put that right.
Tim Loughton
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his intervention. I was not aware of the Cohabitation Awareness Week, but many family law solicitors have written to me and support the campaign, because they see the fall-out when this goes wrong. People come to them thinking that they had entitlements and legal status because they had been living together for so long, but they suddenly find out that they do not. They have a tax bill and lots of problems and headaches, and their children do not have a home to live in. If anything, I hope that the Bill will help to publicise that real problem in the law that the Government need to address at some stage. I am giving them the opportunity to take the bull by the horns and get on and do something about it now.
The question is: why should not those who have made a conscious choice not to go for a traditional marriage have the opportunity to have the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections in the eyes of the law that we, rightly and not before time, extended to same-sex couples back in 2004? There are also several further applications. Many people with strong religious beliefs—particularly Catholics who have ended up getting divorced, which is in conflict with certain religious teachings—may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new partner, because their Church supposedly believes that they should be married for life. In many cases, however, they would be able to reconcile that position by entering into a new formal commitment through an opposite-sex civil partnership. In addition, as it stands, someone admitting to being in a civil partnership currently automatically carries the revelation that they are in a same-sex relationship. That could be an unintended invasion of their privacy when some may wish to keep that private. There are a number of practical, real-life scenarios in which civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples could achieve something very positive and non-discriminatory.
I am pleased with the widespread support that the measure has attracted. The Marriage Foundation, for example, has gone on record as saying that it “fully supports” the Bill
“to introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. It is a strong pro-family measure which, crucially, encourages commitment and stability. By making civil partnerships available to heterosexual couples, we would provide a new, formal basis for those who want to make a solid and legally backed commitment to one another but who prefer not to marry for whatever reason.”
I also welcome the support from The Times and the campaign spearheaded by Frances Gibb as part of that newspaper’s family law reform campaign. I see this measure as an important part of reforming family law and making family arrangements fit for the 21st century. We need to grasp the nettle on no-fault divorces and bring relationships into the modern age, and we need to find new ways for the state to recognise committed relationships and give stability, especially to the children within them. Making sure that shared parenting works and keeping warring parents out of the courts, where their children become bargaining chips, still needs further work too.
I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Opposite-sex civil partnerships are not something that has been cooked up in this country. In South Africa, the Civil Union Act 2006 gave same-sex and opposite-sex couples the option to register a civil union by way of a marriage or a civil partnership on the same basis. In France, the pacte civil de solidarité—or PACS, as it is known—was introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of the same sex or the opposite sex. A few years ago, marriage was added to that. Interestingly, one in 10 PACS has been dissolved in France, yet one in three marriages ends in divorce. There is evidence that some of those civil partnerships have created greater stability, whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex partnerships, than traditional marriage.
No complications are involved in my proposal. I want opposite-sex civil partnerships to be offered on exactly the same basis as same-sex civil partnerships, notwithstanding the earlier comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It would not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close family member, or if that person was already in a union, and the partnership would need to be subject to the same termination criteria.
It is a simple proposal, and surely the case is now overwhelming. All that would be required is a simple one-line amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It could all be done and dusted in Committee by tea time—although I guess that by the time drafting officials have got their teeth into it, many more clauses will be required. That is what I originally intended in the Bill and put forward in my amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and subsequent ten-minute rule Bill and presentation Bills.
I acknowledge, however, that the Government have concerns about taking the full plunge and going the whole hog at this stage, and want to carry out further research about the demand and practicalities for such a reform. I have doubts about what that would achieve, given that, as hon. Friends have mentioned, we have had two public consultations on the subject in the last five years, and we now have 13 years’ worth of civil partnerships for same-sex couples in practice from which to garner evidence. However, I recognise the Government’s caution, and in securing a clear commitment to learn from the experience so far and promote equality further, I hope that they will come to the same conclusion as I have, together with the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign and the now more than 80,000 people who have signed a petition in support, many of whom have been enthusiastically lobbying their MPs in recent weeks.
There is a growing tide of support for the measure, fuelled by a court case that is currently destined to go before the Supreme Court in May. I pay tribute to Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who have pioneered equal civil partnerships and whose application for a civil partnership to the authorities in Kensington and Chelsea triggered this campaign.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Charles and Rebecca, who are constituents of mine. As he says, the case is going to the Supreme Court, but so far the courts have indicated that it is for the House and the Government to make decisions about the matter.
Does the hon. Gentleman share my dissatisfaction about the fact that the Government may be considering restricting civil partnerships? They appear to have accepted the concept of equality, but if they remove civil partnerships from same-sex couples rather than granting them to opposite-sex couples, they will be restricting choice.
Tim Loughton
I completely agree, and I will say something about that in a minute. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the couple whom I mentioned, and his support for the overall campaign.
The issue arose when Charles and Rebecca approached their local register office to register their opposite-sex partnership. As they put it,
“We wanted to formalise our relationship and celebrate it with friends and family but we’re not able to do it for what seems like no apparent reason. We prefer the idea of a civil partnership because it reflects us as a couple—we want equality through our relationship and with 2 babies now we want the protections offered by formalising marriage.”
The couple have campaigned tirelessly through the courts. Interestingly, at the Appeal Court last year a split decision ruled against them, but—as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) —the court put the Government on notice that the current situation was unsustainable, and referred specifically to my private Member’s Bill as a vehicle for remedying it. I do not want to prejudge the Supreme Court’s findings—the case has not yet been put before it—but it is hard to see how the Government will not be criticised for not taking heed of the need for action when the golden opportunity afford by my private Member’s Bill has dropped into their lap.
I appreciate that—as the hon. Member for Hammersmith also mentioned—the Government are also reserving the option of achieving equality by scrapping civil partnerships altogether and sticking with same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. I think that that would be a mistake. It is no surprise that there has been a big reduction in the number of civil partnerships since the option of full same-sex marriage was introduced in 2014. In 2016 there were 890 civil partnerships, whereas the average was about 6,000 in previous years, before marriage was an option. That figure was, in fact, an increase on the number in 2015, but, more tellingly, although the full figures have yet to be published, the number of civil partnerships that were converted to full marriage is still in the teens. Indeed, in 2014, when the option first became available, only 4% of existing same-sex civil partnerships were converted to marriage, which suggests that civil partnerships have a specific and different role. That applies as much to same sex-couples as it no doubt would to opposite-sex couples who have been denied the opportunity to gauge the demand so far. Abolishing civil partnerships altogether would deprive not just opposite-sex couples but same sex-couples of choice, and would leave tens of thousands of civil partners in limbo, forced either to become an abolished species or to convert to the full marriage that they had thus far resisted.
In the last consultation on extending civil partnerships, the Church of England was strongly in favour of retaining them. William Fittall, the secretary general of the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops, said:
“Our arguments for the retention of civil partnerships are based on the need to maintain an option for those same-sex couples who wish for proper recognition of their relationship but do not believe that their relationship is identical to ‘marriage’.”
I hope that, by the same token, the Church of England will soon come round to the idea of giving formal church blessings to civil partners.
I also hope that the Government will quickly move from a further consultation phase to an implementation phase, and nothing in the Bill would curtail the speed at which they could do so. There is no statutory requirement to put a consultation in legislation. I hope that the further review that I think the Minister wants to offer can start immediately and in parallel with the Bill’s passage, so that if the Government determined what we already know, they could enable thousands of potential civil partners to tie the knot with the same urgency with which the previous Government approached the Bill that became the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.
Many Members believe that the time has come to back equal civil partnerships, to the potential benefit of many cohabiting couples and their children and the stability of our society as a whole. This part of my Bill has widespread cross-party support both inside and outside the House. It is a concise and simple but important measure, which could bring about equality for those who choose civil partnership, and I urge the House to support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
My hon. Friend has been tenacious in his negotiations this week with the four Departments involved in the Bill. Will he confirm that he is content for the first two clauses to serve as “marker” clauses, and that he and I will jointly table amendments to them so that we can discuss in Committee the consultations that he and I have discussed this week?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is impatient. I will confirm that later in my speech: there is plenty more to come. My hon. Friend got in first, but it was not really necessary.
I am aware that I have majored on the first of the four parts of the Bill. It has three other important components, which I think are less complicated and hopefully less contentious.
The fact that my late mother could not add her name as a parent on my marriage certificate is an anachronism, well past its sell-by date and, frankly, an outrage. In fact, the signatures of both my mother and my mother-in-law were included on our marriage certificate, but at our discretion, and as the signatures of witnesses rather than parents. My father signed, as did my wife’s father, because in the days when the anomaly originated, a daughter was a father’s chattel for him to give away, and literally sign away. That has been the case in England since 1837, the beginning of Queen Victoria’s reign, and has not changed since then. The problem apparently lies with the current system of marriage registration, which relies on hard-copy register books held in churches and other religious establishments as well as register offices. That involves some 84,000 open register books in 30,000 churches and religious buildings, so it is quite a big undertaking.
Surely, in this digital age, it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to introduce a single electronic register instead of relying on hard-copy books. That would avoid the potentially costly need to replace all the register books. Instead of signing a book at the ceremony, the newly married couple would sign a document that would then be returned to the register office to be entered in the existing electronic register so that an official marriage certificate could be issued, including the names of all the parents. The measure could also take account of new family structures, including those to which I have referred. There would be two spaces for the signatures of each of the partners in the marriage, or, indeed, civil partnership. That innovation was actually made when civil partnerships were introduced in 2004, but, bizarrely, it does not apply to marriages. Both parents would be included, be they biological mother and father, same-sex parents of whom one might be a biological parent, or adoptive parents.
That, surely, would be a progressive move to acknowledge and celebrate all types of relationships that give rise to children who go on to get hitched. It would also avoid some of the more insulting scenarios that I have encountered, in which a single mum who has given everything to bring up a son or daughter cannot be acknowledged on a wedding certificate, whereas an absentee or abusive father who did a runner at the birth and played no part in the child’s upbringing has an automatic pass to be registered on the certificate. Tragically, many mums discover that literally when the pen is taken away from them straight after the nuptials, when the register is signed to confirm the marriage.
It is nonsensical that this simple measure has not already come to pass. It is apparently the policy of the present Government and that of the previous one. It has been supported by Ministers and Prime Ministers, and it has been the subject of numerous early-day motions, petitions, debates and Private Members’ Bills introduced by, among others, the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees)—who is present—and my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) is attempting to push through the latest such measure in tandem with the Bishop of St Albans, and my proposals, which would be considered in more detail in Committee, mirror their intention—although I am aware that there are some concerns about potential Henry VIII clauses, which I will seek to restrict. Ensuring that my Bill passes into law swiftly would be the fastest way to achieve this much-supported change in the law.
I can confirm—the Minister helpfully pre-empted me on this point—that the two clauses relating to civil partnerships and marriage certificates are marker clauses. They will be replaced and elaborated on in Committee, as agreed with Ministers, albeit at the 11th hour. Is the Minister happy?
Tim Loughton
My day is complete.
Finally, let me deal with the subject of stillbirths. This is perhaps the most emotionally traumatic part of the Bill. On many occasions, the House has been moved by the personal testimonies of Members in all parts of the House who have spoken out bravely and vividly about their own family experiences. It is because of those emotional personal testimonies that this whole subject probably punches well above its weight in this place—quite rightly—and by doing so has given a voice and hope to the too many parents who are directly affected by the tragedy of stillbirth. I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on baby loss, and particularly the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), whom I am delighted is here today, and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—and I am sure anybody I have missed will take the opportunity to intervene or make a speech later in the debate. This has been a great cross-party effort, which is something we do well in this House when we get it right.
I first became involved with this subject while shadow Children’s Minister and then later when a constituent came to me with a tragic tale of how she had suffered a series of miscarriages and then a stillbirth after 19 weeks. A stillbirth is classified as such only if the gestation period is 24 weeks or more; one day less, and that stillbirth becomes a non-viable delivery, more commonly referred to as a mid-trimester miscarriage. There are no central records of exactly how many babies are born in that way, so they do not form part of the perinatal mortality figures, which, while falling—fortunately—are still far too high in this country. Without wishing in any way to downplay the importance and pain of a miscarriage, particularly for new parents struggling to have their first child, the experiences are different. That was brought home to me most starkly by the story of my constituent Hayley.
Back in 2013, Hayley was pregnant. For nearly 20 weeks she carried the child of her partner Frazer. She felt the baby kicking; she went through all the other ups and downs of pregnancy. Previously she had suffered a miscarriage after just a few weeks. Sadly, after around 19 weeks something went wrong, and Hayley and Frazer’s baby died unborn. It was not a miscarriage, and the following week Hayley had to go through the pain of giving birth to a baby that she knew was no longer alive. She had to take powerful drugs to induce the pregnancy; she experienced contractions; and she went into Worthing Hospital and had pain relief. The following day, in June, she gave birth to her baby, Samuel. She held Samuel in her arms. She and her partner took photographs, had his hand and footprints taken and said their goodbyes.
Fortunately, Hayley was given good support by the clinical staff at Worthing Hospital—an outstanding hospital, particularly its maternity department—and had bereavement guidance later. She has an understanding employer in West Sussex County Council, and she was also fortunate to find a sympathetic funeral director, and the funeral took place two weeks later.
To all intents and purposes, Hayley went through all the experiences of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth endured by any other mother, but they were coupled in this case with the unimaginable grief of a parent who has lost a child before they could ever get to know him. She did not just go through a stillbirth: she had a still baby; she became a mum.
The crucial difference is that Hayley and Frazer’s baby is not recognised in the eyes of the state because he was born before 24 weeks’ gestation. If he had survived until 24 weeks and one day, he would have been recognised and the death properly registered in a register of stillbirths. More than just adding to the statistics, that would have been the acknowledgement of an actual, individual baby. To add further insult to injury, Hayley had to hand back her maternity exemption certificate straight afterwards. I am glad to report that the story has a happy ending, because Hayley and Frazer went on to have a child, healthy and doing well, and last year also got married.
The stark difference I have described surely cannot be right; it adds insult to the unimaginable pain that the parents have already had to suffer. Until the passing of the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992, which amended the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the threshold was 28 weeks, so prior to that even more babies went unrecognised in official records. That change followed a clear consensus in the medical profession on the age at which a baby is considered viable. Since then, there have been cases of babies born before 24 weeks who have, incredibly, survived.
It is true that there is an informal procedure for hospitals to issue so-called commemorative certificates for foetuses that are not classified as stillbirths. They provide parents with a certificate that records their pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. The charity Sands has produced a template of a certificate of birth and encourages all hospitals to adopt it. However, it is unofficial and counts for little or nothing in the eyes of the state.
As a result of this case, I brought a ten-minute rule Bill before this House on 14 January 2014. It was supported by a number of Members here today and was widely supported across the House, but, as usually happens, it ran out of parliamentary time. However, I did take the issue further with the help of the then Health Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who hosted a roundtable at the Department of Health and we were in the middle of coming up with a solution, with the aid of the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which has been very supportive, and the charity Sands among others. Alas, however, as has been the bane of my private Member’s Bill experience, the Minister was moved on and the initiative was lost.
This Bill would resurrect that initiative by committing the Government to holding a proper review of how we could come up with a scheme whereby the state would recognise that a child such as Samuel actually existed. For the many parents who have written to me since I first launched my Bill, it would help to bring some closure after a truly traumatic ordeal. Some of the experiences that have been revealed to me are unimaginable to those of us lucky enough not to have gone through it with their own children.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, which is very difficult to listen to. Will he go into detail about the effects of registration of a baby’s body—on the burial of the body, for example, or what happens to the remains—and also on the legal position of maternity and paternity leave for the bereaved parents?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is an expert on this and has campaigned on it for a long time, and has her own personal experiences. There are many implications in law, in employment and in other regards in recognising that somebody has gone through the experiences of being pregnant, for which they are entitled to various things, but all of a sudden, just because that pregnancy came to a traumatic end before 24 weeks, all that support and recognition completely falls away. There are far-thinking employers who take that into account, although they are not obliged to. So this is about more than just giving closure to parents who have had a traumatic experience; there are all sorts of other things that can help them get through that experience as well. I will conclude shortly, and I know other Members will then recount their own experiences of the very real practical implications.
One particularly stark example was a woman who had given birth to stillborn twins delayed either side of the 24-week threshold. One was registered as stillborn, recognised in the eyes of the state, while the other, born just before 24 weeks, did not exist. That cannot be right and we can and must do better. The Secretary of State for Health shares that ambition and is to be commended for the comprehensive measures to bring down substantially the number of stillbirths and to deal much more sympathetically with the impact when they do still happen. Other countries, such as Holland and Norway, have reduced their mortality rates much more dramatically, yet in the UK we continue to see wide variations geographically and demographically. For example, the stillbirth rate in the south-west of England is 4.7 per 1,000 live births, while in the north-east it is 5.8; that is a 23% difference. There are big differences between age groups and mums from different ethnic backgrounds.
The simple fact is that 3,122 babies were stillborn in England and Wales alone in 2016; those are officially stillborn over 24 weeks, not including those before the 24 week threshold. One in 225 pregnancies end in stillbirth after 24 weeks; it is 15 times more common than cot death, and that equates to around nine babies every single day. That is nine mothers and fathers who have lost a child after completing more than half the term of a pregnancy. They then have to go through the pain of childbirth to see a baby who will not grow up.
The Bill will simply require the Government to hold a review of how we can do better and come up with a simple scheme that could have a huge impact on many grieving parents. It has nothing to do with changing the law on abortion, and that debate is for another day and another piece of legislation. I have deliberately not been prescriptive about what form the review should take, but I trust the Government to do the right thing here and I think we are pushing at an open door.
I know we are pushing at an open door with my last measure, as the Health Secretary signalled his support for it at the Dispatch Box during a statement on stillbirths in November. There appears to be an anomaly in the law where coroners in England have the power to investigate any unexplained death of any humans unless they are stillbirths. That is because a baby who dies during delivery is not legally considered to have lived. If a baby has not lived, it has not died. As coroners can only investigate deaths where there is a
“body of the deceased person”
they have no legal jurisdiction to investigate these deaths. However, one in three stillbirths occur in healthy babies who die at term.
In some cases, those deaths occur due to mismanaged deliveries, and there has been a number of high-profile cases involving clusters of such deaths, well above the national average. According to the charity Sands, an estimated 500 babies die or are left severely disabled because of an event during their birth that was either not anticipated or not well managed. There is currently no independent investigation of these intra-partum deaths, and hospitals are left to investigate their own mistakes. It has been shown that these hospital reviews can be inadequate and fail to inform grieving parents of their findings.
If parents suspect that a mismanaged labour or delivery has caused the death of their child, the coroner has no jurisdiction to investigate, although there are some examples of good practice where the hospital agrees to allow that to happen. At worst, some baby deaths may be classified as stillbirths when there were in fact signs of life post-delivery, to close down on further independent investigation. I am sure that such cases are rare, but it will be to the benefit of all parents who have suffered the loss of a baby, or who want to be assured that their hospital is doing everything possible to keep babies safe, to have much more transparency and evidence that lessons are being learned from these tragic cases.
I am particularly grateful to my local West Sussex coroner, Penny Schofield, who has championed this issue and who approached me to include the subject in my Bill. Penny introduced me to Michelle Hemmington and Nicky Lyon of the Campaign for Safer Births, who have bravely bared their own traumatic experiences and worked for a change in the law, so that the pain of stillbirth can be reduced for others. I pay tribute to them, and others involved in the campaign, for their bravery.
My Bill proposes an enabling clause to give the Secretary of State powers to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to give coroners the power to investigate stillbirths. The preference would be for the change to apply to late-term stillbirths and for discretion to remain with coroners to determine which deaths they wished to investigate rather than be swamped by having to investigate large numbers of otherwise straightforward stillbirths. However, I appreciate the complexities of making such a change, given that the responsibility lies between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care. I do not seek to be prescriptive about the enabling power at this stage, but I am sure that both Secretaries of State would wish to get on with this sooner rather than later, given the imperative that the Health Secretary has already placed on this issue, on record.
Importantly, coroners tell me that they have the capacity to take on these additional investigations, and indeed it is likely that the measure will cut down on subsequent litigation, as it will afford greater certainty about exactly what has happened. It will also lead to reduced care costs on the back of fewer damaged babies and give much greater comfort to parents who are struggling to come to terms with such a traumatic loss. As such, it should certainly be seen not as a stand-alone measure but as complementary to the panoply of other improvements that the Government are currently introducing, on which they are to be congratulated.
I apologise for the length of my comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the complex nature of the multiple measures in my Bill and the complicated and stressful route to getting here today have meant that greater explanation has been necessary. Much work remains to be done, with amendments in Committee and potentially at later stages, but I hope that all hon. Members here today and elsewhere will appreciate that these measures are welcome and important amendments to anomalies in the law and that they all have the potential to have a positive impact on the lives of a great many of our constituents and those yet to be born. I commend my Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. At least 16 Members want to speak in the debate, plus the Front Benchers, and we want to hear from everybody. I suggest that brevity will assist us greatly.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to keep my contribution concise. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing forward his comprehensive Bill. I know that he has wanted to act on these matters for a really long time, so this is a real tribute to persistence and determination. I support the Bill in total, but I am going to confine my comments to the issues addressed in clause 4, which deals with extending the powers of coroners to enable them to investigate stillbirths. This will make a difference to many families who need to know why their baby died. Even more importantly, it will ensure that lessons are learned and improvements are made so that other parents are spared the horror of losing a baby. I acknowledge the important work done by the Secretary of State for Health in acting to tackle avoidable harm and death through his maternity safety strategy. I welcomed his support for this Bill when he made a statement to the House on 28 November last year, in which he said:
“I will work with the Ministry of Justice to look closely into enabling, for the first time, full-term stillbirths to be covered by coronial law”.—[Official Report, 28 November 2017; Vol. 632, c. 179.]
That was an important and welcome development.
Mainly, though, I am here on a Friday to speak for Harriet Hawkins, because she will never be able to speak for herself. Indeed, she never got to draw breath, and, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has explained, that is significant. I am also here to support my incredible and courageous, but heartbroken, constituents, Jack and Sarah, Harriet’s parents. Their fight for the truth has been so dreadful and so unnecessarily painful that we in this House must act to ensure that others do not have to go through the same thing.
Let me explain what happened to Harriet, and Jack and Sarah, and how it could all have been so different. Harriet was Jack and Sarah’s first baby. There were no problems in pregnancy, and Sarah was considered low risk. She began to experience contractions one day after her due date on 11 April 2016. She was in labour for five days before Harriet was eventually delivered. In that time, Jack and Sarah made 10 phone calls and two visits to the hospital, the Queen’s Medical Centre. Each time, Sarah was assessed, reassured and sent home. When she was finally admitted—to Nottingham City Hospital, because QMC was full—an ultrasound revealed that Harriet had died. We might think that things could get no worse, but sadly, we would be wrong. Sarah was left struggling with an over-long labour, and Harriet was delivered more than nine hours later. In the following days, the only contact Sarah and Jack had with Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust was with the bereavement midwife. Each time, they explained that Harriet’s death was due to numerous errors. They expected to be contacted as part of an investigation, but that did not happen.
I should say that both Jack and Sarah work for Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Jack is a hospital consultant—a clinical director in NHS Improvement—and Sarah is a senior physiotherapist. They had an understanding of what they should expect. They knew that something had gone horribly wrong, and when they were told that a post-mortem revealed that Harriet’s death was caused by an “infection”, and told to “try to move on”, they refused to have their concerns dismissed. Following repeated requests, they met representatives of the NUH trust in July 2016. The trust said that it had carried out an investigation—without Jack and Sarah’s involvement—and concluded that there were no errors and that Harriet’s death was down to an infection. As an expert in infections, Jack was able to challenge this conclusion, and he and Sarah demanded an external review. The hospital conceded, and Jack and Sarah met the external review team in August 2016. Following that meeting, Harriet’s death was upgraded to a serious untoward incident, 159 days after she died. That should have happened within 72 hours.
In December, Jack and Sarah were sent a draft report to check for accuracy. It stated that
“Harriet’s death was directly contributed to by five things”.
That conclusion meant a great deal to Jack and Sarah, but when the final serious untoward incident report was circulated, the conclusions had been watered down, stating that
“Harriet’s death might have been avoided if”
certain other things had happened. To Jack and Sarah, this significant change smacked of a cover-up, and a refusal to learn from the handling of Harriet’s birth. The trust would not explain why the investigation team had changed its conclusions.
Dissatisfied with the handling of the investigation, Jack and Sarah contacted the clinical commissioning group, which organised a new external review team to conduct a second serious untoward incident investigation. That report was published in December 2017, and it said that there were multiple missed opportunities for intervention and appropriate monitoring earlier in the labour. Had one of those opportunities been taken, it is likely that the labour would have been substantially shortened, with any foetal compromise recognised on CTG. It is therefore likely that intrauterine foetal death would not have occurred:
“The overall conclusion of this investigation was that the death of baby H was almost certainly preventable.”
I do not know how many babies have died or been harmed since Harriet’s death in April 2016, or whether those deaths or injuries could have been avoided if the lessons from Sarah and Jack’s case had been identified earlier. I also do not know how many babies died before Harriet due to similar failings of care, which would have prevented her death had they been identified. Opportunities were very clearly lost, and without Sarah and Jack’s incredible fight there would have been no learning from Harriet’s death.
Sarah and Jack wrote to me earlier this week:
“We have always said had we not been clinicians we would not be here today, fighting. We would have believed the flawed internal report and the flawed initial external report. It has taken us almost two years to get an independent review. This should not be the responsibility of grieving parents to push for.
An external review cannot be deemed to be independent, like in our example. It will not provide the honesty and openness of the coroner’s court. It will not provide the follow through in learning to prevent other baby deaths.”
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s testimony. Does not this case clearly highlight the unique nature of the coroners’ courts, which provide the facilities and the vehicle to investigate such matters sympathetically, supportively and with an ability to get to the truth?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The role of coroners is incredibly important, and there are a number of reasons why coroners are the right people to investigate such deaths. First, why should a baby’s death be treated differently from any other death? The coroner is an independent judicial office holder, and therefore the inquest will be truly independent and transparent. The coroner can address local issues at a particular hospital or unit, and they can refer to other statutory bodies, including the Care Quality Commission.
If a coroner makes a “prevent future deaths” report, it can be monitored closely. The family will be able to participate fully in the process, and not merely be consulted, and they will be able to have legal representation. The family will be able to attend the inquest to ask questions of the clinicians and managers concerned in the care, and they will receive full disclosure of all documents and policies in advance. A coroner’s inquest is heard in public, which ensures transparency of process and decision making. A coroner can of course recognise trends and, if necessary, impose improvement orders on provider organisations.
Jack and Sarah are concerned that the Bill commits to review, not to a definite change in the law, so I hope the Minister will listen carefully, acknowledge what the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has already said and not let down my constituents.
Speaking in the media, Jack and Sarah said that they want to make their daughter proud. They surely make us all proud. We owe it to them to make this change in the law. Please support this Bill.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing this Bill. He has a long and proud record of supporting families and progressive policies in this House, and it is a genuine honour to follow his lead. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on her emotional and heartfelt speech—I am sure it is one of many that we are about to hear today.
The Bill covers four important areas, and I am aware that many colleagues wish to speak, so I will talk about just two of those areas, although I make it clear that I have great sympathy for and support all four elements of the Bill. First, I firmly support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for the names of mothers to be registered on marriage certificates, and I am glad that the measure is supported by the Government and many in this House, as it has been for a long time.
There are currently some 2 million single parents in the country, and about 90% of them are women. As it stands, those woman are not able to be registered on their children’s marriage certificate—what a bizarre situation in this day and age. It is also worth noting that both parents’ names are, in fact, recorded on civil partnership certificates.
I also agree with the argument that we should use this opportunity to introduce further reform of the overall process of how marriages are registered, rather than simply changing the content of the marriage entry itself. Simply amending the existing registers might be the quickest course of action, but it does little to improve the overall efficiency of the system. If any further amendments are required in future, it would mean that all 84,000 registers would need to be replaced again, no doubt at considerable cost. Britain is obviously proud of its technological innovation, and we are leaders in this digital age, so surely it should not be too difficult for us to think of a way for marriage entries to be held on a single electronic register, which I understand may well be the intention.
I have received quite a lot of correspondence from constituents on extending civil partnerships to opposite- sex couples, admittedly on both sides of the argument, but I have a clear view on the subject. Although civil partnerships were introduced to extend the rights available to same-sex couples, rather than as an alternative to marriage, it has had the unintended consequence of creating an inherent inequality on the basis of sexual orientation. By trying to eliminate one form of discrimination, we have unintentionally created another.
I am sure colleagues will be aware of the statistics on the increasing number of children in the UK whose parents are living as unmarried couples and so do not have the same legal protections enjoyed by families of married and same-sex couples. Of course, some of those unmarried couples may simply not wish to enter any form of legal union, but that is not the case for many couples in my constituency. They want their relationship to be recognised in law but, for a variety of reasons, do not wish to marry. My hon. Friend gave the example of divorced Catholics, and I know of several such examples.
Although I am happily married, and I would like to believe my wife would say the same, I accept that marriage is not for everybody. I am sympathetic to those who dislike either the symbolism of marriage or the implications of ownership inherent in legally defining couples as “man and wife”—interestingly not “man and woman” but “man and wife.” That definition distinctly includes the element of possession that many people find uncomfortable.
Of course, expanding civil partnerships could have a significant effect on a number of other policy areas, including pensions. It is right that we take time to assess what those implications may be, but I implore the Government not to take too much time assessing those implications. I hope the Government listen carefully to the arguments made today and act accordingly, because Britain has changed, attitudes have changed and it is time that the law caught up.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing such an important Bill. I am proud that the landmark policy of civil partnerships was introduced by Labour. We took a stand long before it was considered fashionable or acceptable. We took a stand to allow lesbian, gay and bisexual people to have their relationships recognised by law and to have benefits equal to those for married couples. That proud moment built on Labour’s history of fighting for the equal rights of LGBTQ+ people, and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 paved the way for same sex marriage.
Following the passing of same sex-marriage legislation, it is a complete anomaly and unjustice that civil partnerships are not available to all, an anomaly that the Government could have easily rectified and would have received support from both sides of the House to do so. Although I was not a Member at the time, it is clear that the only reason Labour did not push further to extend civil partnerships during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was for fear of losing it altogether.
We were met with much hostility when we introduced civil partnerships, but we were on a mission to ensure some level of equality as quickly as possible, and we achieved just that. Times have now moved on, but it appears that some attitudes have not. Allowing some couples to choose whether to marry or to enter a civil partnership while others cannot is no equality at all. That anomaly is not in the spirit of either the Civil Partnership Act or the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which are based firmly in parity and not in the semantics that are often used to hide bigotry and prejudice. Labour Members believe that all people should be equal before the law. Having joined us in passing same-sex marriage, it is so disappointing that this Government have previously made excuses regarding expanding civil partnerships to all couples. They have argued that the results of their consultation were inconclusive. There have even been voices suggesting that we abolish civil partnerships altogether. That would be a step backwards for the millions of couples co-habiting who may not want to marry but simply want protection and recognition of their relationship under the law. Surely it is our job, as representatives in Parliament, to give further protections to our constituents, not strip them away.
Turning to the other measures in the Bill, allowing mothers’ names to be included on marriage and civil partnership certificates brings us into line with what happens in Scotland. I point out to the Government that it should not take a private Member’s Bill to make such an obvious change, and that they might consider that such a measure should have been proposed by them, through delegated legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karen Lee
I am going to make some progress.
On the investigation of stillbirths, I point out that in the UK we still have a woefully high number of stillbirths for a western country. I know that as I used to work in a gynaecology out-patient clinic and I remember this happening. A stillbirth can be truly traumatic for mothers, and we need to do more to support women that go through this and more to prevent stillbirth. We agree that stillbirths that occur before 24 weeks should be formally acknowledged and registered, but by no means would we want to see such a measure used to undermine abortion rights and a woman’s right to choose.
In conclusion, Labour Members fully support this Bill and only wish that the rest of the Government were as forward thinking as the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is an honour to take part in this debate, but I must confess that I was slightly confused by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), because as I see it, this is not a matter to politicise; these are complicated moral issues that we are finding our way through together, consensually. Some of the best things I have done since I have been in this House have been done on a cross-party basis and on these very difficult issues.
I thoroughly support, in its entirety, this Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but, unusually for an MP, I am going to confine my remarks to the three areas of it of which I have personal experience. I will therefore leave the issue of civil partnerships to others whom I know want to talk about that.
The inequality of marriage certificates was one of the first issues I came across as a constituency MP when I entered the House back in 2015. We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall, at which many hon. Members here today were present, where I spoke about a terrible story of my constituent, whose father subjected her and her siblings to sexual abuse over a number of years. She has not seen him since she was 10. Were she to get married now—I believe that the current law is one of the reasons why she has not got married—she would very much want to leave the “father” field blank, while her mother, who, as a heroine, brought her up and helped her and her siblings cope with the legacy of this awful abuse, would get no mention. That is simply wrong.
This Bill will ensure that the Secretary of State undertakes a full review of the system. I accept the need to look for efficiencies and to find ways to create a more secure system for the maintenance of marriage records. We must also consider what terminology we use to recognise all forms of parental relationship. Inevitably, that will take time. As a former church warden, I am familiar with the current register system, and I see no reason why we cannot give celebrants and registrars the ability to cross out “father” and amend at their own discretion, or simply to add to it, at least until that review has concluded. Next week, we mark the centenary of women’s suffrage, and I am afraid that it all feels rather archaic standing here discussing such a glaring yet rectifiable inequality.
Although I accept that, on all sides, we have been slow to deal with marriage certificates, in the three years I have been here the Government have been ambitious in their approach to stillbirths. I am really pleased with the progress we have made, although it does not go nearly far enough, towards halving the number of stillbirths by 2025. The all-party group on baby loss is a force of nature, and I pay great tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and indeed the former Member for Ipswich. We were all there in the middle of the night starting this group, determined to make things better. We were soon joined by the passion of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and then that fabulous speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) did so much to help our cause. I am proud that we must take some credit for the fact that the way we talk about miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal loss is changing. As a group, we know there are strong views on the way in which stillbirths are registered and investigated. For me at least, it seems that much should depend on the wishes of the parents. Fear of touching on painful subjects—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made clear, there is no need to upset the abortion laws over this—and talking about them must not render us incapable of reflecting a situation where babies born younger and younger are, happily, now living. Real people are suffering by our failure to address these difficult issues. A mother who has been through labour and is going through lactation, often for a significant number of weeks, for a baby who is stillborn before 24 weeks will of course feel that his or her life should be properly recognised and recorded. I am hopeful that our group will have a great deal of input into the report the Secretary of State will undertake should this Bill progress today.
I was in the House in November for the Secretary of State’s statement on the Government’s new strategy to improve safety in NHS maternity services. Worrying about maternal safety, particularly of those who use the Horton General Hospital in my constituency, keeps me awake at night. Unfortunately, we all know that things can and do go wrong. Bereaved families deserve answers, and are often motivated by a burning desire to ensure that what happened to them will never happen to another family. At the moment, as we know, coroners in England do not have the power to investigate a stillbirth, yet in Northern Ireland, in 2013, the Court of Appeal held that coroners do have such a jurisdiction. I know, through talking to members of MBRRACE-UK—Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—that in the vast majority of cases it will not be appropriate for a coroner to investigate a stillbirth. However, in the cases where relations with a hospital have broken down, where there is no faith in internal investigations or where there are wider learning points from a death, this may in a very small number of cases be appropriate.
In my previous career, I used to represent the Government in military inquests, and it strikes me that there is considerable potential for us to provide specialist training to a cadre of coroners brought in to deal with this extremely sensitive area, in much the way that we did having learnt from the introduction of inquests in military situations. I hope we can rely on our Ministers for joined-up, cross-departmental thinking as the work progresses. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has kindly met me and Bliss in advance of today’s debate to scope out views. If this Bill progresses, I look forward to engaging with the review that will follow.
This is a sensible and humane Bill, which we, as a cross-party group of Members, should all unite behind. It merely aims to right long-standing anomalies in the law, and it is a real pleasure to support it.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), whom I am proud to call my friend. The work we have done together on the all-party group on baby loss is an exemplar of cross-party working at its best.
I welcome this Bill, presented by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and support all four parts of it wholeheartedly. However, this morning I will speak about just two, one which I will discuss briefly and another which is of great personal significance to me. First, I welcome the measures in this Bill that would legislate to equalise civil partnerships and open them up to heterosexual couples. As we all have, I have had many constituents contact me about that in recent weeks, and I am happy to support the measures the hon. Gentleman proposes.
Now I come to the main topic I wish to talk about this morning. I remember, when the hon. Gentleman sent an email around notifying us all of his intentions with this Bill, being really hopeful when I saw the provision to register stillbirths who are born under 24 weeks’ gestation. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind my quoting his email, in which he said:
“Currently a child born to a mother who goes through the whole process of labour but is stillborn after 23 weeks for example, is treated no differently to a miscarriage…Both are traumatic and we need to do more to support families affected in this way but the failure by the state to acknowledge that a child born this way ever existed effectively surely just adds insult to injury.”
When I received that email and read that paragraph, initially it floored me, because it was me he was describing. That was exactly my experience with Lucy, my third child, and I am sure I used similar words to describe how it all felt in my intervention in the baby loss debate in 2016.
Lucy was born at 23 and a half weeks, and sadly she was stillborn. I mentioned Lucy for the first time in Parliament during the powerful baby loss debate during Baby Loss Awareness Week in 2016. That was 11 years after I had been elected. I said at the time how much I admired—and I still do—my fellow officers of the all-party group on baby loss, who led the debate that day. The year before, the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) had spoken in detail about their loss in a groundbreaking Adjournment debate, which I watched from the safety of my office because I was too scared to be in the Chamber because I knew how emotional I would get listening in the Chamber. The fact that they were on their feet talking about it just astounded me, because I had never felt brave enough or strong enough to do what they did. I still find it very difficult, even now, all these years later, to talk about it.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I thank my friend, the hon. Lady, for giving way. She is making a very brave and powerful speech. I would like to put on the record my huge thanks and appreciation for all her work in the setting up of the all-party group, and for the group’s continuing work. Bereaved parents, all of us, want to ensure that our child’s life, however short, has meaning. The hon. Lady is absolutely doing that and, if she does not mind me saying so, I think Lucy would be very proud of her mummy today.
Mrs Hodgson
Thank you very much. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was trying to calm me down, but he has probably made me worse! As Members can all see, I feel very strongly about this issue, so I felt that, even though I knew I would end up in floods of tears, I had to come along and take part in this debate and express how strongly I want to support this legislative change, and why.
If Lucy had been born alive at 23 and a half weeks, she would have been incubated immediately and rushed in the waiting ambulance, with flashing blue lights, to the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, where they have the regional centre of excellence for special care baby units for very premature babies. She would have had the very best world-class care. She would have had a birth certificate and she would have been celebrating her 20th birthday this year. But sadly she was stillborn, so there were no flashing blue lights, no incubator and no birthday parties, ever. And as I found out to my horror, there was no birth or death certificate. As I held her in my arms and had to come to terms with what had just happened, I also had to come to terms with the fact that, officially, she did not exist, and that I would not be getting any certificate of her arrival or death. She was three to four days short of the required 24-week legal age.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is very clear that Lucy does exist. Lucy does exist in my hon. Friend’s memories. It is very important for so many constituents that the all-party group on baby loss and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) are raising this issue today. My hon. Friend is very brave to be able to talk through her personal experience. As ever with the many issues that we cover in debates these days, it is important for people outside the House to understand that MPs share these experiences, as we share mental health issues and other forms of loss in our families. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. The all-party group is doing a fantastic job of campaigning. I hope we can hear a little more from my hon. Friend because the issues she is covering are really valuable.
Mrs Hodgson
Thank you so much. I appreciate all the support that everyone is giving me to help me to get through this moment.
As I was saying, Lucy was three to four days short of the 24-week legal age required to be considered eligible for a death certificate. I was horrified and further traumatised when I then saw it entered in my records as a miscarriage. Because she was pre-24 weeks, she did not even get the dignity of being classed as a stillbirth, although that is what I always say she was, if and when I do talk about this tragedy—which is not very often, as Members can tell.
We went on to have a lovely blessing, given by the amazing hospital chaplain in the private room to which I was moved after she was born. We named her Lucy during the blessing and spent a number of hours with her before she was taken to the chapel of rest. Twenty years ago, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead did not have any cold cots—I sincerely hope it does now; I will try to find out—so we could not spend the night with her, even though I was kept in overnight, heavily sedated.
We had a very small family funeral service. My children were two and three and a half at the time, so they were not even there, just our parents. The service was organised by the chaplain and the Co-Op, which funded and organised everything. That was such a touching thing to do, although I know that is not always the case—my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) campaigns on that very topic, and I support her in that. Lucy was buried in a tiny white coffin in the same grave as my nana and granddad.
I tell the House all that to highlight that to the chaplain, to the Co-Op funeral service and to us, her family, she existed. She was a baby who sadly was born dead. Her heart was beating throughout my labour, up until just minutes before she was born. She just could not make the final push into this world. Because of that, and because of a matter of a few days, she does not officially exist in any records, other than in our memories and our family records. Even the entry on the deeds for the grave is my name, as if I, or in this case a bit of me, was buried there. Her name is not on the deed for the burial plot because although buried there, she did not exist. I hope that Members can appreciate and understand how hard this was to deal with and to understand at the time, when I was dealing with what was, and still is, the worst thing I have ever had to experience in all my life.
There must be a way to square the circle in cases such as this, with the whole 24-weeks viability argument. Babies born too soon and before 24 weeks now survive in much greater numbers than ever before. To my great delight, I have met some of them at events in Parliament and it is amazing—each one is a miracle. Surely there is a way to recognise the 22-week or 23-week babies who did not quite make it to their first breath. That is why I welcome wholeheartedly what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is trying to do with this Bill. I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing these incredibly important issues to the House with his private Member’s Bill. He has managed to squeeze into one Bill the work of, I think, four Government Departments—it may be more. One can see from the Box just how many officials have been working on the Bill, and believe me there are many more. I commend my hon. Friend for making the Government work so hard to ensure that we see justice done on these four important issues.
I thank Members from all parties for contributing to this debate. I must say that it is difficult to follow the very moving speech by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). To bring Lucy into this Chamber and to speak about her in the way the hon. Lady did was incredibly moving, and I hope that today will be a step forward not just for the hon. Lady but for other mothers and fathers throughout the country who have suffered terrible, terrible loss.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for her moving speech, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), both of whom have spoken on some of these issues at great length and, sadly, with personal experience.
It has been a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. His reputation precedes him, as a tenacious Back Bencher and as a tenacious Minister when he was Minister for Children and Families. I am delighted that we have reached a place where we can agree on the progression of the Bill. The Government cannot support the version of the long title that is currently before the House, but we have amendments to be added in Committee that we hope will bring about the changes that so many in this House wish to see. Assuming that the House agrees to give the Bill its Second Reading, we will table the amendments—jointly with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—before the rise of the House today and they will be debated in Committee.
I recognise that my hon. Friend wants the Bill to go further than our amendments, particularly our amendment to civil partnership, will allow. I am therefore very grateful to him for working so constructively with us to reach an agreement. We will ensure that marker clauses 1 and 2 are both amended accordingly. Clause 2 deals with civil partnerships. Our amendment to it will require the Government to undertake a further review of the operation of civil partnerships, and to bring forward proposals for how the law ought to be changed so that the difference in treatment in the current system is resolved. The amendment will go further than the current marker clause in the Bill before the House, in that it will require the Government to report to Parliament and to include a full public consultation.
I assure Members that this is a commitment on behalf of the Government. We are committed to resolving this issue, but we have to get some better evidence than we have at the moment in order to deal sensitively with the civil partnership issue. I wish it were a simple matter of changing a sentence in the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but we have to recognise that this is not just about eligibility; it is also about the rights that flow from any changes. For example, the rules for the dissolution of civil partnerships and divorce in the case of marriage are different for same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
Andy Slaughter
Although clause 2 is disappointing in some ways, it is a step forward. But the Minister will be aware that this matter will go before the Supreme Court in May. Will she give the House an indication of the timescale both for the consultation and for when the Government will reach a decision?
Victoria Atkins
I am very conscious that I must not comment on an individual case. The Government intend to get on with this piece of work, frankly regardless of whether the House permits this Bill to have its Second Reading, although I sense that it will not come to that. This piece of work will be commenced immediately because we are determined to resolve the matter.
The work to which we are committing involves four elements. First, we are committing to continue our existing work on assessing the relative take-up of civil partnership and marriage among same-sex couples. Since 2013, when marriage was introduced for same-sex couples, an increasing number of couples have chosen marriage instead of civil partnerships. We do not know, however, whether the current levels of demand will be sustained or whether they will change over time.
We currently have only two full years of data for civil partnership formation following the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples. Given the scale and significance of the decision, it is proportionate to gather more data so that we can be sure that demand has stabilised. Our assessment is that we will have a proportionate amount of evidence by September 2019 to be confident in assessing the ongoing level of demand for civil partnerships among same-sex couples.
The second piece of work that we are committing to undertake relates to those already in civil partnerships. We continue to consider whether phasing out civil partnerships for same-sex couples is the best way forward. We want to approach the issue sensitively and delicately because it would be wrong to rush towards a decision without understanding how it would affect same-sex couples who continue to opt for a civil partnership and who do not wish to convert their civil partnership into a marriage. We are therefore committing to undertake research with same-sex couples to understand their motivations for forming and remaining in a civil partnership, and what they may do if the evidence drives us to remove them.
The third piece of work we are committing to is to undertake surveys to understand the demand for civil partnership among opposite-sex unmarried couples. Our previous consultations did not suggest that a significant number of opposite-sex couples wished to enter a civil partnership. Indeed, the most recent survey, which was conducted in 2014—admittedly, with a relatively small number of respondents—suggested that people would not wish for an extension of civil partnerships. But rather than relying on that survey, we want to conduct a thorough survey to ensure that our evidence is accurate and up to date when it comes to assessing the demand for civil partnerships from opposite-sex partners.
The fourth piece of work will be a review of what has happened in other countries when they have been faced with similar choices. This is an important part of the evidence base. Although drawn from a different social context, the experience of other countries gives us information on the choices couples actually make when offered the choice between marriage and another form of legal recognition, such as civil partnerships.
Dr Drew
Would the Minister consider a fifth piece of work? She heard my intervention on the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I suggest a piece of work to publicise the lack of rights that co-habiting couples have if that partnership breaks down. There is just no awareness at all of that lack of rights, so anything that the Government can do to get people at least to check what their rights are would be very helpful.
Victoria Atkins
The idea of educating people about their rights is one that I am instinctively drawn to agree with. I will take that suggestion away and speak to my officials about how we incorporate it in this survey to ensure the provision of that education. I now turn to the happy subject—
Tim Loughton
Before the Minister moves on, let me say that I am grateful to her and am delighted with everything she has said, particularly her commitment to get on with the work now. But there have been two consultations, it has now been 13 or so years since civil partnerships were introduced and we know about the experiences over many years of all those other countries, so will she acknowledge that an awful lot of the evidence is ready to hand and that this further work need not take much time at all? Can I have her commitment that there will be a sense of urgency to resolve this issue, one way or the other?
Victoria Atkins
There is a sense of urgency—very much so. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not be drawn into precise time limits because I would not wish to undermine in any way the academic research that will be undertaken, but there is a very great deal of urgency. We hope that we will have a proportionate amount of data from the pieces of work that I have set out by September next year.
I turn to the subject of marriage. In the Home Office, sadly we very often have to deal with the very worst of humanity, so it is a positive pleasure to talk about civil partnerships and marriage, and to celebrate happy and—one hopes—long-lasting relationships. As someone who is very happily married to a long-suffering husband, I know the irritation that can happen at the ceremony when people realise that the marriage certificate does not provide for the inclusion of mothers. The Government fully support the correction of this issue, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for drawing it forward.
At this point, I should welcome the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) to her place on the Opposition Front Bench. Although I have only been a Minister for eight weeks or something like that, may I give her just a little piece of advice? Hearing and judging the tone of the House is a very important role for those on the Front Bench. She will have noticed that there is a great deal of consensus in the Chamber today, so perhaps we did not need to drag the discussion into, “He said”, “She said”, and so on.
The long title of the Bill refers to only mothers being added to certificates. We need to ensure that when the marriage entry is updated it allows for all the different family circumstances in society today—for example, same-sex parents. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury set out the pressures that can be present in family circumstances and the need for marriage certificates to reflect that. We need to make sure that we have a system in place that enables the marriage register to be capable of adapting. My hon. Friend suggested that perhaps people could simply strike through the marriage certificate to include the mother’s name. I implore people not to do that. This is a technical, legal document, and doing so may mean that it is not valid, so the happy couple will have to go through another ceremony. We will work very hard on this.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for agreeing to amend clause 1 of his Bill in Committee to insert the provisions of the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill in its place. That important Bill is the long-standing work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has been battling for years to have this anomaly in our marriage ceremony and celebrations corrected. I place on record my thanks for her commitment to ensuring that the marriage certificate reflects the important role of both parents.
When the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill is added to this Bill, the provisions will form the way in which marriages are registered in England and Wales, moving from a paper-based system to registration on an electronic register. I know that some will worry immediately about what that means for the all-important photographs that we show off of the end of a happy marriage ceremony. I assure the House that we will still be able to have the photograph of signing a document at the ceremony. Wedding photographers need not worry: brides and grooms will get that all-important photograph with the document and their signatures.
Moving to a schedule system is the most efficient and cost-efficient way of updating the marriage entry. It would be the biggest reform of how marriages are registered since 1837, moving away from the outdated legislation currently in place. To the joy of my colleagues in the Treasury, it will also introduce savings of about £33.8 million over 10 years. Some concern has been raised about the use of Henry VIII powers in the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill. We would be content for the Bill to be amended to include a sunset clause limiting the use of the powers to a period of three years, allowing for the legislation to be amended to introduce a schedule-based system. Once implemented, that would allow for any amendments required to deal with any unintended consequences.
Having dealt with civil partnerships and marriage, I now move on to the subject of registering stillbirths. I must acknowledge the very hard work and commitment of my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Washington and Sunderland West, who have campaigned so effectively to ensure that these losses are felt within this Chamber and that our legislation reflects them as well.
The Government’s ambition is for the health service to provide the safest, highest-quality care available anywhere in the world. I am sure that we would all acknowledge the excellent NHS staff working tirelessly on a daily basis to help us achieve this ambition. Nevertheless, when it does occur—I would like to ensure that Opposition Front Benchers pay due respect to this section of the Bill—the loss of a pregnancy is a heart-rending tragedy for families that stays with them for the rest of their lives. Many of the care considerations for parents experiencing a stillbirth—that is, when a baby is born after 24 weeks’ gestation—will be similar for those experiencing a late miscarriage. Local policies, however, may affect the type and place of care offered or available depending on the gestation when baby loss occurs.
Currently, parents whose babies are stillborn after 24 weeks’ gestation can register the baby’s name and receive a certificate of registration of stillbirth. When a pregnancy ends before 24 weeks’ gestation, however, there is currently no formal process for parents to be able to register their loss legally. Some expectant parents find this to be not just distressing but devastating. The Department of Health and Social Care recognises the need to do more to support families affected by a miscarriage. Some families may want their loss to be acknowledged and registered. Others, however, may feel distressed at any mandatory requirement to do so in the circumstances of their grief. This issue must therefore be approached with great care and sensitivity.
Accordingly, I am pleased that clause 3 will provide for the Government to review this issue and to look at whether current law on registration of stillbirths should be changed to allow for the registration of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks’ gestation. As part of this review, we will seek views and evidence from all interested parties. I hope that colleagues across the House will contribute to that review.
I now move on to coroners’ investigations.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
May I clarify something before the Minister moves on? My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made it clear that he did not intend that this Bill would make any change to the provisions on the number of weeks in relation to abortion. Can she confirm that that is the Government’s intention as well?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who shows his usual attention to detail. The proposals in this Bill do not in any way affect the laws relating to the availability of termination. They simply concern miscarriages in the circumstances we have described today. I thank him for allowing me to clarify that on the record.
I move on to coroners’ investigations. I should declare that in my previous life I worked with the chief coroner, His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft QC. On clause 4, let me first assure the House that the Government agree wholeheartedly with the need to look at the role that coroners could play in this regard. On 28 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as he now is, made a statement in this House about the Government’s maternity safety strategy. This Bill potentially has an important role to play in promoting better outcomes for mothers and babies.
Currently, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, coroners do not have jurisdiction to investigate when a baby does not show signs of life independently of its mother. Coroners can commence an investigation if there is doubt as to whether a baby was stillborn or lived independently of its mother, but the investigation stops if the coroner’s inquiries reveal that the baby was stillborn. Clause 4 places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether, and if so how, the law ought to be changed to enable or to require coroners to investigate stillbirths. It also gives the Lord Chancellor a power to make regulations amending part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so as to provide for when, and in what circumstances, coroners will investigate stillbirths.
I realise that the House may have concerns about a power to make regulations in this way, but the safeguards written into the clause will ensure that it is used appropriately. For example, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be scrutiny by both Houses, and the regulations cannot be used to create any criminal offences unless the offence has an equivalent in part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The Government think that it is important to carry out a review and produce a report in this area before making any changes. There are important and sensitive issues to explore, such as the question of how far into a pregnancy coronial involvement should be triggered, and the potential role of other factors, such as violence to the mother or medical negligence. We need to hear a wide range of views, including those of coroners, including the chief coroner, medical professionals, researchers in the field and, of course, bereaved parents and the organisations that support them.
I referred earlier to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made in the House last November on the Government’s maternity safety strategy. He set out improvements under way in the NHS, including the newly established Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which will investigate 1,000 cases per year of full-term stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and severe brain injuries during labour, in order to discover what may have gone wrong and to learn lessons. At the same time, he announced that the Government intend to look closely at enabling coroners to investigate stillbirths. My hon. Friend’s Bill today helpfully moves us forward in that regard.
This short Bill has grand ambitions. It deals with the happiest of times—the celebration of love and committed relationships—as well as the saddest of times: the loss of a much-cherished baby. My hon. Friend and others have dealt with the inevitable emotions that arise on such occasions sensitively and powerfully, and I thank them all. The Government want to work with him constructively and thank him for the assurances he has given on clauses 1 and 2. Accordingly, the Government are pleased to be able to support it.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing forward this Bill and commend the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for their bravery and determination today.
I support all the elements of the Bill, but I wish to speak to clause 2. The civil partnerships aspect is long overdue. I fully understand why the authors of the original Civil Partnership Act 2004 were focused on their primary purpose of allowing gay men and women to live as couples recognised by the law. The need was great, and hon. Members are well aware that it is often better to put forward a Bill that only fulfils the main purpose, rather than load it down with other, possibly more contentious matters that may delay its transition.
It was a shame, however, that, in passing the Act, the House potentially compromised one of the most important principles that gay people had been fighting for—the principle that every citizen of this country should be treated as equal before the law. This point was made at the time, and I can remember that some of those making it were seeking to scupper the Act, so I appreciate why it was passed in the form it was. It was incredibly important to me, as a gay man in a civil partnership with my partner, that our relationship be recognised by the law of the land and in consequence treated as equal by all the relevant civil institutions.
I can remember arguing with a customer service employee of the borough council that neither my partner nor I was living alone and that therefore we should not be in receipt of the single person’s discount on our council tax. We were seeking to pay the borough the correct level of council tax and were denied the right to do so. The officer actually stated, “We do not recognise the existence of same-sex couples”.
My partner can now be my next of kin, will automatically inherit if I die and is accorded all the respect and accommodations due to someone as one half of a legally recognised couple. However, although I fully support the introduction of same-sex marriages, we had no overwhelming desire to get married. We believe that our civil partnership accords us the respect and protections we need and are happy to leave it at that. And that is the position that a substantial number of opposite-sex couples would also like to be in.
Two of my constituents, one of whom is well known to me as a former borough council officer, have lived as a couple for 40 years. They have two children—one is 29 and the other 33—but they have never wished to get married because they do not want to feel that they are binding themselves with some sort of moral straitjacket. They feel that going through the act of marriage would be like an admission that they might split up if it were not for the marriage act, but they do want the fact that they are a couple to be recognised by the law. They have the knowledge and ability to have instituted a complicated legal trust to prevent their children from losing their inheritance when they die, but they are very aware that most couples do not have that ability. They do not understand why, if I and my partner can live in a civil partnership, they should not also have that facility.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Bill, and I applaud his public spiritedness in wanting to pay more tax. Does he agree, though, that abolishing civil partnerships and just having the level playing field of marriage would be deeply destructive, because he would be in limbo, belonging to an exclusive and dwindling group to which nobody could be added, which would be an extraordinary position and certainly not progressive?
Sandy Martin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I fully agree with him. I am very pleased with my civil partnership. I would not wish it to be changed in any way. As he rightly says, if the civil partnerships already entered into remained but no further civil partnerships were allowed, it would introduce a separate and different relationship under the law for people of the same sex that does not apply to people of the opposite sex. The basic principle that people should be treated the same in law is well worth upholding.
The other point, of course, which the hon. Gentleman did not make explicitly but which needs to be borne in mind, is that many opposite-sex couples have the same view as the opposite-sex couple I just mentioned, and do not want to enter into marriage but do want their relationship to be recognised. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), who is no longer in his place, made this point very clearly. There are many opposite-sex couples who have been living together for some time, and anything that the law can do to regularise their position and make sure they stay together and are treated properly by the law has to be a good move.
In conclusion, equality before the law is a very important principle. I believe that the civil partnerships aspect of the Bill helps to address that principle, and I urge hon. Members to support it.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), and it would be wrong of me not to mention the emotional speech that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made earlier on in the Chamber. She is an exceptional advocate for her constituents, and today I was thankful I was here to listen to her testimony.
It is also a pleasure to be here to see the commendable work that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has done. When I go to lobby functions, I often look around to see who else is in the room, and when I come across him—
Scott Mann
Ha, ha! When I see him, I know my political compass is pretty much on message.
There are some great elements to the Bill, and the first I would like to touch on is that of civil partnerships. It is always worth remembering in this place to follow the evidence and look at the background of the case, and I want to touch on some of the evidence base. Civil partnerships were introduced in 2004 to allow same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships and access to the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. In the first 10 years, 64,000 people took up civil partnerships, according to the Office for National Statistics figures. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 meant that same-sex couples can marry under English and Welsh law, and from the end of 2014, civil partners were granted the right to convert their civil partnerships into marriages.
Following a consultation in 2012, no changes were made to civil partnerships under the 2013 Act. The Government argued at the time that civil partnerships were created to allow same-sex couples equal access to the rights, responsibilities and protections for those who are married. In 2014, another consultation was launched to gather views and evidence on the future of civil partnerships. Almost 11,500 people responded, with a huge range of views.
Since that, there has been a legal case, which sits behind this Bill. In 2016 a heterosexual couple presented a case to the High Court arguing that they faced discrimination under present law. The case had much wider implications, and the judge granted the couple permission to take it to the Court of Appeal. The hearing took place in November 2016 and the judgment was delivered in February 2017. All three judges said that the claimants’ human rights were affected, but concluded by a majority that it was proportionate for the Government to take time to decide the future of civil partnerships.
I have received correspondence on this issue, and I have no problem with this element of the Bill. However, as the Minister said, we need to consider a much wider evidence base before forming a consensus.
Michelle Donelan
Does my hon. Friend think that the review should look at whether the public understand the difference between civil partnerships and marriage? They are equal in legalities, and there is no financial benefit of one over the other.
Scott Mann
My hon. Friend from the south-west makes an interesting point, and I know the Minister is listening.
It is a travesty that the mother’s name is not on the marriage certificate. I was not aware of that until I did some research into the debate, and it came as a real surprise to me. It is madness that this has been allowed to go on for such a long time. Since 1837, the marriage register entry in England and Wales has included details of the spouses’ fathers but not their mothers. There are presently two Bills going through Parliament that seek to change that inequality, one introduced by the Bishop of St Albans, which has had its Second Reading in the Lords, and the other by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), which will have its Second Reading on 23 February. This change has long been called for and has cross-party support.
In 2014 the then Prime Minister gave a commitment that the content of the marriage entry would be updated to include the details of both parents, as current procedures did not reflect modern Britain. Statistics show that there are currently some 2 million single parents in the country, around 90% of whom are women. As it stands, if any of their children were to get married, they could include only their father’s details in the marriage entry. Their mother’s details would not be included. In the modern world, that is unacceptable.
I will not touch on the third and fourth elements of the Bill. Many Members have spoken about those elements, including my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I do not feel I can add anything particular, and I look forward to the speeches yet to come on those issues.
In conclusion, there are many commendable elements of the Bill, and I hope Her Majesty’s Government and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can find a way to review the issues raised today.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing the Bill to the House. It is clear that the legislation on the registration of births, deaths and marriages needs updating. It is time that the details of mothers, not just fathers, are included in a marriage registration, and it is time for us to reform the laws on the investigation and registration of stillbirths.
I recently received a letter from a coroner. Together with other coroners, he is seeking a change in the law that would enable coroners to investigate all stillbirths that occur after 36 weeks. That is generally regarded as full term, and the reason for death after 36 weeks needs to be explored. Hospitals should involve parents and answer their questions about why their baby has died through their review processes, but when those questions are not answered, the coroner plays a vital role in looking for answers and ensuring that lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated. As the law stands, the coroner cannot investigate stillbirths. That needs to change, and parents need to have that option.
The problem is that there has been virtually no decrease in the rate of stillbirths in England and Wales in recent years. The latest data give the figure for stillbirths in the UK in 2014 as 3,252. That is higher than those reported in the best-performing countries in Europe. I think it reasonable to argue that the rate remains so high because individual stillbirth cases are not properly investigated. The fact is that the majority of stillbirths are avoidable, and the outcome for both mother and baby would have been different if the care was improved. How can care be improved if there is no analysis and learning from mistakes?
The inquest process would require the circumstances of the death to be looked at and considered and recommendations made to improve outcomes in the future, which of course will save lives. However, it is important to say that the inquest process will not be appropriate in all cases of stillbirth. It is vital that a coroner’s investigation into stillbirths happens in close consultation with parents. Some parents may not want an inquest.
Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity, welcomes the provisions in the Bill that will enable a coroner’s involvement but does not wish to see that made mandatory. Stillbirth is a traumatic experience for parents and families, and I agree with Sands that it is vital to consult publicly as part of any review, to ensure that families’ views are fed into the process, which can be extremely prolonged and painful for them, so as not to cause additional emotional harm to bereaved parents.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). I commend the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her powerful and emotional speech. She said she was not brave or strong. I completely disagree; she is very brave and very strong, and I thank her for her words. People in the House were moved, and I am sure that those watching her speech on TV were also moved. She made very important and powerful points, and I thank her.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing his private Member’s Bill to this stage. The way that he has brought four pieces of legislation together is ingenious. I have looked for the common theme, and I think that it is how individuals and their loved ones are recognised. I hope that he agrees. It is a pick-and-mix Bill, and I am going to pick a couple of bits to talk about today. I will speak to the first two clauses, on the registration of marriages and civil partnerships and the reform of civil partnership.
As other Members have said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) have been very vocal on and great advocates for the registration of marriages. It is so important to have our mothers’ names on our marriage certificates. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said that he was not aware until he began to look at this that our mothers’ names are not on our marriage certificates. I am sure a lot of people are under the illusion that their names are included, and only when they look at the certificate after the event do they realise that the name of a very important person is missing. Our mothers form our early lives and our lives as we grow up and enter adulthood, and they play such an important role. I am sure they have also had an important role in putting together the wedding ceremony, only for them to be denied having their details on the marriage certificate, which I think is so wrong.
We are celebrating 100 years of women having the vote, which makes it even more bizarre that this has not been sorted out. It is a matter of equality, as well as a matter of family history and social history. So much information will be able to be gathered in the future if we include our mothers’ names on marriage certificates. My family is a case in point. My marriage certificate had my father’s profession as a timber merchant, but not what my mother did—she was a classroom assistant in a school for disabled children—after bringing up her children and as we got older. On the paternal side, my grandfather was included in my parents’ marriage certificate as a mill worker, but my grandmother, who was in service, is missing. On the maternal side, my grandfather was included as a railway worker, but, sadly, I do not know what my grandmother did, and I can no longer ask my mother, so that bit of social history is missing. What we are discussing will not only add to social history, which is so important, but demonstrate social mobility and address the equality side of things.
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is making a very emotive point. Does she agree that this is very important not only on the social side—we seem to disappear if we are not on marriage certificates—but in these days of equality? We are going to celebrate 100 years of women having the vote and all of us in Parliament talk about equality, yet this situation is completely unequal.
Maggie Throup
If we look at this across the board, we see not only this inequity, but others. We need to look at such things in more detail to make sure that men and women—I include men in this—are equal because there are inequalities for both genders and we need to sort this out.
I agree that we need to look at the cost and make sure that any change is not made at huge cost to the taxpayer, so I welcome the way in which it has been proposed. That is so important, as is not losing a vulnerable certificate that means so much to so many people.
I will move on to the second part of my speech, which is on the reform of civil partnerships. I welcome the Minister’s words about more work being carried out. We are aware that civil partnerships were originally intended not as an alternative to marriage, but to provide a legal recognition of such relationships and access to the same legal rights. We need to make sure that, if we make any change in legislation to include heterosexual relationships in civil partnerships, we get it right.
If we look at the data on what is happening with civil partnerships, we find that almost half the people entering civil partnerships are now aged 50 or above, compared with 19% in 2013, so the way people perceive civil partnerships has changed. The average age of women entering civil partnerships is now higher than that of men, so we need to look at what we are trying to do and what gap we are trying to fill. The uptake of civil partnerships has now decreased dramatically. According to the data I have, approximately 6,000 women and 9,000 men entered civil partnerships in 2006, but the numbers of both types of civil partnerships are now down to three figures. We must make sure that we are actually providing the right mechanism for people to cement their relationships and the security they are looking for in the future. With a population of 84,000, there is a good cohort of people on the Isle of Man, where civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples are available, to look at to see what lessons can be learned, as well as what works and what does not work.
I thank the Minister for looking at this in more detail. We need to make sure we get right any changes we make. I know people will say that we are not rushing into this, but we do need to make sure that we are providing the right mechanism for the right people at the right time.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I want to make a few brief remarks about clause 2, on the reform of civil partnerships, but I begin by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). It is a shame that he has had to wait 20 years for a Bill, but he is certainly making up for it now. It is always a pleasure to work with him, because he does so in a spirit of just getting things done. We were together on the tasting panel to choose the new House of Commons gin—and that went very well indeed. I should add that it is a very fine west London gin. Despite his positivity, I am sure he shares my disappointment that the Bill does not go further, and I hope that it will do so in Committee and on Report.
I am slightly alarmed that the Bill, albeit in what is perhaps a holding clause, raises the prospect of losing civil partnerships altogether, because I think that would be a backward step. The Government are clearly serious about looking at that as an alternative, but I urge them to think again. I think that the consensus across the House—hon. Members have been very supportive of the Bill generally—is very much to support civil partnerships as an institution, and one that adds something to the institution of marriage. Yes, it is good—this is a step forward—that the Government recognise that there has to be equality, that there is unfinished business and that this is a “how the law will change” clause rather than, like some others, a “whether the law will change” clause. Such a lack of equity is very important because we should not treat different couples differently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) said, so even though such a change would extend rights for opposite-sex couples, it would not be good for same-sex couples. The point that was made that suddenly creating a historical and fossilised group of people if we now remove civil partnerships from same-sex couples just seems perverse.
A stronger reason, which I thought would appeal to the Government, is that the provision extends choice. That is the primary motivation of my constituents Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld, who I am pleased to say are here for the debates. They have been absolutely stakhanovite in pursuing this matter through the High Court for judicial review, through the Appeal Court and now on to the Supreme Court on 15 and 16 May. That shows a huge commitment, as Members will understand, of energy, time and resilience. They feel strongly about it because they feel that the institution of marriage is not for them, but they want to make the commitment and have the security and rights that a binding contract would give them. Why should they be deprived of that? They have had substantial support from their legal teams, the Peter Tatchell Foundation and the many other couples who seek this remedy, some of whom have already sought it by going to the Isle of Man and other places.
Charles and Rebecca now have two young children—they did not have them at the start of the process—and it will be good if the Government can move speedily. They are being prompted not only by Members of Parliament but by the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court to get on with it. The issue of choice in itself is sufficient, but I would mention one other point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) in relation to cohabitation. There are now 3.3 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples. That figure has more than doubled in the past 20 years. Surveys have shown that two thirds of those couples are unaware that there is no special institution called “common law marriage”. They have extraordinarily few rights. A couple separating after perhaps 20 years or on the death of one partner can find that they have very few rights and many liabilities that they would not otherwise have had.
Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, has called for
“a remedy for unmarried couples in English law, along the same basis as in Scotland”,
where there is some protection. I do not say that the extension of civil partnerships will be some magic bullet for dealing with the real problems with cohabitation law or lack of it, but it is nevertheless a step forward. The very fact that we are all talking about it and that there is a lot of publicity about the Bill and the issue will make more people aware of their lack of rights. I think that a substantial number of people will take advantage of the change in the law; people who do not want to go through even a civil, let alone a religious, marriage ceremony will see a civil partnership differently and will get that protection under the law.
The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to look more generally at the gaps in the system. The Bill deals with one of those gaps. We will return no doubt at some stage to humanist marriage, but the Government also have a duty to look at cohabitation. Perhaps not by coincidence, the case of Siobhan McLaughlin is also going to the Supreme Court in April. She was cohabiting for 20 years, and her partner sadly died. She had four teenage children. She found out that she was not entitled to bereavement payments or to a widowed parent allowance of perhaps more than £100 a week. The Supreme Court will no doubt do its usual excellent job on this, but I am not sure that these are matters that should be left entirely to the courts. They are for us and for the Government.
I hope that in amending and supporting the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the Government will support the extension of civil partnerships. I hope that they will also look more generally at defects in the rules for both cohabiting couples and couples who wish to enter the security of those arrangements.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for kindly calling me. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing this important Bill. It is a bit of a smorgasbord of issues that are all important in their own right. It may not come as a surprise to the House that I want to touch on clause 3 on the registration of pregnancy loss occurring before 24 weeks and clause 4 on investigations by coroners into stillbirth.
I have huge amounts of time for the aim of clause 3, and I recognise the huge inequality in the particular case that my hon. Friend raised of the poor mother who lost twins, one born before and one born after the 24 week cut-off date. Only one of them was recognised by the law. That is why the review set out in the Bill is so important.
I am immensely proud to co-chair the all-party group on baby loss, which the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—I am pleased to see them both in the Chamber—helped to set up. With my hon. Friend, I remember collaring the former Member for Ipswich, who was then the Care Quality Minister, at about 1.30 am during a Finance Bill. We sat him down and discussed how we were to take our work on baby loss forward, and how we would address some of the big issues.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his work on baby loss. I lost my son, Ethan, to stillbirth in 2004, and—it might sound strange to say this—I was fortunate to get a stillbirth certificate, because the incident occurred post 24 weeks. I commend my hon. Friend and others for everything they are doing to further this important cause.
Will Quince
I am very sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s loss, and I thank him for his campaigning on this issue. He makes an important point about the discrepancy in our law, and the time has come to address it.
The all-party group on baby loss has two fundamental aims. The first is to reduce stillbirth and neonatal death, and the Government have been hugely supportive on that aim. We now have a target of halving stillbirth and neonatal death by 2025. When I first arrived in Parliament and we raised the issue in late 2015, the aim was to achieve that reduction by 2030, but the date has been brought forward. That is fantastic news, because we lose between nine and 15 babies every day. We have one of the worst records in the western world, and it has to change. The Government have put in place a number of steps to make that happen, and I am hugely positive and optimistic about the future.
Even if we meet the aim of reducing stillbirth and neonatal death by 50%, however, 2,500 to 3,000 babies will be stillborn every year. That does not even touch on the huge number of parents who suffer what we define in law as a miscarriage, and the Bill will give us the opportunity to look at registration and recognition in that area. Even if we achieve all our aims, there will still be parents who go through this emotional and personal tragedy. That is why bereavement care and support are so important. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West was right to mention cold cots, because we need such facilities—and, indeed, bereavement suites—in every hospital in the country.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I have listened to most of this debate, and I have been very impressed by the contributions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me about the importance of organisations such as Scunthorpe Rotary, which is working locally to get a bereavement suite at Scunthorpe General Hospital? The work of such organisations across the country makes a real difference to people at a very difficult time in their lives.
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Charities and the Government have to work hand in hand with each other and with parents, many of whom want to do something to support the hospital that helped them after they suffered their tragic loss. Parents are helped not just by hospitals, but by charities, too. After our loss in 2014, my wife said to me, “I don’t want flowers. I don’t want the house to be full of flowers that then die.” So we set up a JustGiving page to enable people to donate money—in the end, it was a huge amount—to the specialist bereavement suite.
The work being done by groups such as Rotary, as well as by charities and individuals up and down the country, is to be applauded and welcomed, but the Government should not use it as an excuse not to act in places that do not have such facilities. The Secretary of State has been very positive in that regard, and he wants there to be a bereavement suite attached to every maternity unit in the country.
Bereavement care is hugely important, and I am pleased to say that the bereavement care pathway has been launched and is operating in 11 trusts. The plan is to roll it out nationwide later this year, to provide consistent bereavement care for those who suffer the loss of a child. Not only are the consequences of getting it wrong too great for the parents and the family, but there is a huge social cost, as we can see from the number of parents who, sadly, separate after the loss of a baby.
I want to touch on the point about recognition. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West made this case very powerfully in her speech, and I applaud her for her bravery in setting out the case for this change more powerfully than I ever could. We come to the very term “stillborn.” In effect, when we talk about stillbirth we are talking about a “still born” baby. It is important to recognise the double meaning: they are indeed still born, whether it is pre-24 weeks or post-24 weeks. For the parents who hold that baby in their arms—perfectly formed, beautiful babies—the only difference is that they are not breathing. I am not going to be the person who says to that parent, “That baby didn’t live,” or, “They weren’t here. They weren’t with us. They weren’t a real entity. They shouldn’t be recognised in the law.” The time has absolutely come for this change. We pretty much have cross-party consensus on that, and I am really pleased that the Government support it. The review will make a difference and the all-party group on baby loss will, of course, feed into that.
Clause 4 is a policy that I very much support. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and I are undoubtedly very much on the same page on investigations into stillbirth, and his campaign is a very big part of why the Government have made so much progress on this issue. We can learn a huge amount more from people’s experiences and share them across the NHS, and that has to be a good thing, because the more we speak to parents, the more we hear that those who lose a child want their child’s life, however short, to have meaning. I raised that in an intervention on the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, but I am not sure it helped all that much. What I mean by that is that parents want to know what happened, how it happened, where there will be learning, and that those learnings will be shared across our NHS to ensure that as few parents as possible have to go through that huge emotional tragedy and ordeal.
I was kindly invited by the Secretary of State for Health—now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—to his speech to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. He came immediately afterwards to make a statement, saying that from April this year, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch will investigate every case of stillbirth, neonatal death, suspected brain injury or maternal death notified to the RCOG Each Baby Counts programme. To put that into numbers, there are around 1,000 incidents every year. He also announced—this point is significant in relation to the Bill—that he would work with the Ministry of Justice
“to look closely into enabling, for the first time, full-term stillbirths to be covered by coronial law”—[Official Report, 28 November 2017; Vol. 632, c. 179.]
This seems an appropriate time for me to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for all the support that he has given me and the all-party group in our campaign to reduce the stillbirth and neonatal death rate. I also pay tribute—this is my first opportunity to do so in the Chamber since the reshuffle—to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) for all his work as Minster of State in the Department of Health, following on from his predecessor, the Care Quality Minister, the former Member for Ipswich. As Back-Bench MPs, we have numerous meetings with Ministers, and we know that those take place more out of courtesy than anything else, but that was never the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. He genuinely took an interest in the issue and our work, and he recognised that we had a real opportunity to make a huge difference in reducing our stillbirth and neonatal death rates in this country. We should all be very proud of that legacy.
My wider point is that the Government are listening. The Bill reinforces the mood music and soundings that we have had from them in this regard. They are trying to learn from best practice elsewhere and from unfortunate incidents where stillbirth occurs. Most importantly, as I mentioned, the Secretary of State has already told the House that he is looking into coroners investigating stillbirths, and that is very welcome. When that work has been undertaken, we will certainly work with him and anybody else who wants to be involved with the all-party group.
Improving support for bereaved parents and learning from experiences so that we can lower our stillbirth and neonatal death rate are small things, but they will make a huge difference to thousands of people up and down the country. I will support the Bill.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has been such an effective campaigner on this issue, and other colleagues who have made such brave speeches about their own experience of neonatal birth and stillbirth, and losing their loved ones. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on this brilliant Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) rather ingeniously named “the Loved Ones Bill”, a nickname that brings all its elements together.
Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of meeting Denise and Dale from Boughton Monchelsea, in my constituency. They came to the House to talk to me about civil partnerships. They desperately want to make a formal commitment to each other. They want to ensure that they would both be financially protected should something happen to one of them, but they do not want to get married. They want a civil partnership, but, unlike their friends in same-sex relationships, they do not have that option.
The introduction of same-sex civil partnerships was an important step towards greater equality, putting same-sex couples on a similar legal footing as married couples and officially recognising their love and commitment in law. In 2013 we rightly introduced gay marriage, recognising that marriage has a particular status in our society, and that same-sex couples who wanted to marry should be able to do so. Paradoxically, however, opposite-sex couples are now being effectively discriminated against, as they are not given that choice. If we believe in relationship equality and giving couples the same rights and freedoms whatever their sexuality, it makes no sense to deny civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.
I am married myself; my parents are married, as were my grandparents; but I recognise that not everyone has such good experiences of marriage. Some people see it as a patriarchal institution that oppresses women. They clearly have not met my husband and me! [Laughter.] Not all people feel that marriage is right for them, and their choice should be respected.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentioned discrimination. In 2016 a heterosexual couple presented a case to the High Court, claiming that the present law discriminated against them. The case was dismissed because the judge ruled that they were not subject to humiliation or derogatory treatment as a result of their status. Surely the point is that the system discriminates de facto, irrespective of whether people are actually abused.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend has made a very good point in citing that case.
If, for whatever reason, a couple do not feel that marriage is right for them, but want to make a strong and formal commitment to each other—and given that we have developed a model for it with civil partnerships, even if that was not the original intention—I believe that we should allow them to do so.
Furthermore, we know that children benefit from growing up in a stable family, with a couple who have a stable relationship. Not every relationship works out, and not every child will be brought up by a couple in a stable relationship, but we owe it to children to help people to form, build and sustain stable relationships, and I believe that if a civil partnership is the way in which a couple want to formalise their commitment to each other, it is wrong to stand in their way.
Let me now turn to the registration of marriages. It is clearly wrong for mothers not to sign the registers, and it is also clearly outdated. The current system does not reflect modern Britain. When the child of a single mother gets married, only the father’s name is included on the certificate, even if the child was raised by its mother alone and barely knew its father. I made a point earlier about some people’s perception of marriage. The continuation of a system that does not allow mothers to sign the marriage register may add to the view of some people that marriage is rather old-fashioned and patriarchal. That is something that we could put right.
Finally, on the registration of stillborn babies, I cannot imagine the pain of losing a baby; I remember the misery of an early miscarriage, but I find it hard to imagine how I would have felt if one of my children had been stillborn, and I have so much respect for colleagues who have spoken so courageously about their experiences, particularly the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has spoken today, and my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for Colchester and for Crawley (Henry Smith), who mentioned his own experience earlier. I have enormous respect for what they are doing in their campaign on this, and I know it is appreciated by constituents of mine who have been through stillbirth. A constituent of mine who lost a baby—I will change the name—told me:
“Emma was my daughter, she wasn’t a statistic.”
My overriding view on this matter is that we have to do better in our health system at reducing the number of stillbirths. I spent time working in maternity units and found it shocking when looking at the data and asking questions that I got the impression that it was just accepted that every year there would be nine, 10 or 11 stillbirths; that was just how it was—that was just a fact. In the particular unit where I heard that, there did not seem to be a sense of inquiry about why, and whether each one of them could have been prevented. That simply should not be accepted.
I welcome the Government’s work and the ambition to halve the stillbirth rate; that is absolutely right, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has said, there is a huge amount going on. A crucial part of achieving that ambition is understanding what has happened when there is a stillbirth—what went wrong—through proper investigations, perhaps by an independent body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, coroners investigations might not always be the right way to do that, but sometimes they might, so I welcome the inclusion of that in the Bill.
We should learn from stillbirths—or late miscarriages, as they are officially known—whenever they happen, whether after 24 weeks or before. We have heard powerful points on the registration of babies before 24 weeks, and I am conscious of time so I am not going to contribute on that. Instead, I conclude by saying that I welcome the fact that the Government are clearly listening very hard and supporting the Bill.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and to have heard her passionate words, particularly about stable partnerships and her experiences in the NHS. I am delighted to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). It is a short but packed Bill that deals with life and death and everything in between, including a lot of loving. It is therefore a very worthy Bill, and I want to turn first to the point about mothers’ names on marriage certificates.
I have been married for 29 years, and think a medal is in order—although I am not sure whether it should be given to me or my husband. The whole concept of making a commitment and marrying somebody was a very big decision, and our wedding day was a most momentous day, and our union is forever recorded on our marriage certificate. But currently on our precious marriage certificate there is no reference to my poor mother at all, even though she bore me and virtually died—something she has never stopped reminding me of since. I tell her I was trying to make my presence felt at a very early stage. Similarly, when my two daughters get married—if they do—as the law stands, my name will not be on the marriage certificate. One might reflect that that is of no particular consequence, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) pointed out, genealogists and others interested in tracing their family history or the social history of women will be unable to find this kind of information because it is not recorded. That is a great pity, especially as so much progress has been made on women’s equality. Next week, we will celebrate 100 years since women got the vote, and it is ironic that we should be standing here right now debating whether we should be allowed to have our names on marriage certificates. The system is simply archaic, and this came about because we were regarded as the chattels of our husbands, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said. It is quite clear that we are no longer simply chattels; there is a lot more to us than that.
More pertinent to the debate is the fact that, owing to the changing nature of our society, there are 2 million single parents in the UK, 90% of whom are women. Under the current system, if those women’s children get married, only the father’s details would be included on the marriage entry. That is a damning indictment of the many women who have done so much great work to bring up their children alone. On those grounds, I think that this is a really important area that we should be pushing, if we are to better reflect the modern state of Britain.
Such a change would also provide an opportunity to reform the whole system of marriage registration. Using digital technology, we could make the whole system much more efficient and create a more secure system for the maintenance of marriage records. Ironically, there is a system for civil partnerships in England and Wales, but Scotland and Northern Ireland have a scheduled system that has been in place since 1855 which deals with all this. We are not normally behind the Scots, but in this instance we clearly are.
I want to turn to the part of the Bill that deals with a more sombre affair: the proposals to allow coroners to investigate and register certain stillborn deaths. I can only imagine the pain that stillbirth can bring, but sadly, it is an experience that many women have faced. Having some lasting recognition that the child was part of life will provide some small compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham went into moving detail about some twins who fell foul of the system. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for the way in which she related her story today. I absolutely take my hat off to her, and I thank her very much indeed for doing that.
Changing the definition relating to stillbirth to beyond 24 weeks has already been done; the Government have reduced the threshold from 28 weeks. However, having had three healthy children myself—for which I count myself incredibly fortunate—I know that they were certainly making their presence felt at six months, or 24 weeks, but I am sure that all women who have had a baby will know that that person makes their presence felt from day one. That life is worth celebrating, whatever happens. It is absolutely right that the Government are looking into bringing down the threshold, and I welcome the review of this aspect of the Bill. I also support the clause that deals with investigating certain types of stillbirth. From April this year, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch will investigate every case of stillbirth, neonatal death, suspected brain injury or maternal death notified to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. There are currently 1,000 of these incidents a year. Having a stillbirth would not be wished on anyone, but should it happen, gathering evidence about the whys and wherefores is so important if we are to avoid future stillbirths.
Best practice is more important than anything else, and I highlight Musgrove Park Hospital in my constituency. I am not sure whether the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss knows about the project at Musgrove Park, but it has won a national award because of the excellent care bundle that has halved the number of stillbirths at the hospital in three years. The project has done excellent work, and it would be good if that model could be rolled out elsewhere.
The reduction in stillbirths has come through better support to help women stop smoking in pregnancy; the identification of small babies during pregnancy; and making mothers aware of the need to report, without delay, changes such as not feeling any movement. All the pregnant mums at Musgrove Park are being given wellbeing wallets and documents to fill out, which is something the all-party group is recommending to other hospitals. I could not recommend the scheme at Musgrove Park more—it is literally a lifesaver.
Finally, civil partnerships were never intended to be an alternative to marriage, but a clear case has been made today for looking much more closely at the issue. I support the Minister in calling for a further review and consultation, because the more evidence that can be gathered to make the case, the better. What is really important is the safety and strength of our family units. If we can do anything to improve that, all the better.
There is much in the Bill that is good, and it genuinely goes to the heart of people’s lives. I support the measures that are going forward, and I support the reviews that the Government are instituting to edge forward the other proposals, too.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I echo the support that has been expressed for the Bill, which will ensure the registration of stillbirths before 24 weeks and give coroners the power to investigate stillbirths.
I will concentrate on the clauses that address civil partnerships. I stress that I understand the case that hon. Members have made today, and I applaud the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for this topic. Although I welcome a report and a review to find more evidence, I think that rolling out civil partnerships to everyone is not the right approach, as I am confident such a review would highlight.
It is time to refresh our minds as to why civil partnerships were invented. They were invented because same-sex marriage was not legal. Civil partnerships were not intended to be a permanent alternative to marriage. They were created to allow same-sex couples access to rights, responsibilities and protections equivalent to those afforded to married couples. That is no longer the case.
I appreciate and empathise with the argument that the current situation is unequal because opposite-sex civil partnerships are not available, but the answer is not necessarily to expand civil partnerships. In fact, I would rather see civil partnerships cease altogether. Today everyone in the UK can get married. We finally have equality, which is what people have campaigned for and fought for. Expanding civil partnerships to all would serve to add an extra tier, which would confuse and complicate commitment, rather than encouraging it.
Let us also be clear that there is no legal difference between marriage and civil partnership. The differences are in the names, in the ceremonies and the fact that women are, of course, named on their children’s civil partnership certificates, but we can address that separately—I passionately believe in naming women on their children’s marriage certificates.
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Lady has spoiled my tweet: I have just tweeted that there is unanimous support in the House today for extending civil partnerships. Does she take the point that this is about extending choice? It will not affect her or other people adversely; it will simply give other people the chance to do something that they want to do.
Michelle Donelan
I apologise for spoiling the hon. Gentleman’s tweet, but I do not agree with him. Other Members have yet to speak, so I will make the case in the rest of my speech. I am sure I will answer him in full. Marriage is ended by divorce, whereas civil partnerships are ended by a dissolution, which is just as lengthy a process. We need to be clear about that, because some assume that it is easy to dissolve a civil partnership—it is not. There is no difference, other than that adultery cannot be cited as a reason for civil partnerships to dissolve—that is not a case for expanding them further. They both offer legal recognition of a relationship, they are symbolic, they are acts of union, and one does not have financial benefit over the other. Civil partnerships do not act as a form of additional co-habitation rights; they are legally the same as marriage.
Some say that civil partnerships are a modern alternative to marriage, and I recognise that argument, yet they are basically the same. It is important that we educate people about that and do not mis-sell the point. I have spoken to a number of people who have a civil partnership and they find it offensive to suggest these things are not the same. Nor are civil partnerships a stepping stone for couples who are not ready to marry; they are marriage but with a different name. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding that we need to address in the review.
Another point to make is that civil partnerships are not cheaper. That argument has not been made in today’s debate but I have heard it before. Weddings and civil partnerships can cost as much as people make them cost. Another argument used for the Bill is the claim that people can be put off by the word “marriage” and the connotations, social pressures and expectations of what it represents. Do we really believe that a significant number of people choose not to marry because of the word “marriage”, but are absolutely fine to make all the same legal and financial commitments when the name is different? The connotations, social pressures and expectations around marriage often exist because it is seen as something permanent and something that can end badly, but that is equally true of a civil partnership. As time progresses and more and more people have them, that will become known. So in a few years’ time will we offer a third option and then a fourth? It is also important to note that amending the eligibility criteria for entering a civil partnership would cost at least £3.3 million to £4.4 million, so the option on the table is not exactly cheap.
Another key aspect we must consider is the level of demand. That is particularly pertinent and the review will highlight it, which is why I strongly support having a review and a consultation. As lots of Members have said, two consultations have already taken place, but on the whole there was very little input from people. That suggests that there is potentially a lack of demand in this area, but we need a further review to examine that. In addition, no clear consensus was established.
Since the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples, the number of civil partnerships has fallen dramatically, and there were just over 1,000 formed in the UK in 2016. Between 29 March 2014 and 30 June 2015, 7,732 couples converted their civil partnership into marriage. A key aspect for us to consider in enabling opposite-sex civil partnerships is—
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to her view, but I fundamentally disagree with it. I certainly would not wish to deny those potentially many thousands of couples on the basis of this costing about £3 million. She says there is no difference between civil partnership and marriage, and that it should not be treated any differently. In terms of status, that is right, but why is it that more than 80% of same-sex couples who have committed to a civil partnership do not think that they need to or want to convert that into a marriage? They think a civil partnership is different and more appropriate for them—why does she think they are wrong?
Michelle Donelan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We do completely disagree on this topic. His accusation that 80% of that cohort do not want to convert into marriage because they see it as something unique is a wild one. I have many friends who have a civil partnership and they choose not to convert it because they already have something that is equal—my hon. Friend is therefore backing up my point that a civil partnership is just as good as, if not the same as, marriage; it is a duplication. That is why they do not seek to convert it.
A key thrust of the case for enabling opposite-sex civil partnerships is that it would encourage commitment, helping ensure that families stay together, which all the research shows is advantageous to children—I agree with that sentiment. However, the argument is tenuous. Some 2.9 million different-sex couples living together in the UK are not married. The Equal Civil Partnerships website, which backs this campaign, states that some of those people do not want to make a legal commitment, but civil partnerships are the same thing. It cites the “trappings of the institution” as another reason but, as has been discussed, civil partnerships will effectively morph into an institution. They are the same as a marriage.
Committed relationships tend to last for just that reason—they are committed. If we add another tier, that does not necessarily mean that different people will enter into that commitment. It might actually mean that all we do is split the same pool. I am passionate about enabling and facilitating commitment and helping families to stay together, but the answer is to further promote commitment, study why relationships and families break down, and invest in those areas.
Helen Whately
May I pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about splitting the same pool of people who might otherwise marry into those who get married and those who have a civil partnership? I have spoken to people who would like to form a civil partnership and do not feel that marriage is the right thing for them for all sorts of reasons that should be taken seriously. They will not get married instead, and the alternative is that they do not have any legal recognition of their relationship. Will my hon. Friend address the concerns of those people who do not feel that they can get married and would like their relationship to be formally recognised as a civil partnership?
Michelle Donelan
I do not think it would be entirely the same group of people. There would be some others, but I do not think it would be a significant number. We need to examine why those people do not feel confident about getting married and deal with those issues, rather than create another form of marriage by a different name. People can get married in a civil ceremony that is very similar to a civil partnership. There are potentially other issues as to why people are not getting married, other than just the name of the institution.
Expanding civil partnerships would undermine the sanctity of marriage by encouraging some people away from marriage and confusing matters. I ask Members to consider the words of David Levesley, a gay rights campaigner who wrote recently in The i newspaper:
“It is one thing to think that marriage is patriarchal and sexist. It is another to try and suggest that something the gay community fought to improve upon is something we should start praising as a great, liberal alternative.”
This entire campaign is based on a sense of inequality—a sense of inequality that I recognise, appreciate and empathise with, which is why I applaud the Government for conducting a review of the matter. However, duplicating the system with another tier of legal commitment is not the right approach. We need to have serious conversations about why some people are put off marriage and what deters them from getting married.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing the Bill to the House. The reassurance from the Minister about what the Bill does and does not cover probably took two hours off my speech.
Kevin Foster
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment, but I will make sure I speak briefly because I am also quite a fan of the next Bill on the Order Paper, so I have no intention of performing one of my longer Friday orations. I shall focus on the nature of the Bill.
When we consider private Members’ Bills on Fridays, I regularly speak about whether they are needed, whether they are not just something that sounds good but might actually make a real difference, and whether the proposals are proportionate to the issue. In the case of this Bill, all those tests are satisfied. We only need to hear some of the evidence from our constituents about those who get married, including me. When people get married, at the end they are presented with the formal register. I listed the fact that my father was a painter-labourer in Devonport dockyard, and my wife Hazel listed the fact that her now-deceased father was a farmer, and of course that was it. Given that my mum could not be at my wedding—she died four years ago this week—it was actually very sad that she could not even have the recognition of being part of the day via the inclusion of her name and profession on the certificate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham rightly said, this law dates back to an era when married women were viewed as chattels of their husband. The idea was that they were physically the property of their husband. In fact, they had no persona of their own legally; by law, they were their husband. That continued right the way up to the 1880s. People may be wondering whether there was some sort of enlightenment during the 1880s that meant that law was abolished. In fact, it was abolished after a court ruled that everything written by a female author was actually legally by her husband, so the author went and ran up a whole load of debts. When the creditors sued, the court ruled in exactly the same way, saying that all those signatures were legally her husband’s and he had to pay every single bill. Funnily enough, the provisions were abolished very soon after that and married women were given their own legal identity. It is certainly a reminder of a time that no longer exists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) pointed out the social history and information that we get from items such as wedding and birth certificates. I had a little bit of a surprise when I looked at my grandfather’s birth certificate. In fact, this is a story that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) will probably quite like. It turned out that my great-grandfather was a Canadian soldier. We all said, “He never went anywhere near Canada, so how was he a Canadian soldier?” It turned out that he was an Irish Roman Catholic who was prepared to join the fight against imperial Germany, but did not wish to join the British Army. At that time, the compromise for these men was to say, “Well, you’re going off to the same place anyway. If you want to go with the Canadians or one of the other dominion armies, off you go.” So he was signed up for the Canadians, even though he had never set foot in Canada. Obviously, my great-grandfather’s views on the Union were very different from mine. That is an example of what people can find out, and the social history that is not captured by these wholly outdated provisions.
I am interested to hear that the Bill will give us the opportunity to bring in a more modern system of marriage registration. There are those who view marriage not as a loving commitment and not as I see it—as something that Hazel amd I celebrated before God—but as an opportunity to abuse the immigration system. A more modern registration system will help to deal with that, which is welcome, while removing the archaic provisions of only listing a father on the certificate.
On opposite-sex civil partnerships, I am open to the evidence. I am not as opposed to them as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan). It was the right choice for Hazel and I to have our wedding in church, as that is what we strongly believe in, but I recognise that it is not everyone’s choice and neither should the law force people to marry in church. Since 1833, people have not been forced to get married in church. I also recognise that there are people local to me who want to have a civil partnership. I do not see a particular problem with people making this choice, so I will look at the evidence from the consultation and we will see whether it affects the provision.
The only thing that I would slightly caution is the argument about the views of the Roman Catholic Church, although it is not really for me, as an Anglican, to get into this argument too much. The idea is that if someone was divorced they could have a civil partnership rather than a marriage. I did not find that particularly convincing because my understanding is that the Church would still see it as a partnership in the same way as a civil marriage. In reality, what makes the difference is whether the Church would allow marriage in a church. Of course, the position of divorcees in the Church of England has changed in recent years: it was once very unlikely that divorcees would be able to remarry in the Church of England, but parish priests are now much more likely to exercise their discretion based on many quite reasonable grounds. For example, I do not think that any of us would seriously believe that Christ would call someone to stay in an abusive relationship. None of us believes that is the case, so it is right that we make this change.
I very much welcome the provision to change registration of births. I hope that it will provide comfort; hearing the powerful stories today confirmed that for me. I particularly welcome the provision to allow coroners the power to investigate stillbirths. A coroner’s inquiry gives a unique opportunity to examine what went wrong—not necessarily to apportion blame, but actually to find out what went wrong, to learn lessons, to give comfort to all involved and to come to a decision. Therefore, it is welcome that their powers are extended in this way. Again, there is obviously a lot of detail to go into. I am sure that a discussion will be needed with the devolved Administrations, particularly in Wales, about how exactly this will work. However, I think that this welcome provision will bring closure to many people.
It is appropriate that this Bill gets its Second Reading. The only concerns are matters that can be dealt with in Committee and perhaps on Report if Members have specific areas that they wish to tweak. It would not be proportionate to try to block the Bill, because it tackles issues that reflect, first, changing society and, secondly, changing medical knowledge. The original provisions on coroners were passed in an era when it would have been very hard to work out what was going on inside the human body. That is now possible with modern scanning and testing techniques, so coroners can look at real evidence. Given the impact on people, giving them the ability to register what was to them not just a statistic or a number in a hospital but a child is totally the right step for us to take. I fully welcome the Bill, and I am sure that it will get its Second Reading in the very near future.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). It is fair to say that we are, in a regular capacity, the tail-enders. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing this Bill.
When I first heard about the proposal on civil partnerships, I must admit that I had one concern, about which I intervened on my hon. Friend earlier: the idea—I am not trying to present this as a straw man—that this could be seen as “commitment-lite”. In other words, it might affect the idea that marriage is something very solemn and permanent that people go into committing for life by being less of a commitment and therefore appealing to people who go into it almost in a half-hearted fashion.
That was my instinctive response. However, having considered it and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), spoken to people who would consider this option and would like to have it, I feel that, on the contrary, it would offer to people who would never get married a way that they can commit. That is a very positive thing. Based on all kinds of evidence, we could argue that we live in a more consumerist society where we like to upgrade our mobile phones every year and so on and to have a lot of choice. Arguably, we are not sticklers in the same way that previous generations were. Therefore, institutions that encourage commitment are to be welcomed. I do not have any problem with this in principle.
With regard to Government consultations, we hear a lot about demand. Is there demand for this option? I am not sure that that is the best way to talk about this. We are talking about rights and equality. One person can bring a case to court because that person has rights. The fact that we know individuals who would like to consider this option is enough in itself, and we then have to decide whether it is right in principle. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, there was a court case that found that the lack of heterosexual civil partnerships was not discriminatory because the couple in question had not been subject to abuse and so on. I disagree with that—while obviously respecting the independence of the judiciary. To me, it is self-evidently discriminatory. This provision would be a welcome addition to our institutions. I am more than happy to support it for that reason.
Since becoming an MP, I have been incredibly moved by speeches I have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and from Opposition Members, who, in a wonderful cross-party way, have supported such wonderful reforms in the area of baby loss. As a father of twins, the idea that there was a case where a parent had lost their twins and one received a certificate and the other did not is extraordinary. Whatever else we do, we should ensure that that cannot happen. That is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
Tim Loughton
With the leave of the House, I would like to express my thanks to all Members in all parts of the House for such strong support for all parts of this Bill. It was almost unanimous but certainly very strong support.
Labour Members often reduce Conservative Members to tears, but in the case of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), it was absolutely for all the right reasons. Her speech alone made such a strong case that nobody else need have spoken on why the law on stillbirth needs to be changed. It was brave, powerful and the most stark evidence that her daughter, Lucy, was born and did exist and that the state needs to acknowledge it. Nothing more need be said.
If this debate had been a BBC or Channel 4 hard-hitting documentary, at the end of it the announcer would have said, “If you have been affected by issues in this programme, here is a hotline or website to consult.” That should apply to this debate, because it has touched on some very hard-hitting and emotional issues. I am afraid that I do not have a hotline number or a website for hon. Members to consult, but it certainly has had a dramatic effect on all those here today. I do not want to be more political than that, given the mood of the House. This debate has shown the House at its best.
This is something that needs to be done. All parties have made common cause. It is also the modern thing to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) said, attitudes have changed, and the law now needs to be changed to catch up. I do not care what we call the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) called it a smorgasbord, and I referred to it as the hatch, match and dispatch Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) won the award: the loved ones Bill. That sums up the common thread. The Bill presses a lot of buttons. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) even pressed the button of paying more tax as a result of his civil partnership. It is also important for social history.
For all those reasons, I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister from the Dispatch Box. The Bill is not as forceful in its terminology as it could be, but I am sure we can work on that in Committee. I appreciate her commitment that the review can happen now—that there will be no delay—and I appreciate the sense of urgency and the commitment to addressing the issue, as well as the presumption that we will need to look at how the law can change. She has heard that, for most people here, abolishing civil partnerships is not an option, for very good reasons.
The Minister will also have heard the very emotional contributions on the stillbirth measures, with which it was clear she had a deal of sympathy, and the iniquity of the marriage certificates issue. I have in my hand a piece of paper: a copy of my marriage certificate. To add insult to injury, my father signed it twice, because he also married us—so he got to sign as the clerk in holy orders as well—whereas my mother only signed as a witness. It includes a description of my father’s and father-in-law’s occupations, but there are no details about my mother or mother-in-law. It is an important piece of social history that we are missing out on as well, and that should not be underestimated.
This is just the right thing to do. I apologise for how long and technical my speech and the contributions have been, but these are worthy measures, as the quality of the contributions has underlined. It has shown the House at its best, and I hope that the Government will now make these well-supported measures a reality. I will work constructively with them to bring that about.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Victoria Atkins
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In an excess of excitement, enthusiasm and efficiency, the Government issued a “Dear colleague” letter from me in advance of the House’s indicating its willingness that the Bill be given a Second Reading, for which I apologise. We have got to the right place, however, and colleagues should now have a letter addressing that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of what has happened. It is absolutely right that she should apologise for the premature release of the letter, but the mood of the House showed a great deal of consensus, and perhaps her officials were unduly influenced by the tweet from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). As I say, given the consensus and mood of the House, I am sure that it will be forgiving of this mistake. None the less, I thank her for apologising.
Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill
Monday 9th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 2 February 2018 - (5 Feb 2018)
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Clauses 2 to 8 stand part.
Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 13, line 19, after “offences” insert
“other than the prosecution of members and former members of the armed forces for murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide, or for attempt of those offences, if the alleged offence was committed—
(a) more than 20 years before the date of issue of proceedings; and
(b) when the accused person was subject to service law, or was a civilian under service discipline, and engaged in a UK peacekeeping operation; and
(c) if the alleged offence relates to events which took place in Northern Ireland and which have been the subject of an investigation by—
(i) a service police force or a UK police force, or
(ii) a coroner.”.
The intention of this amendment and the similar amendment to Schedule 2 is to remove prosecutions against current and former members of the armed forces for certain alleged offences committed during military operations or in similar circumstances from the ambit of authorised expenditure by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 27, line 33, after “offences” insert
“other than the prosecution of members and former members of the armed forces for murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide, or for attempt of those offences, if the alleged offence was committed—
(a) more than 20 years before the date of issue of proceedings; and
(b) when the accused person was subject to service law, or was a civilian under service discipline, and engaged in a UK peacekeeping operation; and
(c) if the alleged offence relates to events which took place in Northern Ireland and which have been the subject of an investigation by—
(i) a service police force or a UK police force, or
(ii) a coroner.”
The intention of this amendment and the similar amendment to Schedule 1 is to remove prosecutions against current and former members of the armed forces for certain alleged offences committed during military operations or in similar circumstances from the ambit of authorised expenditure by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendments. I want to say at once to our colleagues from Northern Ireland that I deliberately did not speak on Second Reading. They had some very important issues to raise on the budget and on decision making, but I hope they will understand that when it comes to this particular matter there is a UK issue at stake. Several hundred thousand British soldiers served in Northern Ireland throughout the troubles. The situation we are now confronted with raises issues that, while they are important to communities in Northern Ireland, go way beyond Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
At the outset of this debate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman knows that Members on the Democratic Unionist party Benches absolutely salute the courage, the dedication and the record of servicemen from across all of the United Kingdom who gave of their time, their duty and, for too many, their lives in defence of Ulster. We salute them, sir, tonight.
Sir Michael Fallon
I am most grateful for that, and in particular for the tone in which it was expressed.
This is not just a UK issue, but it is a long-running UK issue. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have continued to raise it before the House: my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who originally promoted a Bill on the subject, and many others who served in the Province and who have contributed to debates on this issue. Through this Bill we are quite rightly giving large sums of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—to the Northern Ireland Departments, including the judicial Departments, for
“historical investigations and other legacy costs”.
I submit to the Committee that Parliament, even if there were no other concerns, would have every right to debate those sums, but there are other concerns here, which have been well articulated already in this Parliament.
Investigations under way in Northern Ireland are putting servicemen, servicewomen and police officers, whose duty it was to protect the public, almost on a par with terrorists who were content to murder and to maim. There cannot and should not be any moral equivalence between the two. It is now worse than that, however. We are now, through practice in Northern Ireland, discriminating against members of the security forces. Let me put it very simply: can it be morally right that a terrorist suspected of involvement in some of the worst atrocities, such as murdering four troopers in Hyde park and slaughtering their horses, should be given a letter of comfort guaranteeing immunity from prosecution, when those who have served the state to protect our people, in cases that have already been investigated, concluded and dismissed, are now seeing those cases reopened 30, 40 or more years after the event?
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that roughly 300 Northern Ireland veterans are fearful of the knock on the door. All the allegations were investigated fully at the time. What is worse is that under the PSNI inquiry they were reinvestigated about four years ago and most of the veterans were told that there was nothing further to worry about. Some have been rearrested in dawn raids, and a number have been charged with attempted murder. That breaks the military covenant and is a betrayal of our incredibly brave veterans.
Sir Michael Fallon
Absolutely, and some cases have been reopened more than once.
Nobody in this House would suggest that our troops should be exempt from investigation or prosecution for any kind of wrongdoing—of course not. Parliament itself requires, through the armed forces Acts, that any such allegation should be properly investigated by the service police. If there is new evidence concerning recent allegations, then of course they should be looked at. Equally, however, we cannot accept a situation where the whole process begins to be abused by cases simply being reopened for the sake of it, where there is not substantive new evidence. That was the case as allegations accumulated under the Iraq historical allegation apparatus, which was one reason why I shut it down as Defence Secretary and why, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I laid evidence before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which eventually resulted in the key solicitor involved being struck off.
In Northern Ireland, the opposite is happening. Allegations of misconduct are being reopened 30 or 40 years later, when memories cannot be trusted and evidence may be hard to come by. Can a court really be sure 45 years after the events exactly what warning was shouted at two in the morning in a street in west Belfast in the early 1970s? These are the kinds of cases that are now being reopened, and I submit to the Committee that Parliament now needs to draw a line. The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is to introduce a statute of limitations for the first time to say that cases more than—there can be different views on this, but this is what I have said in the amendment—20 years old, so from the date of the Good Friday agreement, cannot now be reopened if they have already been investigated.
Of course, a statute of limitations in itself raises complexities. I understand that. Many issues around it would need to be looked at. For example, we heard much in the previous debate about the bravery of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the police are not included in this amendment. I understand that there are some reservations about including them. There are complexities, but there is nothing unusual about a statute of limitations. In a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) reminded the House that there are statutes of limitation in commercial law: cases cannot be reopened when companies have dissolved and documents cannot be traced, and it is not possible to properly ascertain the change of responsibility, or rules and regulations from an earlier period no longer apply.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
As the right hon. Gentleman explained, the amendments apply only to the armed forces. I put on record my enormous, deep gratitude for the tremendous courage and sacrifice of all members of the armed forces who served in Northern Ireland—but so too did the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to explain to those many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary —many more members, in fact—who are being investigated time and again in various forms in Northern Ireland why his amendments do not treat those in the police service with any equivalence this evening.
Sir Michael Fallon
I am very happy to accept that particular challenge. My amendment may well not be watertight. I understood that there were some reservations in the PSNI about a statute of limitations. That is one of the complexities.
There are other complexities: if we introduce a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland, why not introduce it elsewhere, where the British military is involved in other campaigns? I am sure that we will hear from the Secretary of State about other difficulties involving the European convention on human rights and so on, but the principle is that there should be some form of limitation. We cannot endlessly go back. Are we to reopen cases where it is alleged that Canadian or British troops shot prisoners out of hand in one of the more difficult days after the D-day landing? Should those cases be reopened? Nobody in this House would say yes. There must come a point when we have to draw a line.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his amendments, but does he agree that we need to tread very carefully, as there are important principles of law here? Our armed forces do not want to be aside from or above the law; they uphold the law. Does he also agree that under the military covenant our armed forces must suffer no disadvantage—that is the test—but that in that important regard they are at a significant disadvantage under the law as it stands?
Sir Michael Fallon
I accept both those points. I made the first one myself—our armed forces are subject to armed forces legislation and no member of the armed forces would want any exemption for wrongdoing or misconduct—but the second point is the more important. As it stands, ex-servicemen and women—mainly servicemen —are being discriminated against by the process.
The Committee and the Government, if they will accept the amendment, or the spirit of it, have an opportunity to declare their will to Northern Ireland—to the judiciary in Northern Ireland, to the legal system in Northern Ireland, to some of the fee-hungry barristers in Northern Ireland—and to our own appeal courts here, that Parliament will no longer tolerate a situation where terrorist murderers are allowed to walk free while ex-servicemen, veterans who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us, fear a knock on the door and can be hauled from their beds, arrested, flown to Belfast, put into a cell and indicted for an offence that might or might not have been committed 30 or 40 years before. That cannot be right.
I make one final point: these ex-servicemen are not the generals or even the colonels who wrote the rules of engagement, planned the patrols and issued the orders, but the ordinary soldiers, the men of the platoons, who went out into the dark, into danger, on our behalf to face up to the terrorist challenge in Northern Ireland. We owe it to them, one way or another, to say that enough is enough and that the hounding of our veterans must now stop. I look to the Government to tell the Committee how they propose to stop it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a huge privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), not least because, when Secretary of State for Defence, he seriously engaged with us on the Defence Select Committee when we conducted an inquiry into fatalities that arose during the troubles in Northern Ireland. He engaged with us and considered our report—we all on the Committee collectively and appropriately considered the issues at hand—and we can hear that he is one of the growing number of principled parliamentarians who recognise there is an issue that we need to address. He also fairly outlined some of the deficiencies in the amendments. I say that not as a criticism but drawing on comments he himself made.
Our report was very clear, in its second recommendation, that the Government should extend any proposal to the brave members of the RUC. We have heard many honeyed words this evening about the bravery and sacrifice of police officers, both past and present, and many Members have put forward their views on the noble cause that police officers served in our community in Northern Ireland, and yet, of course, they are absent from the amendments. There are various reasons for that. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the complexities, but the complexities applying to police officers past and present in Northern Ireland apply similarly to Army veterans. It is not the case that those complexities are confined to Army veterans in Northern Ireland or in the rest of Great Britain and do not apply to the police; they apply equally, and they are twofold. There should be no amnesty for terrorists, and there should be no equivalence between the honourable actions of service personnel and the actions of those who went out to commit murder and mayhem in our streets.
Many who have served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Army, and who live in Northern Ireland, will never countenance the day when their service is treated as if it were in any way comparable with what was done by those who sought to destroy our society, and I think that they are right. However, I recognise that dealing with that issue opens up another panoply of legal complexities.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—the esteemed Chairman of the Defence Committee—and I have regular discussions about how we can obviate some of the legal constraints that apply to a statute of limitations. I think Members should take the opportunity to read the legal submissions from which our inquiry benefited—from Professor Richard Ekins of Oxford University, Professor Kieran McEvoy of Queen’s University Belfast, Professor Peter Rowe of Lancaster University, and Professor Phillipe Sands QC of University College London.
What can we take as an overarching lesson from the varied range of views that were expressed, which included disagreements? This Parliament is sovereign. This Parliament can set our laws, create the circumstances around natural justice, and outline what a criminal justice process should be. It can inject some equity and fairness into that process, in a way that complies with article 2 of the European convention on human rights, or article 3, in the case of torture. I think that the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks was right to refer, in his amendment, to previous satisfactory investigations. No one is trying to obviate the rules of natural justice in this country, but he is right to suggest that we should stand firm when, again or again or again, a knock comes at the door.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) and to the former Member of Parliament for Aldershot, Sir Gerald Howarth, all of whom have been steadfast champions of the notion of protecting those who protected us.
We talk very loosely about 90% of all troubles-related killings being carried out by terrorists, with 10% attributed to state forces, but we can state categorically that each and every one of those that fall within the 90% were crimes, carried out by terrorists who were involved in state subvention. We cannot say that of the 10%. We cannot say that of those who put their lives on the line to protect all of us. We need only look across at that door to see three plaques in memories of three Members of this House who were cut down by terrorists in this country. We do not have to look too far away.
I know that memories fade, and I know that people talk about the price of peace. I do not remember any legal constraints or complexities being raised too strongly in the House in 1998, when the prisons were opened. I do not remember too many legal complexities bothering those boffins in Whitehall when they constructed the on-the-runs scheme. Time and time again in the pursuit of peace, to please those who tried to destroy this country, legal minds and successive Governments have created conditions that have allowed the doors to open for terrorists.
I praise the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks—and I say that meaningfully—as the principal parliamentarian to support this continual quest. He tabled the amendments in the knowledge that they were not perfect, and that this was a journey that we would have to make together in a committed and principled way. It is right for Parliament to set conditions that provide protection for those who protected us and who have no equivalence with those who tried to destroy this country, in a way that does not legally extend an amnesty or state immunity, because as a state we will have discharged our duty. We are talking about cases where there has been an investigation and where we are satisfied that the information gathered is exhaustive, and it is natural justice for those being prosecuted who served this country that we should move on.
I respond to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks not to detract from the thrust of what he is attempting to achieve or the principled spirit of what he has outlined, but to stand at one with him in recognising that this is a wrong that needs to be righted, and that it cannot be constrained or confined to Northern Ireland alone; he has outlined the implications right across this country, and indeed in theatres beyond this country.
I hope that the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward these amendments will continue to feature as we navigate the legal and moral complexities and do what is right, in the interests of our veterans, our current armed forces personnel, past and present, and those who served in the RUC, the PSNI and others. If we can get collective agreement tonight that that is our direction of travel and that is what we want to achieve, and that we will be honourable and earnest in our quest to protect those who protected us, he will have our support.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson); he is always a profound speaker, and he captured the spirit today, and the whole Committee was, I think, enchanted by his contribution. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). His time as Secretary of State for Defence was more than distinguished; he was an absolutely superb Defence Secretary. He stood up for the armed forces and the military in a way that few could, and I want to put on the record how much I enjoyed working with him. I was once his Whip, and he was quite difficult to whip, I have to say, because he was very determined in what he wanted to achieve, but we worked together very well and managed to get some significant changes to legislation through, and I enjoyed working with him immensely.
I also want to put it on the record that this Government will always salute the tremendous heroism and courage displayed by members of the armed forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout the troubles in Northern Ireland. Operation Banner was the longest continuous deployment in British military history, lasting from 1969 to 2007. During that period, over 250,000 people served, more than 7,000 medals for bravery were awarded, and the RUC was collectively awarded the George Cross for valour. As I said to the annual Police Federation for Northern Ireland conference in May, without the contribution of our armed forces and the RUC, and—in so many cases, their sacrifice—there would, quite simply, have been no peace process in Northern Ireland. For years, they stood between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy, and by their actions ensured that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent, never by violence. All of us in this House and beyond therefore owe them an enormous debt of gratitude, something we must never forget.
We remember the more than 1,100 members of the security services who were murdered, and the many thousands more who were maimed or injured, physically and mentally. And as this Government have always made clear, we will never accept any kind of moral equivalence between those terrorists who sought to destroy the rule of law and the security forces whose job it was to maintain the rule of law.
We will also continue to reject any attempt to rewrite the history of the troubles in order to justify or legitimise republican and loyalist terrorism. Let us not forget the bare facts: 60% of deaths in the troubles were caused by republican terrorists; 30% by loyalist terrorists; and just 10% by the state, and the vast majority of those were entirely lawful.
For most of the period of Operation Banner, the role of the armed forces was to support the civil power in maintaining the rule of law against the terrorist threat. Northern Ireland was not an armed conflict, and we should be careful in the language we use to describe what was happening in a part of our own country. In upholding the rule of law, the armed forces were at all times required to operate within it while being fully accountable to it. This is what set them apart from the terrorists, who operated outside the law.
Lady Hermon
Will the Secretary of State put on record the Government’s admiration for the integrity and independence of the judiciary in Northern Ireland? As she will know, its members were often targeted. Some of them were murdered and many were injured, yet despite all the threats and the violence, they continue to serve Northern Ireland independently and with great distinction.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady alludes to one of the points that I am going to make later on my concerns about the amendment, but I am very happy to put that on record. I have met members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, and it is an extraordinary experience to visit the law courts in Belfast and to compare the protection around those courts with what we have in Great Britain, where people can enter the courts freely, attend the public galleries and be part of the judicial process. I have seen the levels of security that apply in Northern Ireland precisely because of the level of threat to members of the judiciary that she has mentioned.
I shall continue with my point about the so-called on-the-runs. I want to be clear that, whatever its shortcomings, the scheme never amounted to an amnesty or to immunity to prosecution. All that the letters issued at the time stated was whether an individual was still wanted by the police on the basis of the evidence available at the time. This was confirmed by the independent inquiry into the scheme carried out by Lady Justice Hallett in 2014. In the case of the alleged Hyde Park bomber, the problem was that he was given a letter in error stating that he was no longer wanted, when in fact he was wanted by the Metropolitan police. That enabled his defence to argue an abuse of process, which was upheld by the judge and caused the prosecution to be stayed. However, in responding to Lady Justice Hallett’s review, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), could not have been clearer when she said:
“If there is considered to be evidence or intelligence of their involvement in crime, they will be investigated by the police, and if the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution they will be prosecuted.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 779.]
My right hon. Friend also made it very clear in 2014 that the scheme was now at an end.
The current imbalances are of course taking place under the current mechanisms for addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, over none of which the UK Government have any direct control. Indeed, there is widespread consensus that the current mechanisms in Northern Ireland are not working effectively for anyone— for veterans or for the victims of terrorism. That is why in 2014, after 11 weeks of discussions with the main Northern Ireland parties and, as appropriate, with the Irish Government, we brought forward proposals for new bodies, designed as set out in the Stormont House agreement. Significantly, during those talks there was no support for simply drawing a line under the past or for the introduction of amnesties for troubles-era offences, which, to comply with international law, would have had to apply to all sides.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I urge the Secretary of State to realise that the protagonists in this bitter debate are sometimes trapped by their own rhetoric? The truth of the matter is that one side wants there to be an amnesty for one group of people, but not the other, and the other side wants the reverse. If she likes, she can come to the conclusion that there is no support for a drawing of the line for everyone, or she could conclude that it is up to the Government to take a lead and draw the line for everyone in the knowledge that those who cannot speak out for that policy could nevertheless live with it.
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend feels strongly about this matter and has considered it in depth in his role as Chair of the Defence Committee, which has started a new piece of work on it. In my discussions with representatives of veterans and victims groups in Northern Ireland, the firm view that this was not the time for amnesties. I well understand and will discuss the steps that could be taken, but I caution him about his interpretation of the comments that he has heard. That was not what I saw with my own eyes or in the evidence that I have received, but I understand his view. We are consulting, which I will come on to in a moment, and I would welcome the Defence Committee’s views on the consultation. I am also happy to work with him on the inquiry that he has started.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for the sake of clarity, this debate is not between two sides that want an amnesty. For the record, the DUP does not support an amnesty for anyone connected with Northern Ireland. We do support a statute of limitations, which is not an amnesty. This House should never equate the men and women who stood on the frontline—I had the privilege of standing beside them—with those who skulked in the shadows. That is not what this debate is about.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman has been a leader in this area for many years, and I pay tribute not only to his personal experience, but to his leadership on this matter and his role in the Stormont House agreement and other matters since. I also want to put on the record my thanks for his help and support when I was the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and he was the Northern Ireland representative on the first world war steering group. His leadership there has led to some magnificent and wonderful commemorations in Northern Ireland and a real bringing together of communities to recognise the sacrifices that were made 100 years. I had the privilege of being in northern France two weeks ago for the Somme commemoration—perhaps it was only last week, but it feels like a lifetime ago—which was a wonderful tribute to him and his work.
Dr Julian Lewis
Just for the sake of clarity, the Defence Committee has never used the word “amnesty” and has always used the phrase “statute of limitations”. However, the point I made earlier applies equally if that phrase is substituted for “amnesty”. One party, as it were, wants it for one side but not the other, and vice versa. It is disappointing that the Government’s response to the Committee’s report was originally going to have a special section in its consultation exercise to consider the possibility of a statute of limitations, but they went back on that pledge that had been given in writing in their response to our report.
Karen Bradley
I am of course happy to discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that the language and terminology that are used are incredibly important in this debate. With a statute of limitations, we tested this with political parties, victims groups, veterans groups and others in Northern Ireland. To be legal, there would have to be a statute of limitations on both sides, and it would have to include a proper process of reconciliation. We were unable to find representative bodies that were able to accept that as a conclusion. It would therefore have been misleading to put it as an alternative approach in the consultation document—I make it clear that this is on a specific consultation on setting up the institutions agreed at the Stormont House talks.
As set out in the Conservative party manifestos at the last two general elections, the Government believe that the proposed new legacy bodies provide a better way forward than the current mechanisms. They will address the legacy of the past in ways that are fair, balanced and proportionate and that do not unfairly focus on former members of the armed forces and the RUC. As I have said, we are now consulting on those bodies, and the consultation runs until 10 September. I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members with an interest in these matters to make their views known in the consultation. The House has my full assurance that all representations on this matter will be properly and carefully considered. As our manifesto at the last election stated clearly, any approach to the past must be fully consistent with the rule of law.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) by confirming that the Ministry of Defence has set up a dedicated team to look specifically at how this matter is addressed. We all want to make sure that those brave heroes who gave so much to defend us are treated properly with dignity and respect. It is right that the Ministry of Defence should look at this for the armed forces across the whole United Kingdom, not just in the Northern Ireland context.
The ongoing consultation is one reason why the Government are unable to accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. First, it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. Secondly, the Government do not believe this Bill is the right vehicle for such amendments. This is a Budget Bill designed to ensure that the necessary funding is available to ensure the continued delivery of public service in Northern Ireland. That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the independence of the judiciary. When we start looking at how the amendment would work and how the direction would happen, we see that it would impinge on the independence of the judiciary. Again, I am very nervous about starting to make such decisions in this House, although I well understand the sentiment behind the amendment and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has posed the question.
Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, the Government cannot accept the amendment because it would undermine the rule of law. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the ability of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland to prosecute former soldiers for the next 12 months, even when new evidence came to light which the original investigation could not have considered and that the prosecution believed could lead to a conviction. Again, that goes to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down. This would significantly undermine the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the exercise of the statutory functions of that office. Decisions made by the DPP are rightly based on available evidence, and it would be manifestly wrong for financial considerations to influence decision making, as proposed in the amendment. Although ultimately it would be for the courts to decide, the likelihood is that these amendments would be incompatible with our obligations under article 2. As such, should the amendment be made, I would be unable as Secretary of State to certify the Bill as compatible with convention rights for introduction to the other place.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is explaining what the practical and legal obstacles to this amendment might be, including the operation of the European convention on human rights. If the Government concede that there is no moral equivalence between the actions of terrorists and the actions of the military, should not the application of the law also recognise that in some way? If this amendment is not possible, what other means might there be to ensure that brave members of the armed forces are not unnecessarily and wrongly pursued nearly half a century later?
Karen Bradley
I do not wish to detain the Committee for significantly longer than I already have, but I suggest that I spend some time with my right hon. Friend explaining the thinking behind the Stormont House institutions and how we would get to a situation where there was not this disproportionate focus on the armed forces and law enforcement.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Let me begin where the Secretary of State ended, in saying that there can never be moral equivalence between the acts of the broad mass of those young men and women who were asked to serve in Northern Ireland at the behest of our society and those who instead sought to damage, maim and kill through the paramilitary groups of either side. As with other Members, I wish to pay tribute to those who served our nation. I wish also to follow the words of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in recognising as well the important role of the RUC during the troubles.
I recognise the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), and he rightly was struck by and acted on the claims farming that he saw as a result of the situation in Iraq. However, there is no equivalent that reads immediately across to the situation in Northern Ireland, and it is important to establish that, even though I recognise that his motives are honourable in what he proposes.
I again follow the Secretary of State’s line in saying that there is currently a consultation on the historical inquiries, and it is important that that is allowed to take place and to go forward. It is important that we take the opportunities of the Stormont House agreement to move forward in the way that she outlined. In the debate on Second Reading, I said that we should make progress with exactly those kinds of institutional arrangements. It is important that we bring things to a rapid conclusion in the interests of victims on all sides.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks was challenged by the hon. Member for North Down on why the RUC/PSNI has been left out of the amendment. It is helpful to quote Mark Lindsay, the chair of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, who says:
“Let me be clear: This organisation is totally opposed to any legislation which proposes an amnesty”—
a loaded word—
“for any crime. That’s any crime, whether committed by a police officer or terrorist from any side of the divide. Society must now decide, whether the solution is a political solution or a criminal justice solution.”
He goes on to say that it would be a “monstrous injustice” to his members were we to go down those lines. It is important that we listen to those words.
I met Mark Lindsay recently, and one point that he made to me was about the enormous importance of the Police Service of Northern Ireland having the trust of people across all communities. One way to damage that trust would be to open the PSNI up to the accusation that it somehow gained special treatment for its members, when the Police Federation for Northern Ireland does not want that kind of special treatment. That is important.
In response to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I should say that even the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, Arlene Foster, has expressed her own doubts about going down this road. She makes the point that the DUP has not been pushing for this as a party, and her concern is that it could lead to demands for a wider amnesty. That is important because, as the Secretary of State said, she has to sign off the legislation as compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations under international law—not things that we can change or arbitrate; things that we have signed up to as part of the UK’s global commitments. These are things that the UK signs up to as exemplars to be applied not just here in the United Kingdom but all around the world. They give us the freedom to criticise those who transgress human rights obligations. A strong body of opinion—I know this opinion was given to the Defence Committee—makes it clear that if the state is seen to act partially in a way that denies victims access to justice, it is transgressing its obligations under international law. In particular, if in doing that the state is seen to be partial and to be protecting state actors while not offering the same kind of procedure to others, the state is, in that partiality, accused of breaching its wider human rights obligation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The comments by the leader of my party were directed specifically at the legacy proposals for Northern Ireland. To legislate for a statute of limitations on the narrow ground of Northern Ireland would not in our opinion be appropriate, because it would exclude deployments in the Gulf war and Afghanistan. It needs to be done on a UK-wide basis. My party would be supportive on that basis, but not if it is exclusively about Northern Ireland, because that would open it up to the risk that it would be used by others to try to bring about an amnesty, which is not what it would be.
Tony Lloyd
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which leads me to begin to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
I stand strongly with the Secretary of State on the fact that the consultation process is already abroad. That consultation process now should be allowed to come to its full conclusion. That is the right way forward both for this House tonight and more generally for this country. In the context of Northern Ireland, it is important to take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks that the possibility of seeing a wider amnesty will defeat the ambitions of victims of the violence during the troubles and those who were left bereaved by that violence. It could, of itself, allow off the hook those whom we would all want to see—even these years on—brought before our justice system and the courts. Within that, it is right and proper that the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks recognises the force of the argument that this is the wrong vehicle. It is the wrong occasion for this and it will almost certainly lead to the wrong kind of rules—temporary at very best. I do hope that he will consider very seriously whether this is the right approach on this occasion.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I believe some form of consensus is emerging that a statute of limitations might be the correct way forward, especially if it could be applied in a wider context than just the Northern Ireland scenario. I know that the Conservative manifesto at the last election talked about protecting troops from malicious charges such as had been posed most irresponsibly and on an industrial scale in relation to Iraq by invoking the law of armed conflict for future conflicts and ensuring that the criteria of the civil law could not be applied to them. That is where a problem might creep in in connection with Northern Ireland, because there is no way in which the law of armed conflict could be said to apply to that situation, which was internal to the United Kingdom.
We heard from the Secretary of State that, earlier today, the Defence Secretary made the very welcome announcement that a dedicated unit is being set up inside the Ministry of Defence to try to grip this problem, and I think that it will try to grip it at every level—not just for Northern Ireland, but for these wider conflicts. However, for this evening, I will obviously concentrate on the Northern Ireland situation. I wish to start by making brief reference to the report previously produced by the Defence Committee, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in his very strong contribution to this debate a little while ago.
Our report entitled “Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel”, HC 1064, was published on 26 April 2017. The Government response, HC 549, was published on 13 November 2017, and there was a Westminster Hall debate on these reports on 25 January 2018, all of which bear future study. The Defence Committee has put in our entire report as evidence under a covering letter to the consultation process that is going on.
Dr Lewis
I see the Secretary of State acknowledging that fact. She will know that the Defence Committee was particularly disappointed about something that I mentioned earlier in an intervention. In the Government’s response—the one that was published in November 2017—they reprinted two of our recommendations and it gave the following answer to them. The recommendations were as follows:
“It is clear from the experience of these legacy investigations that, unless a decision is taken to draw a line under all Troubles-related cases, without exception, they will continue to grind on for many years to come—up to half-a-century after the incidents concerned… Accordingly, we recommend the adoption of Option One—the enactment of a statute of limitations, covering all Troubles-related incidents, up to the signing of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, which involved former members of the Armed Forces. This should be coupled with the continuation and development of a truth recovery mechanism which would provide the best possible prospect of bereaved families finding out the facts, once no-one needed to fear being prosecuted.”
This is what might be termed the Nelson Mandela solution, which of course proved to be such a success in South Africa.
Lady Hermon
At the very beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution, he summarised what he felt was the attitude in the House, which was that there was a consensus on a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland. May I just say that I am not in that consensus? I do not support a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland for the armed forces alone. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to address the really critical question. There is a fundamental principle of the British legal system that no one is above the law. How would he reconcile the amendment to which he is speaking with that fundamental principle?
Dr Lewis
I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s making her own position clear. I trust that, in the remarks that I am about to make, I will address precisely that point. It relates in particular to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If I fail to mention that later, I hope that the hon. Lady will leap up and remind me to do so. I just wish to continue with my theme for the moment, which is the Government’s initial response to the passages—the recommendations—that I just read out.
The Government said:
“While the Government believes that the most effective option to address Northern Ireland’s past is to implement the proposals set out in the Stormont House Agreement, the Government acknowledges that others have different views on the best way forward, including approaches such as that proposed by the Committee which do not involve recourse to the criminal justice system. As such, the Government intends to include within its forthcoming consultation on the draft Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill a section entitled ‘Alternative approaches to addressing the past’. This section of the consultation will discuss alternative ways forward and include a description of the Committee’s recommendation. The consultation will invite respondents to give their views on ‘the potential effectiveness and appropriateness of alternative approaches such as amnesties and a statute of limitations to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past’. Following the consultation’s conclusion, the Government will consider all views carefully to inform next steps.”
Now, all I can say is that the Committee was greatly encouraged by that positive response, and we were then considerably discouraged by the fact—which may or may not be connected with the change in Secretary of State—that we subsequently found that the consultation was not going to include the section as described officially in the response to our report. That seemed to be a step backwards.
I have heard it said time and again—this evening and in previous debates on the subject—the rather obvious truth that there is no moral equivalence between terrorists or people accused of terrorist offences, and people accused of having committed offences when they were members of the armed forces or security forces trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland. As I said, that is an obvious truth; there is no moral equivalence. However, it can be argued—and I feel that it must be argued—that there is a legal equivalence, because everybody who is accused of a crime is, in a sense, equal before the law. But something strange and particular happened in the context of Northern Ireland, and that was—this is where I come to the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—the passage of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If I understand the Act correctly, and I think I do, it means that nobody can serve more than a two-year sentence, no matter how heinous the crimes that they committed, in the context of the troubles in Northern Ireland, which presumably means that, in practice, no one will spend more than half that length of time—12 months—in jail. Whether it be a question of pursuing terrorists decades after the event or of trying to pursue security personnel or members of the armed forces decades after the event, at the end of that whole process, even if anybody is found guilty of a crime that would normally attract a life sentence, they will end up spending no more than 12 months in jail.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I am listening to my right hon. Friend’s argument very carefully. It is not just a question of how much time some of these accused former servicemen may spend in jail—it is about the question mark hanging over them in later life, and their fear that when they go back to court in Northern Ireland they will not be protected. They get all kinds of memories coming back, and feel very afraid. So in a sense, their sentence is already a life sentence while the current legislation continues.
Dr Lewis
I entirely agree with every syllable of what my right hon. and gallant Friend says. We are now in a perverse situation where people are being pursued decades after the event without any scintilla of a suggestion that new evidence has been found. They are put through this disproportionate and agonising process, and at the end of it, in the unlikely event that they were found guilty, any sentence that they served would in no way be proportionate to the crime. The whole process has been undermined, because while one might make a moral, political or legal case to pursue someone to the ends of time for a capital crime—a crime of murder—if one knows right at the beginning that at the end of that huge process they are going to serve only a derisory sentence, that has to call into question the legitimacy of the proceedings.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend have sympathy with my constituent, Dennis Hutchings, who is facing that situation as we speak despite the fact that witnesses are no longer around and that Dennis is terminally ill? He is the perfect example of what my right hon. Friend is speaking about.
Dr Lewis
I cannot comment on that particular case since it is now sub judice, but cases of that sort fall squarely within the situation that I am describing. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) said, it is the process of pursuit, proceedings and trial, rather than the actual derisory sentence at the end of it, that amounts to cruel, unusual and almost certainly unjustified punishment that is inflicted so long after the event.
Nobody is suggesting that crimes that would be called war crimes, if this were an international rather than a civil conflict, should be excused and that people should be put above the law; but the provisions of international law can be met by combining a truth recovery process with a statute of limitations. If people who had committed heinous crimes years and years ago were, at the end of the process, going to serve a proportionate sentence, one could perhaps make out an argument that the matter should be allowed to proceed to the end of time. However, given the way in which terrorists, on the one hand, and armed forces personnel and security forces, on the other, have all been swept up into the concept of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, meaning that they will serve, at most, a derisory sentence if eventually convicted—which most of them will not be—the way to proceed is the Nelson Mandela solution.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) said, his amendments are not perfect, and there will be concerns, but when is the right time for us to defend our veterans? When is the right time for those in this House to speak out and say, “Enough is enough”?
I have to declare an interest. It was not 30 or 40 years ago that I got on the troop ship from Liverpool across to Belfast docks. It was 42 years ago that I and the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards went across to Northern Ireland. I was petrified, like most young people were when they went into the armed forces and into combat. I was not going abroad—we were not going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Aden, Borneo or Malaya. I was going to another part of the United Kingdom to protect a community from terrorism. It was a policing role. I have never quite understood why we issued the general service medal for those who went to Northern Ireland, because it was part of the United Kingdom. It was not an operation, as we have heard. We were not on ops; we were assisting the RUC to protect the community. Sometimes that community turned on us, and we lost a lot of good friends and soldiers. Some we have never found. I have spoken in the House before about my captain, Captain Robert Nairac, whose bravery everybody should understand.
We are not here this evening to just accept what the Secretary of State has said and give it carte blanche. The Secretary of State has no idea what I am going to say, and other colleagues are waiting to argue for these amendments as well, but the Secretary of State and the Opposition Front Benchers have already made their mind up, before hearing from gallant colleagues who have served and colleagues who have never served but have constituents who are under threat day in, day out of a knock at the door or a letter. Perhaps that letter will come to me; perhaps I am one of those people. I am probably one of the older ones who served back then. I went in 1976, and the forces that were out there—some were volunteers for the Ulster Defence Regiment, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was serving in—were doing a fantastic job. The RUC was doing a fantastic job. At one stage, we had 10,000 soldiers putting their lives on the line in the Province to keep people safe.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I, like my right hon. Friend, served out there, in ’75, and I recall serving in the Bogside when we used to have to accompany the RUC there; they would not go were the military not with them at the time, patrolling in the same area. We were dealing with circumstances that are very difficult for modern generations to understand. We had to do so under a very different set of rules, and my concern is exactly his: that we are now judging on the basis of a wholly different set of criteria.
Sir Mike Penning
My right hon. and gallant Friend understands this so well. It was not so much that the RUC could not cope, but the threat to them was so great that we had to patrol with them. I did not serve in Londonderry or Belfast, even though I have been accused of doing naughty things in Belfast by the IRA and Sinn Féin. I served in Monaghan, Keady and Middletown, where we were in the RUC post, sometimes with the RUC and sometimes on our own.
It was a very difficult time, but we were not conscripts. We were young people who volunteered to serve in our armed forces. When I joined up, I knew that I was going to Northern Ireland. Basically, every 18 months you would go to Northern Ireland if you were from an infantry regiment. We knew we were going to go, and we knew how difficult it was going to be, but—this is the big but—I expected those who sent us to look after us. I honestly feel at the moment that veterans, and not just those from my day, do not feel that this House did the right thing for us, and they passionately feel that we are letting them down.
If this evening’s debate is not the answer and these amendments are not the right ones, I say to colleagues around the Chamber—I am so disappointed that some of my Labour friends who served in the armed forces are not here for something so damn important—that the people who did the right thing for us and for Northern Ireland are flagrantly being let down, day in and day out. They are told there is another consultation, that we cannot do it—that there is technicality here, and the judges will not do it—or that Sinn Féin will use this against us. I don’t give a monkey’s. The Commons should stand up for our veterans, and if we do not vote for that this evening, there is something seriously wrong.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who made an extremely moving speech.
I plan to be brief, but I first want to thank the Secretary of State for Defence, who, in reply to my Question 1 this afternoon, said that he would set up a dedicated team at the Ministry of Defence to look at the situation of all veterans. I have sponsored two Adjournment debates on this subject, and I have also set up an informal parliamentary support group to look at the interests of veterans from all theatres.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) on the way in which he moved his amendment. I underline the comments about his time as Defence Secretary, during which he worked tirelessly to try to stop some of this nonsense going on, particularly in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan. His amendments are a genuine attempt to try to move this debate forward and to propose a constructive suggestion.
I very much hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will do two things. First, I hope she will work with the Secretary of State for Defence to make sure that the unit being set up really starts to make a difference. Secondly, the consultation that she set up did not actually say anything about looking at a statute of limitations. She mentioned the word “amnesty”, but, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made very clear, we are talking about an amnesty, but not a statute of limitations. In this case it would affect Northern Ireland, but I would extend it to all veterans from all theatres so that they knew where they stood and that, after a period of time, it would not be possible for them to be subject to the knock on the door. The qualification would of course be that that applied unless any new evidence became available.
Sir Hugo Swire
Would my hon. Friend not say that all veterans who find themselves in such a position today, tomorrow or in years to come should be looked after properly by the Ministry of Defence—provided with support, including if necessary counselling, and with security and an escort, particularly if they are going back to zones in which they are accused of committing these crimes—so that they do not feel they are not wanted, and do not feel isolated and forgotten?
Sir Henry Bellingham
My right hon. Friend is 100% right on that point, but we hope very much that there will not be any prosecutions in the future, or any further arrests.
The key point is that our security forces, as has been pointed out, served in Northern Ireland with the utmost professionalism and dedication in an incredibly febrile, tense and dangerous atmosphere. Young soldiers were sent over—volunteers: we are talking not about conscripts, but professional soldiers—and they were the envy of the entire world. Does the Secretary of State believe that any other army from any other country in the world would have showed the sort of restraint that our Army showed in Northern Ireland, as indeed did the police?
Some 10% of the killings in Northern Ireland were carried out either by the police or the security forces. That is a staggering figure. One has to bear in mind that every single case was fully investigated. Soldiers were operating under the law of the land—not under armed forces law under the Geneva convention, but under our own law—with the yellow book or the yellow card, and every instance was fully investigated at the time by the military police, the RUC or other authorities. That compares with the terrorists, who operated under no known code, and whose only aim in life was to kill and to maim, so how can there ever be any equivalence? How can we talk about amnesties, when our armed forces were operating under the rule of law and under the law?
I want to refer quickly to two cases. I will not mention the names, because they may well be sub judice, but I want to illustrate my concerns. First, the leader of a small patrol went into a village after a shooting incident the day before. The platoon had come under fire. A small patrol of four soldiers went into the village in a follow-up operation after an arms find. A suspicious individual was challenged but did not respond. All four members of the patrol opened fire and that person was killed. It was actually a tragic case of mistaken identity. It was fully investigated at the time by the military police and the RUC. All the evidence was pulled together. The rifles and the rounds were subject to forensic examination. After a period of months, all four members of the patrol were completely exonerated and no further action was required or taken.
We fast-forward to 2012. Under the PSNI investigation under the Historical Enquiries Team, the corporal major who had commanded that patrol was asked to go to Northern Ireland to be questioned, which he did. It was explained to him that there was no new evidence and that the existing evidence had disappeared—the rifles had long since been thrown away or whatever, and the forensic evidence was no longer available. After four days of very polite questioning, he was told that there would be no case to answer. He asked whether he could get on with his life and go back to his family and was told that he could. Fast-forward three more years and there was a knock on the door. Eighteen officers arrested him and took him to Northern Ireland. He has now been charged with attempted murder—I will not go into any more details because he has been charged.
I went to a veterans dinner last weekend at the Royal Anglian Regiment. There were more than 100 people at the dinner. Every single person who came up to me said, “What is going on? Can we not do something about this? Many of us live in fear.” In a speech given that evening, a former regimental sergeant major gave an example from Londonderry in 1972 that illustrates the difficulties that our soldiers faced, the fear they were up against and the appalling decisions that had to be taken on the spur of the moment.
In this second case, soldiers went into the crowd to snatch a demonstrator who had been throwing rocks and bricks at the police and soldiers. They snatched the demonstrator and the crowd became inflamed. The company of soldiers turned around and started moving backwards. One of the soldiers was hit on the back of the head by a rock. In those days, the helmets were not as effective as they are now and he fell down with a cracked skull. The crowd surged forward and were about to lynch him. My constituent and four other soldiers opened fire on the crowd and killed an individual. That was fully investigated at the time. It was found that they were operating under the yellow card or yellow book but that incident is now being reinvestigated. No fewer than 10 people at that dinner now fear they are among the 284 Northern Ireland veterans, men in their 70s and 80s, who may well get the knock on the door as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he is sharing with us, which is the reality of the situation. Does he agree, however, that it is not just about the veterans attending that dinner? It is about the young men and women who are looking in on what is happening, considering joining our armed forces and doing what many of us have done in the past—stepping up to the plate and serving the flag and the country. Might they just think again about serving this country if there is a prospect that they might face prosecution if they seek to defend themselves, the public and their comrades?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I thank my right hon. Friend—I will call him a Friend—who makes an incredibly important point. At that dinner, a number of former members of the Royal Anglian Regiment made the point that they were trying to encourage and recruit young people. Can they really do that when those people might go into a theatre of war and act in accordance with orders, the law of armed conflict or the law of the land, but be arrested many years hence?
I do not know what the answer to this dilemma is, but I do know that very many people out there are incredibly angry and very worried, and they are looking to this Government to come up with constructive, innovative and workable solutions. If we do not do that, we will not be forgiven in a hurry.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Lindsay, for calling me in this debate. This is a deeply personal issue on which I have worked for some time. I welcome the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon).
I am cognisant of the fact that there are real issues with what has been put forward—I do not dispute that for a minute—but I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said. If I was still a soldier watching this place, or if I was a veteran watching this place, I could not help but go away thinking that this place still—still—simply does not get it when it comes to what we owe those who have served.
This issue is nothing to do with some of the things that have been mentioned tonight. There has been a crassness to the terminology at times. I in no way speak of the Chair of the Defence Committee, because we have been tumbling around these terms and I would understand that from him, but there is the idea that we have conflated the idea of an amnesty with that of a statute of limitations. They are fundamentally and critically different, yet they have been interposed as if this is some sort of game or legal language that we have to get around to ensure we do right by our servicemen and women.
Sir Hugo Swire
On that point, does my hon. Friend not agree that it was unfortunate that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman kept on inappropriately using the word “amnesty”?
Johnny Mercer
That is exactly what I am talking about.
Before I came to this place—I have spoken about it before, so this will not be a shock to anyone—I really struggled with the inauthenticity I saw from both the Government and Opposition Dispatch Boxes. Incidents such as the one that has just been referred to serve to highlight that. Up and down the country, there are people watching this who are veterans of Northern Ireland, of Afghanistan, like me, and of Iraq. They will be thinking, “Have these guys got my back? Do they really get it when they can’t even get the terms right? Does that give me the confidence that the Government will apply themselves to ending this ridiculous charade of prosecuting our soldiers? I’m afraid it does not.”
What happens to the amendments after I have finished speaking is up to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, but I have to lodge again my profound and personal disquiet with the Government’s policy. I feel a personal shame with regard to the historical allegations issue. I feel that I am part of a Government who are essentially promoting a cowards’ charter when it comes to looking after our servicemen and women. My right hon. Friend talked about how he made a political decision to close the Iraq Historical Allegations Team. I worked on that issue for a year before he did that. Every single civil servant and lawyer in his Department told him it could not be done, but he took the executive political decision that he was elected to make and closed it. We need some of that political courage to be brought to the issue in relation to Northern Ireland.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I apologise for intervening because, characteristically, my hon. Friend is making a very good speech. We serve together on the Defence Committee, which is now looking into this matter. We heard at today’s Defence questions that the Ministry of Defence is now looking into this matter, too. Does he agree that we are not going to give up on this? We are going to keep coming back debate after debate, motion after motion. We are going to harry the Government, on behalf of the veterans, until they do the right thing and provide protection for those who protected us.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I must say that when I started the process on IHAT, I found it a pretty lonely experience. That has now changed significantly. There are people in the Chamber who have campaigned on the Northern Ireland issue for a long time and it is deeply heartening to see the support this issue has got, certainly among Conservative Members. I thank him and others who have been here for much longer than me who have provided me with that support; vice versa, I have given any support that I have been able to give.
The problems with this process are so well known. It is late and I do not want to send everyone to sleep by going into them, but this process does not work for anybody. It does not work for the soldiers who are being investigated or for the families in finding out what has happened. The idea that it does is, I am afraid, for the birds.
Sir Michael Fallon
I will respond briefly to the debate because I sense that the Committee wants to decide what to do about the amendments. We have had a very good debate in which strongly held views have been expressed. While there may be disagreement about the precise provisions of the amendments, there is no disagreement in this House about the problem: the moral equivalence that is now being extended by the process of historical investigation between the terrorist and the servant of the state. There is no disagreement that we are now clearly in breach of our own armed forces covenant, and there is no disagreement that the deepest unfairness of all is the reopening of cases that have already been investigated when those involved have been told that no further action will be taken.
I understand that our colleagues from Northern Ireland do not support the precise wording of the amendments, which is one of the reasons why, very reluctantly, I will not press them to a Division. They do, however, support the direction of travel, and I hope that they will continue to work with us on the principle of some form of limitation for those cases that have already been investigated.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), I welcome today’s initiative by the Ministry of Defence and the consultation to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred, but I would give her this warning, which echoes what has been said in the debate: the House will not now rest on this matter. She said that the Bill was the wrong vehicle, and that might well be the case, but it is for the Government now to find the right vehicle so that we act on the views expressed tonight and see, finally, that justice is done for those who served to protect us.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand pat of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 2 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jo Churchill.)
Public Accounts Commission
Ordered,
That Martyn Day be discharged as a member of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983, and that Douglas Chapman be appointed.—(Paul Maynard.)
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 18th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 July 2018 - (18 Jul 2018)
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Sharma. May we remove our jackets, given the heat?
The Chair
Yes. Before we begin proceedings, I have a few announcements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting. Thank you, Tim, for the point of order about removing jackets.
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, new Clause 2, Clause 1, new Clause 1, Clauses 2 to 5, remaining new Clauses, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—(Tim Loughton.)
New Clause 2
Marriage registration
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend the Marriage Act 1949 (‘the 1949 Act’) to provide for a system whereby details relating to marriages in England and Wales are recorded in documents used as part of the procedure for marriage, and entered into and held in a central register which is accessible in electronic form.
(2) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) provide that a Part 3 marriage may be solemnized on the authority of a single document (a ‘marriage schedule’) issued by the superintendent registrar for the district in which the marriage is to be solemnized (instead of on the authority of two certificates of a superintendent registrar);
(b) provide that a member of the clergy who is to solemnize a marriage authorised by ecclesiastical preliminaries must, before doing so, issue a document to enable the marriage to be registered (a ‘marriage document’) or ensure that a marriage document is issued;
(c) make provision in relation to the signing of a marriage schedule or marriage document following the solemnization of the marriage;
(d) make provision in relation to the delivery of a signed marriage schedule or signed marriage document to a registrar;
(e) require the Registrar General to maintain a register of marriages in England and Wales, which is accessible in electronic form (‘the marriage register’);
(f) make provision in relation to the entering in the marriage register of the particulars set out in a signed marriage schedule or signed marriage document;
(g) remove existing provision in relation to the registration of marriages which is not to form part of the system provided for under this section.
(3) Where provision made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) gives power to a registrar to require a person to attend personally at the office of a superintendent registrar for the purpose of delivering a signed marriage schedule or signed marriage document, the regulations may provide that a person who fails to comply with such a requirement—
(a) commits an offence, and
(b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) The regulations may give the Registrar General power to make regulations under section 74(1) of the 1949 Act—
(a) prescribing the form or content of a marriage schedule, marriage document or any other document specified in the regulations;
(b) making provision in relation to corrections to or the re-issue of a marriage schedule or marriage document before the marriage is solemnized;
(c) making provision in relation to the keeping of a signed marriage schedule or signed marriage document after the particulars set out in it have been entered in the marriage register;
(d) making provision in relation to corrections to entries in the marriage register or a pre-commencement marriage register book;
(e) making provision in relation to the keeping of pre-commencement marriage register books;
(f) making provision in relation to the keeping in a church or chapel of records of marriages solemnized according to the rites of the Church of England or the Church in Wales in the church or chapel.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), provision in relation to the keeping of a book, document or other record includes, in particular, provision about—
(a) who is to be responsible for keeping the book, document or other record and how it is to be stored;
(b) the circumstances in which the book, document or other record must or may be annotated;
(c) the circumstances in which the book, document or other record must or may be sent to the Registrar General or a superintendent registrar.
(6) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section after a period of three years beginning with the day on which regulations are first so made.
(7) In this section—
‘ecclesiastical preliminaries’ means the methods of authorisation described in section 5(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1949 Act;
‘marriage document’, ‘marriage register’ and ‘marriage schedule’ have the meanings given by subsection (2)(b), (e) and (a) respectively;
‘member of the clergy’ means a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church of England or a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church in Wales;
‘Part 3 marriage’ means a marriage falling within section 26(1), 26A(1) or 26B(2), (4) or (6) of the 1949 Act;
‘pre-commencement marriage register book’ means any marriage register book in which the particulars of a marriage have been entered under that Act;
‘registrar’ means a registrar of marriages;
‘Registrar General’ means the Registrar General for England and Wales;
‘superintendent registrar’ means a superintendent registrar of births, deaths and marriages.”—(Tim Loughton.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to introduce a central, electronic system of marriage registration in England and Wales.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 12, in the title, line 2, leave out from first “of” to “to” in line 3 and insert “marriage;”.
This amendment reflects the changes proposed by Amendment 2 and NC2.
Tim Loughton
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, I think for the first time—as this is the first private Member’s Bill I have introduced in my 21 years in the House, I hope that you will be gentle with me. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have agreed to serve on the Committee. There was a lot of interest in the Bill. I particularly welcome interest from those so young in the Public Gallery. I also welcome the Minister, who I know is not exactly idling at the moment, given that she is in the midst of the Offensive Weapons Bill and her other duties in the Home Office. Hopefully she will focus resolutely on this Bill for the next few hours.
I will make some introductory comments before speaking to the amendments. I do not want to replicate the many excellent speeches we had on Second Reading on 2 February. Many of the Members who contributed at that stage are on the Committee. I am keen that we should keep proceedings short. It is a complicated Bill of four parts. As I said on Second Reading, I have not made it easy for myself by having such a multifaceted Bill that cuts across at least four different Government Departments and four different Secretaries of State, all of whom have changed since the Bill started its passage.
Many of today’s amendments are formal drafting amendments agreed between the Government and me. Others are—I hope—probing amendments from hon. Members, to which I will be delighted to respond. I want to keep the Bill as intact as possible, and the deliberations as tight, because the Bill is a work in progress. The Bill comprises a number of obligations for Government Ministers to review changes in the law that we would like to see and to report on how they can be brought about, and, in some cases, enabling clauses subject to sunset limitations, so that Ministers can bring the changes to legislation into effect at some stage in the not-too-distant future.
Much has happened over the past five and a half months since Second Reading, with working groups having already been established. They have started their business in various Departments. I will probe the Minister for updates on what progress they have made, when they are likely to report, and how and when their deliberations will translate into changes in legislation and whether that can be speeded up.
A lot in the Bill hinges on its consideration on Report, which is anticipated for 26 October, for those who want to get the date in their diary. I will challenge the Government further on why amendments cannot be added at that stage, when we have more than three months to prepare for it.
So, eyes down—let us get on with the amendments. New clause 2 deals with marriage registration and would amend the Marriage Act 1949, with the underlying intent of addressing the extraordinary anomaly that the names of the mothers of those getting married still do not appear on marriage certificates. The clause is an enabling clause, to enable the Secretary of State to bring about those changes, which have huge amounts of support across the whole House. Numerous attempts to change the law have so far come to nothing, but this time it is going to happen.
New clause 2 seeks to remove the marker provision that is the current clause 1 and replace it with the provisions in new clause 2 of the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill, as per the commitment made on Second Reading on 2 February. In addition, the amendments aim to improve those provisions by limiting the scope of delegated powers in the Bill. For example, any regulations made by the Secretary of State under clause 1(1) will now be limited to amending the Marriage Act 1949. The regulations that amend that Act would be subject to the affirmative procedure and require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, providing ample parliamentary oversight.
Subsection (6) of the new clause inserts a sunset clause that limits the use of the power of the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation to a period of three years beginning on the day on which the regulations are first made. I know that this point—that it could be an open-ended power—has been a bone of some contention, and has hampered the progress of similar private Members’ Bills and legislation in the past. By inserting this sunset clause, and specifically limiting the power to the Marriage Act 1949, the Bill has a very clear intent.
The new clause would reform how marriages are registered in the future, to enable the updating of the marriage entry to include the names of the mothers of the couple, instead of just the names of the fathers, as is extraordinarily currently the case. That is the biggest reform of how marriages are registered since 1837. It is incredible that it has taken 181 years to include the mothers’ details, especially as the arrangements for civil partnerships, when they came in, allowed for both parents.
The new clause aims to introduce a schedule-based system, replacing the current paper registers. That is the most cost-effective way to introduce the change. With the introduction of a schedule system, all civil and religious marriages will be held in a single electronic register, rather than in more than 80,000 paper register books scattered around churches and religious institutions up and down the country. It will make the system more secure and efficient, and it will make it simpler to amend the content of the marriage entry, both now and in the future. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make the required changes to the Marriage Act by regulations, and to move a schedule-based system for registering marriages. The regulations would change the current procedures in part III of the Marriage Act—Marriage under Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate—to provide that a marriage can be solemnized on the authority of a single schedule for the couple instead of two superintendent registrar’s certificates of marriage, one for each of the couple, which is currently the case.
The regulations would also provide for a member of the clergy to issue the equivalent of a marriage schedule, which is a marriage document, for marriages that have been preceded by ecclesiastical preliminaries, for example the calling of the banns or the granting of a common licence. Once a marriage ceremony has taken place, the signed marriage schedule or marriage document will be returned to the local registry office for entry in the electronic register.
Where a registrar is present at a marriage ceremony, the signed schedule will be retained by the registrar for entry in the electronic register. In all other cases, it will be the responsibility of the couple to ensure that the marriage schedule is returned to the registry office. However, they will be able to ask a representative to take it for them, or they could send it by post. Apparently, in Scotland it is traditionally a family member or the best man—if you can trust him—who returns the signed document.
If a signed marriage schedule or marriage document is not returned within the specified timescale, and after reminders have been sent, the person commits an offence in accordance with subsection (3) of the new clause. My understanding is that in Scotland there are no issues with signed documents not being returned to the registry office. Once the marriage is registered in the electronic register, the couple will be able to have a copy of their marriage certificate.
Subsection (4) of the new clause gives the Registrar General power to make regulations under section 74(1) of the Marriage Act 1949 to prescribe the content of a marriage schedule or document, to make provision to reissue or correct the information contained in the marriage schedule or document prior to the marriage taking place, and to make provision for the keeping and maintenance of the existing paper registers. It is as simple as that.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
My hon. Friend briefly mentioned the role of the clergy. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear to the Committee that the Church of England consulted on the matter some time ago, and is fully in favour of these practical and equitable changes, which deal with a difficult pastoral situation. At the moment, the clergy often have to break the bad news to a mother that she cannot put her name on the marriage certificate at the ceremony, which causes great distress. The Church of England would like to see this change achieved. The amendments that my hon. Friend referred to are the amendments that the Bishop of St Albans tabled to the identical Bill in the Lords, which is about to return to our House.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because that is exactly what I was about to say. She has been assiduous in pursuing this cause, and I pay tribute to her. She has her own private Member’s Bill to that effect in this House that is mirrored by the Registration of Marriage Bill, which was introduced by the Bishop of St Albans and which completed its Committee stage in the House of Lords last month. That Bill also met with widespread support. Everybody supports the measure and has done a lot of work on the detail, so we just need to make it happen. Introducing new clause 2 to replace clause 1 will do that, and it is completely complementary with the detail of the Bill that the Bishop of St Albans has progressed through the House of Lords.
The final amendment in the group is amendment 12. Changes to long titles are a common theme—I have spent many hours in Committee debating the details of long titles as well as short titles, rather than the substance of the Bill, but apparently they are terribly important. The amendment would change the words,
“to make provision about the registration of the names of the mother of each party to a marriage or civil partnership”
to simply,
“to make provision about the registration of marriage”.
That is apparently what needs to happen.
That is the purpose of the changes we propose to the first of the subjects in the Bill, namely having the names of both parents on marriage certificates. I am sure that all hon. Members present will want to take the opportunity to support them without further delay. The Minister will throw her entire weight behind them too, so we will be able to move swiftly on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for introducing these many and varied important issues in his private Member’s Bill. He has done a great deal of work with several Departments in the preceding months to get the Bill into the shape in which we hope to find it in Committee. I thank him for that hard work. I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their hard work on the Bill, and for their contributions, no doubt, in Committee.
As agreed with my hon. Friend on Second Reading, the marker provision in clause 1 has been replaced with a new marriage registration clause that contains the provisions of the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill that was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. For several years, she has been a consistent, effective and, dare I say, staunch campaigner for changes to marriage registration. She has done much work alongside the Lord Bishop of St Albans, who introduced an identical Bill to hers in the House of Lords. I formally record my thanks to them for their hard work.
Tim Loughton
Without further ado—that sums it up. Nobody is objecting to this; we have all wanted it for ages. With this enabling clause, when the Bill passes, the Minister will be able to bring to an end 181 years of an extraordinary injustice, so that the name of the mother of those getting married is shown on the wedding certificate.
As we said on Second Reading, we have all heard examples of mothers who have single-handedly brought up children, perhaps because the father has deserted them or they have been the subject of domestic violence, and the father may even be in jail as a result, yet only his name is entitled to be on that certificate. The person who has done all the heavy lifting and all the legwork, and who has given all the care and love for so many years, does not get that recognition on the formal wedding document. It seems absurd, but it will no longer be absurd when the Bill passes.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 1 disagreed to.
The Chair
We now come to new clause 1. I inform the Committee that, following the debate on new clause 1, I will not be able to put the question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. That clause will be omitted from the Bill, as it is not covered by the money resolution.
New Clause 1
Report on civil partnership
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a report to be prepared—
(a) assessing how the law ought to be changed to bring about equality between same-sex couples and other couples in terms of their future ability or otherwise to form civil partnerships, and
(b) setting out the Government’s plans for achieving that aim.
(2) The arrangements must provide for public consultation.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.”—(Tim Loughton.)
This new clause provides for a report to be prepared on the changes which ought to be made to bring about equality between same-sex and other couples in terms of their future ability or otherwise to form civil partnerships. It replaces the current Clause 2 (see Amendment 1).
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 1, line 5, after “partnerships” insert—
“(aa) how the law could be changed in Scotland to achieve that aim,
(ab) how the law could be changed in Northern Ireland to achieve that aim,”.
Amendment (b) to new clause 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) In considering the matter specified in paragraph (1)(ab), the Secretary of State shall also consider the implications for equality in civil partnerships of the difference in legislation on marriage in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.”
Amendment (c) to new clause 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must also consult—
(a) Scottish Ministers,
(b) Northern Ireland Ministers.”
Amendment 16, in clause 5, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) Sections 1, 3 and 4 extend to England and Wales,
(2) Section (Report on civil partnership) extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a) to NC1.
Amendment 11, in the title, line 1, leave out from beginning to “make”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 13, reflects the changes proposed by Amendment 1 and NC1.
Amendment 13, in the title, line 3, after “partnership;” insert
“to make provision for a report on civil partnerships;”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 11.
Tim Loughton
I shall speak to new clause 1 and amendments 16, 11 and 13, which are in my name and that of the Minister. No doubt the hon. Member for Harrow West will then want to speak to his amendments (a) to (c) to new clause 1, and I will be happy to comment on them after he has done so.
New clause 1 replaces clause 2, but of course it still only obliges the Secretary of State—the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is now my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—to prepare a report on how to bring about civil partnership equality, which is perhaps the meatiest part of the Bill. We know that there are two ways to achieve equal civil partnerships. One is to abolish existing civil partnerships for same-sex couples. That would leave just straightforward marriage, which is now available to all couples. The other—I hope the Government take this route, in accordance with the clear will expressed by the House in our many debates on this issue—is to extend civil partnerships to all, so they are available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally. By doing that, we would achieve equality in marriage and civil partnerships.
That is the unfinished business left over from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which I tried to amend while it was still a Bill and subsequently through two private Members’ Bills—a ten-minute rule Bill and a presentation Bill. I am pleased that the Government agreed on Second Reading to look at this issue again, and I was pleased with the urgency the Minister showed at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, she actually issued a letter to hon. Members, announcing that she would start the consultation she said was required straightaway, before she had said that at the Dispatch Box, and she had to quickly reel that in again. She might like to give us some details about that.
I was also pleased that the Prime Minister appeared to support my Bill and endorse a change in the law when I challenged her at Prime Minister’s Question Time on 27 June, although I gather there was some hasty backtracking at the subsequent press conference about what she actually said. I was less pleased with the Command Paper, “The Future Operation of Civil Partnership: Gathering Further Information,” which was issued back in May and gave details about how consultation would take place. In particular, paragraph 17 states that questions about consultation
“will be included initially in the May 2018 ONS survey and will be repeated in subsequent surveys for approximately 10 months to secure a big enough sample,”
and that the Government intended to analyse findings no sooner than summer 2019 and, at some stage after that, come back with suggestions.
That rather kicked the issue into the long grass, so I was relieved that the new Minister for Women and Equalities indicated that we will not have such a long-drawn-out consultation, and that whatever work she thinks still needs to be done could be completed no later than this autumn. I will suggest how that work might be brought forward even further. I am particularly pleased that she indicated publicly that she is in favour of achieving equalisation by extending civil partnerships for all, and that she does not support scrapping existing civil partnerships to achieve equality through marriage only.
The Minister for Women and Equalities confirmed that—it is on the record—in an interview with Stonewall. I was pleased to see Stonewall support the extension of civil partnerships. In so doing, it followed in the footsteps of many others, including the Church of England, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, will confirm. The Church announced as long ago as April 2014 that it did not want same-sex civil partnerships to be abolished and it supported equalisation by extension. And as of this morning’s count, 139,593 people have signed the petition, organised by the Equal Civil Partnerships group, in support of extending civil partnerships. This measure has huge support.
Of course, things have moved on considerably with the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court on 27 June 2018 in the case of Steinfeld and Keidan, of whom one and a mini one are not far from our proceedings today. I attended the opening of that hearing on 14 May and also went to the judgment. It was a unanimous five-nil judgment, and the terms used in the judgment were absolutely categorical; it was absolutely clear.
Let me pull out some quotes. The judges stated that
“to create a situation of inequality and then ask for…time—in this case several years—”
which is what happened by creating same-sex marriage but not equalising civil partnerships at the same time—to determine
“how that inequality is to be cured is…less obviously deserving of a margin of discretion.”
That is their lordships’ discreet way of saying, “Get the heck on with it.” They also said in the judgment that there was no end point “in sight” for the present inequality of treatment, and therefore they found in favour of Steinfeld and Keidan, because the situation was incompatible with article 14, taken in conjunction with article 8, of the ECHR. They could not have been clearer than that.
The written findings refer to my Bill in paragraph 8. In fact, there is a whole chronology of the various Bills that I have brought forward on this subject in that paragraph. Towards the end of the judgment, it says:
“The amendment to Mr Loughton’s Bill which the government has agreed does no more than formalise the consultation process to which it was already committed. It does not herald any imminent change in the law to remove the admitted inequality of treatment.”
Basically, the judges are saying that this Bill, or Government action in lieu of this Bill, needs to go a lot further.
The Government have not yet by any means discharged their duties, according to the findings of the Supreme Court, so it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s take on those findings. They came out three weeks ago, but so far we have had no detailed statement from the Government as to what their response is likely to be. Clearly, work needs to be done; preparations need to be made, but the Government have had several years. This was not a bolt out of the blue. Most people thought that the judgment would find as it did—I do not think most people thought it would find quite as forcefully as it did—so the ball is very much in the Government’s court to change the law and, crucially, to get on with it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. May I remind him and others of the genesis of the current inequality? It was not a point of great principle; it was essentially a point of raw politics. At the point when the marriage equality measure was going through the House of Lords, there arose within No. 10 Downing Street a certain nervousness, shall we say. It was felt at the time that it was more important than anything else that we should preserve marriage equality, and it was for that reason, and that reason alone, that the defect that we seek to rectify today was allowed to go ahead. I do not know what is in the judgment, but I suspect that that would have weighed very heavily with their lordships in their consideration of the Steinfeld case.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Wherever that nervousness came from and on account of what, now is the time to be bold and to comply with the highest court in the land. The Secretary of State ruled out the abolition of civil partnerships. If that had happened, it would have left the 63,966 same-sex couples who at the end of 2016 had been through a civil partnership and still have one—the net figure will be slightly higher or lower now—high and dry. It would also deny the opportunity for the stability of cementing a partnership to 3.3 million opposite-sex cohabiting couples, many of whom would want to take advantage of a formal recognition of their status. Like it or not, that is the fastest-growing form of family unit. Therefore, the only option for them, and everyone else, is to extend civil partnerships to all.
Unless the Minister has a cunning wheeze up her sleeve—she has no sleeves, so that is unlikely—a commitment from her now to use my private Member’s Bill as a vehicle to bring about equality is a bit of a no-brainer. Will she signal an intent to go ahead with this change? The Bill may well be the vehicle for that, but if she has a quicker way of doing it we would all embrace that and rejoice.
Speed is of the essence. Examples have been given in the Supreme Court, and in many social posts and blogs, and in everything we have seen of couples who would like a civil partnership—for whatever reason of their own choice they do not want to enter into a marriage—where one of them is terminally ill. If a civil partnership is not available to them in a matter of months, they may be denied the opportunity ever to take advantage of one. We have spent several years talking about this and doing nothing; the Supreme Court has said those days are over.
If the Minister were to signal her intent, that would indicate a further move forward in the Government’s equality agenda and win her many friends among the equal civil partnerships movement, the 139,000 people who signed the petition and well beyond that. This change is part of the bigger jigsaw of family law reform that we must look at, on which there are many moves in particular from their lordships at the moment. It would also make me very happy.
We would be doing a bit of catching up with many other countries throughout the world for whom civil partnerships have been part of their fabric for many years. That includes Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, which brought them in in 2016. Someone not a million miles from this Committee Room was the first UK citizen to take advantage of a civil partnership in the Isle of Man; the only trouble is, that partnership is not recognised by the Government when he and his partner set foot back on the mainland. The Falklands also recognises civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples, having brought them in in 2017. However, they do not happen in England or in the United Kingdom.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I find myself in a deeply unusual situation, as it has been difficult to disagree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said thus far. Nevertheless, specifically on new clause 1 and geographical reach, will the Secretary of State’s report cover Northern Ireland and Scotland, or will it not?
Tim Loughton
I see the point the hon. Gentleman is getting to. My earlier, cruder attempts were to amend the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, which is UK-wide. We have civil partnerships in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, but we do not have same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. That is the point of his amendments, and we will come to that. Absolutely, I want to extend civil partnerships to all same-sex couples in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England; it is a UK-wide measure.
I appreciate that the Minister is not in a position to table amendments in Committee, so soon after the Supreme Court judgment. I absolutely appreciate that the process is perhaps a little more complex than the one-line amendment to the 2004 Act that formed the basis of my previous, very short, Bills. I also appreciate that the Minister stated, as did the Secretary of State before her, that she wanted to carry out a further consultation to gauge the demand for extending civil partnerships, despite their having been two previous consultations on it, both before and after the same-sex marriage Bill.
However, I can help the Minister on that score, thanks to Professor Anne Barlow, professor of family law and policy at the University of Exeter—an excellent university, which I shall attend tomorrow for the graduation of my elder daughter. She has surveyed extensively using the NatCen panel survey technique, which is a probability-based online and telephone survey that robustly selects its panel to ensure that it is as nationally representative as possible. She commissioned that work in February 2018, around the time of my Bill’s Second Reading but ahead of the Supreme Court judgment.
That format can turn around surveys within eight weeks of their being commissioned. The professor’s survey had a sample of more than 2,000, which I gather is double the amount the Government intended to survey, and which they were to take at least 10 months to do. I am sure it is much cheaper to do it Professor Barlow’s way. Her survey posed the question, “How much do you agree or disagree that a man and woman should be able to form a civil partnership as an alternative to getting married?” It found that 35.3% agreed strongly, 36%.7 agreed, 21.1% neither agreed nor disagreed, only 4.5% disagreed and only 2.5% disagreed strongly. More than 70%—even better than the Brexit referendum—of those 2,000 people absolutely thought that civil partnerships should be made available to all.
The work has been done for the Minister, and for free. Perhaps she can tell me what surveying has already taken place—we were promised it would start in May—what further surveying the Government think is necessary and what they will produce at the end of it. The ball is in the Government’s court. How and when will they comply with the Supreme Court’s clear ruling, particularly given the absolute clarity of their lordships’ statements about the delay that has already taken place?
It is perfectly feasible for us to amend on Report the terms of the Bill as it now stands. I will propose the amendments and the new clause as they are on the Order Paper, but with a view to the possibility of revisiting them at the end of October, if that is when Report takes place. That gives the Government more than three months to decide their course of action. I will work constructively with the Minister to bring about that change, and then lots of people can be very happy rather sooner than the Government had perhaps intended.
I will comment on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West when we discuss them. Amendments 11 and 13 would amend the long title of the Bill, so that it would say
“to make provision for a report on civil partnerships”.
That is the crux of these technical amendments, but there is very much a piece of work overhanging it. We know what we want to do and the Supreme Court has told the Government what they need to do. We need to hear from the Government how they will do it.
Victoria Atkins
Civil partnerships were introduced in 2004 to enable same-sex couples to formalise their relationships, at a time when same-sex marriage was not available to them. Since then, we are proud to be the Government who introduced marriage for same-sex couples. At last, same-sex couples are able to celebrate their relationships in the same way that other couples have for centuries.
However, putting right this obvious inequality has meant that we now have a situation in England and Wales where same-sex couples can enter into either a marriage or a civil partnership while opposite-sex couples can only get married. Therefore, earlier this year we announced a plan of work to address that inequality, including a research programme which was to run until 2019, assessing the demand for, and impact of, the various options.
The recent Supreme Court judgment in the Steinfeld case, however, emphasises the need to address the issue. In response, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities recently announced that, in the interest of making good progress, we would bring forward elements of our research on the future of civil partnerships, with a view to concluding it later this year. We recognise the sensitive and personal issues involved in the Steinfeld case, and we acknowledge—as the Supreme Court does—the genuine convictions of the couple involved and those who have campaigned alongside them.
Clause two, as amended, will place a duty on the Government to prepare and present before Parliament a report setting out how the law on civil partnerships should change and how we plan to achieve that. It will also ensure that the voice of those affected is taken into account during the decision-making process, by providing for a public consultation.
Gareth Thomas
Does the Minister expect the report to cover Northern Ireland?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He knows that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 covers both Scotland and Northern Ireland, but both civil partnership and marriage are devolved matters. It would, therefore, be up to the relevant Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland as to how civil partnership and marriage should be regulated and administered, just as it was their decision to be included in the 2004 Act. He also knows the particular issues in Northern Ireland at the moment, and the Government do not feel that this private Member’s Bill is the place to resolve those issues. It has to be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and I am sure that he will join me in wishing that it will reconfigure as soon as possible.
To return to the issue of progress, much work has already been done and we were very much spurred on by the Bill’s Second Reading, but of course even more urgency has been added by the Supreme Court judgment. The Government proposed to conduct four research measures. The reason the original deadline was 2019 was that there was going to be five years’ worth of research on the numbers of marriages and civil partnerships. We now propose to bring forward that deadline, so there will be four years of research instead of five.
We have also started the Office for National Statistics lifestyle survey—that is happening now—to calculate the projected number of opposite-sex couples who would wish to enter into civil partnerships. The third strand of research in on how other countries have dealt with civil partnerships and marriages, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has set out. The fourth category is a qualitative survey of same-sex couples in civil partnerships, because we are very conscious of the need to tread carefully for those couples who are already in civil partnerships.
That was all wrapped up in the Command Paper, which was presented in May. As the Secretary of State has said, the clause will shorten the research programme so that it can report to Parliament with urgency, and we will include a public consultation so that members of the public can also contribute their views.
My hon. Friend urged on me that this private Member’s Bill should be the vehicle to drive forward civil partnerships. He makes a very important point. We know we need to move quickly. At the moment, the Bill is the immediate vehicle to do that, but we are also considering other options and we want to reach a conclusion that creates equality as soon as is viable. We acknowledged, even in advance of the Supreme Court judgment, that the law needs to change, so a great deal of work is being done and the Bill will help with that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. If the Government are committed to equality on this issue, and if they have separately given undertakings that they will not withdraw the option of same-sex civil partnerships, there appears to be a certain logic that we are moving in a particular direction. Although I appreciate that the timetable has been advanced, perhaps the Minister could reiterate that that is the position. It would give comfort if she could give as much guidance as possible on what the vehicle will be following the consultation and tell us how quickly the change in the law is likely to come about.
Victoria Atkins
I regret that I cannot offer such assistance at the moment. I feel a sense of impatience with many parts of my ministerial portfolio but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have to act on evidence: we have to commit to a public consultation and review the evidence. As I have said, we are working closely on the issue. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham agrees with him on shortening the length of our research programme. We must ensure that we observe the Supreme Court guidance in the important Steinfeld case and that we follow not only the letter but the spirit of the law. I am delighted that the Bill provides us with a platform not only to report to Parliament, but to give the public the opportunity to give their thoughts on how the legislation should develop.
Gareth Thomas
Prior to tabling new clause 1, what discussions did the Minister have with Ministers in Scotland and those who previously served as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Victoria Atkins
I am just looking for guidance. I personally have not had discussions. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is no Assembly at the moment in Northern Ireland, so it is difficult to have discussions with an organisation that does not currently exist. He might be aware of recent litigation in Northern Ireland that questioned the way in which the Government have tried to deal with the conundrum of the Northern Ireland Assembly and how its absence has caused delays in other fields of legislation. There has been a lot of toing and froing on how that will progress.
I am conscious that I have not addressed in detail amendments (a), (b) and (c), which were tabled by the hon. Gentleman. I seek guidance on the procedure.
Gareth Thomas
For the avoidance of doubt, when the Minister sits down I shall speak to the amendments and then I will be delighted to hear her response.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Procedure is confounding us all on this hot summer’s afternoon. In response to his earlier intervention, I am told that Scotland has conducted its own consultation, as one would expect given that it is a devolved matter. Indeed, it was quick to move on civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. I hope that addresses his point. Given that he is going to speak to his own amendments, I am delighted to accept new clause 1 and look forward to further discussions.
Gareth Thomas
As a near neighbour it is a particular privilege for me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It was a weak and vulnerable moment when I agreed to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), knowing that he would not be here. I say that because, as all hon. Members will be aware, on 28 March he made an impassioned speech promoting his private Member’s Bill to make provision for the marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland and to end an inequality with which we are all familiar and which I suspect, although I do not know for certain, all Committee members want to see an end to as a matter of urgency.
I am, therefore, slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response. She rightly alluded to the very difficult situation in Northern Ireland, but as my hon. Friend asked in March, why should the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended mean that same-sex couples in Northern Ireland who want to get married are denied that right? New clause 1, in which the Minister has agreed to ensure that the Secretary of State prepares a report, seems to be an opportunity to make progress.
Most political parties in Northern Ireland already support same-sex marriage, and a broad coalition is already very active in campaigning on this issue. Opinion polls in Northern Ireland continue to demonstrate considerable support for allowing same-sex marriage, so I struggle to see why the Secretary of State cannot seek to advance the case for change in Northern Ireland through the report. Why, for example, cannot the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary not consult political parties in Northern Ireland? Why cannot they ensure that there is a consultation with other civil society organisations to continue the process of building support for change? Why cannot the Government commit to saying what they will do if it becomes clear—although we all hope that this will not be the case—that the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be re-established?
I support the report as it stands, as it will make progress in England and Wales, but it represents a missed opportunity for making progress in Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will reflect on the opportunity that new clause 1 and the report represent in moving forward the agenda in Northern Ireland for same-sex marriage.
Andy Slaughter
I fully support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North, and I am particularly persuaded by the eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.
I will briefly address the new clause. I pay huge tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has pursued this issue through the many avenues available to us. He has put together the pieces of the jigsaw such that we now have very powerful arguments for this substantial change to legislation, which will enable millions of people across the country to enter into legally binding and protected arrangements, and which will be very good for them and the security of their families. On those grounds alone, the Government should support it.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has said, this anomaly should not have occurred in the first place. We heard from the Minister about the good progress that the Government have made—gradually at first, but now at an accelerated rate. The final piece of the jigsaw should be the Supreme Court judgment. I attended when it was handed down, in part because my constituents Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan doggedly pursued their case despite the difficulty—and let us not underestimate this—of the four-year process of going through every higher court and getting first of all a knock-back, then a partial encouragement, and then a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. That decision said to the Government, in judicial language—I have not seen this in a judgment before—“Can you please get a move on here and hurry up?” I think that message has got through to the Minister.
Putting the jigsaw together has been a painstaking process. The pressure is on the Government now, with all the indications given, hopes raised and options ruled out. A consultation is now under way and there must be mechanism—of which the Bill is an important part but not the end—to put the measure into law.
The law will be changed at some point to allow opposite-sex civil partnerships. However long overdue that unfinished business is, we must welcome it. This is an important stage of the process, where the Government have a chance to set out their intentions at length, so it would be helpful if the Minister could set out, as far as possible, the mechanism and timescale involved. Every possible encouragement has been given by the House, the Supreme Court and the public at large, who are hugely supportive. As we have heard, this is a matter of some urgency for some families.
I congratulate all those involved in the process. It has been a good example of successful joint working across many institutions and bodies. We just want the Minister to explain where we go next.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Members for Harrow West and for Hammersmith for their comments. The hon. Member for Harrow West knows the political situation in Northern Ireland. In fairness, the issues have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly—and to the Scottish Parliament. There are no members of the Scottish National party here, but there is a Scottish Member present, and I am not sure how the Scottish Parliament, the matter having been devolved to it, would take a report from the Secretary of State telling it what to do. Given that it has already held a consultation—perhaps I am speculating here—it might have matters in hand anyway.
Mr Carmichael
I served on the Standing Committee on the Civil Partnership Bill in 2004. It was dealt with here with a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. The feeling at the time was that that was an easier way of doing it—another pragmatic step along this long road. I am reliably informed that there are fairly good telephone services between London and Edinburgh. It would not be that difficult to work out the Scottish Government’s intentions.
Victoria Atkins
Given that this is a private Member’s Bill, I am afraid that we feel constrained to observe the political fact—as well as the political courtesy—that the matters are devolved. I understand the motivations of those who want change across the whole UK, but I regret that on this we must observe the fact that the matter is devolved. Not only must we underline our view that the Bill is not the right place in which to grapple with the political situation in Northern Ireland; we must allow it to resolve what are devolved matters.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith made a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents on Second Reading. I understand his wish for a timetable. At the moment, we have the timetable set out by the private Member’s Bill. The work is ongoing. Those who assist me and the officials have a great understanding of the urgency of the situation. We want to get to a position where we have the evidence and we have ensured that we have lined up all the other matters connected to an act of civil partnership and the issues that flow from that for other Departments. The Secretary of State is always in listening mode, as am I. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
Tim Loughton
Obviously I would like the Minister to go further, but will she at least acknowledge that it is in principle possible to amend the Bill on Report, were that to be at the end of October, to satisfy the findings of the Supreme Court? Alternatively, she alluded to the possibility, without going into detail, of an even faster way of doing it, in which case the Government’s priority is to do this as rapidly as possible, but hopefully no later than on Report.
Victoria Atkins
I regret to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am but a small cog in the Government machinery. Although, as my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State is very much seized of the matter and concerned by it, I would not want to take the risk, respecting this Committee and colleagues from all parts of the House as I do, of speculating at this stage.
Mr Carmichael
I very much endorse the views of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Given the terms of the Supreme Court judgment, I encourage the Minister to represent to those whose agreement she will need within Government that at the very least we should be entitled to some sort of timetable, so that we know the Government’s intentions in bringing UK law back into compliance with the European Court of Human Rights.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so, and these discussions will assist others who are perhaps not intimately involved in these matters in understanding the concern that Members from all parts of the House have on the urgency of the situation.
I regret that I have to resist strongly the amendments put forward in the name of the hon. Member for St Helens North, which were spoken to with great eloquence by the hon. Member for Harrow West. The Government support new clause 1, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
Tim Loughton
I rise to respond to the amendments that the hon. Member for Harrow West spoke to. In principle, I am very supportive of them. That may be a slight surprise, as I was not the biggest fan of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for reasons at the time, but it has become law and the world has not fallen in. It will remain law, and I certainly would not vote to change it.
I believe in law for the United Kingdom. We have the present dilemma over the availability of abortion, but I support the rights for women to be able to access abortion in just the same way as the United States—crikey, not the United States; that is a whole different ball game. I support the rights for women to be able to access abortion in Northern Ireland in just the same way as in any other part of the United Kingdom. Similarly, if we are to have equality in civil partnership and same-sex marriage, they should be available to every citizen or subject in Northern Ireland in the same way as they are for someone in London, Edinburgh or Cardiff.
I have no problem in principle with supporting what the hon. Member for Harrow West is trying to do. If his hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North had needed to take his ten-minute rule Bill on the subject to a vote, I would have happily voted for that, but I just request that this is not the Bill to do it—I have enough work on my hands as it is trying to get the Bill through both Houses without adding a whole dimension that involves the Democratic Unionist party and certain other forces in Northern Ireland. It could kibosh the entire Bill. The Minister has given her view, and we can have a separate debate about what happens about making law in Northern Ireland in the absence of its Assembly. I will continue to support the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for St Helens North, but I would ask that the amendments to this Bill in his name, which have been well and truly probed, are not pressed to a vote. They might cause ruptures in this Bill, which I do not want. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow West will see my reasoning for that.
The Minister is certainly not just a cog in the Government machine; she is a substantial part of the winding mechanism and is going places, as we all know. The problem here is that she is not in the Department that now has responsibility for equalities legislation, which part of the Bill relates to. Frustrating though that might be at this stage, there are conversations going on behind the scenes, and I know that she is constrained in what she can say, although I sense that she would like to be able to say more. The key point, however, is that the Government Minister responsible has made it very clear that abolishing civil partnerships is not an option to achieve equality, so the only option is to extend civil partnerships.
It has also been made clear that time is of the essence and too much delay has already taken place. That was the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling. I do not see what additional research, surveying or opinion polling is going to bring to the party. Frankly, it is academic, because this is a matter of equality. If the number of the 3.3 million cohabiting couples who came back and said, “Yes, we want to enter into a civil partnership” were a smaller proportion than anticipated, it would still be a proportion to whom the option of equality is not available, and it has not been since 2014, and that is in contravention of the European convention, as has been set out very clearly.
If the Minister wants numbers, one number that I would certainly like to repeat is that up to the end of 2016, 71,017 same-sex couples had entered into a civil partnership. Of those, just over 7,000 have been dissolved and 7,732 have been converted into a marriage. That is just 12% of civil partnerships, so the vast majority of those entering into same-sex civil partnerships who were then given the option of converting that into a marriage under the 2004 legislation chose not to. That suggests that there is a very significant demand for civil partnerships from those people who undertook them; for them, that is what they wanted to achieve. Although the numbers entering into new same-sex civil partnerships have fallen back substantially because there is now another choice, the number did go up last year. A substantial number of people would be left in a very exclusive and rather awkward little grouping of people if civil partnerships were to be abolished, and that is why it is not a victimless option.
If we come back to Northern Ireland, there is another dimension. If civil partnerships were to be abolished, nothing would be available in Northern Ireland—civil partnerships are available in Northern Ireland, but equal marriage is not—so same-sex couples in Northern Ireland would have absolutely no route to have their partnerships recognised with all the protections that the state brings, either through civil partnerships or through marriage. That would create a huge problem.
We need to make it clear that civil partnerships are here to stay. The sooner the Government say that on the record, in support of what the Secretary of State has already said—and the sooner that they say we are going to extend civil partnerships and have consulted—the better. I hope that the Minister and I can work closely together over the summer to see that whatever procedures need to happen, happen at pace, and that there is the intent and ambition to try to reconcile the matter in time for the Bill to be amended at a later stage. I am open to even speedier ways of achieving equality, if that is possible.
I just wanted to put those points on the record. The Minister is nodding to indicate that she has heard them, if not necessarily that she will agree to execute them. On that basis, I ask Members to support new clause 1 and the accompanying amendments 16, 11 and 13, and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harrow West not to press amendments (a) to (c) to new clause 1 to a vote.
Gareth Thomas
Having once successfully promoted a private Member’s Bill, I understand the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman faces, and I will not press the amendments.
Tim Loughton
I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I will sit down—let’s get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 3
Report on registration of pregnancy loss
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in the title, line 3, leave out
“about the registration of stillborn deaths”
and insert
“for a report on the registration of pregnancy loss”.
This amendment adjusts the long title so as better to reflect the contents of Clause 3.
Tim Loughton
We come to the subject of pregnancy loss. On Second Reading, many Committee members spoke with extraordinary passion and eloquence about stillbirth. I am sure that no one will object to me singling out the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I said at the time that Labour MPs often reduce Government Members to tears, but in that case she did so for the right reasons. That was a highly emotional part of the debate, in which we heard some really brave personal testimonies. The work that hon. Members have done—including the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and others through the all-party group on baby loss—has rightly raised the profile of this subject. The Government have done a lot as a result, but there is much more to do.
The Second Reading debate gave extra oxygen to the cause and generated great publicity. Celebrities such as Kym Marsh of “Coronation Street” should be applauded for lending their voices to the cause. The previous Health Secretary was greatly moved by that debate and, as a result, set up a working party. I will come back to that, but let me turn first to the guts of what the clause does and why it is necessary.
The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 provides for the registration of stillborn babies after 24 weeks’ gestation, which is considered to be the clinical age of viability. Parents of babies who are stillborn after 24 weeks’ gestation receive a medical certificate certifying the stillbirth and, upon registration, can register the baby’s name and receive a certificate of registration of stillbirth. When a pregnancy loss occurs before 24 weeks’ gestation, the hospital may, if the parents want it to, enter the baby’s name in a local book of remembrance or issue a local certificate to commemorate the pregnancy loss. That does not happen universally, and of course it does not carry any weight officially. Crucially, for many, that understandably just does not go far enough.
That was the case with my constituent Hayley Petts, who instigated my bringing the issue forward several years ago via a ten-minute rule Bill. I and many other hon. Members made it clear that we believe there should be official acknowledgement of pregnancy losses before 24 weeks’ gestation, which would otherwise be classified as stillbirths. It is only a simple matter of chronology that prevents them from being registered and, crucially, recognised by the state. We should therefore explore whether parents should be given the opportunity or the right to register such a loss. Clause 3 would require the Government to prepare a report on whether the law should be changed—and, if so, how—to require or permit the registration of pregnancy losses that cannot be registered as stillbirths under the 1953 Act.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am happy to be able to respond on this issue again and support the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and his efforts to secure this change.
How we feel about the issue will be born out of our own lived experiences for those of us who have lived experiences of baby loss and, in this case, pre-24-weeks baby loss. Those who were present at Second Reading or who have followed the Bill’s progress will know what my lived experience is, as I relived it on the Floor of the House, with lots of tears along the way. That was a very painful experience for me, and I do not intend to relive it again today, for which I am sure everyone will be grateful. However, for the benefit of the Committee and those who may not know, I will just briefly say that I had a stillborn baby girl at 23 and a half weeks. We called her Lucy, and she would have been 20 years old on 19 May this year. We had a naming ceremony for her in a room in the hospital—it was not a bereavement suite, because this was 20 years ago—and that was because of the thoughtfulness of the hospital chaplain, who went on to arrange Lucy’s burial with the Co-op funeral service, which did not charge anything. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has campaigned for burial fees and funeral costs to be waived in such cases, and the Government have committed to that, which is great, so things do move on—things are getting better—and that is what we are hoping to see here today.
As some hon. Members will know from the Second Reading debate, Lucy was buried in the same grave as my nana and grandad. When we got the deeds back, that was the start of me realising that Lucy formally did not exist, because I was horrified to see that it was my name on the deeds for the burial plot. I realised that that was because, legally, Lucy did not exist; it was a bit of me that was in the plot. I still cannot quite come to terms with that. I hope that it does not confuse whoever is burying someone in that plot next; will they think, “Oh, is Sharon Hodgson in here?” Hopefully I will not be.
I am not sure whether what we are proposing with this Bill would change any of what I have described, but I hope that it would change the feeling that I had nothing other than Lucy’s grave and a couple of photos to prove that she had existed. Also, I do not think that the Bill would change the fact that she is recorded in my medical notes as a miscarriage. Even while I was holding her in my arms—she was a fully formed baby—she was classed as a miscarriage, because she had not taken a breath. If she had, she would have been rushed to the special care baby unit at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, and, because it is one of the best in the country, she probably would indeed have celebrated her 20th birthday earlier this year.
The Bill will not change the miscarriage-recording fact, because we are not discussing viability, as we know where that would lead, and none of us wants to go down that path or open up the abortion debate with this Bill. However, I hope that the Bill will ensure that sensitivity about language and the use of language when the worst happens— especially in the pre-24-weeks period, for all the reasons that I have explained—is improved.
On the subject of what we hope that the Bill will do, I note that the review that the Bill instigated and which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about is still under way and has not yet reported. I also share his concern that we have managed to take part in only one of the three sessions so far, so lots of debate would already have happened in the review without the hon. Gentleman or me attending.
I have read through the policy statement from the Miscarriage Association that it probably has submitted to the review, and evidence submitted by the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss. I am proud to be one of vice-chairs of that group. Both groups make the case that any registration or certificate given should be on a voluntary not mandatory basis. I refer to page 4 of the all-party group’s evidence to the review, which states that there were 2,586 respondents to the survey that the Miscarriage Association carried out, and 93% of those responded said they had had experience of pregnancy loss themselves.
It will become clear where I am going with this: the overwhelming majority—74%—were in favour of permitting voluntary registration for pre-24 week loss, miscarriage, ectopic or molar pregnancy at any gestation, and 23% said that they felt that that option should be for only a certain gestation, the cut-off points varying from four to 23 weeks. Just under half of the 23%— 11% of all respondents—suggested that that cut-off point should be 12 weeks. In summary, among the respondents there is overwhelming majority support for allowing registration for pre-24 week pregnancy loss. Some form of registration for pre-24 weeks is agreed, and it seems to be agreed from those respondents that it should be voluntary.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Hayley, who first approached him about the issue with her twins, feels that it should not be a matter of voluntary or mandatory—I agree, because I do not like “mandatory”; I prefer “automatic”—for late-term miscarriage or very early stillbirths, whatever they are called. If it happened at over 24 weeks, it would not be, “You must have a death certificate”, it would just happen. I would not necessarily have liked to have been asked at that stage whether I wanted to have some sort of certificate of registration. It was bad enough that this awful trauma had just happened, without being asked to make a decision that I probably was not in a strong enough position to make. I understand that the Government say that people would have 42 days to make that decision, but I come back to it being automatic at a certain stage.
I have looked at the survey questions in detail—I am not an expert on surveys or questionnaires, although I am pulling apart my clinical commissioning group questionnaire at the moment—and I think it is a fair set of questions. But by the rules of mathematics, it will have been weighted to receive more responses from people who may have suffered, or are connected to someone who had had, a miscarriage from conception to pre-20 weeks, rather than those from 20 weeks to pre-24 weeks. Among the 2,586 people, the latter group will have been smaller than the nought to 20 weeks group. Of the survey respondents, 93% had suffered a pregnancy loss, but I do not think they were asked when that pregnancy loss was. I hazard that if a further survey were done that separated those two groups we might be able to see a difference in the answers. That is something the review should do when it is trying to form an opinion about whether it should be automatic—I will not use the term “mandatory”, because people automatically get a birth certificate or a death certificate after 24 weeks—rather than voluntary.
Victoria Atkins
I apologise for my voice, Mr Sharma; I am suffering from end-of-term lurgy. I hope hon. Members can hear me. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham again for this part of his Bill, and I emphasise that the Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS provides the safest and highest quality care. That is particularly true for maternity services.
Sadly, some pregnancies will end in the death of a much-loved and wanted baby. Although the care considerations for still births and pre-24 weeks pregnancy losses may be similar, in practice, local factors may have an impact on the support parents receive, depending on the gestation stage of the loss. Registration and certification can be an important part of acknowledging a pregnancy loss, and that is why the Government fully support the need to look into the issue more closely.
Pregnancy loss is more common than people realise, and I thank all hon. Friends and hon. Members who have spoken in this place about their experiences, and who have educated those of us who have not had to endure the agony of losing a baby. I am bound to thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West for her contribution to the wider debate and in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who has done so much work on the issue across the House. That is why the Government have already committed to looking at whether the legislation should be changed to allow for the registration and certification of pregnancy losses before 24 weeks gestation.
We support the requirement in this clause that a report is prepared before we consider any changes, because of the obvious sensitivities involved. In conducting this review, the Government are engaging closely with health practitioners, registrars and charities. Most importantly, the review is speaking to parents who have lost a baby before 24 weeks, to learn about their experiences and how to ensure that they receive the best care and support possible when such a tragedy takes place.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West are on that panel. If I may say, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West has demonstrated the considerable weight of experience and the value that she will contribute to that panel. I know that hon. Members were not invited to the first meeting. I understand that it had already taken place before the Secretary of State insisted that both hon. Members sit on the panel. I know that the officials sitting behind me will ensure that future sessions of the panel are communicated properly to both hon. Members, so that they are able to contribute, as they clearly should. The work of the panel will inform the report that the clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for the great support from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. She shares my reservations about the way the committee is going. But with the comments we have made, and the support of the Minister and the new Health Minister, I think we will achieve a satisfactory conclusion in due course.
The hon. Lady also mentioned her daughter Lucy. It was mentioned on Second Reading that if this becomes law, it should be known as Lucy’s law. There was great agreement on that at the time. This affects too many women, and fathers too. It would cost nothing to put it right. A little effort would prevent an awful lot more angst for parents who have already been through this traumatic situation.
The clause only commits to having a report at this stage, but there is an expectation that the Government will want to turn that report into legislative change—into action—to complement the good work that is going on to prevent anybody from being in the iniquitous position of realising that their child is not officially recognised by the state, by substantially reducing the number of stillbirths and miscarriages.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Coroners’ investigations into still-births
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 4, page 2, line 18, leave out “whether, and if so how,” and insert “how”.
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State’s report would examine how the law should be changed, and not whether it should be changed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 4, page 2, line 22, after “must” insert “, within six months of the passing of this Act,”.
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State’s report must be published within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 15, in the title, line 4, leave out “give coroners the power to investigate stillborn deaths” and insert “make provision about the investigation of still-births”.
This amendment adjusts the long title so as better to reflect the contents of Clause 4.
Gareth Thomas
Again, it was a moment of weakness when I agreed, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South, to speak to her amendments, because I had not realised quite how much commitment she had already shown to the subjects in these amendments. As hon. Members, will know, she has had personal experience, through her constituency, of these issues. She had secured from the previous Secretary of State for Health a commitment that the law would be changed. She is, therefore, anxious to use these probing amendments to explore whether the Government have slightly changed their mind or are going slow, and what the timescale is for the Government to move on the previous Secretary of State’s commitment in his maternity safety strategy. In that strategy, he said that he would work with the Ministry of Justice to produce a report on the issues before full-term stillbirths could be classed as neonatal deaths. That report was published in Hansard.
The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South who motivated her to table this amendment—Jack and Sarah—lost their daughter, Harriet, in labour. I understand that Sarah had a scan at 38 weeks and the baby appeared to be doing well. Sarah was in labour for six days and Harriet died during that time. The death was classified as a stillbirth and, according to the current law, because Harriet was not born alive her death could not be investigated.
Both Harriet’s parents are medical professionals and they knew that something was wrong with the care that they had received. When the internal review found no fault with the care that they had been given, they fought extremely hard to get an external review. That external review found that Harriet’s death was almost certainly preventable. Following that review, Harriet’s parents have campaigned extensively to change the law, so that coroners can investigate stillbirths that occur past 37 weeks.
I press the point that surely a baby’s death should be treated no differently from any other death. In that sense, the coroner represents an independent judicial office, and therefore any inquest into the death would be truly independent and transparent. A coroner would be able to address local issues at a particular hospital or unit where there were concerns about the care arrangements, by making references to other statutory bodies.
As I say, it had appeared that the former Secretary of State for Health was committed to making changes, but the caveat in clause 4(1)—the reference to
“whether…the law ought to be changed”—
has raised some concerns about whether there has been any slowing-down of commitment or even—I hesitate to say it—backtracking. In the spirit of a probing amendment, I hope that the Minister will reassure us and commit to a timescale for moving things forward.
I apologise to you, Mr Sharma, and the Committee because I have a long-standing commitment and if the debate on this amendment goes beyond 4.30 pm, I will have to read the comments of the Minister and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who promoted this Bill, in Hansard. However, I hope that the Minister will give us the response that we need.
Tim Loughton
On that basis, we will do things very quickly. I will comment on amendments 17 and 18, which the hon. Gentleman has moved. However, I will just need to speak to clause 4 stand part and amendment 15, which has been tabled in my name and that of the Minister.
Amendment 17 addresses the issue of coroners having the power to investigate. Currently, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, coroners have a duty to investigate deaths in certain circumstances, such as where the death is violent or unnatural, or where the cause of death is unknown. Of course, that duty extends to the deaths of newborns of any age, including those who die immediately after birth, but there the duty stops.
So coroners do not have jurisdiction to investigate if a baby showed no signs of life independent of the mother, including if the baby died during labour. The reason for this is that coroners can only investigate deaths where there has first been life and that is obviously not the case for a stillborn child. However, as it says in the title of the clause, they were still born. Nevertheless, the coroner, under the current legislation, does not have the power to investigate stillbirths, however difficult the circumstances might be. The coroner can investigate when there is doubt about whether a baby was stillborn or was born alive, but they cannot investigate the circumstances of why a baby was stillborn if that is what they find.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Just so I am absolutely clear, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the matter can be handled through regulation, and the whole matter will be clarified? Or will we have to revisit it?
Tim Loughton
The clause is an enabling clause. It gives Ministers the power to give authority to coroners to investigate stillbirths. It empowers them to do that by amending the 2009 Act; the matter would not need to be revisited. The exact terms on which Ministers will give the power is subject to the report that is being prepared.
To return to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, the work is happening now and a number of coroners have contributed to it, including the West Sussex coroner, Penelope Schofield, who brought the issue to me and asked me to include it in the Bill in the first place. She has been impressed by the input of the officials involved, and by the progress that the group preparing the report is making. For example, there seems to be a consensus for giving coroners powers to investigate full-term stillbirths—at 37 weeks onwards. Those are the ones that might be considered least likely, in comparison to those closer to 24 weeks, when the position is more delicate, and therefore more questions need to be asked. In some cases it might require a coroner to ask those questions.
That is probably a good starting point, and if, with experience of coroners investigations, it appears that the term in question should be brought forward, the issue can be revisited later. However, an important starting point is set out, which will give confidence to parents who have suffered a stillbirth that in a small number of cases—it is not a question of flooding coroners with an awful lot of additional work—if the questions have not been answered, the full independence and weight of open inquiry that a coroner can bring to bear will be available to them.
Coroners have made it clear to me that they are sufficiently resourced to deal with the likely demand. As well as being important for parents, the change could mean a financial saving, because getting to the bottom of why many stillbirths happen would make it possible to learn more. We might avoid some long drawn-out and contentious legal cases, on which the NHS pays out a lot of money.
For the reasons I have set out, I urge hon. Members to support the clause—and amendment 15 to the long title. I hope that my assurances will enable the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw what he says, because the intention is for coroners to do the work. I think that there was a worry that it would not be coroners, but the measure is all about coroners.
There has been good progress with the report, and I hope that more information may come back even before Report, to be confirmed in the Bill. However, the clause is an enabling clause that would give the Secretary of State the power to allow coroners to investigate stillbirths.
Victoria Atkins
I shall speed through, in view of the time. I assure the Committee that the Government agree completely that there is a need to look at the role coroners could play in investigating stillbirths. A great deal is already being done. For example, improvements are already under way in the NHS, including the newly-established Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which investigates full-term intrapartum stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and severe brain injuries that occur during labour. The improvements meet the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists criteria for the Each Baby Counts programme. However, we agree that we should look at how coroners may add to that learning and to prevention of stillbirths in the future.
The Government have already committed to looking into the question of coroners investigating full-term stillbirths and support the requirement in the clause that a report is prepared before we make any changes. There are important and sensitive issues to explore, including what powers a coroner should have to undertake any investigation such as the ordering of post-mortems and when any duty to investigate should apply. We also need to consider how we can maximise the learning from each coroner’s investigation.
Our concern is that amendment 17 would prejudge the findings of the report and the discussions that the Government are having with the many stakeholders in this area. We would not be able to look at whether there should be a role for coroners; it rather assumes that there should be one. We submit respectfully that that is not the correct approach. While many bereaved parents who may have had difficult experiences will want a coroner to carry out an investigation into stillbirths, we need to consider alternative experiences. Some parents may find the formal coronial process too distressing—it may be too much for them on top of the investigation the NHS would carry out—and they may want the official processes to be over so they can find the wherewithal to deal with their grief. They may not want to go through an additional official process before they begin to mourn.
On amendment 18, while the Government agree that we should move quickly, we must not be constrained in time to reach the right conclusions, which are what every member of the Committee is concerned to achieve. It is important that the report is thorough and all views are considered carefully. We want to explore in detail whether and in what circumstances a coroner may investigate stillbirths, and that will take some time. We are not dragging our feet. We have already begun the review on which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has given some details. That demonstrates our commitment to making progress as quickly as possible and, if change should be made, to make it in a timely manner. While I cannot commit to timescales, I consider that good progress is being made.
Officials have already engaged with a number of stakeholders, including bereaved parents, the Chief Coroner and senior coroners, medical professional bodies and organisations involved in research and support to those who have experienced stillbirth. I thank all those who have given their time for that. Once the report has been published, clause 4 will provide the Lord Chancellor with a power to amend part 1 of the 2009 Act to enable or require coroners to conduct investigations into stillbirths. The Government support the clause and invite the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw his amendment.
Gareth Thomas
As I said in my opening remarks, these are probing amendments. I hope that before we get to Report the Minister might be willing to brief my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South on the progress of the review and where the Government’s initial thinking is on that. That would be helpful and would give confidence to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the Opposition, who support my hon. Friend’s work in this area, would not want to delay the Bill further.
Gareth Thomas
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tim Loughton
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment and Amendment 4 make a drafting change in response to Amendments 5 and 7 and NC3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 26, leave out “Investigation regulations may” and insert
‘After the report has been published, the Lord Chancellor may by regulations’.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 2, line 43, leave out “Investigation” and insert “The”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsections (8) and (9)
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out “investigation regulations may be made” and insert
‘regulations may be made under this section’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 3 and 4.
New clause 3—Supplementary provision about regulations—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend the Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales;
(b) make other provision in consequence of regulations under section (Marriage registration).
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in consequence of regulations under section 4.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may include provision amending, repealing or revoking provision made by or under primary legislation (whenever passed or made).
(4) Regulations under this Act may make—
(a) different provision for different purposes;
(b) provision generally or for specific cases;
(c) provision subject to exceptions;
(d) incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(5) Regulations under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument that contains (with or without other provision) regulations under this Act that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament;
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(c) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
(e) a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England;
“Registrar General” has the meaning given by section (Marriage registration)(7).’.
This new clause makes supplementary provision about regulations under the Act.
Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 13, at end insert
‘only, subject to subsection (1A).
‘(1A) Section (Supplementary provision about regulations) and this section extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.’.
The amendment enables consequential amendments to be made to UK-wide legislation (even though the substantive changes to the law will relate to England and Wales only).
Tim Loughton
We are almost there. Amendments 3 to 7 are minor technical amendments to clause 4 to improve the drafting in light of the amendments to clause 1, although those do not materially affect the operation of the provisions. Amendments 9 and 10 amend clause 5: Extent, commencement and short title. Amendment 9 enables consequential amendments to be made to UK-wide legislation, although the substantive changes to legislation relate to England and Wales. Amendment 10 makes provision for the Bill to come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is pretty good.
New clause 3 makes supplementary provision about regulations under the Act. Paragraph (1)(b) of the new clause enables the Secretary of State to make consequential provision in respect of regulations amending the Marriage Act 1949 made under clause 1 of the Bill. Paragraph (1)(a) of the new clause contains the power to make a consequential amendment that enables the Secretary of State to amend by regulations the rarely used Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales.
Subsection (2) of the new clause is a technical measure to make an equivalent power in clause 4(6) of the Bill to the new clause for the sake of good drafting. The power enables the Lord Chancellor to make consequential provision in respect of regulations amending part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 made under clause 4. Regulations made under subsections (1) or (2) may include provision to amend, repeal or revoke provisions made under primary legislation. Hon. Members may wish to note that the amendment changes the Henry VIII power, limiting the power to consequential amendments rather than incidental or supplemental ones. This is in line with the marriage registration powers. It limits powers to those that in practice are likely to be used, rather than allowing a wider power. It also amends the parliamentary procedure so that only regulations that amend, repeal or revoke any provision in primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring oversight in both Houses of Parliament by virtue of subsection (6) of the new clause. It is as simple as that, Mr Sharma, with apologies to Hansard. [Laughter.]
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 26, leave out “Investigation regulations may” and insert
“After the report has been published, the Lord Chancellor may by regulations”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (6)
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 2, line 43, leave out “Investigation” and insert “The”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsections (8) and (9)
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out “investigation regulations may be made” and insert ‘regulations may be made under this section’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 3 and 4.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 13, at end insert
“only, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Section (Supplementary provision about regulations) and this section extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
The amendment enables consequential amendments to be made to UK-wide legislation (even though the substantive changes to the law will relate to England and Wales only).—(Tim Loughton.)
Tim Loughton
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 5, page 3, line 14, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
‘( ) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
The amendment provides for the Bill to come into force two months after it receives Royal Assent.
Tim Loughton
This is just the fiddly bit at the end of the Bill, which I am sure hon. Members will not want to be detained much longer on. The amendment deals with the extent, commencement and short title. It comes into force when the Secretary of State decides and is tied down to two months after the Act is passed. The rest of the clause is absolutely self-explanatory. I therefore propose that the clause stand part of the Bill and I hope that the amendment is accepted by the Committee. I am sure no one will argue with that.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 3
Supplementary provision about regulations
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend the Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales;
(b) make other provision in consequence of regulations under section (Marriage registration).
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in consequence of regulations under section 4.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may include provision amending, repealing or revoking provision made by or under primary legislation (whenever passed or made).
(4) Regulations under this Act may make—
(a) different provision for different purposes;
(b) provision generally or for specific cases;
(c) provision subject to exceptions;
(d) incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(5) Regulations under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument that contains (with or without other provision) regulations under this Act that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—
‘primary legislation’ means—
(a) an Act of Parliament;
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(c) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
(e) a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England;
‘Registrar General’ has the meaning given by section (Marriage registration)(7).”—(Tim Loughton.)
This new clause makes supplementary provision about regulations under the Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Title
Amendments made: 11, in the title, line 1, leave out from beginning to “make”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 13, reflects the changes proposed by Amendment 1 and NC1.
Amendment 12, in the title, line 2, leave out from first “of” to “to” in line 3 and insert “marriage;”.
This amendment reflects the changes proposed by Amendment 2 and NC2.
Amendment 13, in the title, line 3, after “partnership;” insert
“to make provision for a report on civil partnerships;”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 11.
Amendment 14, in the title, line 3, leave out
“about the registration of stillborn deaths”
and insert
“for a report on the registration of pregnancy loss”.
This amendment adjusts the long title so as better to reflect the contents of Clause 3.
Amendment 15, in the title, line 4, leave out
“give coroners the power to investigate stillborn deaths”
and insert
“make provision about the investigation of still-births”.—(Tim Loughton.)
This amendment adjusts the long title so as better to reflect the contents of Clause 4.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Tim Loughton
On a point of order, Mr Sharma. May I thank you for expertly chairing all the technical bits in particular of proceedings? I thank right hon. and hon. Members for attending, staying here in this heat and agreeing with so much of the Bill, and for all their contributions. I also thank the Minister, and I will particularly thank her when she produces the goods on civil partnerships, as we hope she will do in the next few months.
I also thank Linda Edwards in the Home Office who has worked tirelessly to advise not just the Minister but me, at all times of the day and night, to try to bring clarity to very technical procedures. We have got through them today in two hours and six minutes, which is no mean feat.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Friday 26th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 October 2018 - (26 Oct 2018)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 3, line 12, leave out clause 2.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I pay tribute to the Minister who has just spoken, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler)? Her speech was a masterpiece of clarity, conciseness and succinctness on a Friday morning on which there is important business to proceed with.
We had a very thorough and constructive Committee stage. I thank all the Members who took part in it, as well as the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). She is not in the Chamber today, but she has been part of the Bill process. I welcome the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who I hope will deftly manage the Bill without incident on its passage through these important stages. I am sure she will want to carry on the continuity of support that the Government have given, because there is very widespread support from both sides of the House for all four major parts of this Bill. Virtually all of them are now Government policy, so there is no reason why they should not want it to proceed. I anticipate that today should be a breeze, and that we can get on to the Third Reading of my Bill and swiftly go on to the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, which so many of us support. We offer our good wishes to the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who cannot be in the Chamber today.
Since the Committee sitting on 18 July, there has been a crucial change regarding the extension of civil partnerships, which is why the new clause and the amendment are necessary. That change is of course the announcement by the Prime Minister through the medium of the media—namely, the Evening Standard, on 2 October —when the Government confirmed that, for the first time ever, gay and straight people will have the same choices in life, which will be achieved by new laws to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. There are now some 3.3 million such couples cohabiting in the United Kingdom. That was welcome news, and I was expecting a call beforehand from the Government to discuss how we could collaborate on my Bill to bring about that Government policy in the speediest and most effective way.
The change was of course spurred on by the ruling of the Supreme Court on 27 June, in the case of Steinfeld and Keidan, which revealed that the Government were in breach of the European convention on human rights. That followed a nearly four-year battle by Rebecca and Charles, which was almost as long as my own campaign in Parliament on this subject. I have proposed amendments going back as far as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, I had a subsequent private Member’s Bill and of course there is the ballot Bill that we are debating today.
Sandy Martin
May I offer the hon. Gentleman my congratulations on achieving this step forward? As he will remember, I intervened on him on Second Reading about the necessity of treating everyone equally according to the law. Obviously, everyone could be treated equally badly; I am glad that everyone is now going to be treated equally well.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman quite rightly spoke very eloquently and with his own personal experience in support of this part of the Bill on Second Reading, for which I was very grateful, and that was very effective.
As I say, I was not warned about this advance in Government policy by the Prime Minister, and I have not really been briefed since about exactly what it amounts to. At the moment, I have no idea whether the Government will now accept this new clause, will vote against it, or will allow debate to go on—perhaps beyond 2.30 pm today. Frankly, if there are objections from the Government, I hope they will be based on fact, not conjecture or some of the scare stories about what my new clause might actually achieve. However, I have been involved in some very helpful discussions with the lead officials in the Government Equalities Office on civil partnerships legislation, and of course the continued support of the excellent lead official from the Home Office on this Bill, Linda Edwards.
The problem the new clause addresses is that at no point have the Government indicated a timeline or a method for bringing the extension of civil partnerships into effect. Delay and obfuscation was a major criticism in the ruling by the Supreme Court earlier in the year. More than three months after the Supreme Court ruling, the Government have simply indicated that they will address the inequality by extending civil partnerships, rather than abolishing them. Abolishing them was never a practical option, but that confirmation is very welcome.
Four months on, the Government have not indicated a timeline, despite the urgency factor pressed by the judges. If we read the Supreme Court ruling, we can see that it absolutely highlights the fact that the Government could have acted before now. On several occasions, it refers to this private Member’s Bill and my previous one as a way of rectifying this matter. It actually criticises my private Member’s Bill for not being tougher in proceeding with a change in the law on a timeline, rather than just agreeing to have a report, which I had to do to get the Bill through Second Reading and into Committee.
My Bill, with the addition of this new clause, is actually very helpful to the Government on a number of fronts. It confirms in law that civil partnerships will be equalised and that the breach with the convention will be rectified. It gives a clear cut-off date for the Government to get on and do it, and it would be effective before the end of next year. If this change goes through, a couple who have been looking to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage—for all the reasons we have debated at length—could make plans from the end of next year to make that a reality. Many people have waited years, and the Government have been on notice about this for years. This is now the time to end the delay.
Crucially, the new clause makes no prescription about the method, wording and reach of the legislative change that is required; that is entirely up to the Government. I know there are some technical matters still to be settled, and I do not want to dictate to them how we achieve that. That is why this is a very flexible amendment to what is a very flexible Bill.
I am afraid that the Government have had plenty of time. Back in the Second Reading debate on 2 February, the then Minister stated at the Dispatch Box about this Bill:
“There is a sense of urgency—very much so.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1122.]
Yet, since that time, the Government have not been able to report on the progress of the review work that was announced then, and they did not do so in Committee in July either. Indeed, I gather that the Government Equalities Office was given the go-ahead to undertake much of the review work only in the past few weeks.
I remind the House that that is on the back of two full-blown reviews in the past few years of the whole subject of extending civil partnerships. This must be the most over-reviewed piece of legislation that this House has seen for some time. Why has it all moved so slowly, not least since the Supreme Court ruling that made it inevitable that the law would have to change—and change quickly? I pay tribute to the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign and to the now well over 130,000 people who have signed its petition for a change in the law. They are understandably growing impatient, and despite the Government’s announcement, they are sceptical in thinking that the legislative changes will be kicked into the long grass.
I gather that the Government plan to bring forward primary legislation in the next Session. That has been indicated in a written ministerial statement released only this morning—at the last moment. I am always rather sceptical of ministerial statements from the Dispatch Box or in written form at the eleventh hour. However, even if there is primary legislation in the next Session, it might be 2021 before a couple could actually take advantage of a civil partnership, and that is only if it is in the Queen’s Speech and survives the vagaries of the parliamentary timetable, which is likely to be under huge pressure during the next Session from potential emergency Brexit-related legislation.
I am afraid, however, that is just not good enough for me, for campaign supporters—including those with life-limiting conditions who are desperate to formulate a relationship while they can—or indeed for the Supreme Court. My Bill is the cleanest and quickest way to change the law, to satisfy the Supreme Court and, most importantly, to address a significant pent-up demand from couples who have waited for this change and the chance of equality for a long time. I cannot understand why the Government have not more proactively used my Bill as a vehicle for achieving that right from the start.
Ministers have put it around that the new clause is flawed and unworkable, but neither is true. I have discussed its wording and terms at length with Clerks of the House and lead officials from the Government Equalities Office, and because of flexibility in the wording of the Bill and new clause, the timetable can be achieved by using a truncated six-week review process. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament is currently undertaking its own review into the extension of civil partnerships, and I am sure that it would not mind if we just nicked that. A ready-made “one we made earlier” is on the table, and with a little tweaking it could go into the consultation process in a matter of weeks. A statutory instrument could then be designed in the new year, to be drafted by parliamentary counsel and put before Parliament ahead of the summer recess. I know that will be tight and demand a lot from officials—frankly, those officials would be better placed if they had been allowed to get on with the work when the writing was on the wall some time ago. However, it can be achieved in a way that enables the law to allow opposite-sex couples to enter a civil partnership before the end of 2019. That is what the new clause would do. The statutory instrument route gives greater flexibility on a subject which, frankly, we have debated almost to death. It is less vulnerable to the vagaries of the parliamentary timetable than primary legislation.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend considered civil partnerships when the relationship is platonic, such as between siblings who live together, and how to protect their future?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes a fair point that has been raised several times. Indeed, an amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 has been tabled in the other place to that effect. I have some sympathy with those changes, but for me they are largely a matter of taxation and an issue for the Treasury, because they mainly concern inheritance tax and other tax matters. My Bill is a social family Bill, and one reason for it is an attempt to cement family units and create greater stability for children—recognising a partnership in law, with all the protections that goes with that, is a good fillip for family stability. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a separate and largely financial issue, and I would be sympathetic to separate legislation that will not mess up my Bill but will address that point elsewhere.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I support him in his endeavours. Given his response to our hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), perhaps the Government should indicate that they will consider taxation relationships between people who have a relationship but not a partnership. That may involve siblings, or someone who has stayed at home to look after an elderly parent, but the current taxation arrangements are desperately unfair. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that that issue should not necessarily complicate the Bill.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is right. This Bill is about civil partnerships, which are a different sort of relationship. I know the issue is fraught with all sorts of nuances, but my original point stands.
Just this week, the Government announced that primary legislation could be introduced to prescribe food labelling in the light of the recent death of a customer of Pret a Manger and that those measures could be in place by next summer. No Supreme Court ruling hangs over that problem with the law, so why cannot we achieve today the change under discussion with the new clause to my Bill? If the Government allowed the amended Bill to proceed, they would send a strong and reassuring message about their real intent and put their money where their mouth is.
Tim Loughton
I will give way for the very last time, and then I will conclude my remarks.
Kevin Foster
Like my hon. Friend, I am keen for the provisions in the Bill to be introduced. Will he outline briefly why his new clause only covers provisions on civil partnerships when, for example, we have been waiting to get mothers’ names on marriage certificates for many years?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend pre-empts my closing remarks. If there is a problem getting this Bill through the House, it must be one of the most complicated private Member’s Bills there has ever been, which is my fault. It so happens, however, that all four tenets of the Bill are now Government policy, so there should not be a problem. We still have some way to go before, hopefully, the Bill passes to another place and becomes subject to the vagaries there. If we do not get there, there is the important issue of adding mothers’ names to wedding certificates—that has been an anomaly since the reign of Queen Victoria and should have been addressed ages ago. Now at last we can do it.
The Bill contains important provisions on allowing coroners to look into certain stillbirths, and again, huge cross-party support for that has been aired on many occasions. There are also other important matters regarding how we view stillbirths before the 24-week gestation period. This Bill is not just about civil partnerships; it is about a whole load of other things for which there is widespread support. I hope that the Government will see that the new clause is well intended and will hold the feet of officials to the fire as they work long hours to get this legislation through. It is achievable. I have tabled new clause 1 in the spirit of being helpful to the Government in achieving equality. Consequential amendment 1 has now become redundant, because it is now Government policy to allow civil partnerships, and the new clause will ensure that we get on with it.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
When warned that I might be speaking early, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had not expected it to be this early.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has raised important points, and I am grateful to him for having promoted this Bill in its entirety and for his enormous and, as he pointed out, long-standing campaigning work in support of civil partnerships.
As most hon. Members will know, when the Bill was first introduced back in February, the Government had not yet taken a final decision on the future of civil partnerships. We were clear that the current situation, in which same-sex couples can marry or enter a civil partnership but opposite-sex couples can only marry, needed to be addressed. Indeed, earlier this year, we published a Command Paper that set out how we would proceed with our deliberations to ensure that we chose the right course of action. Events over the past few months have moved on substantially, not least thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend in promoting this Bill, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister recently announced our intention to make civil partnerships available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. We intend to introduce specific legislation to do just that, and I know that in conversation with my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities made those intentions clear.
Caroline Nokes
If the hon. Gentleman will have some patience, I will come to that in due course.
Caroline Nokes
I can hear that the hon. Gentleman has no patience at all—that may not be news to the Chamber.
Caroline Nokes
I shall undertake to play nicely with the entire House today, because there are some really important components to the Bill and I feel hugely passionate about the inclusion of mothers’ names on marriage certificates—I do not, however, hope that my young daughter will be in a position to demand my name on her marriage certificate any time soon, but you never know, she is 20. [Interruption.] I doubt she would find a partner in that manner of haste.
I am very conscious that my hon. Friend’s amendment has the support of a large number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. We support the common objective of an early move to enable opposite-sex couples to form civil partnerships. We made clear our position and the reasons for our concerns about the amendment in a written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I do not want to delay the Bill; I want us to get through the business with all speed. It was for that reason that I read the written statement very carefully. It discloses nothing to me that should mean the Government cannot support the Bill promoter’s new clause 1. Will the Minister just indicate whether she will support the new clause, so that we can get on and get the Bill through?
Caroline Nokes
There are a number of important points I would like to make with particular reference to the amendment and some of the challenges we think it poses. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient and allow me to get to them.
There are a number of reasons why we are concerned about my hon. Friend’s amendment and a number of reasons why the Bill may not be the most appropriate legislative vehicle in which to equalise access to civil partnerships between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As I have said, the Bill contains a number of important measures that we certainly do not wish to jeopardise by allowing the substantive amendment on civil partnerships at this late stage in the Bill’s progress through Parliament. I think that these substantive changes deserve to have been debated more thoroughly at earlier stages of the Bill’s progress, rather than just in the limited time available to us today.
I also need to make the point that, while we are happy to have announced our intention to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, there are still quite a number of significant issues that need to be resolved before we can move on to implement opposite-sex civil partnerships. Some of these are entirely practical. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) from a sedentary position is yelling, “Such as”. If he will give me a chance, I will get to them. For instance, we need to check all the existing legislative provisions that cross-refer to the civil partnership regime to make sure that they still work as intended for opposite-sex couples as well as same-sex couples. These existing provisions are spread across a wide range of current legislation, from arrangements for adoption through to pension entitlements, so this is not an insignificant body of work. Any existing provisions that are not appropriate to extended civil partnerships will need to be changed. There are also a number of sensitive policy issues that will need to be resolved, such as whether convergence from a marriage to a civil partnership should be allowed and whether the terms for the dissolution of an opposite-sex civil partnership should mirror those for same-sex couples or be the same as for opposite-sex marriages.
We also need to resolve a number of cross-border and devolution issues, such as how we should provide for recognition of similar relationships entered into in other countries and how our own relationships should be treated in other parts of the United Kingdom, which have their own legislation on civil partnerships.
I am disappointed that the amendment tabled today seeks to replace the provisions in clause 2, particularly the requirement for Government to consult and report to Parliament on the way in which they intend to equalise civil partnerships between same-sex and other couples. We particularly supported this original requirement, as we see consultation prior to the implementation of the extension of civil partnerships as key in both helping us to set out the Government’s views on the issues I have just mentioned, as well as getting a broader view of the implications of the various options.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend will acknowledge, of course, that the requirement for review and consultation is not a statutory requirement. It did not need to be in the Bill, but it was the only way of getting it through. And of course the Government, by their own admission, have started that review and consultation, albeit at a late stage. Taking the clause out of the Bill does not mean that it stops it, so it is actually not required.
Caroline Nokes
This is a subject on which we conduct long conversations, reviews and consultation across the Government, and the fact that the review has started does not mean that it should stop, but we do want to conclude it. It is important to us to have those views.
The Government are keen to progress the review and to do so as quickly as possible. The planned consultation is not some sort of prevarication; it is a necessary step to help us to ensure that when we introduce legislation it is fit for purpose and does not slow down its parliamentary passage. Officials are already starting to identify all the matters on which we want to consult. I hope that we will soon be in a position to say more about our proposed timing for that consultation, but we wish to conduct it as soon as possible. I stress that the consultation will be about how we make the provisions to ensure that civil partnerships work as intended for opposite-sex couples, not about whether we intend to extend them in that way.
Sandy Martin
Will the Minister accept that it is not just about how; it is also about when? Given that there is a High Court ruling against her, she needs to move quickly.
Caroline Nokes
It is about how and we are proceeding. We are determined to do it. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the court judgment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda says we are doing nothing. In fact, the reality is very much that we are seeking to move forward on this as quickly as we can, but we do think that consultation is important.
However other people may view civil partnerships, our intention is clear. They are intended to have at least one thing in common with marriage: to be a formal bond between couples in a loving relationship. I do not wish to digress too much, but a couple of hon. Members raised this point. I am aware, however, that there are those in this place and the other place who wish to see civil partnerships extended to sibling couples. We do not consider that to be a suitable amendment to either my hon. Friend’s Bill or to a future Government Bill to extend civil partnerships. In the context of today’s debate, I merely note that the addition of substantive amendments on civil partnerships to my hon. Friend’s Bill would make it an easier target for amendments on siblings that would then wreck the Bill, and all its valuable provisions on marriage registration and pregnancy loss would be jeopardised. I note that there is already a Bill in the other place that proposes the extension of civil partnerships to sibling couples. We consider that that Bill, rather than this one, offers an appropriate opportunity to debate the merits of how cohabiting sibling couples should be protected in older age.
The amendment put forward today introduces a wide-ranging delegated power. This causes us concern for several reasons, as I mentioned earlier. We are not yet in a position to know precisely what will be required legislatively, which is why it would be too risky to take a power to change the law by secondary legislation when we are not yet able to explain how we intend to use that power.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
When does the Minister think the Government will be in a position to understand the scope of legislative changes that are needed? Does she plan to publish a further written statement setting out to the House that information once she has it?
Caroline Nokes
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities is best placed to make written statements on this matter rather than me, but we will provide as much detail to the House as we possibly can. Hopefully, that will be provided as soon as possible.
The Bill, as introduced, contained provisions for such a power to be included, but those provisions were removed in Committee as we did not wish to provoke parliamentary opposition in either place that could prevent the Bill as a whole from proceeding. Those are the reasons why our preference would be to introduce our own Bill in the next session to extend civil partnership as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity is available, which is what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has indicated in her written statement. However, I do not want anyone to think that the Government are merely paying lip-service to the need to press on with resolving this matter.
Government research that was originally due to conclude next autumn has already been brought forward by a year. It has been wound up and officials are now using its findings to help with the impact assessment for the new civil partnerships. The Government Equalities Office has also been in contact with Departments across Whitehall to begin discussions on how to undertake the necessary legislative sweep and with its counterparts in the devolved Administrations to identify UK cross-border issues that will need to be considered.
I am very conscious of the keen interest that Members of both Houses take in extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples and of the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and her continued support for our introducing measures through that Bill. In addition, as I have said, a Bill has also been introduced in the Lords on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has pursued this matter with passion and enthusiasm, and these are legislative proposals that will get on to the statute book, but we are keen to do so in the right way. I hope that this reassures the House that the Government are working hard to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, as well as same-sex couples, despite not being able to actively support his new clause for the reasons I have outlined.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister speaks in riddles. Is she saying that the Government are not actively supporting my hon. Friend’s excellent amendment and new clause and so will abstain, or is she saying that the Government are opposing them?
Caroline Nokes
I think I made it clear that we are not actively supporting my hon. Friend’s amendments, but he has done an excellent job over the last few days of making sure he has enormous support for his amendments both on paper and in the House today.
Sir Christopher Chope
I take it from that that, because of the forces lined up against the Government, they are throwing in the towel, which is good and encouraging news. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has made.
I despair at the way the Government have been dragging their feet over this issue for so long. It was on 21 May 2013—more than five years ago—on the Third Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 that I intervened on the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and Equalities asserting that I believed that doing what the Government were doing in that Bill would be in breach of human rights law. The answer from the Minister, obviously on the advice of Government lawyers, was that the provisions of the European convention on human rights would not be compromised by the fact that the legislation made unequal provision for civil partnerships.
How wrong were the Government and the Minister! For five years people have been in limbo, while the Government have connived over legislation that is at odds with human rights requirements under the European convention. Surely there must be a greater sense of urgency from the Government than was demonstrated in my right hon. Friend’s response to the new clause. I also find it extraordinary that today’s written statement makes no mention of the Supreme Court ruling.
I hope that when the new clause and amendment are put to the vote, they will go through without a Division, but if there is a Division, I will be interested to see whether the Government try to argue against what the Prime Minister has already assured us of—namely, that the Government are on the side of the proposal in the new clause.
Chris Bryant
I will be very brief. I just want to explain to the Minister why I feel very impatient—she looked grumpy with me for complaining that she was taking a long time. She used words such as “soon”, “as soon as possible” and “quickly”, and while Ministers often use those words, they mean absolutely nothing in parliamentary language.
On the Minister’s timetable, we might get a Bill in the next Session, but I would not be surprised if the next Session was a two-year Session, like this one, which might mean us waiting another two and a half years. Every year, I have straight people coming to my surgeries who had lived with a partner of the opposite gender for years and years in a relationship that had felt in every respect like a marriage, but who never wanted to enter into a marriage and consequently suffered when their partner died due to a lack of a legal arrangement because civil partnerships were not available to them. They suffer exactly the same distress as gay couples did until civil partnerships were brought into law.
Tim Loughton
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I said at the beginning of my previous remarks that this morning would be a breeze. There have been a few headwinds, but so far, so good. I hope we can continue in that spirit of agreement and consensus across the House regarding all four measures in the Bill, which are much needed and much supported. My Bill has been referred to as the hatch, match and dispatch Bill because it covers so many junctures in people’s lives. I like to view it rather more as a Bill to address anomalies and iniquities in the law that, in many cases, should have been dealt with a long time ago.
I want to apologise in advance to officials, because if the Bill now goes through as amended, as I hope will be the case, they will have a lot of work to do in a relatively short space of time, but we now have a timeline, and that work should be a welcome distraction for them from Brexit, so there are upsides as well as downsides.
There are four aspects of the Bill, as I have mentioned. Clause 1, which is about marriage registration, seems to have excited the most vociferous support this morning. I am sure that the Minister will actively support it, rather than not actively support it—she appeared to say earlier that she did not like new clause 1 but would not actively oppose it, although passively she would have done. But we have moved on to Third Reading now—we are on the final bend.
I pay tribute to the Bishop of St Albans for the Bill that he has steered through the Lords, ably supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), whose name is attached to it on today’s Order Paper, albeit somewhat later on. She has been a champion for this issue over many years, as have other Members who have attached their names to various private Members’ Bills to try to address this anomaly. It is absurd that mothers have been able to put their signatures on marriage certificates in Scotland since 1855—and indeed in Northern Ireland—and in respect of civil partnerships in England and Wales since 2004, but that not since Victorian times has a mother’s name been recognised on a marriage certificate.
On Second Reading, I produced my own marriage certificate. My dear late mother’s name is absent from it, and to add insult to injury, my father’s name is on it twice, because he signed not only as witness but as the vicar who married us, adding double insult to injury. There are countless cases of people saying, “I never knew my father because he assaulted my mother and did a runner on us before I ever knew him, yet his name has to go on my marriage certificate, and the name of my mother, who has done all the heavy lifting, suffered all the abuse, and brought up, nurtured and loved me as a daughter, does not appear.” That is not right. I hope that the Bill will at last address that anomaly and that mothers can then proudly put their names on the marriage register in the new electronic form, which will bring it up to date for the future.
I am not going to go into the second aspect of the Bill, which is civil partnerships, at length again. We have been debating the matter since the 2013 same-sex marriage Bill. If my amendment had been agreed at that time, we would not still be having this discussion now. There have been many opportunities to address this unintended inequality.
Sir Christopher Chope
Since the Government are in the mood to apologise for all sorts of historical events, does my hon. Friend think they should apologise for getting the law completely wrong?
Tim Loughton
I am in a generous frame of mind this morning, and rather than their saying sorry, we should be saying hurrah that we are now doing something about it—[Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] I do not know how Hansard will treat that.
The third aspect of the Bill relates to the production of a report on the registration of pregnancy loss. Again, clause 3 has already achieved its objective, partly in the light of our Second Reading debate, which we had back on 2 February, when we were all moved by the extraordinarily touching personal testimony of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) about her own experiences—I wonder whether she will draw her attention away from her mobile phone, because I know she would like to listen to this tribute and not be distracted. As a result of the strength of feeling in the speeches and the subsequent response from our constituents, the then Health Secretary—he is now Foreign Secretary—said, “Well, actually I think we just need to get on with changing the law.” A group was set up with a mandate to see how we could change the law to acknowledge in some way those births that are stillborn but happen, by whatever quirk, to fall below the 24-week gestation line and are therefore not recognised in the eyes of the state. The situation has brought huge distress to parents who are already in distress at the trauma of losing a child. The fact that they happened to lose that child at 23 weeks and six days means that, in the eyes of the state, that child never existed and is classed as any other baby loss. In saying that, I in no way diminish the trauma of all baby loss, but there are so many examples of this.
My constituent Hayley Petts first brought this matter to me, and she served on the working group with the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. The group has been discussing many aspects of how the law can be changed and has also thrown up a lot of problems about how we go about changing the law. Should we have a universal certificate for all baby loss, for example? Should the scheme be voluntary or mandatory? Should it be subject to medical verification, as is the case under the Australian scheme, and should it be retrospective? There is then the whole thorny issue of how we avoid getting into the minefield that is abortion and other forms of termination. The Bill has done its job before it has become an Act because such work is going on under the aegis of the Department of Health and Social Care, and I hope we will have some results in due course.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing his Bill to Third Reading. On clause 4, does he agree that when parents lose a child—a healthy full-term baby—as my constituents Jack and Sarah Hawkins did, they should not have to fight to get answers? A coronial inquest might provide them with independent, public, open and honest answers so that they can concentrate on grieving, rather than having to fight to get to the truth of what happened.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she pre-empts my clause 4 moment. The fourth, and very important, component of this Bill, which is addressed in clause 4, is coroners’ investigations. She participated in earlier debates and worked very helpfully with me and others to move this important issue up the agenda. I am grateful for her contribution.
Clause 4 will allow part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to be amended. That is not easy, and the matter is slightly complicated by the fact that it falls under the jurisdiction of both the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for coroners, and the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for healthcare in relation to baby loss. I must pay tribute to some very helpful and proactive support for this measure by MOJ officials. I had a very helpful meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who I am glad to see is present on the Front Bench. He was a great champion of many of the Bill’s provisions when he was just a commoner on the Back Benches and added his name to many of the measures I have been trying to get through today.
The Minister has confirmed that an immense amount of work has gone on at the Ministry of Justice. There are issues still to be resolved, such as whether coroners should have the power to investigate all stillbirth loss or should concentrate, which I think is practically the better approach, on full-term baby loss, when there are the fewest excuses or reasons for stillbirths to happen. Also, should this be mandatory or effectively subject to parental veto? There are serious problems with that, as there are some cases in which a stillbirth may have been connected to domestic violence and some sort of cover-up may be wanted, so I think we are coming to the view that the scheme should be mandatory. Should there be specialist coroners or should all coroners have the ability to investigate? Of course, there are also capacity constraints. The fact that a lot of work has been going on in the Department in the last few months shows that this can be done.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important Bill, which is, in effect, enabling legislation in this regard. It is worth reiterating something he has already mentioned, so will he join me in thanking the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)? It is one thing to have enabling legislation, but given the complex nature of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is trying to introduce, a Minister who is so supportive is worth their weight in gold?
Tim Loughton
Give my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) a job—I am sure that will happen shortly. We should be paying tribute to him, too, because although many other Members have been part of this crusade, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is sitting next to him, he has probably done more than anyone to put stillbirth absolutely on the parliamentary and national radar.
It is because of the Minister’s empathy, understanding and preparedness to work with parliamentarians that we are in a position in which, if this enabling legislation is enacted, we can have practical measures in fairly short order, perhaps even ahead of the first civil partnership for opposite-sex couples happening in this country before the end of 2019. This enabling clause gives a good deal of discretion to the Minister, and there is no other Minister I have greater faith in to make sure that something actually happens. Now that we have praised him to the rafters, we will expect a very early announcement on when the change will happen.
This is a complicated Bill, as I have said, and that is my own fault, but it contains four really important measures that have widespread support across the whole House and across the country.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton
If my hon. Friend wants to ruin my peroration, I will allow him to do so.
Luke Graham
I apologise to my hon. Friend and thank him for giving way. I am in full support of the Bill, but I have one technical question that I hope he will be able to answer. Clause 6 clarifies that clause 5 applies to Scotland, England and other parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 5(1)(a) states that
“the Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916…no longer apply in England and Wales”.
Under clause 6, that will also apply to Scotland. As I am sure the House will know, those Acts make reference to the recognition of marriage certificates in the United Kingdom and those of British dominions, basically giving British citizens getting married in the dominions and those getting married here in the United Kingdom almost equal recognition. I am all for increasing rights, but I just want to make sure that that provision will not reduce any of our constituents’ rights in their future marriage choices.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very pithy intervention. He makes some good points, and no doubt some other smartarse in the House of Lords will want to bring them up as well. With the greatest respect, I am sure that he can speak further to those points on Third Reading—as long as he does not go on for too long. To coin a phrase from Front Benchers, I would be happy to write to him and give him more details. I shall now somehow try to return to my peroration.
As I was saying before I was so helpfully interrupted, the Bill is long overdue. It sets out a practical route and a timeline—certainly in the case of civil partnerships—for these iniquities and inequalities to be resolved. I know that it has widespread support in this House, and I am grateful to all those who have made it possible to get this far. I will be particularly grateful to the Immigration Minister if she ensures that the Bill gets through its Third Reading so that we can have further discussions in the other place. I very much hope that it will be granted its Third Reading without a vote today.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for introducing the Bill and for his excellent campaigning and commitment on all aspects of the Bill. It has been a genuine pleasure to work with him, particularly on the registration of very early stillborn babies, and I thank him for his earlier kind words. Following my speech on Second Reading in February, I was overwhelmed with messages of love and kindness from people up and down the country, and even from as far away as the Netherlands and Italy. I also received messages from families who, like me, had experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby pre-24 weeks and who had been distressed to find that they were unable to register their birth and death because the baby had been born a few days, or perhaps a week or so, before the 24-week gestation threshold. Their messages have inspired me to continue the campaign to change this, and I am pleased to be working on the Department of Health and Social Care’s advisory panel for the pregnancy loss review, which will make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
I also support the clause to give coroners the power to investigate the deaths of full-term stillborn babies. Along with the much-improved additional support that now exists due to the very successful national bereavement care pathways—for which the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss successfully lobbied—it will give solace to parents, at the most devastating time in their lives, to know the cause and circumstances that led to the death of their much-anticipated baby.
Moving on to the other elements in this Bill, I believe that it is way beyond time for a mother’s details to be included in marriage registration. We have an outdated system that prioritises fathers over mothers, and it must be brought into the 21st century. The mother’s details can be found on marriage certificates in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and in civil partnership certification. Believe it or not, I was married 28 years ago—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I know; it is unbelievable. The sad thing is that, after being brought up single-handedly by my mother after my father abandoned me and my brothers when we were little, it is my father’s name on my marriage certificate, not my mother’s. It is even more sad that, at the time, I did not even think to question that, so endemic was the patriarchy of officialdom to me as a young woman in 1990.
The fact that, almost three decades later, this antiquated patriarchal anomaly is at last to end shows how far we have come, and that women are not, and never were, chattels to be handed over from father to husband. This change will turn the marriage certificate into what it should be: a legal document, not a transfer certificate. It also never occurred to me that the ceremony may also be a little bit outdated. As my father was not present to “give me away”, I asked my uncle to step in—again believing that this had to be done by a man. I would now insist that it had to be done by my mam—I hope she is watching this; I can tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that that is who I was texting earlier, but he is not listening—if indeed I felt I needed to be given away by anyone. However, I am happily married, so that is bit of a moot point. I say that in case my husband is listening, so that he will know that I am not planning on doing it again.
That brings me to my final point on the clause to allow opposite-sex couples to enter a civil partnership. I was pleased when the Government announced earlier this month that they intended to do this, and I am pleased that the amendment calling on the Government to do it within the next six months has been added to the Bill. The clauses in the Bill will help to ensure more equality and fairness in all four of the very different areas that we are discussing. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, it is a unique Bill, and I am proud to have worked with and supported him in securing its passage through the House. I wish him and the Bill well and look forward to the day it receives Royal Assent.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I intend to speak very briefly—no cheers, please! This is a great Bill, and it is great that the Government are taking it seriously. I want it to get on as quickly as possible, but I must first convey my thanks to my dear friend the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has spoken so passionately on these subjects. We have had tears and laughter, which is as it should be. If we cannot talk with passion and enthusiasm about birth, marriage and death, what on earth are we here for? Speaking as a serious Government lawyer specialising in inquests and as a bereaved parent, I think it is great that both those skill sets and life experiences have been brought together to enable me to play my small part in forming a law on this subject.
I cannot speak highly enough of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who, with his own unique mix of sarcasm and charm, has managed to persuade the Government to feel competitive about getting the different elements of the Bill into law. He has given us a challenge, and this is now a race. We have to work out whether we can marry or give birth first and then, if the birth goes wrong, whether we can register it. It is right that we take this seriously, because these are desperately serious issues, particularly the registration of stillbirths and when and how we as a society should consider these matters.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his success in getting the Bill through the House. I will focus on the registration of stillbirths because parents and coroners have asked me to support that aspect of the legislation. As the law stands, coroners have no jurisdiction to investigate stillbirths that occur after 36 weeks, which is generally regarded as full term. Coroners can hold an inquest in cases where it is appropriate, particularly when either the family or medical staff are critical of the level of care, but all deaths after 36 weeks should be examined.
As it stands, the system for reporting and investigating deaths is inconsistent, and that matters because the UK has one of the worst stillbirth rates in the developed world, with one stillbirth in every 200 babies born. The grief and sorrow that the parents go through at the loss of the child is unimaginable, and we all recognise that a bereaved parent may not feel that they can face the extra intrusion of a coroner’s inquest. That may not be appropriate and, of course, the decision must still be one for the parents, but an investigation is the only way to understand the circumstances of prenatal deaths so that recommendations can be made to improve future outcomes.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I rise briefly to add my support to this Bill. It is a fantastic piece of legislation in all respects, and I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has been tenacious in his pursuit of this change for a long time. Like all pieces of really good legislation, the question always is, “Why hasn’t this happened before?” It seems so obvious in many respects. The Bill seeks to let opposite-sex couples enter into civil partnerships, permits the registration of the name the mother on a marriage certificate, allows the registration of stillborn deaths before the 24th week of pregnancy and gives coroners the power to investigate stillborn deaths.
As for the first part, allowing opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, it is often said, “Why don’t they just get married?” Well, I am a person of faith, and I must say that it can sometimes be quite fragile—it can be difficult to retain that faith in the modern world—but part of being a person of faith is also about recognising and respecting no faith. Many people feel that marriage perhaps has religious connotations that they do not wish to enter into. Marriage is also expensive. It can be a huge undertaking at a time of student debts and other financial difficulties for young people embarking on life together, or for people of any age, to take on what can often be a crippling expense. People may also have different experiences of marriage. They may have seen their parents married or perhaps been married themselves, and they may have seen that marriage did not work for their parents or for themselves. We need to respect that and to understand that the days in which people just jumped into a marriage or in which marriage was the natural progression are now gone for many in our society.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a powerful point about rights on Report that resonated with me given an event in my own life. His point was about the rights of people who are in a long-term relationship and experience a catastrophe in their lives and then discover, frankly, that their word does not count for what it should. In 1999, my partner at the time was involved in a car accident. She was hit on 9 July, suffering catastrophic head injuries, and she died on 13 July in Whitechapel hospital. This is no indication about the family, who were absolutely fantastic throughout, but she was estranged from her family and we did not actually see each other—our relationship was outside that family framework.
Now, I was not even given any medical updates at first, and it took me a day to get in to see her. Although our relationship may not have been at the stage at which we would have considered a civil partnership if we had had that option, our relationship was legitimate and deserved recognition. I remember that moment when I went to see her, a day after she had been hit, and I was warned that she would have tubes going into her body and all the paraphernalia that comes with a serious head trauma. I was warned that she would look very strange and that I was not to be shocked. Well, as far as I was concerned, she looked as beautiful as ever. I was touched by what the hon. Gentleman said, and it was that that made me rise in support of this Bill more than probably anything else.
The Bill’s second key aim is to review the registration of marriages. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) has pursued the matter relentlessly in her role as Second Church Estates Commissioner, and it is a great privilege to sponsor and support her Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill. There are roughly 2 million single parents in the UK, around 90% of whom are women, so it is curious that, as the law stands, should their children go on to get married they would be permitted to put the details only of the father into the marriage register. My mother brought me up from the age of 10 after my father left home. I still have good relations with him, but she brought me up, working two jobs and all the hours that God sends, yet when I got married in 2014 my mother’s name did not appear on the marriage certificate. That is just ridiculous on every level, and I hope that the Government brings forward secondary legislation to end that anomaly.
I want to reiterate a point made by Baroness Williams on Second Reading in the Lords, when she highlighted how the proposed changes would also enable all marriage entries to be held within a single electronic registry, negating the need for multiple bound marriage registers. That seems like a sensible change, but it is obviously not the sole reason to do it.
The third part of the Bill seeks to assist people who experience a stillbirth after 24 weeks’ gestation. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on their work in raising baby loss awareness.
This legislation is well overdue. It is finely drafted, and it covers off so many things—so many wrongs in our society—that we as parliamentarians need to address. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and urge everyone to support it.
Andy Slaughter
I rise briefly to support the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and to commend all those who have ensured that the Bill has reached this point. On civil partnerships, I want to mention just briefly my constituents Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld, who fought a four-year battle through the courts, ending with a magnificent victory in the Supreme Court this summer that was absolutely clear, unequivocal and unanimous in telling the Government to get on with making this change.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has pursued these matters to a head, as he always does, without fear or favour, including with his Front-Bench colleagues. I also mention everybody at the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign and all those thousands of couples who are waiting, with bated breath, to be able to cement their relationships. The measure also has the potential to affect millions of couples who do not have rights in this country but often think that they do. I also thank those who have over many years supported same-sex civil partnerships and marriage, including Peter Tatchell and Stonewall, for continuing to support equality.
I hope that the Minister will take back to the Government the message sent by all those voices, and by those on both sides of the Chamber, that we really have waited long enough. Given that the Government did not oppose new clause 1, I hope they will develop a sense of urgency. They have been urged to act by the highest court in the land and by many people. This significant change in public policy will allow millions of co-habiting couples across the country to secure the rights that, as I have said, many of them believe they already have but then often find, to their financial and other costs, that they do not. I say to the Minister: please, get on with it.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
There are many extremely good things in this Bill, the first being the righting of the wrong, which has been in existence since the Victorian era, of not being able to include mothers’ names on marriage certificates. When I got married in 2012 and was told I could not include my mother’s name, I thought that there had been a mistake and that they were using an old book. I had not realised that the law could still be so ridiculously out of date in the modern era. Members such as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) have reminded us that that is a really important change for some people.
Likewise, the opportunity for parents who have lost a baby before 24 weeks to register the life of their child is hugely important, as are the new powers for coroners. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) on all the work they have done on that hugely important subject.
I rise today, however, with more mixed emotions than ever before about any proposed legislation, because I do not agree with the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. To be clear, I support—and supported—equal marriage for gay people. I ran the think-tank Policy Exchange at the time—I was not in this House—and published a paper arguing in favour of it. I thought, and still think, that it was really important for everybody to be treated the same and for everybody to be able to get married, as a further step towards reducing prejudice against gay people in this country.
It is very easy for heterosexual people not to notice the high levels of prejudice that continue to exist in this country, even in this modern era, and not to see that suicide rates for gay people are still higher. I went to school in the 1990s, which was not that long ago, and remember a lad walking up four flights of stairs with kids all around him chanting, “Gay. Gay. Gay.” at him. I do not even know if he was gay, but I am sure he remembers that and will do so for the rest of his life. It is a reminder that prejudice is still out there and still very strong. So, for me, equal marriage was a really important and brilliant reform.
Civil partnerships, however, were, for me, only ever a stepping stone towards creating equal marriage. I thought that, rather than creating two types of marriage, we should have got rid of civil partnerships at the point when marriage was opened up to same-sex couples.
I respect and understand why other Members do not agree with that, and we have heard some of those arguments today. However, I do not accept in particular the argument that we should legislate in this House today because there has been a court case. I think that it is profoundly the business of elected politicians in this House to make such decisions, not unelected judges across the road.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a case as to why civil partnerships should not be equally available; indeed, he is suggesting that civil partnerships should not be available to anyone. However, does not the term “marriage” carry very long-established religious connotations? Some people may not want to sign up to that. Should not the individual have the liberty to make that choice themselves, rather than be prevented by this House from doing so?
Neil O'Brien
I hear my hon. Friend’s argument, but I do not agree with him. During the process of arguing the case for equal marriage, one of the important points made was that it did not affect religious institutions. It did not affect religious marriage; it affected civil marriage. In fact, that is all we have the power to do in this House; we do not and should not control people’s religious practice.
Justine Greening
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is making what is in many respects an intellectual argument, but this Bill is about matters of emotion and matters of the heart as much as anything else. I have not received a single letter or email from constituents asking for civil partnerships to be scrapped, but I have had emails and letters from constituents asking for them to be extended. If this place is basically about taking people’s priorities and making them ours, why would we argue to do something different?
Neil O'Brien
I recognise absolutely that this an incredibly emotional debate, and I want to tread as carefully as I can for that reason, but perhaps I will come on to some of the reasons—all kinds of reasons—why it is not just an intellectual case I am making, but an important pragmatic one.
I really worry about the attempt to create, in effect, two tiers of marriage. Apart from any of the other lovely things about it, marriage is what social scientists call a “commitment device”: it is a way of binding ourselves in for the future. That is one reason why it is a big public occasion and if a couple get married in the Church of England everyone will be asked to shout, “We will” to support them. I am aware that I am playing into my right hon. Friend’s point about sounding too intellectual when calling it a commitment device, but it is lots of other things, too. Why is such a device needed? It is because life is hard, as is staying together. If people are lucky enough to have children, they find that is incredibly tiring and hard, and they are more likely to split up in the years when the children are small. One big problem, and one of the reasons why relationships often break up—we are not trying to create a perfect happy families world in this House; we have no power to do that—like many of the world’s problems, comes down to men. Men, in particular, have a habit of sliding rather than deciding; they want all the benefits of being in a relationship but they do not want to lose the option to bale out. So there needs to be a moment when they fully commit.
About half the children born today will not be living with both parents by the time they are 15, and it is profoundly sad that they would be more likely to have a smartphone than to grow up with a father living at home. I grew up in a very average household, but I consider myself rich because I was lucky enough to grow up with two parents who got on and got on with us. Not everybody in this House has had that benefit. Parents who are married before they have a child are far more likely to stay together, and nearly all parents—about 93%—who stay together until their children reach 15 are married rather than cohabiting. Cohabiting parents account for about 19% of couples with dependent children but for about half of all families with family breakdown.
It worries me that we would do something that creates a status that is sort of halfway between marriage and cohabitation—a sort of marriage-lite. Some of the reasons given for doing this make me nervous. People say marriage is a patriarchal institution, but it is not; I am not oppressing my wife by being married to her. People say it is a religious institution, and actually there is a profound difference between civil marriage and religious marriage—
Luke Graham
Does my hon. Friend’s argument not surely mean that civil partnerships are a step in the right direction, because they allow couples to formalise their cohabitation and make a formal commitment to each other? Does he not agree that we in the Conservative party are champions of individual freedom and we should be providing people with the opportunity to make their choices? This issue is before this House and out for consultation in Scotland. Does he not think this House should lead so that the rest of the UK can follow?
Neil O'Brien
I hear the argument my hon. Friend makes and I say, “Of course”, but the thing I gently point out is that a lot of other Members have made the case for civil partnerships as a final status for people who do not want to get married and said that we should deliberately create a halfway house, not as something that people can be in a for a time but for something that they—
Chris Bryant
In a way I am sorry to do this, but as someone who is in a civil partnership, I really want to steer the hon. Gentleman away from this idea of civil partnership as being some kind of halfway house or second-rate version of marriage. It is a settled fact now in British society that we will have this form of relationship available for gay couples. The question is simply whether it is going to be available to others. It feels like a fully endowed relationship to me—not second-rate at all.
Neil O'Brien
I am always grateful to take interventions from the hon. Gentleman, who is so thoughtful on all these issues and has worked on them for a long time. I do not mean in any way to suggest that people do not have committed relationships or that they are in some sense second-class because they are in a civil partnership; all I would say is that I am nervous about some of these arguments. If we had a system where everybody—gay people and straight people—can get married, what would be the argument for creating a new tier of marriage? Imagine a world in which we just had these two things. What would the argument be for that? I would be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has something to say—
Chris Bryant
One difference between the two is that people do not have to have a big ceremony. We did, though—we had a great old party. The gays have probably added to the wedding industry quite significantly. Many people, especially if they have been in a relationship for a long time, do not want to feel that by suddenly having a big event they are invalidating the previous 30 years for which they have been together. They just want the legal certainty of making that commitment to one another and to have the legal privileges that the state affords them. That is the difference.
Neil O’Brien
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention. It has been brilliant to go to some of the equal marriages that have happened since the change in the law. One learns some wonderful things and hears people’s stories in a way that one would not have done had those marriages not existed. I am glad that they are also powering the marriage industry. I do not, though, buy the argument that people need to spend more to be married than to have a civil partnership. I think that is a canard. I hear the argument about not wanting to feel like what went before is invalidated, but I just do not think that that is true. Getting married does not invalidate the fact that a couple were together happily before it. I hear all these arguments, but ultimately I am not persuaded by them—
Chris Philp
A moment ago, my hon. Friend asked why we need to have civil partnerships when marriage exists and people are perfectly at liberty to choose marriage as an option. The answer is this: marriage has existed for thousands of years and has a profoundly religious connotation for most people, as a social practice dating back millennia. Some people, exercising their own choice, are not happy to enter into an institution that has that religious connotation and therefore want an alternative arrangement. That is why we need civil partnerships as an alternative.
Neil O’Brien
I almost always agree with my hon. Friend about almost all things, but on this issue we find ourselves in disagreement. Marriage in this country predates almost any religion that one can name. I am worried by the argument that is being made in the House today that if someone enters into a marriage—I had a civil marriage; I am an atheist—they are in some way being lured into a religious institution. I just do not think that is the case. I did not notice it. In fact, people who have a civil wedding are not even allowed to play something like Madonna’s “Like a Prayer”, because apparently it is a religious thing. There is a clear distinction in my mind between civil marriage and religious marriage.
I feel that I have made my points. I respect Members from all parties who have made arguments to the contrary, but I feel differently.
Maggie Throup
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), even though we perhaps do not agree on every point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing this important piece of legislation to the House and getting it to this stage. It will strengthen how individuals and their loved ones are formally recognised in law at every level.
As I said on Second Reading, I see the Bill as very much like a pick and mix, but I do like the “hatch, match and dispatch” description of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. That is a good way to describe the Bill. Its provisions change the way in which marriages and stillbirths are recorded. They are small but important reforms that will make a huge difference to so many. In practical terms, the two events could not be further apart: one is supposed to be the happiest day of a person’s life, yet the other is probably the most tragic day of a person’s life.
I commend those brave colleagues from all parties who have spoken so openly about their own tragic personal experiences of baby loss, in the hope that they can further highlight the issue and give others the courage to do the same. Having talked to people throughout the House and in my constituency during Baby Loss Awareness Week a couple of weeks ago, I know that they have made a huge difference. It has been so powerful. Many colleagues have also spoken in this place about the loss of a loved one at a later stage in life. It is never easy to talk openly about such tragic events. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) shared his personal and very moving story in the Chamber just yesterday.
The two elements of the Bill are linked by the acknowledgment that a life existed, for however long or short that time may have been. Because these delicate pieces of paper, birth and marriage certificates, are often treasured by families for generations, they are part of social history and of our story. They often provide comfort to the bereaved when the person recorded on the certificate is no longer there.
On marriage certificates specifically, it is quite astonishing in the centenary year of the Representation of the People Act that this archaic example of inequality has not yet been righted. It is a matter of equality, as well as of family history and social history. Looking at my own family, my parents were married in 1950. Their marriage certificate states that my father’s father was a millworker, but there is no mention of my grandmother. It states that my mother’s father was a stoker on the railway, but there is no mention of my grandmother’s occupation on that side either. Sadly, I have no way of finding out.
Almost 70 years on, we have not moved on at all. To me, that is quite bizarre, which is why I welcome the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has brought forward today and that other right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), have worked on in the past.
I support the Bill because every measure will achieve progressive changes that are well overdue, and changes that we can all be proud of.
Chris Philp
I rise to add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on the tremendous work he has done to compile the Bill and steer it through its various stages.
I am happy to support all the clauses of the Bill, as it has been amended, not least clause 1, under which, as hon. Members have said, mothers will be recorded on the marriage certificate.
Of course I support the concept of the electronic register that will be set up under the Bill—it is a modern way of recording very important information—but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed from the Dispatch Box when she sums up the debate that there will still be some form of paper signing in the church or other venue where the marriage takes place. I ask that because my constituent Councillor Tim Pollard has made the good point to me that the traditional ceremony in which the piece of paper is signed is an important part of many people’s experience of marriage. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the signing ceremony will still be part of the process, even if the information is ultimately recorded electronically, rather than in the old bound books.
Clause 2 is about preparing a report on bringing in civil partnerships for people of all orientations. I strongly support that provision. I respectfully disagree with the comments my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) made in his speech a few moments ago. He criticised the proposal on the grounds that it would create a two-tier system of relationship recognition: civil partnerships and marriage. He referred to civil partnerships as a “halfway house”. I do not accept that they are a halfway house at all; in my view, they are entirely equal to the institution of marriage. I associate myself fully with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). On this issue, I am entirely at one with him—I mean that intellectually, rather than in the biblical sense. I think that people should have the choice. As a Conservative, I believe in personal liberty and personal choice. The individual should be able to choose which of the two institutions they subscribe to.
I do think there is a difference between the two institutions, because marriage carries religious connotations. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said that the institution of marriage predates religion, but even in times before Christianity and Judaism, the marriage ceremony always had religious overtones. Some people may decide, for their own reasons, that they do not want to associate with that. Indeed, my hon. Friend said that he had in the past been one of them. I therefore think that the choice should be available. Personal liberty and personal choice must sit at the heart of our philosophy in relation to these matters.
Clauses 3 and 4 introduce welcome measures. The report under clause 3 will look into how we might go about implementing the registration proposals. I suggest that parental choice should be the overriding consideration. Different parents will probably feel differently depending on their personal circumstances, and it should be up to the parent to choose whether the registration takes place. Perhaps that could be my early submission to any consultation that takes places on the matter.
Clause 4 is about investigations. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I think, raised a concern about providing only for parental choice, as there might be some circumstances where the parent—for reasons of domestic violence, for example—might not exercise their choice when properly they should. I wonder whether another way of handling this would be to say that an investigation should take place if either parent or one of the clinicians involved opted to trigger a coroner’s investigation. That is, if any of the interested parties felt that an investigation was appropriate, one would take place. That might guard against my hon. Friend’s concern, while also allowing an element of parental choice.
As parliamentarians, we should focus on trying to reduce—as far as we can—the awful tragedy of stillbirth and neonatal death. Of course, my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. I draw the attention of the House to the work of Tamba—the Twins and Multiple Births Association—which has run a pilot over the last couple of years, encouraging 30 maternity units to fully adopt National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in relation to multiple births. As a result, stillbirths in those units declined by 50% and neonatal deaths declined by 30%.
Tamba is campaigning to get these guidelines rolled out across all maternity units. I am a father of twins who were born very prematurely, at 25 weeks and one day. They were very fortunate in that they received excellent care from the NHS and survived, but that is not an experience that all parents have when their children are born as prematurely as 25 weeks and one day. I strongly support Tamba’s campaign and ask the Secretary of State for Health to adopt its recommendations and carry them forward.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). This Bill affects an emotive area of public policy that deserves a great deal of attention. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing it before the House, and of course all those who have worked so hard to bring it to this stage.
The momentous decision taken by the Supreme Court in June this year represents a changing point in how we treat civil partnerships. The review that will be conducted following the passage of this Bill will mean a profound change in how our society treats the concept of marriage and partnership. Following the case, the Government stated that they were considering the Supreme Court decision carefully. The Prime Minister has said that, given the sensitive and personal issues involved in the case, no legislative changes would be taken until the consultation on the future of civil partnerships had been completed. I agree with such an approach as it represents an air of pragmatism with which the Prime Minister has worked throughout this issue.
I fully commend the amendments made in Committee regarding the report on civil partnerships. It is crucial that we ensure that this debate is not lost to the revolving cycle of 24-hour news and social media. Committing the Secretary of State to preparing, consulting and presenting a report on civil partnerships will surely avoid this. We must accept that some people in this country have fundamental disagreements with religion and religious convention. Therefore, some will see a review that supports equal access to civil partnerships as a natural step towards a more secular society. Some go even further and believe that marriage represents a time of patriarchy and a social religious structure that fundamentally discriminates against women. I disagree. Although I fully support the equalisation of civil partnerships, I believe that the concept of marriage should still be cherished. For many families, marriage is the foundation on which the home is built, and we should never lose sight of that. We also should not forget the integral role a two-parent household plays in raising children.
Perhaps I should note that I am slightly biased, as Mr Harrison and I have enjoyed 20 years of wonderful marriage. Indeed, they have been the happiest years of his life—[Laughter.]
Trudy Harrison
And mine. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment.
In relation to the marriage components of the Bill, I find it outrageous that a mother’s name can still not be included on their children’s marriage certificates. That does represent a time at which patriarchy was widespread and sounds akin to the domestic practices of countries where equality is far from adopted. The current practice in no way resembles the liberal, egalitarian democracy in which we live. If we want to stand by all parents in this nation, we cannot claim to be on the side of single parents when 90% of them are women and, as it stands, if any of their children were to get married they would be able to include only their father’s details in the marriage entry.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I support wholeheartedly the contents of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and it also has a personal significance to me as my daughter announced her own engagement just last week and is due to get married next summer. I very much hope that the Bill will be enacted to enable me, her mother, to sign the marriage certificate of my daughter Ruth and her fiancé Aled.
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend that intervention, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Ruth on her engagement. We look forward to many more mother of the bride conversations in the Members Tea Room.
I thank my constituents Julie Fisher and Howard Johnstone for writing to me about their civil partnership plans after 30 years of being together. It is crucial that this change is made by primary legislation. Although secondary legislation could be used, it would necessitate the replacement of all of the 84,000 marriage register books that are in use and would be costly and ineffective, whereas if we proceed with this Bill, a new unitary digital database could be created for the marriage register, providing not only a safe and secure model but one that is cost-effective and efficient.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for seeking to change the registration procedure for stillbirths. The fact that people go through such a traumatic experience only for the loss of the parents to go unregistered is a long-running travesty. The story of parents such as Sarah Henderson, who lost her daughter at 23 weeks and four days and yet received no certification, exposes the incompatibility of such rigid legislation and such a personal and emotive area. Sarah’s story compelled 370,000 people to sign her petition supporting a change in the law very similar to that being proposed today. That shows the strength of feeling in this country about such a sensitive issue.
Although I commend previous Parliaments for scrutinising this area and making amendments, we must take this step to bring greater humanity to our birth-related legislation. Parliament previously supported a change to the stillbirth definition from “after 28 weeks” to “after 24 weeks” following the then clear consensus from the medical profession about the age in which a foetus should be considered able to survive. The pain and distress that parents might feel when they may not register the birth of a baby born before 24 weeks is unimaginable, but parents might also be distressed at the possibility of having to do so.
This Bill affects three areas of life that are often missed in our intense political climate but have an immeasurable emotional impact on the people of this country. Births, marriages and deaths occur every day, and we must reflect upon and amend legislation affecting them. Finally, I would like to once again commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his efforts on the Bill and the campaigning he has persisted with on the issues within it.
Will Quince
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison).
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing forward the Bill. I congratulate him on getting it to this point with Government support, which is significant. I applaud him for the parliamentary dexterity with which he has incorporated into the Bill so many issues that he has seen as wrongs and injustices over his career in Parliament—I am sure it has a long way to go—since 1997. It is certainly a lesson for us all that we can squeeze a huge number of issues into one private Member’s Bill and still get it through Parliament.
It is a great honour to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, and it is the parts of the Bill relating to baby loss that I would like to focus on briefly in my contribution. The group exists only really for two purposes: to reduce miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death; and to ensure that we have world-class bereavement care and support right across our NHS for those who sadly still go through one of those tragic occurrences. The Bill goes a long way to addressing both those objectives.
First, the element of the Bill on coronial involvement is really quite significant, particularly in relation to stillbirth. We still do not know why around 50% of stillbirths happen, and there is a huge lack of research and evidence. Allowing parents, whether it is voluntary or not—that is still to be decided—and whether it is a late-term stillbirth or slightly earlier, to have coronial involvement is really significant. As part of that evidence-gathering exercise, it is so important that when mistakes are made—the NHS and the medical profession are human businesses, and inevitably mistakes do happen—we learn from every single one. That is why the element on coronial involvement is so significant.
I mentioned this in an intervention, but I would like to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). In respect of coronial involvement, the Bill is just a piece of enabling legislation. As soon as a Department accepts that we are going to do something, it can still take months and in some cases years to introduce legislation, but my understanding is that the work that the Minister and his departmental officials have already done means that a measure could come in as soon as within 12 months. That may strike fear into the hearts of officials, but it is quite incredible when we consider the complexity of this issue. Given my point about ensuring that we have the research and evidence base to look at and some understanding of why stillbirths happen, that will enable us to start implementing the measures that we know need to be introduced and start to address it. Working in tandem with the new Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the former Health Secretary, this could have a huge impact, in particular on reducing stillbirth.
The second element, in relation to the registration of pre-24-week baby loss, is part of the bereavement piece and also really significant. I cannot continue my contribution without again paying tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has spoken so movingly about her personal experience of this issue—a hugely brave thing to do—and campaigned tirelessly. She has been key in both forming and working with the all-party group, including as part of her work as a shadow Health Minister.
This is really important because it is so difficult for any parent who suffers a miscarriage or a stillbirth, however it is termed, at 23 weeks and a few days or at 22 weeks to go home with no recognition whatsoever. We have an opportunity to give great comfort. Whether it is still classed technically as a miscarriage or a stillbirth, that baby is still born: the mother has given birth and, in many cases, the father is present. Such a recognition, albeit seemingly quite a small element, is important—that life existed; that individual existed. I know that I do not need to make that point to my friend on the other side of the Chamber.
This Bill has probably achieved such an aim, in that the former Secretary of State has set up the pregnancy loss review, which is being spearheaded by Zoe Clark-Coates and Samantha Collinge. This work is already being undertaken, and it is recognised at the highest level of the Department of Health and Social Care. I have no doubt that we are going to find a solution, but again it is very complex. There are lots of different views about exactly how we do it, such as whether it is voluntary and at what point in the pregnancy it applies. I have differing views on that, and I will certainly feed them into the review.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
On this very sensitive subject, does my hon. Friend agree that if a baby has to be induced very early due to a foetal abnormality, the parents often experience just as much grief as on the other occasions he mentions, such as natural stillbirth?
Will Quince
Yes is the honest answer, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have now met many bereaved parents as part of this process, and the reality is that everybody grieves in different ways, and the more ways in which we can provide comfort and support to those bereaved parents the better. She raises a very good point about foetal abnormality—whether there has to be induction, this is classed as a medical termination, or whatever terminology is used. In fact, I find some of the terminology used by medical professionals pretty harsh, and I would love to tone down some of it and use very different language. She is absolutely right in her fundamental point. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that regardless of the point in the pregnancy, if it provides comfort for bereaved parents to have a certificate, a piece of paper or a document that shows that the baby existed, I feel very comfortable about ensuring that such a system is brought in.
I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham because his Bill will make a huge difference. I have focused on two of its aspects, but I also wholeheartedly support the other provisions. It is fantastic that we have full cross-party support for the Bill, and indeed Government support. The sooner the measures incorporated in the Bill can be implemented, the better.
Caroline Nokes
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has described the Bill as one about hatches, matches and dispatches, I feel it is incumbent on me to dispatch it swiftly from the Dispatch Box, so I shall not detain Members for long. My hon. Friend has been described today as tenacious. I certainly know that he is very diligent and committed in relation to these issues, and I thank him for his work to raise the profile of them.
We have heard excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House, particularly the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She spoke about the work she has done alongside colleagues, but also alongside the Department of Health and Social Care. Many tributes have been paid to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), and I delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), is also now in the Chamber. I know that she has worked very closely with Members on these issues, particularly when it comes to baby loss, and I congratulate her on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) brought a perfect combination of humour and seriousness to what is sometimes a difficult subject for us to talk about, and I congratulate her on that. Many Members raised issues faced by their constituents—the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) mentioned bereaved parents in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about his constituents who were successful at the Supreme Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) made an excellent and thoughtful contribution, speaking about a difficult experience in a moving way. He made an interesting point about the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage, and those who may simply not wish to go through a marriage, but for whom a civil partnership would be the right thing.
We had an interesting discussion across the House with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) and I thank him for the points he raised, which clearly provoked strong feelings and interesting conversations. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) wished to know a specific point about marriage certificates and schedules and whether couples who marry in a church would still be able to sign a schedule. I reassure him that they and their witnesses will be able to sign that schedule, which will include all the relevant information such as name, date of birth and occupation, as well as, for the first time, the details of both parents. That is something we all welcome and have wanted to happen for a long time.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). He has spoken previously in the Chamber about his personal experience and the work he is doing with the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. He always speaks thoughtfully, and Ministers welcome his serious thoughts on this matter.
As we have heard, the Bill will introduce the first reform of how marriages are registered since 1837. It removes the requirement for paper marriage register books to be held in more than 30,000 religious buildings and register offices, moving to an electronic system of marriage registration. I assure my hon. Friends that the Bill will not prevent couples who want to marry in the Church of England or Church in Wales from marrying following ecclesiastical preliminaries, such as the calling of banns and the issue of a common licence. As I said earlier, instead of a schedule, the clergy will issue a marriage document that will be signed at the ceremony by the couple, and returned to the register office for entry into the register. The Government—I know this will put fear into the heart of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—will aim to implement those reforms as soon as possible, subject to the successful passage of the Bill, and will enable changes to be made to include the names of both parents of the couple.
Clause 3 has progressed with strong support from hon. Friends, all of whom agree that the report is both timely and urgent. Work on that report is already under way, and the Department of Health and Social Care is engaging with many key stakeholders, including health practitioners, registrars, charities and academics. The review team has spoken to parents with lived experience of losing a baby before 24 weeks’ gestation to learn about their experience and how best to ensure that the NHS is able to provide the best possible care and support when such a tragedy takes place. The clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a report. Many hon. Friends have already contributed to the report for which the clause provides, and I encourage Members on both sides of the House to support that extremely important work.
On civil partnerships, the Bill certainly sets the Government a challenge, particularly on timing. As I pointed out, there is a great deal of work to be done, including a substantial legislative trawl to ensure that the existing statute book works for opposite-sex civil partnerships. There are policy decisions to be made, and consultations on issues such as the conversion and dissolution of marriages and civil partnerships, as well as the resolution of cross-border issues. Although the Government are firmly committed to equal civil partnerships, for all those reasons, we must ensure that we proceed carefully and thoroughly, as I am certain we will.
The Government are grateful to all those who have taken time to speak to the matters raised by clause 4, and it is important that a broad and diverse range of views is heard and considered carefully. It is clear that when considering whether to enable coroners to investigate stillbirths, we must engage the wider public so that any proposals are thoroughly explored and understood. We think that the review is the right approach, and the Bill is an important step in that direction.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for bringing forward these important issues, and I congratulate him on his tenacity. I look forward to the future passage of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday I raised with the Prime Minister the police pension shortfall of £165 million. In my area alone, 400 officers could be lost. The Prime Minister responded:
“She refers to pensions; this issue has been known about for some years.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 276.]
Yesterday, the National Police Chiefs Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners issued a joint statement saying:
“no guidance has been given to what that would mean in terms of costs for employers or a timeline for implementation of those changes.”
It went on to state:
“The first notification that has enabled forces to calculate the impact of pension changes came in September 2018.”
I will write to the Prime Minister demanding an urgent meeting with me, the NPCC and the APCC. Can you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how the Prime Minister can correct the record?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
In fairness, the hon. Lady has corrected the record by what she has just said, so I think that part has been dealt with. On her point about having a meeting, I know that the Prime Minister meets many hon. Members and I am sure Government Whips will pass on the hon. Lady’s request for a meeting.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask for a Government statement on this matter? According to Chief Constable Dave Thompson:
“It is an extraordinary amount of money policing has been asked to pay with no notice and with no proper consultation. A serious rethink is needed.”
Mr Deputy Speaker
The Chair has not been given notice of any forthcoming statement, but I think the request will have been noticed. It is certainly on the record that that request is pursued and, knowing the hon. Gentleman, I am sure he will do just that.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Monday 29th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 October 2018 - (26 Oct 2018)
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Friday 18th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 October 2018 - (26 Oct 2018)
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, this is my first time proposing a Private Member’s Bill and I therefore ask that your Lordships be gentle with me as I find my feet. I begin by taking this opportunity to pay tribute to my honourable friend in the other place, Tim Loughton MP, who I see is here listening today. He has worked so hard to champion these issues and it is through his determination and constructive dialogue that the Bill has progressed and is in such good shape today. To continue this theme of collaboration, I thank Tim and the officials from the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office, led by Linda Edwards, for their support in preparing its journey through this House.
In the other place the Minister summarised this Bill as being about “hatches, matches and dispatches”. This light-hearted reference, while apt, perhaps does not convey the emotional and personal impact wrapped up in the fourfold practical purpose of the Bill. I am delighted that these clauses now represent current government policy and I shall outline each in more detail.
The purpose of Clause 1 is to address an issue with marriage entries. There is currently provision for only the father’s name to be recorded in the marriage entry when couples get married, as I was surprised to discover when my eldest son got married last summer. This has been the position since 1837 and it is high time it was addressed. The provisions in this clause will enable the updating of the marriage entry to allow for the names of the couple’s mothers to be included. The clause is narrow in scope and seeks only to change how marriages are registered.
Making changes to how marriages are registered and moving to a schedule-based system has previously been the subject of debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is also with us today, introduced identical measures in the Registration of Marriage Bill, which was debated in this House last year. That Bill is currently in the other place, awaiting a Second Reading. It has been apparent during the debates that the provisions in the clause have cross-party support. Moving to a schedule system similar to the one that has been in place in Scotland since 1855, and which also applies in Northern Ireland, will enable changes to be made to the marriage register entry much more easily in future, without the need to replace all the paper marriage registers. I believe that there are around 84,000 marriage registers in use across register offices, churches and other religious buildings.
The creation of civil partnerships in 2004 marked a significant moment on the road to equality for same-sex couples. For the first time, same-sex couples were able to formalise their intimate partner relationships, publicly acknowledging their commitment to one another, and able to access certain rights, responsibilities and protections. We continued to celebrate the legal and formal recognition of same-sex relationships with the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2013. However, we are left with a situation in which same-sex couples are able to either get married or form a civil partnership, whereas opposite-sex couples can only get married.
While marriage holds great value for many as a means of formalising and recognising intimate partner relationships, we know that not everyone feels that this type of relationship is for them. Some people who would very much like to have their relationship recognised in the eyes of society and the law find themselves, and often their children, without protection or security simply because they do not wish to marry. We were therefore delighted when, in October, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Following this announcement, my honourable friend Tim Loughton introduced an amendment on Report in the other place which now stands as Clause 2. This places a duty on the Government to legislate to bring about equality between same-sex couples and other couples in terms of their future ability to form a civil partnership. I know that the Government have concerns about Clause 2, which include the lack of detail in the regulation-making power, and I am pleased to be working closely with my honourable friend to draft an upgraded amendment to replace Clause 2. Our hope is that this will allay these concerns and ensure that the Bill is able to deliver as intended.
Clause 3 provides for the Government to prepare a report on whether and how the law should be changed to require or permit the registration of pregnancy losses, which cannot be registered as stillbirths under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. Currently, parents whose babies are stillborn after 24 weeks’ gestation are required to register the baby’s name and they receive a certificate of registration of stillbirth. When a pregnancy ends before 24 weeks’ gestation, hospitals may enter a baby’s name in a local book of remembrance or issue a local certificate to commemorate the baby’s birth for those parents who want to do so. However, there is currently no formal process for parents to be able to register their loss legally.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of pregnancies end before 24 weeks’ gestation due to miscarriage, ectopic or molar pregnancy, or because parents make the difficult choice to terminate a pregnancy due to congenital anomalies. For many parents, this experience can be utterly devastating. The loss of a baby before 24 weeks’ gestation is made worse for some by the fact that there is no official recognition of these losses. That is why it is critical that the Government ensure that parents who experience a pregnancy loss receive the best empathetic care and support possible, through the NHS. As part of this ambition, Ministers should look into all options for changing the current system to recognise pre-24-week pregnancy loss. I am pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care has commissioned a review on this issue and has already made progress on gathering evidence and stakeholder views about how the current system might be improved, as well as examples of best practice. The Bill is an important part of driving this work forward and I strongly encourage noble Lords to support and contribute to the review. Losing a child is one of the worst experiences a parent can go through. By placing a duty on the Government to prepare and present a report setting out whether and, if so, how the law on the registration of pregnancy losses should change, I am confident that the Bill provides the next step in giving parents who have lost a baby the recognition they are due.
Clause 4 makes provision for coronial investigations of stillbirths. Currently, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, coroners have a duty to investigate deaths in certain circumstances, such as where a death is violent or unnatural or where the cause of death is unknown. This duty extends to the deaths of newborns of any age, including those who die immediately after birth. However, coroners do not have jurisdiction to investigate where the baby showed no signs of life independent of the mother, including where the baby died during labour.
The clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether and how the law ought to be changed to enable coroners to investigate stillbirths. It also provides an enabling power for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations that would amend Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to enable or require coroners to conduct investigations into stillbirths, to provide for when, and in what circumstances, coroners will investigate stillbirths.
I realise that the House may have concerns about a power to make regulations in this way, but the safeguards written into the clause will ensure that it is used appropriately. For example, where the regulations would amend primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be scrutiny by both Houses, and the regulations cannot be used to create any criminal offences unless the offence has an equivalent in Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The Government fully support the introduction of this provision. However, given the sensitivity of the issues raised, I understand the need for the Government to undertake a full review and produce a report before making any changes. This will ensure that the regulations take into account the views of all relevant stakeholders.
Finally, this provision will support the work currently being undertaken in the Department of Health and Social Care to improve maternity safety, including the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch independent investigations into all English cases of term stillbirth occurring during labour—as defined by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ Each Baby Counts criteria.
I urge noble Lords to support the clauses in the Bill and I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and Tim Loughton for their work on the Bill, which in all main areas seeks to deliver equality and fairness—a task we failed to complete during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. I say to the noble Baroness that I will certainly be as co-operative as I can, but I may not be so friendly with the Minister, because there are areas that the Government need to address.
First, on changing the law so that opposite-sex couples can form civil partnerships, in the Commons the Government, while supporting the general principle, expressed the belief, as we have heard, there were still several issues to be worked out. Tim Loughton’s new clause makes no prescription about the method, wording and reach of the legislative change required, leaving that to the Government. I therefore welcome the remarks made by the noble Baroness to the effect that she is working with the Government to prepare a suitable amendment—to be considered in Committee, I hope—which would give powers to draw up appropriate regulations for equal civil partnerships by the end of 2019. That is very welcome, but I share the concern of many that the Government may be using things such as consultation to drag their feet. We cannot wait any longer.
Talk of dragging feet brings me to my second bit of unfinished business from 2013. During the passage of the 2013 Act, the Government, instead of accepting legal recognition of humanist marriage, proposed an amendment that mandated public consultation first, as well as taking the power to bring in humanist marriage by statutory instrument. In 2014, the Government held a consultation which revealed that over 90% of respondents were in favour of legally recognised humanist marriages. In 2015, the Law Commission reported that failing to grant humanists the same rights as religious people in marriage was fundamentally unfair. In June 2018, the Northern Irish Court of Appeal ruled that there is a human right to humanist marriage. I therefore hope that in her response today the Minister will say that, without any further prompting or delay, she will use the UK Government’s existing powers to legally recognise humanist marriages in England and Wales. I hope that will happen as soon as is practicable.
My third bit of unfinished business is our failure to deliver equal marriage for all citizens in the United Kingdom. A year ago, Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, stated that same-sex marriage could be legislated for in Northern Ireland by the UK Parliament and that the Conservative Government would allow a conscience vote. My honourable friend Conor McGinn, to whom I pay tribute, introduced a Private Member’s Bill extending same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland on 28 March. It passed its First Reading but, at Second Reading in the Commons, it was blocked by a Conservative MP on 11 May and again on 26 October, and was rescheduled for debate on 23 November, before again being rescheduled to 25 January. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, introduced an identical Bill to your Lordships’ House on 27 March and it passed its First Reading that day.
On 1 November, Royal Assent was granted to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, which contains sections describing Northern Ireland’s same-sex marriage and abortion bans as human rights violations. That law does not legalise same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland, but it directs the British Government to issue guidance to civil servants in Northern Ireland on the incompatibility of human rights with the region’s laws on those two issues. Again, I hope the Minister will not say that the Government will drag their feet on these issues but will commit to ensuring that all citizens of the United Kingdom are treated equally and fairly, as that Act attempts to do.
My final bit of unfinished business—I hope we will have a debate on this in Committee—relates to the role of the Church of England. In the context of the Bill, I should like to know whether it will continue to say yes to same-sex civil partnerships but no to same-sex marriage. In his recent book Reimagining Britain, the most reverend Primate addressed the tension between scripture and tradition on the one hand and contemporary reality on the other. He tells us that the Bible’s teaching on marriage is profoundly positive but, he notes, the social reality in modern Britain is radically changed today, with cohabiting, blended, single-parent and same-sex configurations. He continues:
“If fluidity of relationships is the reality of our society, then this should be our starting point for building values, because all values must connect with where people are and not where other people might like them to be”.
What are these values? According to the most reverend Primate himself,
“in Christian understanding, the core concepts of households and family include holiness, fidelity, hospitality and love above all, because God is holy, faithful, welcoming and overflowing in love, and any human institution that reflects these virtues also in some way reflects God”.
Surely, therefore, it is time for couples who wholeheartedly embrace those values to have the right to, or not to be refused, a blessing in their church simply because they are of the same sex.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for the way in which she introduced this Bill, which deals with matters of enormous importance and sensitivity to a very small number of people. I am delighted to speak today not least because my father married a lot of people. He was a nonconformist minister, and I must tell your Lordships that the day on which the Church of England took a more enlightened view towards the remarriage of divorced people was a cause of great sadness in our household.
Turning to Clause 1, in 2016, I was absolutely delighted to get married in a beautiful chapel—it was medieval and deconsecrated, I have to say—but it was none the less a wonderful day. During the preparations, my wife and I had to see the registrar, and we all concluded that the fact that we had to tell the registrar who our fathers were but not our mothers was simply and utterly anachronistic.
I am also indebted to my dad for reasons why we should accept the Bill today. Many years ago, my father was officiating at a wedding in Glasgow University Chapel. In fact, it was the wedding of some family friends. When he took the couple out to sign the register, they turned to the groom’s mother, who was in fact a professional registrar—and she had forgotten the certificate. So my father and mother had to disappear from the reception to go and get it so they could be married. Until today, few people knew that the pictures of the happy couple are in fact of them signing a bit of blotting paper for the purpose. So it is high time that we leap forward with tech and make the changes to the schedules outlined in Clause 1.
Turning to Clause 2 and civil partnerships, there has been a huge debate about why, given that gay people are now allowed to be married and we have civil marriage, we need equal civil partnership. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, not least because my dad often married people in church and had to think carefully about whether that was the most appropriate thing to do. He had the right to refuse to marry people—it was a right that he exercised sparingly, but he did think about it. Back in those days, he thought that there were times when it was not appropriate for people have their ceremonies in church.
On the question of civil partnership, I am greatly indebted to friends of mine. I am thinking in particular of one person who at a very young age was party to a violent and traumatic marriage. She managed to escape from that and subsequently spent more than 30 years with another man whom she loved deeply, but the idea of entering into something called marriage was absolutely not right. That is no reflection on the value of their relationship, and for her, a civil partnership would have been highly appropriate. I am indebted to her for getting in touch with me last night. When I told her that we were going to be discussing this, she said, “Look, there is a point in this. People who talk about marriage frequently talk about it being a union of two people. I do not disagree with that at all, but for me, the fact we are talking about a civil partnership—a partnership of two people who are interdependent rather than dependent on each other—is extremely important”. She, other friends of mine and others who are a part of the campaign for equal civil partnership have often talked about that point.
I too want to talk about this in the context of the role of religions. I have spent a lifetime observing and wandering around the religious sensibilities of other people. Through all the arguments we had about civil partnership and same-sex marriage, time and again opponents were quick to throw at us the accusation that somehow this was undermining marriage as it is understood by the religious bodies in this country.
No one ever recognised the fact that sometimes, a person falls in love with someone who is not of the faith into which they were born, and part of the process of managing their relationship with their family is that they do not get married. Until now, if those people are heterosexual, there has been no way to enter into a legal commitment with their partner while at the same time juggling sensitivities with their family. This is therefore an important step forward.
Later, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, why we should extend civil partnerships to people who are from the same family, because of the issue of tenancies and property. It is not news to him that I oppose that. I believe it is wholly wrong to take a body of legislation designed to apply to adults who, of their own volition, come together to form a family unit and apply it to relationships which are consanguineous and cannot be broken. I agree with him that there is an anomaly in our fiscal law that needs to be sorted, but our fiscal law already makes allowances for children. Those who have children’s best interests at heart should go down that route and desist from this campaign, founded and funded by evangelical Christians, to have a go at civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. We are talking about two completely different things.
I will leave it to my noble friend Lady Benjamin to talk—far more eloquently than I could—about the registration of pregnancies that cease before 24 weeks, but I believe that if we can show greater understanding and humanity to people who undergo that trauma, we should.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, is right that the involvement of coroners is a complicated subject, not least because we would not want to do anything to undermine in any way the duty of candour of obstetricians and gynaecologists in an extremely difficult area of medicine. I think I am right in saying that the largest proportion of liability claims against the NHS are to do with perinatal medicine and what happens during birth, which is one of the most complicated and dangerous areas of medicine. The noble Baroness is right to raise this subject but I do not think that we are quite there yet.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I think that Clause 2 needs more work. Most people think there is a need for greater consultation but nobody wants to drag this out any longer, if possible. As when we were working on the original civil partnerships and same-sex marriage legislation, there are couples for whom the need to sort out their affairs is urgent. Nevertheless, more detail is needed.
Finally, I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I am pleased to say that in this country, we are still making progress in this area of social reform. It is absolutely wrong that the citizens of Northern Ireland remain set in some 1950s view of the world that no longer pertains to their lives, and it is absolutely wrong that some of our country’s citizens do not enjoy the same status as the rest. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and Tim Loughton for his persistence in moving forward on this issue. I hope that we can achieve consensus today and get this on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson for sponsoring the Bill in this House. I endorse her comments about the hard work carried out by my honourable friend Tim Loughton in another place.
I support all the provisions in the Bill but, in the interests of time, given that two Private Members’ Bills are waiting in the wings, I will address my remarks only to the first part of the Bill, which enables the registration of the names of the mother of each party to a marriage or civil partnership. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who has worked hard, with good grace and patience, to bring forward this reform. Of course, he started by introducing his own, more narrowly focused, Registration of Marriage Bill last January. I spoke at its Second Reading in strong support of its objectives.
Since 1837, wedding certificates have featured simply the names and occupations of the spouses and the names and occupations of their fathers. Mothers’ contribution to family life has been erased from history. Being a witness was the only thing they could do, which is what happened in my case: both my mother and my mother-in-law were witnesses. Now we have the chance to ensure that the details of the couple’s mothers can be included on the online version. This would be the first major reform of how marriages are registered since 1837, early in Queen Victoria’s reign. This is a Bill to put right what most people would be astonished to find is still the case in 2019. For some years, there has been a cross-party campaign to achieve this move towards equality in the registration of details on marriage. I am very pleased to see that remain; I hope that this cross-party work continues throughout the passage of the Bill.
Previously, it was argued that changing the paper certificates would be too expensive because there are around 84,000 open marriage registers around the country in more than 30,000 churches and religious buildings—plus the ones in register offices—and because, in compliance with existing legislation, physically they feature spaces for only the fathers’ names. If the mothers’ names were to be added, it was argued that new hard copy registers would need to be provided, at an estimated cost of £3 million. The Bill removes the requirement for paper marriage register books to be held in so many places, creating a digital marriage schedule. That should enable the schedule to be designed in a format that makes it possible to include the names of both parents of the couple.
When my noble friend the Minister responded in Committee on the right reverend Prelate’s Bill to Amendment 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—who I see in his place—she said:
“To clarify, by the names of the parents it will say ‘Mother/Father/Parent’ for both parents. That will apply to children of opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples and whatever we have to come”.—[Official Report, 29/6/18; col. 345.]
For the avoidance of doubt and for clarification about the provisions of the Bill, I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm that Clause 1(1) and 1(4)(a) make it not only possible, but certain, that her commitment in this House will be fulfilled. Can she confirm that it is her firm expectation that the Secretary of State and the Registrar-General will exercise their powers in a way that ensures that the “Mother/Father/Parent” option appears on the schedule, and that it remains possible for people to leave the section blank if they wish?
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister also said that,
“the regulations are an early draft and further drafting is required … I will make further drafts of the regulations available in the Library in due course”.—[Official Report, 29/6/18; col. 341.]
I am grateful to the Library of this House for providing me with a copy of those draft regulations and to the Home Office for providing the Library with an updated version last night so that I could see the latest version. Speed-reading through the regulations on my iPhone last night was quite tricky but, at first sight, they do not appear to refer specifically to “Mother/Father/Parent”. Indeed, they seem simply to replicate the provisions of Clause 1(1) and (4), which gives permissive powers to the Secretary of State and the Registrar-General to prescribe the content of a marriage schedule. It is important that we have a government commitment on the record today that those powers will be used, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to say quite easily, to enable the entry of the mother’s name on the marriage record. I invite my noble friend to provide that assurance.
The road to this stage, where we have a Private Member’s Bill that stands a good chance of getting on to the statute book, has been long and winding. Even where there is cross-party support, Private Members’ Bills are the most fragile animals in Parliament. After Second Reading on 26 January last year, we made progress on the right reverend Prelate’s Bill; it made its way down the Corridor to the House of Commons in late July, just as we rose for the Summer Recess. At the same time, my right honourable friend Dame Caroline Spelman, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, had introduced the mirror-image Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill—this gets more complicated, I promise—to the House of Commons on 14 November 2017 and was waiting for its Second Reading.
I congratulate my right honourable friend Dame Caroline for working so assiduously on this matter for several years. She made it clear that she was ready to assist her honourable friend Tim Loughton with his more complex—but I still say welcome—Bill, which last year had been successful in getting a date for Second Reading in the Commons. His Bill successfully completed its Commons scrutiny and is before us today. Dame Caroline offered to ensure that Mr Loughton’s Bill contained provisions within it which achieved the same objective as that of her Bill and that of the right reverend Prelate. She was selfless in offering to put the reforms to the registration of marriage before her efforts on her own Bill.
As a result, in Committee on Mr Loughton’s Bill in the Commons on 18 July last—that is my wedding anniversary so it was a good day for me—the marker clause in his Bill was replaced with the text from Clauses 1 and 2 of the right reverend Prelate’s Bill—I promised noble Lords that this would be complicated—on 18 July at col. 6. Therefore, Clause 1 of the Bill before us today reflects the objective and most of the text of the Bill which was sent to the House of Commons last July. I am very grateful to the Government for their assistance in ensuring that the drafting of the right reverend Prelate’s Bill has been amended to take account of the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and indeed some of the reservations expressed at Second Reading and in Committee on his Bill in this House.
Previous attempts to achieve this reform have failed at every hurdle along the way. This one has got over so many hurdles that it is my hope today that we can continue with cross-party support, leave the hurdles behind and get it into law by the end of this Session.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank Tim Loughton MP and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for bringing this Bill forward in the Chamber today. It is a complex Bill because it brings together a number of different issues and therefore the danger is that it could fall because a group of people does not like one particular bit of it. I know just how hard it has been working on just the focused registration of marriage part of it, let alone the other focuses. For that reason, I will resist the temptation to widen the debate beyond the scope of the Bill; for example, to explore the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. I do so because I want us to focus absolutely on what we are trying to deliver. That does not preclude us from having other debates on the points he has made but I do not believe that they are relevant today. Indeed, the danger is that it will confuse matters if we go beyond the scope of what we are trying to do.
As has already been spelled out, the proposals in Clause 1 reflect almost exactly my own Registration of Marriage Bill, which passed through this House with support from your Lordships. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the considerable number of people who were immensely helpful. It was only my second attempt to get a Private Member’s Bill through. I am a complete novice at this and I discovered just how complex it is to move a Bill on. I was therefore delighted to have the huge help of so many Members of your Lordships’ House. As has also been mentioned, we decided to do something which I am told is very unusual. We developed a pincer movement with Dame Caroline Spelman MP introducing a Private Member’s Bill with almost exactly the same words in the other place, because we were so determined to move this very focused piece of legislation on and try to get it into law.
The Bill before us today originated in the other place but both the respective Bills have passed through one of the two Houses and both share a core belief that marriage registration needs to be updated and modernised. Clause 1 would correct a clear and historic injustice. When a couple is married and the marriage is registered, currently there is provision only for the fathers’ names to be recorded. It is an archaic practice, unchanged since Victorian times, when children were seen as the father’s property and little consideration was given to the role of the mother, in particular any sense of them having joint responsibility.
In England and Wales the law currently requires all marriages to be registered once they have taken place. Following the marriage ceremony, the person responsible for registering the marriage, such as a registrar or a member of the clergy of the Church of England, registers the marriage in a marriage register book and handwrites the marriage certificate. I have done that myself many times. Another aspect which features in both my Bill and this Bill is the modernisation of the system of marriage registration. For too long the system has been solely paper-based. Certificates are an exact copy of the register entry, with the prescribed particulars registered for marriages including details only of the fathers but not the mothers of the couple.
Leaving aside the obvious benefits of digitalisation, which is already available to couples in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there have been calls from both within and outside Parliament for the mother’s details to be included in marriage registration. For my own Bill, the Church consulted internally and won support from senior clergy across the Church. It has also worked for many years with the Home Office and the General Register Office on the finer points of its implementation.
Incidentally, I have been surprised by the unexpected support of groups of people who would not normally spend time engaging with the minutiae of parliamentary legislation. Genealogists, for example, have reacted with a huge sense of relief. I have received quite a number of letters from genealogists saying, “It is about time because it is so much harder to trace families back in this country where the mother’s name is not recorded at this key point”. Elsewhere, I have been glad to amplify the voices of feminists and women’s groups on this important issue.
Last year we marked the centenary of women’s suffrage, so surely it is time to bring the registration of marriage into the present age. I hope that we will all support the Bill.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the honourable Tim Loughton MP for bringing this legislation forward. It is about time. I want to say simply to the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken that I find it unbelievable that there is or ever has been any hesitation about putting the mother’s name on the certificate. However, I am often shocked by the way the world works.
I will address the part of the Bill which covers civil partnerships. I always say that my nephew was killed by the state. He died aged 35 in the contaminated blood scandal. He had a 10 month-old baby and had been with his partner Olga for 14 years. The financial problems which flowed from that were insupportable.
Noble Lords may or may not be aware that as a Minister in the coalition Government, I was the originator and architect of the same-sex marriage law. My story began right at the end of the journey to equal marriage rights and I stood on the shoulders of giants. The credit for the same-sex marriage law goes to them and to lifelong campaigners, some of them in this House. I mention my noble friend Lady Barker and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Alli and Lord Collins, along with many others. But I could never have done what I did if it had not been for civil partnerships. We would not have same-sex marriage if the Labour Government under Tony Blair had not taken that tremendous step forward for equality. But at the end of the same-sex marriage journey, as has been mentioned, an inequality was left; that is, you can get married or enter into a civil partnership if you are gay, but you can only get married if you are straight. I want to take this opportunity to put on the record the history or story of straight civil partnerships. I am not talking out of school because this is all in the public domain in my book, Equal Ever After. It had to be approved by the Cabinet because if you have been a Minister you are not allowed to publish a book without its approval.
I cannot say how delighted I am that the Conservative Government are supporting this move. However, I am not surprised, because my Secretary of State was Theresa May and she was always in favour of straight civil partnerships. When I first got it into my head that we should introduce same-sex marriage, even though it was not in the party manifestos or the coalition agreement, I asked my civil servant how I could do this. He said that I had to write the words to be approved by my Secretary of State. She would then use those words to write to the Cabinet. That is how new policy is brought before the Government. The words I wrote were as follows:
“During the consultation on civil partnerships in religious premises it has become clear that there is a genuine desire on the part of some to move forward to equal civil marriage and equal civil partnerships. The Government will work with those with a key interest in this to examine how we might move forward to legislation”.
Theresa May approved my words and they passed the Cabinet write-round to create this new policy. Two Cabinet Members objected but they were overruled by David Cameron. Noble Lords may notice that the original wording did not include religious marriage, which did come to pass, but did include equal civil partnerships, which did not come to pass. How did that change happen? David Cameron supported same-sex marriage because he believed in marriage. As he said to PinkNews on 10 April 2010:
“I told the Tory conference that commitment through marriage was equally valid whether between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman … I want to do everything I can to support commitment and I’m open to changing things further to guarantee equality”.
When I read that, I thought he would not object to what I was doing. He was open to it and supported it, but was not so keen when it came to civil partnerships. No. 10’s preference was to abolish civil partnerships altogether. The view from No. 10 was that marriage was the gold standard of relationships and that if gay couples gained the right to marry there was no longer any need for civil partnerships. There is a sort of—not very good—logic to that, unless like me and many others you believe it is not for the state to judge. Some people believe in marriage; some do not. It is the state’s role not to judge which is better but to facilitate both equally.
Although Theresa was in favour and it had passed Cabinet write-round, there was continued and continual pressure from No. 10 to drop civil partnerships. I confess that my methodology to repel this push was to stomp around the Home Office declaiming that this defining equality policy of same-sex marriage was not only right but would go a long way to detoxifying the previously toxic reputation of the Conservative Party on LGBT rights. Did it really want to wreck its whole reincarnation and detoxification by scrapping civil partnership, such a hard fought-for and hard-won step on the equality ladder?
Conservatives had begun moving in the right direction, mostly supporting civil partnerships, and David Cameron had changed the atmosphere—but whether it was the upset in the Conservative associations at same-sex marriage or he simply did not believe in civil partnerships, I do not know. This came to a head a day or two before the 2011 Liberal Democrat autumn conference, at which I was to have the honour of announcing the new policy and the consultation that would be launched. It had been a year and a half getting to this point and I was so excited about finally going public. No. 10 special advisers and Nick Clegg’s special advisers acting for me were at loggerheads. They rang me to say that No. 10’s position was basically that if I did not agree to drop straight civil partnerships, David Cameron would kill the whole thing dead and would not allow same-sex marriage to go ahead. I instructed our special advisers to fight back. But many hours and phone calls later, in the end No. 10’s position was final: drop straight civil partnerships or same-sex marriage is dead in the water.
With a heavy heart, I made the decision that same-sex marriage was the big social change, the big equality step forward, and vital to get through in that Parliament. I was also 100% sure that straight civil partnerships would inevitably follow, as we would be left with the inequality of gay couples having the choice between marriage and civil partnerships but straight couples only able to marry. I insisted that a question on this remained in the consultation, and it did. In the consultation responses—the biggest response to a government consultation in history with around 289,000 responses, I think, but I may stand corrected—people overwhelmingly supported straight civil partnerships. Tim Loughton tabled an amendment during the same-sex legislation but it was kicked into the long grass for a review, as it was then regarded as potentially derailing or delaying the same-sex legislation—pretty much the same as happened with humanist weddings—but here it is today, exactly as I predicted. Thank goodness. If it had not come forward, I would have felt guilty for the rest of my life, but happily we have that opportunity today, so I am delighted to support this Bill and equality in marriage and civil partnerships at last.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I take the opportunity, as others have, to congratulate both Tim Loughton and my noble friend Lady Hodgson on the progress made on this Bill so far. I have given them an indication of the subject on which I want to speak, and it will come as no surprise to many people that it is Clause 2 and the question of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his reference to my Private Member’s Bill.
Before I move on to that, I am prompted by a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who referred to her father. We live in a much more liberal and open society than many years ago, and I thank all the different Governments and people who have campaigned on behalf of that. I once sat in the Strangers’ Gallery in the Commons with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, Ian McKellen and Boy George. It was reported in the papers that the four of us were there for a debate on the age of equality. That happened to out me to my parents, so I went back to my parents to discuss the subject with them. My father was completely relaxed about it. He said: “I don’t mind what you do in your life, with one exception: please never get mentioned in the same sentence as Boy George again”. We have moved on, and are now in a position where we can consider the whole question of same-sex and heterosexual equality in one form or another.
I am today wearing the tie of the Kings Cross Steelers, the world’s first gay and inclusive rugby club. I hope not to wear it so often, because I have worn it on each occasion that I have spoken on same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. Sooner or later, I want to make progress on this. I have pursued it in a number of different ways. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, I have worked with the Member for St Helens in the other place, introducing exactly the same Bill. We have been told over and over again that it is a devolved matter. That is the answer that the Minister, Victoria Atkins, gave when the subject was debated in Committee in the other place. But we cannot go on waiting for ever. Sooner or later we have to say that, because there is no devolved Assembly, we now have the responsibility of changing the law in this place.
It is a common supposition that there is broad support in Northern Ireland for this but no support from the DUP, which blocked the legislation when there was a Northern Ireland Assembly. But I pay credit publicly now to members of the DUP for giving me assistance and advice since 27 March and throughout the last few months, helping and encouraging me to change the legislation in Northern Ireland. It is a real stain on our society that we are in a position where we can say that it is fine for everybody but the people of Northern Ireland. As a member of the Kings Cross Steelers, on a weekly basis I have to face friends of mine from Northern Ireland. Yet we say to those people that they can get married in this country but not in their own community.
When I spoke on this in the debate here in October, I mentioned that the previous week I had been present, very close to here, at a wedding that involved a friend of mine from Northern Ireland and his partner—but they could not have got married in Northern Ireland if they had wanted to. Surely that is an unacceptable position in this day and age and this society. We must find a way of making that change, whether in this Bill—I will raise it in Committee in more detail—or on another occasion in another place. We cannot go on saying to people that they can be equal in one part of the country but not another. It is utterly unacceptable.
It seems that it is our responsibility to say through legislation that it is a human right for everybody in every part of the country to share the same rights on marriage and relationships. As I have indicated previously, when this Bill gets into Committee I will therefore be pursuing the need to change the law as it relates to Northern Ireland. I wish it well, and I hope that, when it comes out, we will have changed the attitude of all those involved so that we can get a fair passage and a speedy change to one aspect of the legislation, about which I and many other people in this Chamber are seriously concerned.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill today and to Tim Loughton for having the determination to steer it through the Commons. He is building on the work done by others, and I am particularly pleased to see the Bishop of St Albans in his place today after everything he did last year.
The civil registration service is one of the hidden administrative gems in this country. Every year, around 1 million births, deaths and marriages are recorded throughout the country. It happens routinely, without drama, and provides the legal evidential base for our very existence, so its accuracy is key. Civil registration as we know it has remained largely unchanged since it was introduced in 1837. It is administered by registrars in local authorities as well as by the General Register Office in Southport. My noble friend Lady Featherstone asked how on earth we were at the point where women were not recorded on marriage certificates. The answer goes back to the fact that, when civil registration was introduced, it moved the system which was already in place for the recording of baptisms, marriages and burials. The prevailing thinking at the time was, frankly, that women did not matter all that much.
The keeping of church registers had been haphazard until 1538, when Thomas Cromwell ordered that every priest should keep a proper record of baptisms, marriages and burials. Later, they were required to be recorded on parchment and kept in secure parish chests. Copies were made regularly and sent to the bishop. The Rose’s Act of 1812 standardised all this information on pre-printed forms, which included only the father’s name and occupation on baptismal and marriage records. As I have said, civil registration imported that system. As to civil registration, copies of local events do not go to the bishop but go to superintendent registrars and then to the Registrar-General, who holds a repository.
This system is entirely paper-based. In an increasingly digital world, we have a totally paper system of civil registration. Each time these documents are copied, there is scope for error and the current arrangements are complex, as you can imagine, if you want to correct or change them for any reason. Basically, the system has served us well. However, it has not kept pace with technological and societal change. There is never any time for legislative change in civil registration—it never gets to the front of the queue—and yet it is where routine state administration touches some of our most personal experiences. It is therefore important.
I shall confine the remainder of my remarks to the registration of marriage. Noble Lords may have gathered that I am something of an enthusiast for this topic. This comes from my interest, which is shared by millions of people, in family history. As such, I tend to take a long view of these matters. One of the most vexing questions for serious researchers is the standard of proof to which you work. Therefore, adding details to the public record—and particularly the mother’s maiden name and occupation to a marriage certificate or baptismal record—would be important extra pieces of validation for future generations of family historians.
It has even more significance because, when you really get into family history, other people often say to you, “How far back can you go?” It is an inane question and not what it is about. You are interested in what your ancestors were like and what they did. Yet we have written women out of the record, which is both morally repugnant and difficult from a research point of view. Genealogy tends to drift towards the male line because the name does not change. Therefore, anything that can help in your research into the female line is useful. To be frank, it is the only line with which you can have biological certainty. There are currently an estimated 2 million single-parent families, of whom 90% are women, and they are absent from the marriage records of their children. Given that, what on earth will future generations make of our attitude to women?
The Government have been moving to digital systems for some time now, and civil registration should not be an exception. We should regard this now as the beginning of a sort of digital parish chest. I hope the Government will give some thought to how we can also deal with registration of births and deaths—not, I hasten to add, in this Bill, but in the future. The Minister in the Commons reflected that there are estimated savings of £33.8 million from the measures in this Bill, and I wonder whether any work has been done to quantify what might be saved from digitising birth and death records.
Not only does the Bill do good things in a range of ways which reflect new attitudes towards the formation of families and the recognition of life events such as a stillbirth, but it also helps us to modernise and future-proof civil registration so that later Parliaments can deal with, for example, how to recognise those with two female or two male parents or no legally recognised father. It is a useful Bill in its contribution to all of these matters. I emphasise the point made by one or two other noble Lords that we must be mindful of the temptation to put too much into this Bill because what is really important is that it passes.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to recognise the exceptional work done by Tim Loughton, the cross-party work in the other place and the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, in introducing this important Bill. It is important because it strikes at my very heart—or, dare I say, raison d’être—which is equality and fairness. Equality and fairness define the society in which we live, especially minorities, who are so often misrepresented and defamed.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, whom I congratulate on the work he is doing on the Northern Ireland same-sex marriage Bill, reminded me of 1994 when we sat in the Gallery for the age of consent debate. I had forgotten that I was sitting with Boy George, but I remembered that I was sitting with the noble Lord. His father said to him that he did not mind what he did, but he did not want to see him in public again with Boy George. When I led the campaign against Section 28 and I was featured on the evening news, my father, an old docker, said to my mother, “I don’t mind him being gay, but does he have to go on the news about it?” How times have changed. They have changed because people have had the courage to leap forward where others have hesitated, to give a voice to the voiceless and to recognise those who might otherwise remain invisible in our society.
This is a simple Bill. It addresses inequalities and unfairness. I welcome Clause 3, but we need to proceed carefully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, to lose a child is calamitous to a parent. Therefore, in considering whether there needs to be registration below the threshold of 24 weeks, I suggest that this should be a discretionary rather than a mandatory process, because it may ask some parents to face something which is too difficult.
On Clause 2 and the resistance of the Minister in the other place to accept a time limitation to bring forward these measures, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and Tim Loughton, when the Bill finally resurfaces, to stick to this timetable. I am desperately worried—this is no reflection on the brilliant civil servants that we have—about capacity in our departments. I am particularly worried at this moment about capacity in the Home Office, dealing as it has to with the repercussions of Brexit or possibly no Brexit. An example, which I offer the House as a warning, is that, during the passage of the Policing and Crime Act in January 2017, I introduced an amendment, which the Government accepted, to widen the pardons and disregards to include the criminal records of homosexual and bisexual men who were convicted of actions that are no longer crimes. More than two years down the line, nothing has been delivered. In August 2018, a letter from the then Minister stated that work was under way. Here we are, six months later, and still no work has been done. I know the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, is committed to this, but we do not want commitments; we need delivery. So it is vital that we stick to this.
I equally have to associate myself with the eloquent and powerful contribution of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury on unfinished business. In 2006, something happened that I never believed would happen in my lifetime. I stood with Paul Cottingham as we undertook a civil partnership. At that time, I had shared 23 years with him. The ability to commit yourself in public to someone you love is indescribable. Some people wish to do that in a church because of their faith and belief. It is shameful that a church that professes love excludes such people who wish to practise their love and commitment within their faith. We should allow all churches to celebrate and solemnise—all faiths and none. We must move forward.
In view of the time, I wish to move on very swiftly. Civil partnerships and marriages—relationships—are the building blocks of our society. I have never really understood why people want to build civilised, strong societies and to deny commitment. Some heterosexual couples do not believe in the institution of marriage, and therefore including them in the right to civil partnership is vital. I urge the Government not to go down the easy route of transferring civil partnerships into marriage or of dissolving partnerships and passing them into marriage. That would be wholly wrong.
I offer my two final points to the Government, who may not wish to come back with an immediate reply because of the sensitivity and misrepresentation on the issue. We have had a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. I wonder whether the Government might wish to look at the approach undertaken by the New Zealand Government where changing one’s sexual identity, one’s gender, can be addressed by seeking a change in the birth registration. That is one route that the Government might wish to look at. They should certainly look at the New Zealand experience.
Finally, I wish to thank—not finally; politicians use that word far too often when we actually mean we are thinking—the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for the generous and open way she has always worked on equality issues and for the ground-breaking and courageous work she undertook in making same-sex marriage a reality.
I said finally, but this is finally. We cannot go on denying people in Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom that we vociferously defend as part of our union, the same rights as are afforded in the rest of the United Kingdom. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I look forward to working with her.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing this Bill to the House. I want to speak on Clause 3 of this important and brave Bill and on the traumatic and devastating issue of baby loss, which sadly affects around one in four pregnancies each year across the UK, resulting in around 258,000 losses. It is estimated that around 38 million baby losses occur globally each year. I am one of those statistics, as I have experienced three miscarriages, and I am sure most women in this Chamber have also experienced a miscarriage or know of someone who has. It is heartbreaking. As in my miscarriages, the majority of people who experience baby loss do so during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, yet sadly these individuals, couples and families have no formal recognition of their child’s life, as current legislation provides certification and registration only for loss that occurs after 24 weeks’ gestation.
Thirty-five years ago, I tried to raise this issue by attempting to get a television programme commissioned to highlight the issue, but at the time it was a taboo subject, and the programme was not made. For years, women and their partners have suffered in silence. I am thankful that six years ago the significant and important issues surrounding baby loss were highlighted globally by Zoe and Andy Clark-Coates, the founders of the Mariposa Trust, better known as the charity Saying Goodbye. I declare an interest as one of its ambassadors. They have worked tirelessly to provide crucial support to parents, siblings, grandparents, extended families and friends affected by this type of bereavement. They provide international services of remembrance that allow tens of thousands of families to have their babies publicly acknowledged for the first time. They also provide training to raise the standard of care given to those devastated people and campaign for improvements in how bereaved parents are cared for and supported by the NHS and beyond.
Zoe and Andy formed the charity because of their five-times personal tragedy of baby loss. Those experiences showed them the desperate need for parents to receive better support. They knew that improvements in the care people received at the time of loss, as well as access to information and advice, were essential, so the charity has developed key resources, provided free of charge, that are widely used across the NHS and support groups. They have also pioneered the use of social media to support people effectively. Two years ago, when I heard Zoe’s inspirational call for a new baby loss certificate, I pledged to work with her to make it a reality, so I introduced a Private Member’s Bill, the Certificate of Loss Bill, in the hope of giving grieving parents the opportunity, for the first time, to receive a document that would show that their child existed.
It is with this in mind that I want to speak today, given the progress of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill introduced by the honourable Tim Loughton MP in the other place. To give some history about where we are, in February 2018, the right honourable Jeremy Hunt MP, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, announced that he wanted to launch a review into the introduction of certificates for babies lost prior to 24 weeks’ gestation. This coincided with the Second Reading of Tim Loughton’s Bill, which in Clause 3 asks for a review of the registration of baby loss. In March 2018, the Secretary of State appointed Zoe Clark-Coates to co-chair the review, utilising her expertise as a leader in the field of grief and baby loss, as an author on the subject and as a mother who has experienced baby loss.
Following the announcement of the review, the Secretary of State expanded it to include a review of all care relating to baby loss. Over the past 10 months, the national pregnancy loss review has been conducted by Zoe and her co-chair Samantha Collinge, a specialist bereavement support manager at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to investigate how parents are cared for and supported following the loss of their babies and whether certification should be introduced. They have visited numerous hospitals to speak to front-line NHS nurses, doctors and midwives, conducted forums with bereaved parents around the country and engaged with stakeholders and religious and minority groups, as well as local and national charities, parliamentarians and other experts in the field. They have seen passionate and hard-working midwives, doctors and medical professionals going to extreme lengths to care for people, witnessed both good and bad practice, heard horrific stories of care going wrong and seen the shortfalls in the current provision of care. They are currently finalising their recommendations, which will be published this year.
This review is the start of what should be a major overhaul of how bereaved parents are cared for following loss. The introduction of certification would be a significant move towards providing parents with formal recognition that their child existed, which is what everyone universally is calling for. I have made this recommendation to the right honourable Matt Hancock, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who, along with others, I hope shares my belief that the findings of this review need to be actioned and not just left on a shelf to gather dust.
I fully support introducing registration and certification for losses that occur before 24 weeks’ gestation where the following conditions are met: that the scheme is voluntary and there is no legal requirement for a parent of the child to register the loss; that all loss pre-24 weeks is eligible for registration; that medical verification is optional; and that retrospective registration and certification is available for all future and past pre-24-week losses, which will help people on their bereavement journey.
It has become clear that medical verification might not be available for the registration of all cases of pre-24-week loss. Those experiencing early loss might never have been seen by medical professionals, and early first-trimester loss might have been managed at home outside the medical environment. Therefore, I support the recommendation that medical verification should be optional and that, if no verification is available, that should not prevent parents registering their loss. This would allow the greatest flexibility for applicants and would support retrospective registration where medical verification might no longer be available.
I believe that registration and certification should be as inclusive and generous as possible, and that therefore all loss pre-24 weeks should be eligible for registration should the parents choose to do so, as this offers true compassion. In the spirit of this generosity, retrospective registration should also be available. It is clear from various sampling conducted by the Mariposa Trust and other organisations that there is a high demand for this. In a survey conducted by the trust in January 2017, of the 2,634 responders, 82.4% stated that a certificate being issued to them would have made a real difference and 88.4% stated that the issue was very important to them.
I believe that we are at a crossroads. We could continue to give sub-standard support and not formally recognise these losses for what they are—the death of a baby—or we could acknowledge the long-term negative effects of baby loss, such as trauma, relationship breakdown, and physical and mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and do everything we can to address them. I believe that we should embrace the national pregnancy loss review findings and support the implementation of its recommendations to improve care across the NHS, as well as implement certification. I also believe that the current chairs of the review should be engaged to oversee the implementation and outworking across the NHS and beyond. They have the expertise and experience to do so with dedication, compassion and commitment. Clause 3 lays a foundation for certification to be introduced, so I strongly believe that it should be supported on its journey through the House of Lords.
In conclusion, to focus our minds on the importance of this issue and the devastating effect of baby loss, in the time I have taken to speak in this debate today, around five families in the UK and 650 families around the world will have lost a baby.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, this is undoubtedly an important piece of legislation, and we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for explaining its various aims and purposes to us with her customary clarity. A tribute has rightly been paid to the Bill’s progenitor, Mr Loughton, who so skilfully secured its passage through the Commons, showing tenacity and resolve during the considerable period in which it was under discussion.
I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her trailer. We are, sadly, at odds over the main point that I will be addressing—the position of sibling couples—but we are not at odds over everything. I am at one with her and with the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, and my noble friend Lord Hayward about the extension of same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland. I have endorsed its extension on a number of occasions in this House over the last few years. As a unionist, I feel very strongly that a common core of human rights should be applicable in all parts of our country. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and I were on the point of commissioning from a mutual friend of ours, a great expert at York University, a short Private Member’s Bill when Mr McGinn MP and my noble friend Lord Hayward came forward with their Bill, which I very much look forward to supporting at every conceivable opportunity.
As regards this Bill, I shall confine my remarks to Clause 2, which would permit opposite-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships instead of marriages, if that is their wish. A long campaign has been conducted to achieve this major change. All those who have participated in the campaign, and the many opposite-sex couples who look forward to entering into the kind of legal relationship that they want for themselves, will rejoice at the further progress that the Bill is making today. I look forward particularly to hearing the Government’s position.
A consultation exercise on the extension of civil partnerships is to be held this year, as my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford confirmed in a Written Answer to me recently. No doubt she will give details of when the exercise will start and finish, and tell us what will happen after it has been concluded, when she comes to reply to this debate. We need to be clear too about whether the Government intend to keep to their original commitment to hold a full public consultation. That is what is needed so that all those who would like to become entitled to civil partnerships can make representations and have their claims assessed, but perhaps the Government have now backtracked and propose to confine the consultation to the legal technicalities of bringing opposite-sex couples within the scope of civil partnerships. I look forward to hearing the details.
I have a simple question to pose in this debate. Now that the extension of civil partnerships beyond same-sex couples has been accepted in principle, have all the appropriate additional criteria for eligibility been included in this important Bill before us today?
For my part, I have for years backed wholeheartedly the widespread view that, by one means or another, eligibility should be extended further so that sibling couples, committed to one another in secure, platonic, long-term cohabiting partnerships, symbolised by the home they have created together, can come within its scope. It is a view that first found strong backing in this House in 2004, when an amendment to include cohabiting family members in what became the Civil Partnership Act was passed, but the Labour majority in the Commons declined to accept it. A clear majority of Conservatives were in favour—something that should be remembered today.
Since 2004, support for the legal recognition of sibling couples has always been present in both Houses. It was expressed most conspicuously on 20 July last year, when my Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading in this House. The detailed arguments in favour of it were powerfully reinforced by speeches from the Cross Benches, as well as from elsewhere.
A very important point was made from the Cross Benches in that debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has been tireless over the years in seeking to extend the rights provided by civil partnerships to cohabiting family members. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling which gave this Bill added urgency, she said:
“If civil partnerships are to be extended to heterosexual couples by virtue of … Article 14”,
of the European Convention on Human Rights,
“the same must be true of sibling couples”.—[Official Report, 20/7/18; col. 1404.]
Two of the House’s leading lawyers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who could not be present for the debate in July, made clear their full support for the Bill. My Bill would authorise civil partnerships between siblings over 30 years of age who have cohabited in shared property for at least 12 years. It awaits a Committee stage, which it deserves but will not get because the Government will not provide time for it.
The Bill before us today highlights once again the injustice suffered for so long by sibling couples who have decided to make their lives together in homes that are their proud, shared possessions, filled with the memories of two platonically entwined lives. That is the inevitable consequence of extending legal rights to some couples in the form that they want them, while ignoring the just claims of other couples who are so badly in need of them, and in exactly the same form, to protect their common interests.
A crucial point arises here. Civil partnerships were introduced for the express purpose of conferring legal rights on couples who were ineligible to marry. Now the plan is to extend them to all those who possess the right to marry while denying them only to couples who cannot marry. It does not make sense. No one even attempts to argue that denying all legal rights to cohabiting siblings is defensible; yet whenever the issue comes up, government Ministers and other short-sighted politicians everywhere say that this is not the time, the place or the right piece of legislation to address it. This must stop. It is hard to think of anything better suited to dealing with this issue than a Bill to change the nature and purpose of civil partnerships by extending them beyond those for whom they were originally intended.
Let us not mince words about a supposedly overwhelming obstacle to using civil partnerships to bring justice to sibling couples. Delicately and coyly, we are told that civil partnerships are for only those in intimate relationships. Others, like sibling couples, who are living chaste lives together, cannot have a civil partnership. There must be sex. This is a complete canard. There is nothing in the 2004 Act which makes sex a prerequisite. Church of England clergy are allowed to form civil partnerships on the understanding that the couple will go separately to bed.
It is difficult to forgive the indifference shown by a Conservative Government to sibling couples. Their values are Tory values, and the Government should not be perpetuating discrimination against them. They should be celebrating and applauding the contribution made by devoted cohabiting partners to the well-being of society. Cohabiting partners save the state the cost of social care: they release housing by setting up home together and often look after elderly relatives and children.
Undertaking such responsibilities and providing unbroken mutual support entitles them to the legal rights of civil partners, particularly joint tax allowances, joint pension rights and the deferral of inheritance tax. Many sibling couples have been in touch with me. All are worried, many in despair, about the probable loss of a joint home when the first sibling dies, because of the real risk that the survivor will have to sell up to raise the means to meet an inheritance tax bill—and at a time of deep personal distress. I referred earlier to the constant support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to the claims of sibling couples. On several occasions, she has been told that deferral of inheritance tax until after the second death must be for only those who have made a legal, binding commitment to each other in the form of a marriage or a civil partnership.
Sibling couples are shut out from civil partnerships because of official insistence that there must be an intimate couple relationship—in other words, sex—for which there is no legal requirement at all. Has discrimination ever been more blatant? The former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, whose words I have quoted before, has expressed perfectly the reasons why change must be made:
“The basis for creating civil partnerships is the recognition by government of the value of close, mutually supportive relationships outside traditional marriage. As such the exclusion of cohabiting blood relations from the right to form one is discriminatory and a serious mistake that needs to be corrected”.
I come back to the question of whether this Bill does all that is needed to extend eligibility for civil partnerships. It does not remove the discrimination suffered by sibling couples. The law on civil partnerships will not be in a truly satisfactory state until sibling couples are brought within it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and Tim Loughton for bringing forward this Bill. It covers a large number of areas. I will begin with pregnancy loss, an area that I wish to talk personally about, and then cover the others. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her very moving speech. I also thank the Mariposa Trust, the Miscarriage Association and Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal charity, for all the work they do with parents who face baby loss.
My eldest child would have been 41 this year. I remember, in my early 20s, having a miscarriage in a public toilet in a castle in the highlands of Scotland. When I finally got to see a doctor two days later, the only response was, “Oh, well you’ve had an abortion”. What they meant was a spontaneous abortion, but, for any woman who suffers miscarriage or baby loss, the inconsiderate use of terminology by medics can be very traumatic. It was unfortunately not my first miscarriage; like my noble friend Lady Benjamin, I had recurrent miscarriages. I will come on to why the registration is important for reasons other than the care of parents and the recognition of the loss of a baby.
There is an issue for me with Clause 3(2), and the definition of pregnancy loss as,
“when a person’s pregnancy ends and, after being parted from the person”.
I will explain. My fifth miscarriage came when I was carrying twins, in my middle trimester. I was seen by a doctor because, by then, everybody knew that I had trouble having babies. I was seen and scanned and, after two weeks, the sonographer said that there was a problem. I was extremely lucky that my consultant, the wonderful Lesley Regan, decided to come and have a look herself. Had she not done so, we would not have known that I had another twin sitting behind the first baby who had died. Lesley said to me, “She is waving for attention; we need to do something about this”. I then spent two and a half months on my bed, unable to move. Slowly, as we became confident that I had retained my other baby, I was able to start my life again. Yet under the terms of this clause, I did not lose the twin who had died until I gave birth to my other daughter, and it would have been classed as a stillbirth. That was not the case. I fear—in fact I know, because I have talked to other parents who have lost one of their twins—that this is a real issue around how you manage what has happened. I am concerned that the definition here is too strict; it may miss cases out and may not be helpful.
Interventions nowadays mean that parents know when they are pregnant much earlier than those of us in my generation did. Scans are available from eight or nine weeks or, if you have had problems, as soon as your pregnancy is confirmed. That is why the relationship that mothers, fathers and other family members have with the baby pre-birth is completely different. The arbitrary figure of 24 weeks for the definition of stillbirth and the recognition of baby loss is a real problem. I know this as the grandmother of twins who were born at 29 weeks; throughout the pregnancy, there were warnings that one or possibly both would not make it. Therefore, while I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that the matter of whether registration is chosen should be discretionary, the discretion must always remain with the parents. It is vital that that happens.
I have one extra concern. Lesley Regan came to believe that there were causes for multiple miscarriages. My cause—which we did not know at the time because nobody then understood it—was autoimmune disease. I am now on my fifth autoimmune disease, and recurrent miscarriage was one of them. I am sure there are other illnesses that are not obvious which cause miscarriage and baby loss. The point of registration is that there is then a burden upon the medics to track miscarriages and at what point they have happened.
I mentioned the slightly cavalier treatment that I had after my first miscarriage because I am afraid that it still happens today. There are still doctors who pat women on the leg, as I was, and say, “Get up and get on with your life; you will be able to have another baby”. Actually, there may be an underlying cause that needs to be looked at.
On stillbirth, I completely accept my noble friend Lady Barker’s important point about the duty of candour for obstetricians and gynaecologists, but, frankly, we have had too many scandals where departments have not looked after mothers and babies and there have been baby losses. The helpful part of having a coroner is to identify bad practice and bad processes where a body outside the NHS needs to be able to identify it.
On marriage registration, I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Scott taking us back in history, because it is important to understand why our paper systems exist—and it would not be the House of Lords if we did not go back to 1538 and Cromwell and his parchments. However, we need to change the technology, and I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Scott and Lady Barker for pointing this out.
I also agree strongly with the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Collins, Lord Lexden and Lord Hayward, and my noble friend Lady Barker that the issue in Northern Ireland is totally unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
My noble friend Lady Featherstone put on record the story of why civil partnerships were not made accessible to heterosexual couples. The couple who were determined to make this happen, Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld, went everywhere that they could to campaign, including to the courts and to the Supreme Court for a judgment in 2018. They and more than 3 million unmarried opposite-sex couples now have the opportunity for their relationship, which is profound, deep and interdependent, to exist in law at the level that they want it to. I commend their campaign and those who worked with them to make that happen. I wonder if that is where we need to go with the Northern Ireland issue; it may take going through the courts to resolve it.
Further on the reform of civil partnerships, I have now been to a number of weddings confirming civil partnerships, and they are the most moving arrangements that I have ever seen; my noble friend Lady Scott was right to describe them as a hidden gem. I put on record my thanks to all the celebrants of those occasions, both formal registrars and those who have trained to carry out these moving ceremonies, which 100 years ago we would never have thought of as possible in our society.
As others have done, I want to say that there are some minor points here that I hope the Minister has heard and which we might be able to deal with, whether by amendment or by the Government accepting them. The most important thing is that the Bill progresses, and smoothly, because we need it in law. It would help a lot of people and make them happy, but it would also help those who are deeply unhappy to recognise and come to terms with the loss of their children.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased and honoured to support the noble Baroness’s Bill from these Benches. I congratulate her and Tim Loughton on getting us to this point. I know, having done these things myself, that this is not easy but complex, and I offer the noble Baroness my support and help if she needs it throughout the passage of the Bill. I have enormously enjoyed this debate and the contributions from all noble Lords, particularly those from my noble friends Lord Cashman and Lord Collins and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
The Bill has six clauses and would do four things: it would facilitate the move from a paper-based system of marriage registration to a partially electronic system, allowing several connected changes about how marriages are registered, including the presence of mothers, for the first time; it would grant opposite-sex couples the right to form civil partnerships; and it would require the Government to publish reports on whether the law should be changed to allow the registration of pregnancy losses that occur before 24 weeks’ gestation, and on whether coroners should be allowed or required to investigate stillbirths.
Clause 1 would give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations enabling changes to be made to the Marriage Act 1949, providing a new system of marriage registration in England and Wales. Various terms have been used throughout the passage of the Bill: “antiquated patriarchal anomaly” is one that I noted from the Commons debates, while “modernise and future-proof” has been said by one noble Baroness today. I do not think I can add to the excellent remarks made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Anelay, and the right reverend Prelate. These changes are long overdue and very welcome, and they have our support.
Clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations granting opposite-sex couples the same right to enter into a civil partnership as same-sex couples. However, it would not change the other eligibility criteria set out in Section 3(1) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, meaning that it would not be available to those already in civil partnerships, lawfully married under 16 or within prohibited degrees of relationship—for example, siblings and adopted children. I do not think I need to add anything to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the passion that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has about that particular issue, and I know that we will return to it again.
Why is that important? Several noble Lords have said this, and I congratulate the Equal Civil Partnerships organisation for the campaign that it has run on the issue of allowing civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples: it is fair, it is popular and it protects children and their families because, contrary to popular belief, there is actually no such thing as common-law marriage in UK law, as a result of which, when an unmarried parent dies or a couple separate, there is no legal entitlement for assets or wealth to be shared or for automatic tax relief, as there is for married couples or same-sex partners. That can and does cause huge distress to parents and children. I agree that the state has a responsibility to ensure that children and their partners are protected, and providing this option would make that easier. Children should not be placed at risk just because their parents are not married.
That being said, I wish to return to one or two of the issues that my noble friend Lord Collins regarded as unfinished business. The right reverend Prelate might not want to address these issues today, and I completely understand why he would not, but I have to say that the Church of England cannot keep turning away from the inequalities that still exist. I think it was Tim Loughton who said that the proposal before the Commons would allow registration to be adapted so that mothers’ details could be included in the marriage entry, and he described that as,
“the biggest reform of how marriages are registered since 1837”.—[Official Report, Commons, Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill Committee, 2/2/18; col. 1123.]
I congratulate him and the other MPs, Peers and officials who have brought us to this point, because it is about change in the name of equality. It is on this point that I wish to quiz the Minister.
On 22 November last year my noble friend Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty’s Government what plans they had to enable humanist wedding ceremonies. The Minister at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, said:
“My Lords, marriage is a complex area of law that needs systematic review to enable any reform proposals to be delivered fairly and consistently. We are working with the Law Commission to draw up terms of reference for the wider review of the law on marriage ceremonies … The Government welcome the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group … and are carefully considering its findings”.—[Official Report, 22/11/18; col. 321.]
That, as we know, is government-speak for kicking something into the long grass. It is five years since Parliament said, during the course of the equal marriage Act, that humanist weddings should be made official and should take place, as they do now in Scotland and Northern Ireland but still not in England and Wales. I believe that the Government have bowed to lobbying and pressure from council registrars, who have a vested pecuniary interest, and the Church of England to deny thousands of people the choice of a humanist wedding—including, it has to be said, my own children. This is unequal and unfair, and if I could find some way to amend this Bill to this effect, I would surely do so, but I have promised the Minister that I will help her get it through. However, I make my protest. It shows that when the Government are actually minded to effect fundamental changes in the area of marriage and relationships, they can do so without so-called complexities. I would like the Minister’s view on this matter: is this complex or not? Are the Government minded to resolve it?
Turning to Clauses 3 and 4, the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Brinton, spoke with great passion and explained why these clauses are essential. At present, the law means that coroners are not able to investigate stillbirths. I believe they should be given that power. I welcome the fact that the Government wish to engage with the public on proposals on this matter and support a review being conducted. I also welcome the Government’s ambition to halve the rate of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, maternal deaths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 2025. Of course, we would all support that. I was profoundly moved by the remarks made by my honourable friend Sharon Hodgson in the Commons during the passage of this Bill. She experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby pre-24 weeks and was distressed to find that she and her husband were unable to register the birth or death because the baby had been born a few days before the 24-week gestation threshold. I welcome that the Department of Health and Social Care’s advisory panel is carrying out this review.
In conclusion, I reassure the Minister that on these Benches, we will give her every assistance to put this important reform on the statute book. I think one noble Lord said that Private Members’ Bills were delicate things, but they are also an important opportunity to raise issues. The Government always say that if a Bill is amended, that will kill it. However, in my experience, that is not always the case. In fact, I understand that this Bill has already been amended quite fundamentally in the Commons, and it has got here; the Government also intend to amend it further in this House. While we certainly would not wish to jeopardise the Bill, I do not think we should dismiss the idea of changing or improving it. With those remarks, I wish the Bill well and thank the noble Baroness for bringing it to our attention.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hodgson for bringing her first Private Member’s Bill forward so eloquently. It includes many important issues that the Government fully support.
Clause 1 seeks to bring forward changes to the way marriages are registered in the future. Under present legislation, the marriage register entry provides space for the name of the father of each person in the couple to be recorded, but of course not that of the mother and this, unbelievably, has been the case since 1837. As my noble friend said, this topic was the subject of a debate in this House last year—I was the Minister who responded to it—when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans brought forward a Bill containing identical marriage provisions. I would also like to acknowledge the long-standing work of my right honourable friend Dame Caroline Spelman, who has been tireless in her efforts to address this anomaly and introduced identical private provisions on more than one occasion in another place to ensure that the marriage certificate reflects the important role of both parents.
Moving to a schedule system is the most efficient and economical way to introduce these changes and bring forward the biggest reform of how marriages are registered since 1837, moving away from the outdated legislation currently in place. It would remove the requirement for paper registers, currently held in over 30,000 register offices and religious buildings, to registration in an electronic register. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, asked about the savings that would be incurred. I suspect there would be an initial cost, but ultimately, the digitised system would probably bring savings. The basis of a schedule system is that the couple and their witnesses sign a marriage schedule instead of signing the marriage register book. It is worth mentioning here that couples will still be able to have that all-important traditional photo, but instead of signing the marriage register book, they will sign the marriage schedule with their witnesses. My noble friend Lady Anelay rightly asked me to confirm the ministerial commitment to the “Mother/Father/Parent” intention, and I can confirm that when the content is prescribed by the Registrar-General in secondary legislation, it will allow for the different family circumstances in society today. I think noble Lords would agree that this future-proofs any other changes that might occur as society changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, asked about lessons from New Zealand on the GRA, acknowledging that the GRA is not a subject for discussion here. We have been looking at Google to see exactly what the situation in New Zealand is like, compared to what it might look like here. I will take that away; his advice is always so welcome. I slightly hang my head in shame to think that it was two and a half years ago that we worked on the other Bill together and some of the changes to it that we both so much want to see have not been made. I want to place that on the record.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about humanist marriages. Of course, Clause 1 affects only how marriages are registered; it does not enable wider changes to who can marry or where marriages can take place. The Marriage Act 1949 provides for a premises-based marriage system, as noble Lords will know. The Government consider that legislating in this way would create an anomaly for most couples, who cannot marry outdoors and are restricted to marrying in a register office, or approved premises such as hotels. That is all I will say about humanist marriages for the moment. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made the point that Private Members’ Bills can be amended, but I think the less a Bill is amended, the more likely it is to secure a passage. I think all noble Lords would agree that all the provisions of the Bill should be taken forward.
Turning to Clause 2, the House will be aware that the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2013 resulted in a situation by which same-sex couples could choose between a marriage or a civil partnership, but opposite-sex couples had only the option of marriage to formalise their relationships. Since then, the Government have carefully considered how to ensure equality of access to civil partnerships for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and on 2 October, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I am pleased to say that this firmly remains the intention of the Government, and we look forward to opposite-sex couples being able to form civil partnerships as soon as possible.
As my noble friend stated, while we highly value marriage, we know that for many reasons this is not an arrangement which suits everyone. Many opposite-sex couples have told us that they feel very strongly that marriage is not for them, but they would very much like a civil partnership to formalise their relationship. There are around 3.3 million cohabiting couples in the UK, almost half of them with children and all without the protections and security that a formalised relationship can bring. Extending civil partnerships will ensure that opposite-sex couples will be able to benefit from the protections and security that a civil partnership provides. The Bill gives us the opportunity to carry forward this objective of the delivery of a comprehensive and effective opposite-sex civil partnerships regime at the earliest possible opportunity. I am very optimistic that the Bill may provide scope as a vehicle for extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.
Following its amendment at Third Reading in the other place, Clause 2 now seeks to create a power intended to enable the Government to legislate to equalise access to civil partnership between same-sex couples and other couples in their future ability, or otherwise, to form a civil partnership. The clause also contains a duty on the Government to make the necessary regulations within six months of the Bill reaching Royal Assent, and attempts to define what is meant by “other couples”.
As highlighted by the Minister of State for Immigration at Third Reading, the Government have doubts about the clause’s ability in its current form to deliver an effective and comprehensive opposite-sex civil partnership regime in the time it provides for. In particular, we have some concerns about the lack of detail in the regulation-making power as drafted. We are pleased to be working closely with my noble friend and the Bill’s sponsor in the other place, Tim Loughton, to draft a new amendment to the Bill, which we hope to lay before the House in Committee. This will hopefully address the concerns about the current shape of the clause and ensure that the Bill can deliver a comprehensive and robust opposite-sex civil partnership regime as soon as possible.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Lexden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, all talked about same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. We all support the aim that it should happen, but it is a devolved issue. I am sure noble Lords will feel like groaning at that comment, but it would be for a democratically elected Assembly to decide whether to introduce same-sex marriage. I note very much my noble friend Lord Hayward’s comments about the DUP’s position on this, but it is why restoring the Northern Ireland Executive remains a top priority. Northern Ireland needs its elected representatives back in government to take these important decisions on the issues that matter most to the people of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about blessings in, for example, the Church of England, which was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. We quickly referred to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans to provide expert advice on this. It would be a matter for a minister in the individual church. As a divorced Catholic, I was not able to get remarried in a Catholic Church, but my local priest absolutely understood my desire to have a blessing in my local church and absolutely beautifully obliged in that instance.
On sibling civil partnerships, we do not have any plans to extend civil partnerships to siblings—to brothers and sisters. We will ensure that the extension is restricted to opposite-sex couples in intimate relationships. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, talked about the fiscal consideration that a lot of the lobbying has come from. We have had previous debates on it. We do not intend to move from this position at the moment.
Lord Lexden
Could my noble friend give an indication of the scope of the consultation that the Government have announced, which she confirmed in a Written Answer to me and I raised in the course of my remarks?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I was just coming to that. At this point, officials are working through all the policy issues before the content of any consultation is determined. Therefore, I have to tell my noble friend that I cannot say any more at this stage.
Turning to Clause 3, the Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS provides the safest and highest-quality care possible. This is particularly true for pregnant women. It can be achieved by instilling in the NHS a culture of patient safety, but also by making sure that, when things go so sadly and tragically wrong, we can provide empathetic care and support to bereaved parents and their families to cope with the tragedy of pregnancy loss. I was totally moved by the stories of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Benjamin. No parent ever wants to go through what they had to go through.
Registration and certification can be an important part of acknowledging a pregnancy loss for some bereaved parents. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked particularly about a twin who survives. That can be the only acknowledgement that their bereaved twin ever existed. I thought that was so pertinent. We fully support Clause 3, which provides for a report on whether the law should be changed to require or permit the registration of pre-24-week pregnancy losses. This clause requires the Secretary of State to publish the report.
The Government have already begun work to produce a report on this issue. The pregnancy loss review, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care, has engaged with many key stakeholders, including parents with lived experience of pregnancy loss, health practitioners, registrars, charities and academic experts with knowledge and experience of pre-24-week pregnancy loss. It is vital that the Government look into this sensitive and timely issue. I encourage Members across the House to support this important clause.
On Clause 4, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, coroners currently do not have jurisdiction to investigate when a baby has not shown signs of life independently of its mother. Coroners can investigate if there is doubt as to whether a baby was stillborn but must stop if inquiries reveal that the baby was in fact stillborn. There have been calls for coroners to do more than this and to be able to investigate stillbirths, providing a transparent and independent assessment that will contribute to learning and improvements in maternity care. Clause 4 places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether and, if so, how the law ought to be changed to enable or require coroners to investigate stillbirths.
The Government support the clause. We have already committed to look into extending coronial jurisdiction to stillbirths and to see whether there is a role for coroners that could support what is already happening in the NHS. Much work has been done to improve the ways that stillbirths are independently investigated, with learning fed back into practice. Recently, for example, the remit of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has been extended to enable investigations of some stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths and birth-related brain injuries. But the Government agree that we should look at what coroners can add and produce a report on whether and how they should be involved in investigations.
To that end, officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care have been exploring the issues and engaging with stakeholders. These include coroners and the Chief Coroner, medical professionals and academic experts, as well as bereaved parents and representatives from third sector and voluntary sector organisations. It has been invaluable and I add my thanks to those who have contributed. We are making good progress in developing our proposals and we will publish them soon. The sensitive issues and range of views means it is important that we fully consider everything that people have told us. It is also clear that we need to engage with the wider public to hear their views to make sure that any actions we take are the right ones. This clause is a very important step towards that.
This has been an excellent debate and I know that noble Lords recognise the importance of taking forward these changes in some very key and sensitive areas. The Bill will modernise how marriages are registered, introduce the provision for opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership and provide for reports to be produced on whether there should be provision to register pregnancy losses and whether stillbirths should be referred to the coroner. These are key areas of people’s lives.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
My Lords, I sincerely thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions to this debate. A number of interesting points have been raised—too many to mention them all, although I know that my noble friend the Minister has mentioned quite a few. I also know that other Private Members’ Bills are waiting, so I will be quick. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who said that consultation can mean the Government dragging their feet. The reviews mentioned in the Bill have actually started, so the horse has already left the stable.
I acknowledge all the previous work put in on the change to marriage registration by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and Dame Caroline Spelman, which has contributed so much to this Bill. It was very interesting to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, about the overwhelmingly positive response to her consultation on extending civil partnerships to all couples. That was very encouraging.
I extend enormous sympathy to the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Brinton, on their losses. I commend their bravery in speaking out; I too lost a twin baby, so I know how hard this can be to do. They both spoke so overwhelmingly. I also have huge admiration for all the fantastic work that Professor Lesley Regan has done on miscarriages.
As your Lordships can imagine, we have received many letters on the issues raised in the Bill, particularly on equality and stillbirth. There is a passionate desire for us to get this through and I look forward to going into more detail in Committee. We have had a comprehensive response from the Minister on many of the technical answers to the questions and I do not think I need to add to them. Suffice it to say that my door is open to any Members who wish to discuss any of the issues raised today, so that we can ensure that we return to the Commons a piece of practical and workable legislation.
Overall, I am particularly grateful to your Lordships for being so generous to me and for the wide support for the Bill from across the House. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her support and my noble friend the Minister for the Government’s continued backing of the Bill. I ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Friday 1st February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 140-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (31 Jan 2019)
“Extension of civil partnership
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 so that two persons who are not of the same sex are eligible to form a civil partnership in England and Wales (provided that they would be eligible to do so apart from the question of sex).(2) The Secretary of State must exercise that power so that such regulations are in force no later than 31 December 2019.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any other provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in view of the extension of eligibility to form civil partnerships in England and Wales to couples who are not of the same sex.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision about— (a) parenthood and parental responsibility of parties to a civil partnership;(b) the application by a party to a civil partnership for a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or the issuing of such a certificate, and the consequences of that application or issuing for the civil partnership;(c) the financial consequences of civil partnership (for example, in relation to pensions or social security);(d) the treatment under the law of England and Wales as civil partnerships of similar relationships formed outside the United Kingdom.(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision—(a) for and in connection with a right to convert a marriage into a civil partnership (including any provision equivalent or similar to that contained in or authorised by section 9 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013);(b) restricting or bringing to an end—(i) the right to convert a civil partnership into a marriage conferred by section 9(1) or (2) of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (including as it applies or would apply by virtue of regulations under this section);(ii) any right conferred under paragraph (a).(6) Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any provision that the Secretary of State considers appropriate in order to protect the ability to act in accordance with religious belief in relation to civil partnership (including the conversion of civil partnership into marriage and vice versa).(8) Regulations under subsection (3), (5) or (7) may include provision amending, repealing or revoking primary legislation passed or made before the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.(9) In this section—(a) reference to forming a civil partnership in England and Wales includes reference to registering as civil partners outside the United Kingdom by virtue of eligibility to do so in England and Wales (in accordance with section 210(2)(b) or 211(2)(b) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004);(b) “primary legislation” means—(i) an Act of Parliament;(ii) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;(iii) a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England.”
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which stand in my name, seek to replace the current Clause 2 and make consequential changes to the drafting of the Bill. In replacing Clause 2, I must highlight that we do not wish to change the intention of the clause. Rather, we want to clarify the power in order to use the Bill to deliver a comprehensive and effective opposite-sex civil partnerships regime.
Following the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2013, we were left with a situation in which same-sex couples could either marry or form a civil partnership but opposite-sex couples could only marry. I outlined at Second Reading the various reasons why a couple may desire to choose a civil partnership over a marriage. Suffice to say that many people who would like the protections and provisions that a formalised relationship can bring do not feel that marriage is for them.
When Tim Loughton and I introduced this Bill in the other place and in this House respectively, we did so with the intention that it would be used to equalise access to civil partnerships between same-sex and other couples, and thus put right the post-same-sex marriage unfairness to which I have just referred. We were delighted in October last year when the Prime Minister announced that it was now the Government’s intention to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.
Subsequently, Tim Loughton successfully moved an amendment on Report in the other place that stands as the current Clause 2 of the Bill. The intention of the current Clause 2 is to enable the Secretary of State by regulations to equalise access to civil partnerships between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. We accept that the current clause is not adequately drafted. The Minister outlined her concerns about the drafting during her response on Report, highlighting the fact that the clause would not enable us to deliver a robust opposite-sex civil partnerships regime and the lack of detail in the regulation-making power.
I have been working closely with my noble friend the Minister and Tim Loughton on a more comprehensive approach to the provision, and I am pleased to be able to table Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 today, which effectively replace Clause 2.
Subsection (1) of the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to amend by regulation the eligibility criteria of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in order that two people who are not of the same sex are able to form a civil partnership.
Subsection (2) would establish the date by which the regulations must come into force as 31 December 2019. This would ensure that a comprehensive opposite-sex civil partnerships regime came into force at the earliest opportunity, and certainly before the end of the year. I know the Minister will also be reiterating that, all things being equal, that is the Government’s intention. This will be welcome news to many couples for whom getting a civil partnership is a matter of urgency for various reasons.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for struggling in today; she is clearly not on top form. I thank her very much for the comprehensive way in which she took us through the amendment. Noble Lords know that I not only support her Private Member’s Bill but I wish to see it enacted as quickly as possible, because there are a great many couples in this country for whom this is very important legislation.
However, as I have already flagged to the noble Baroness in preparation for today, I have one or two misgivings about aspects of the Bill and her amendment. It is important, however well disposed one is to a piece of legislation, that it is subject to proper scrutiny. It is the noble Baroness’s misfortune that her Bill comes in the middle of a slew of government Bills taking Henry VIII powers to realms previously unimagined.
The noble Baroness will have seen the report issued on 29 January from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the Constitution Committee’s report published yesterday. They are both very forthright in their views on the Henry VIII powers in the Bill and the scope for Ministers to make regulations. I am indebted to Mark D’Arcy of the BBC, who described the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House as a body in which the raising of an eyebrow was considered a severe criticism—by this stage, I think it is pushing chairs through windows. The committee is very sceptical about the scope, extent and reason for the Henry VIII powers in the Bill.
I will come on to the second area when we get to Amendment 3, but I wish simply to address proposed new subsection (3), which would be introduced by Amendment 1, which the noble Baroness just moved. It states:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any other provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in view of the extension of eligibility to form civil partnerships in England and Wales to couples who are not of the same sex”.
That is very widely drawn. I have one particular concern, which I raised on previous occasions.
As the noble Baroness knows, I do not believe it is in any way appropriate for civil partnerships to be extended to siblings. It seems it is possible to read this subsection as enabling siblings—a brother and sister—to form a civil partnership for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has explained concerning property and inheritance. I believe that is very deeply wrong, because I do not believe that a body of legislation devised for consenting adults to form voluntary relationships is in any way appropriate to be applied to relationships that are consanguineous and cannot be broken. That raises the possibility of women, although it could apply to men, coming under pressure in their families to protect family property by forming a civil partnership.
Therefore, it is not just important but necessary that we look again at the drafting of subsection (3). Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain why she believes it to be necessary in the form it is in when she replies. If it is to go ahead, at the very least the Committee would have to be satisfied that it is not the intention that the law will apply to sibling couples and that it cannot be interpreted in that way. That is a very important reassurance, which would have to be made in the strongest of terms for me to consider allowing this to pass. That apart, and in all other respects, the noble Baroness’s amendment is helpful, and I would wish to support it.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as recorded in the register. I too will speak to Amendment 1. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for introducing her amendments. I am particularly concerned by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report, and its reference to the Bill conferring,
“no fewer than four Henry VIII powers”.
It also refers to the contribution made by the Minister in our previous debate.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I fully welcome the extension of civil partnerships and will do all I can to bring that about, but I am worried. The regulations have the power to do good, but also to undo the good that has been done. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) are absolutely right because subsection (2) contains a sunset provision—a time limit on when the Secretary of State might lay regulations. However, I am concerned about proposed new subsection (3), by which the Secretary of State may, by regulations,
“make any other provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate”.
That is far too widely drawn. If we are to go down that route, I would like a time limit on when they can be implemented. Similarly, proposed new subsection (6) says:
“Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
That seems wholly wrong. Instead of widening consultation it could limit it. Therefore, I have concerns about that.
I will not detain the Committee much further, but I must refer to proposed new subsection (7). On all of these I look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on the use of such regulations. Excuse me—the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seems to have great powers of projection; her cold seems to be catching. However, he says, taking a very deep breath, the subsection says:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any provision that the Secretary of State considers appropriate in order to protect the ability to act in accordance with religious belief in relation to civil partnership”.
The making of “any provision” is far too wide. I would like to see that qualified. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, could indicate what actions would need to be taken to protect the ability to act in accordance with religious belief, since I remain to be convinced that such a subsection is necessary.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—my friend in many contexts, but not in that of sibling couples and civil partnerships—that I would be pleasantly astonished if my noble friend failed to give her the reassurances she sought. It is clear that the Government have no intention of extending civil partnerships in the way I would wish. I set out at length at Second Reading the unfairness and injustice sibling couples who are committed to each other in strong, stable and platonic associations have endured for far too long because they are denied civil partnerships. I will not repeat the points I made then. I should be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say, but I do not expect the pleasant surprise I wish for.
I have not tabled amendments to this important Bill that would cause proceedings on it to be extended. I simply say this to the Government, assuming that I am right: committed, platonic sibling couples, some of whom have shared their lives for 50 years and more, look on with astonishment and anger as a political party that ought to value the family units they have created together does nothing to relieve them from the constant anxieties they endure in the absence of joint legal rights.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, may I ask a very naive question? I ask the Committee’s forgiveness if this has already been answered. What happens if there were to be a civil partnership between a brother and sister—let us say the brother and sister are Jill and John—and then Jill meets Jack and decides that she wants to marry him? Can she marry Jack and thereby have a marriage and a civil partnership?
Baroness Barker
Having sat through debates on all the relevant legislation, I believe it is not possible to be simultaneously in a civil partnership and a marriage. That is not allowed under either of the laws.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, because there is unfairness to siblings and I do not go along with the rather emotional arguments that it is somehow inappropriate to extend any form of union to them. There is no solid evidence behind that; it is simply subjective. I hope the Government will treat them fairly one day, if not today.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, perhaps I may make a very small but important point. Proposed new Clause 1(7) refers to regulations being made for civil partnerships to be converted,
“into marriage and vice versa”.
This would require quite a bit of consultation with the Church of England and, I think, with the Church in Wales.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, without in any way wishing to get involved in the difference between, on the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and, on the other, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, it seems inconceivable that proposed new subsection (3) could ever be deployed to cure what the noble Lord would regard as the defect in this legislation. I point the Committee to its last few words, under which this regulation-making power applies only,
“to couples who are not of the same sex”.
If you are to give effect to sibling couples, it would be bizarre to give it to those who are sibling couples of the same sex but not of other sexes. It is perfectly obvious to me that proposed new subsection (3) could not extend to bringing in this altogether very different category of sibling couples.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, which gives me a bit of reassurance. I hope that the Minister will do the same. The fact is that two committee reports have raised serious concerns about the powers that are being extended or given in the Bill. I make it clear from the outset that we support the passing of the Bill and its objectives. We would not want to do anything to hinder it but, on the other hand, we want the Minister to be clear about the precise nature of these powers—about how they will be used and their scope.
The noble and learned Lord has been clear about proposed new subsection (3). I hope that the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, will be able to respond clearly in relation to my noble friend’s question about proposed new subsection (7). Precisely what is its purpose? I suppose the right reverend Prelate alluded to this, in that he referred to the implications for couples who have been married in church. I suppose that is what he is concerned about. There are obviously many people who have married in church and later divorced, then married again—maybe not in a church, but that has extended even to members of the Royal Family and, potentially, a future head of the Church of England. That is not for me to query. However, this really is important because, in scrutinising legislation, we have to be clear about the sort of precedent we are setting.
My own view, expressed partly by the Delegated Powers Committee, is that when the Supreme Court decision was made the Government should have come in with a Bill themselves. Why are we not conducting primary legislation properly and scrutinising it properly? We have here an omnibus Bill to which, as I say, I do not object; we certainly want to see it passed, without delay. People who want civil partnerships should be able to have them as soon as practicable and we will support that. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to answer these very important questions about scope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, referred to the conversion period. I have experienced that myself, not least because I converted my civil partnership into a marriage and I wanted clear assurances about the timeframe for that when the 2013 Bill was going through. I got assurances but it still took a bit longer than I thought it would, so I hope the Minister will tell us precisely what the window of opportunity that has been alluded to is. What is the Government’s view about this period in which people may be able to convert their marriages into civil partnerships? What timeframe are we looking at and how will people know about this? If there is a window of opportunity that will close, it is really important that the Government communicate that effectively. I hope the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, will be able to respond to those points.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Brown for his reassurance on the point that was raised. The reason I am grateful is that when I attended and listened to the debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made a very moving speech—I would love to see some form of protection for siblings of the kind that he mentioned—I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, won the day with her comments and reservations. It is reassuring to have this advice from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, in responding, perhaps the Minister might refer to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report, not least, if she has it in front of her, paragraph 27. It deals with the committee having stated that it was,
“puzzled that the Memorandum fails to mention that Ministers already have power to remedy by secondary legislation the ECHR-incompatible provisions in the 2004 Act”.
The Minister might want to refer to that and, equally, to paragraph 31, regarding the concerns raised by that committee and its recommendations.
Lord Collins of Highbury
May I beg permission to intervene quickly? I forgot to mention one point that arose from civil partnerships being converted into same-sex marriages. It is the issue of recognition by jurisdictions in other countries, particularly countries such as France and Germany that do not like the idea of retrospective legislation. Having raised this in the Chamber on a number of occasions, I know that it was a substantial issue. I think it has been resolved in France by a decision of the National Assembly, but can the Minister pick up that point, so that people are properly advised of what all the implications are if they convert?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to commend my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, who is quite a trooper when it comes to pressing on regardless. I wish her well and hope that she has good rest over the weekend, having fought the good fight today to bring further equality with civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples.
I fully support my noble friend’s amendments. As she said, the Government had some concerns about the drafting of Clause 2, but not the intentions behind it. I am pleased that the drafting of this amendment has been improved in a way that is satisfactory both to the Bill’s sponsors and to the Government. I hope that we have arrived at an amendment that works for everyone and is able to deliver a comprehensive and effective opposite-sex civil partnerships regime at the earliest opportunity.
The Government are committed to equality for all, and we were pleased last October to announce our intention to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. As my noble friend has outlined, the amendments make it possible to equalise access to civil partnerships between same-sex and other couples by amending the eligibility criteria in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 through regulations.
A couple of noble Lords mentioned that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee expressed concerns about the drafting of Clause 2. I hope that our amendments go some way towards alleviating those concerns. The new clause now sets out in much greater detail how we envisage the delegated powers would be exercised, including dealing with issues such as parental responsibility, the effect of a legal change of gender, the financial consequences of a partnership and any conversion entitlements. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, about Henry VIII powers, but I hope that I can satisfy them at least in part. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is shaking his head—but perhaps when I have said what I have to say he will be happier.
The powers are needed to give opposite-sex couples equivalent rights and benefits to those enjoyed by same-sex couples. Simply changing the eligibility criteria in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 would not ensure this. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman—and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Collins—were concerned about subsection (3) and the possibility of extending civil partnerships to siblings. We have no intention of using the subsection to extend civil partnerships to siblings or family members. My noble friend Lord Lexden, who lives in hope that one day we may do so, has clarified that. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the extension of eligibility applies to opposite-sex couples only, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, and, as drafted, would stand in the way of extension to siblings.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, asked me about other European countries—I am sorry, it was the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I do not know why I am mixing the two of them up today. Both their names begin with C. They are the dynamic duo.
Lord Cashman
It might help the Minister if she realises that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has rather less hair than the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I know. I have observed that over time—but I am still mixing the noble Lords up.
I do not know the answer the question about other European countries, so I shall write to the noble Lord before Report and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Any regulations made in the exercise of all these powers will be subject to affirmative resolution and therefore to parliamentary debate and approval.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, asked whether one could have a civil partnership and a marriage. It is not possible to marry if you are in a civil partnership: nor is it possible to form a civil partnership if you are already married. However, it is possible to convert a civil partnership into a marriage—but the civil partnership would then end.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Having gone through the process—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord can correct me—I should clarify that what the 2013 Act provided for was retrospection. One converted one’s civil partnership into marriage. So the date of my marriage is not the date on which I converted but the date on which I entered my civil partnership—hence my question in relation to foreign countries. It had implications, particularly for those people concerned about Brexit who were married to, for example, French citizens—in my case, I happen to be married to a Spaniard. It was about recognition of that marriage being dated from the date of the civil partnership.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally understand that point and I stand corrected on the technicality of what the noble Lord said on that matter—but, as I said, I will write to him on the European question.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me about conversion and religious protections—about the date et cetera. We are looking closely at a range of policy considerations, including matters relating to conversion and religious protections. We will take decisions on the nature and extent of conversion rights following the consultation to which the amendment commits us.
I will reassure noble Lords that the Government wish to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples as soon as possible and are fully committed to bringing the necessary regulations into force before the end of 2019. It is a challenging timeframe, but, given the need for consultation and further parliamentary debates, it would be impossible to commit to an earlier date.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
I have been listening to the debate, but I admit that I have not paid close attention the Bill up until this point—so I may have missed something. I believe that the Minister said that the Government have no intention of extending the rights that the Bill will provide to sibling couples. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and to the Minister, I am not clear whether the amendment would prevent any future Government exercising that power. I do not doubt the Minister’s bona fides, nor those of any of her current colleagues, but I am a little concerned about those who might come after.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I understand it, the Bill is dedicated to this cohort of people only. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, might wish to correct me.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Nothing in the Bill prevents the Government or anybody else hereafter seeking to introduce fresh legislation to avail sibling couples. All I am suggesting is that, under the order-making power here conferred by subsection (3), that power is not granted.
Lord Lexden
Is my noble friend yet in position to give any details about the consultation exercise announced in October? She will remember that I raised this at Second Reading. Have there been any developments since then?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will keep noble Lords apprised of the exact consultation process and the timings thereof in due course. I fully support the amendments.
“Removal of exemption for clergy under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to remove the exemption for members of the clergy to solemnize the marriage of a same sex couple.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force by the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the Committee for being unable to speak at Second Reading, although I was present for a large part of the debate. My amendment is very simple and I hope it will be seen by the Committee as an attempt to build on the success of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which many of us in this Chamber view as one of the great successes of the coalition Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who took it through on behalf of the Government, won huge plaudits at the time for the way she did that and for the way in which she won over some sceptical Members of the House as the Bill went forward. There was, however, a major flaw in that Act. It included what in today’s parlance would be called a backstop, but I remember that at the time it was called a “triple lock”. This effectively ruled the Church of England out of the Bill’s provisions. It continued the ban on same-sex couples marrying in Church of England churches.
I took advice this morning from the Public Bill Office, to which I express my deep gratitude, as to whether it would be possible to propose a simple amendment to the Bill to effectively change that so that, at some point in the future—I look at the right reverend Prelate, because I think that it will be in his hands and the hands of members of the Church of England—there will be an opportunity to say that, because the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act has been such an unqualified success and is already allowing thousands of same-sex couples to enjoy the opportunity to be married and live together, it should be possible for the Church of England to follow the lead set by the Anglican Churches in Scotland, the United States, Canada and other countries and permit same-sex couples to marry in church. The amendment provides the opportunity for that debate, and I hope very much that the Committee will look sympathetically on what I am proposing. I beg to move.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to this amendment and I echo the words of my noble friend. It is vital to remember that this change will not compel the Church of England to solemnise same-sex marriage. Instead, it simply means that if the Church were to change its position at any time, as some of us hope it will, and decide to authorise its clergy to solemnise same-sex marriage, it would not have to appeal to Parliament to change the law to allow it to do so. It rightly places this decision in the hands of the religious institution rather than Parliament. I have to reflect at this point that other religions are not so prohibited and are allowed to make their decisions. As a born-again atheist—although one right reverend Prelate informed me that I was not a born-again atheist but probably a “recovering Catholic”—I go to great lengths to defend the rights of religion and belief, because the basis upon which any civilised society is formed is defence of the rights of the other, even if the other is in complete opposition to you.
I have witnessed, in this country and around the world, how religious belief has been used to deny people basic equality—equality of rights, civil rights. I want us to come to a time when that history is far, far behind us. I witness how religion and personal, private religious belief is still being extended into the public and political domain to deny others basic human rights. I have to ask myself and imagine what would have happened if, instead of my wonderful civil partnership with the late Paul Cottingham, we had wanted to marry in the Church of England. I would have faced discrimination, as people of faith in the so-called LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans community, often do, because the views of religious people are used to deny that group and other groups equality, as I said. But what about when those people of faith and of belief are discriminated against and denied their place within their own faith and belief community? It makes no sense to me whatever.
Neither does the use of religious principle, selectively implemented to justify such discrimination, make sense. I remember being mentored, before a television debate, by the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, Jim Thompson. He schooled me rather brilliantly and said, “When they use the Levitical code, remind them how the modern Church has dissociated itself from strands of the Levitical code, particularly in relation to women, people with disabilities, the eating of pork and shellfish et cetera”. When we use religious principle selectively, I would argue that we undermine those principles.
Therefore, without wishing to preach—dare an atheist do that?—I look to those progressives within religious institutions, not only in this country but across the world, and the incredible work that they are undertaking within their institutions and within those religious bodies to move forward. We need to do everything to support them. I believe that this amendment goes along that route. It is not about telling them what they should do, but telling the Government that they should remove the obstruction to a religious institution, in this instance the Church of England, if it so decides, going along the route to solemnise same-sex marriage, and thereby welcome into the body of that Church people regardless of whom they wish to love consensually.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, because I have experience of this. Let us be clear about the prejudice of not being able to be married in the Church of England. I married just over 16 months ago. I and my husband, like every other couple, went into this with a sense of enjoyment and excitement, wishing to reaffirm our love of 23 years in the eyes not just of society but also, because of David’s view on religion, of the Church. We were denied. The law of this country denied us that right. We were not equal in the eyes of the law. So when we talk about same-sex marriage, it is not equal in law at the moment because of the provision concerning the Church. How do you think that makes me feel? We are not talking here about an abstract concept; we are talking about humans. It made me feel, in my country, not equal, not worthy of the Church rejoicing in my love, not worthy of being born in the eyes of God and being seen as equal.
The powerful nature of that prejudice is deep. It has an effect on human individuals beyond just feeling that an institution cannot marry them. It devalues the very love that I, my husband and others have. As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, this amendment does not order the Church to accept me. It puts down in legislation the provision that if the Church so decides, as faith evolves—if it understands that the love between me and my husband, that love in all same-sex marriages, is equal to that of any other—it can bring my marriage and others into its arms.
It is for that reason that I ask noble Lords to support this, because it has a profoundly human effect. I hope that the Church welcomes this with open arms, although I understand that for some—not for all—there may be some theological reason why this cannot be done at the moment. As debates go on within the synod and the Church, this amendment gives the provision to do at some later date what other churches have done—to accept me, my husband and other same-sex couples as equal. If not, the prejudice that we have received will continue to be hurtful and enshrined in law.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I want to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who was precise in referring to the Church of England. My understanding is that the same provisions stand for the Church in Wales as well. They were included under the same legislation, so I wanted to make sure that was right.
I will raise one other matter. The default position in the way the same-sex couples legislation was written was to defer always to the wishes of the Church, so much so that the provisions for same-sex marriage state that there must be no religious content whatever in the ceremony. For some of us, that is not a problem; we realise that we are estranged from the Church. For some people, as my noble friend has powerfully said, it is a deeply hurtful thing.
I will give two examples. A friend of mine of the Jewish faith could not have a chuppah—a canopy—or the breaking of a glass, because that is deemed to be a religious ceremony. In his community, it has a religious basis, but is also a cultural practice. Speaking for myself, I was taken aback on the day of my marriage—wonderfully happy it was, after 29 years—to be required to say what music we were going to have, because we were not allowed any music that was deemed to be religious. The effect of this protection for the Church has quite extensive and deeply hurtful ramifications, as my noble friend says. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, may not win today, but I thank him for raising again a very deep injustice.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I will first make it clear, lest it be misunderstood, that the Church of England seeks to welcome all people, including LGBTI+ people, including those in civil partnerships and same-sex marriages. The reason we are having this discussion is that there are questions about how this welcome can be expressed, but I deeply regret a situation where anyone, because of their sexuality, feels excluded, alienated or hurt in the way that I know some are.
As I shall go on to explain, the Church of England is at the moment in the middle of a process which is examining how we give expression to this welcome. I hope noble Lords will understand my comments in this context, because I still regret that this amendment has been tabled. It introduces a discordant note into your Lordships’ consideration of a Bill which is otherwise uncontentious and likely to receive clear support. Moreover, an exemption from one piece of legislation can challenge inclusion in another. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 seeks to strike a balance between the right of individuals to marry a person of the same sex, and the rights of churches and other religious bodies—and of their ministers—to act in a way consistent with their religious beliefs. Nobody is prevented from entering into marriage with a person of the same sex, but no religious body or minister of religion is compelled to solemnise such a marriage.
In its second report on the then Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that religious liberty, as granted under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is,
“a collective as well as individual right. Religious organisations have the right to determine and administer their”,
doctrinal and,
“own internal religious affairs without interference from the state. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the autonomy of religious organisations is ‘indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 of the Convention affords’”.
The Joint Committee went on to say that the Government have an obligation to protect the rights of religious organisations of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It concluded that this was a justification for the provisions now contained in the 2013 Act, which provides for religious organisations to decide whether or not to conduct same-sex marriage.
The 2013 Act treats the Church of England and—the noble Baroness is right—the Church in Wales differently from other churches and religious organisations. Nevertheless, as the Government made clear in 2013 and as the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted, both Churches are free to decide whether to solemnise same-sex marriages. Any such decision would be implemented through the particular legislative processes rather than through the opt-in mechanism provided in the 2013 Act that applies to other religious organisations. However, the Joint Committee concluded that this difference in treatment was justified because of the particular legal position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales—this is the crucial point—whose clergy have a duty under common law to marry parishioners. The 2013 Act accordingly contains specific provision so that the common-law duty of the clergy is not extended to same-sex marriages. As I understand it, that appears to be the main target of the amendment.
I accept—of course I do—that many noble Lords deeply regret the Church of England’s current position on the marriage of same-sex couples. However, that position is based on the doctrine of the Church of England set out in canon law—which in turn forms part of the law of England—and in the Book of Common Prayer. However, the Church of England is currently engaged in what is called the Living in Love and Faith project, which is driven by a desire to learn how relationships, marriage and sexuality fit within the bigger picture of humanity, made in the image of God and redeemed by Christ. It is no secret that there are differing, strongly held views within the Church of England on these questions—I am putting it mildly. We recognise that they are vital matters which affect the well-being of individuals and communities, but we are in the middle of this process and we are waiting to see what will emerge.
Were the Church of England’s doctrine that marriage is between one man and one woman to be changed, that could be achieved only by specific ecclesiastical legislation, passed by the General Synod and then by Parliament. This amendment, which I am pleased to hear is not intended to compel the Church—I thank noble Lords for making that point—would not remove the need for that legislative process to happen, so I believe it would only make matters more difficult for the Church, not easier. Even for those within the Church who want to see change, this is not the way to help that. Instead, by requiring the removal of provisions from the 2013 Act, it will put marriage legislation at odds with ecclesiastical law, and it is impossible to know how the courts would resolve that situation. But, more significantly, it would unbalance the 2013 Act so that it ceased to respect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, I would like his reaction to the fact that what is proposed is not at odds with—I forgot the phrase he used—religious law. It does not compel the Church of England to do anything but rather removes the legislative barrier from the Church progressing down the route if it so chooses to solemnise. The right reverend Prelate says that he regrets that we are bringing this amendment forward; I also regret that we have to bring forward an amendment that addresses such basic inequalities in the second decade of the 21st century.
I would welcome the right reverend Prelate’s response to some research carried out by the Stonewall Group—I declare an interest as the founding chair and co-founder of Stonewall—which found that:
“A third of lesbian, gay and bisexual people of faith … aren’t open with anyone in the faith community about their sexual orientation … One in four trans people of faith (25 per cent) aren’t open about their gender identity in their faith community … Only two in five LGBT people of faith … think their faith community is welcoming of lesbian, gay and bi people”,
and:
“Just one in four LGBT people of faith … think their faith community is welcoming of trans people”.
Are those levels of perceived hostility and discrimination acceptable, and does the right reverend Prelate agree with me that the Church, by completing its internal discussions on this important issue, could send a very important signal that everyone—people who believe in the same beliefs and the same religion—is welcome within the Church and that there is no prohibition to them being a full and fully partaking member of that community?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I had sat down, but if I may, I shall respond briefly. I think the noble Lord’s question goes rather beyond what is proposed here, but I want him to know that the Church of England works closely with Stonewall to address many of the issues he identified, which I am aware of and very much hope that the Church of England will address. However, I stand by what I said: I do not believe that the amendment will help in the process that the Church of England is part of, although I understand why it has been proposed.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I came as a spectator, but I am fascinated by what we are being asked to do. I need to be a little clearer on the mechanics. Not being familiar with the legislation, but listening to the right reverend Prelate and others, it appears to me that if the Act of 2013 did not exist, the clergy would be under a compulsion to marry against their principles. Surely the effect of the amendment, the exemption being removed, would be to place them under compulsion. I ask because it is an important difference whether it would be imposed automatically or whether the Church will have time to adjust to circumstances.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I was pleased to hear how it was being put forward; that is certainly not how those in the legal department of the Church of England have read it. I do not feel legally qualified to make further comment, but it is clearly a concern within the Church, and I think I am right to say that it would be a concern even for those who would like change, because it would introduce compulsion. That would be very unhelpful, particularly as the Church of England is in the middle of a process of discussion of the issues.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, perhaps I may be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As it stands, as I said earlier, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 does not allow for clergy of the Church of England to solemnise, but it makes provision for other religions, including Quakers and Judaism, to opt in. There is no obligation; there is an opportunity to opt in to solemnise. They are not obliged. If as individuals or a group they do not wish to solemnise, there is no obligation to do so.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and support it whole- heartedly, and I do not believe that we are striking a discordant note. I think the opposite. We are asking a question to which people are seeking an answer. I do not profess for one moment that we necessarily have it right, but it is really important that we have this debate, especially as we are now talking about marriage being dissolved so that people can go into another form of relationship. The nature of relationships is changing, and the state is catching up.
I say from the outset that no politician or parliament should dictate to a religious organisation what it should or should not do. In fact, that is precisely why we tabled the amendment. In the 2013 Act, we had what people have called the triple or quadruple lock. People said that it was unacceptable. The debates on the 2013 Act are fresh in my mind and some of them I found personally difficult, but I recognise that the Church of England in particular has been on a journey, travelling quite fast and, in my opinion, in the right direction. I also remember the debates on the Civil Partnership Act, when the Church of England opposed it. I know that the most reverend Primate has apologised for some of the positions that the Church took when that Act was proposed, referring to those debates.
I do not know whether the Church has been issuing information about the amendment but, for the first time in my life, I have received emails from local vicars across the country expressing disquiet—who do I think I am forcing this abominable Act on the Church? As I said, I do not want to force anything on any religious institution, but I recognise that people of faith are gay. That is not restricted to lay people, it embraces everyone.
On Second Reading, I deliberately quoted the most reverend Primate in my speech. I think it is worth repeating because it goes to the heart of the debate on the Bill. I said:
“In his recent book … the most reverend Primate … tells us that the Bible’s teaching on marriage is profoundly positive but, he notes, the social reality in modern Britain is radically changed today, with cohabiting, blended, single-parent and same-sex configurations. He continues: ‘If fluidity of relationships is the reality of our society, then this should be our starting point for building values, because all values must connect with where people are and not where other people might like them to be’”.
That is the question for the Church of England. If it does not catch up, people will go somewhere else. My noble friend would certainly welcome many such people, keen for their values to be recognised, into his church. Of course, the most reverend Primate talked about those values. As I said at Second Reading:
“According to the most reverend Primate himself, ‘in Christian understanding, the core concepts of households and family include holiness, fidelity, hospitality and love above all, because God is holy, faithful, welcoming and overflowing in love, and any human institution that reflects these virtues also in some way reflects God’”.—[Official Report, 18/1/19; col. 427.]
When we adopt the Bill, I am sure that civil partners will reflect those values; many people in same-sex marriages certainly hold those values, as we have heard. If the Church does not catch up with them, they will go somewhere else.
I recognise that the Church is on a difficult journey because of the strong beliefs referred to by the right reverend Prelate. Clearly, there are divisions there, as there are in our society, but I know that the journey we have been on since the introduction of civil partnership has transformed our society. I remember the debates on the same-sex marriage Bill. People said that it would be a disaster, that society would collapse and that the situation would be terrible. Well, that has not happened. People recognise the value of those relationships in making a much stronger society where we can love in communities.
Instead of setting a discordant note, I hope that asking the question today will help not only the Church of England but other religious institutions to catch up with the reality: people of the same sex can love each other in a very rewarding way.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for his remarks, which give everyone hope in the context of today’s debate. I recognise the depth of feeling among Members of both Houses and people around Parliament, but I am afraid that I must resist the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Collins of Highbury.
As noble Lords have said, the amendment seeks to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to remove the exemption for members of the clergy from solemnising the marriage of same-sex couples. The 2013 Act provided an opt-in system so that same-sex marriages can occur only on religious premises, or under religious rites, where the governing religious body has expressly consented. There is no requirement to give such consent.
We have always been clear that no religious organisation should be forced to marry same-sex couples—I think the noble Lords made that clear—or to host civil partnerships. A number of religious organisations have chosen to opt in by providing blessings and, again, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gives us hope when he talks about the process of living in love and faith that the Church of England is currently going through. We hope that more organisations will do that in the future, but it is right that it should remain a decision for them. It is not for the Government to mandate this through regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, raised this issue at Second Reading. He urged the Church of England to permit same-sex couples to have a blessing of their marriage. In response, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said:
“I will resist the temptation to widen the debate beyond the scope of the Bill … I do so because I want us to focus absolutely on what we are trying to deliver”.—[Official Report, 18/1/19; col. 432.]
That is a good message for today but it does not preclude our having other debates on the points made by the noble Lord. I do not, however, believe that they are relevant today. Indeed, the danger is that they will confuse matters if we go beyond the scope of what we are trying to do.
This is a multifaceted Private Member’s Bill and we should keep it as simple as possible. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, I should like to make two points. First, my name is also attached to the amendment. Secondly, inequality, by its very nature, is multifaceted. We should not back away from the challenge that it presents.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise to the noble Lord; I completely forgot to mention him.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying these matters. It only remains for me to say in response to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Cashman, that the wider debate about the nature of marriage is going on right across society, particularly in the Church of England, the Church in Wales and in other churches, and it will continue. I am grateful to noble Lords for stating their views, but they are not the focus of the Bill before us, so I hope we can give it the green light and the go-ahead to move forward.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to the right reverend Prelate, who clearly thought a great deal about what he was going to say to us. It has been a remarkable debate. This is the first time since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed, more than five years ago, that we have had an opportunity to talk about the attitude of the Church of England—and the Church in Wales, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out—to same-sex marriage in church. I make no apology for raising the debate because the fact that the Church is moving—at glacial speed, I am afraid to say—on this issue is because of the climate created in this House towards the whole issue of same-sex relationships. This House set the lead in passing that legislation with such enthusiasm in 2013, and I think there is a genuine move for us to give the Church a little push in the right direction.
Of course, I am aware that the General Synod has to pass its own legislation, but I cannot see the logic in us facilitating that by passing an amendment such as this and then giving the synod the opportunity to come round to thinking about whether it wants to do it. It is not mandatory; rather it is an opportunity for the General Synod to think further.
A lot could be said about the problems that the Church of England has with sexuality, particularly the sexuality of so many of its priests and other representatives. That is not a debate for today but it is something that I know the Church of England will have to come to terms with if it is not to be seen as hypocritical on issues around sexual relationships.
However, for today, and it is for today, if the Committee agrees, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to bring it back on Report.
Lord Hayward
“Marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the law relating to marriage in Northern Ireland to provide that marriage between same-sex couples is lawful.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force within 10 months of this Act being passed, subject to subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.(4) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument under subsection (3) are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.(5) If no Northern Ireland Executive is formed by the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman. At the start of the debate on this Bill, I did not think I would be declaring my religion or anything else, but I will choose to do so as a number of others have. I was brought up a practising Christian, and as a practising Christian I believe in the equality of all people. That is at the core of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and others have referred to changes in social attitudes. It is relevant to this amendment that I make reference to DUP leader Arlene Foster’s extremely welcome move last year to attend an event she previously had not. That indicates that society is moving—a matter to which I will return later. Given the issue covered by the amendment, I should also declare that I am a strong unionist and will remain so. That applies to the whole country, but I am also strongly in favour of devolution.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I acknowledge the sensitive nature of the issues we are debating. Over my years as a Christian minister, I have found that gracious words have the power to heal and that unguarded words have the power to hurt. I do not wish to be offensive to anyone by my words, but I want to be honest in the expression of my heartfelt beliefs. I do not doubt the sincerity of others who hold a different view, but respect goes two ways. It must be given not only by those on one side of the argument but also by those on the opposite side of the argument. I trust that those who hold biblical views on marriage are treated with equal respect.
Until recent years, throughout the United Kingdom marriage was recognised to be a lifelong and exclusive union between one man and one woman. It was generally accepted that marriage was instituted by God in the beginning and was God’s gift to the whole of society. However, we are faced with a clause which has been commended to the Committee today. I want to draw attention to what I believe is a fundamental consequence to which this Committee needs to give serious consideration.
During the recent debate on leaving the European Union, it was stressed over and over again by Members across the House that the imperative was not to undermine the Belfast agreement and that there were grave dangers in so doing. Indeed, some Members of your Lordships’ House warned of the dangers to the hard-won peace in Northern Ireland and of the possibility of a return to violence.
Under the devolution settlement and the Belfast agreement, it is clear that legislating for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, the Belfast agreement states:
“The Assembly will exercise full legislative and executive authority … within the responsibility”,
devolved to it. It is acknowledged that, under that arrangement, key decisions are taken on a cross-community basis, which includes the provision for a petition of concern to be brought by a significant minority of Assembly Members—that was a vital ingredient of the Belfast agreement. The devolution settlement was founded on the much-heralded Belfast agreement. Members of this House cannot have it both ways, one moment proclaiming the virtues of the Belfast agreement and strict allegiance to it and the devolution settlement, and the next casting them all aside in the dustbin whenever it suits.
It can rightly be said that, at present, the devolved Government are not meeting in Northern Ireland. That is the fault not of the people of Northern Ireland but of those who pulled it down at their whim for their own political ends. When same-sex marriage was brought to the court, it ruled that it was for the Northern Ireland Assembly, not a judge, to decide social policy. There are those in your Lordships’ House who are seeking a way forward to have devolved government restored, and I must faithfully state to this House that to override the Northern Ireland Assembly on this most sensitive matter could not only hasten the demand for direct rule—and many are now calling for that—but could destroy the restoration of devolved government for a generation. One could rightly ask: what is the use of having devolved government when, at the whim of Westminster, it will decide contentious issues that must be resolved between the peoples of Northern Ireland from the ground up rather than by dictation from the top down? What this amendment proposes is in reality an imposition on the people of Northern Ireland, not devolution. Indeed, this House needs to think long and hard before it rubbishes the hopes of devolution being returned.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment to which I have added my name. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, on his introduction of this amendment. He covered a wide range of issues and principles with which I absolutely agree, not the least being that in a United Kingdom equal rights should apply equally across the entire union and not be administered separately.
It has been asked: what is the use of having a devolved Government? I might argue: what is the use of having a devolved Government when they do not govern? This situation has now been going on for two years and this House has consistently called for it and other issues to be dealt with.
The Belfast agreement has, quite rightly, been referred to. In our debates on—one might say “sadly”—exiting the European Union, I referred to the effect on human rights, not least in relation to the Belfast agreement and the Republic of Ireland. On the Belfast agreement, I was much reassured by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—you do not often hear Labour politicians saying that—when she confirmed that Parliament remains competent to legislate on this matter. On 20 February 2018, in a Written Answer to Conor McGinn MP, she said:
“In accordance with the Belfast Agreement”,
marriage,
“is a devolved matter which should be addressed in the NI Assembly; but the power of the Westminster Parliament to legislate remains unaffected. If this issue were to be raised in Westminster, the Government’s policy is to allow a free vote on matters of conscience such as equal marriage”.
So there we have it: this would not undermine the Belfast agreement. It is high time that Parliament took action on this matter. We have waited too long.
Is Northern Ireland ready for equal rights in terms of equal marriage? I say by way of slight digression that I warmly refer to the work that I did with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on this issue. Indeed, we began to commission a Private Member’s Bill on it from a friend of ours at the University of York, but the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made a wonderful start ahead of us.
Lord Scriven
My Lords, I find this very difficult because two issues close to my heart are at the epicentre of the amendment. The two issues are about devolution. I am a devolutionist to my fingertips. I support devolution: the concept that people should be able to make decisions close to where they live and work, and to be authors of their own destiny. It is in my political DNA. I support it; I like it. But devolution in itself does not mean that I am not part of a bigger union or a bigger ecostructure, whether in respect of country or region.
I understand that, at times, I have to make decisions within a certain context. That does not mean that I want to whip this decision away from the politicians and communities of Northern Ireland. I would like them to make that decision. But the second issue for me is that I believe fundamentally in human rights and equality. I find it absolutely amazing, when the whole argument about Europe has come down to the backstop and being in one United Kingdom, that my brothers and sisters in part of the United Kingdom are denied the same rights as me. That is why I am struggling with this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, that I respect what he says. This is done with respect. I fundamentally disagree with where he is on this issue, but I respect his desire to make that decision. However, there is a fundamental flaw—
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am so sorry to interrupt. The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, would like to apologise to the Chamber: they have to leave for a flight to Northern Ireland; they are sorry for their departure. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Lord Scriven
At least the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, heard that I respect his view even though I disagree with it. I wish him speed for his flight. I will be brief. I have a desire for equality, and for him to make the decision; I am pulled in both directions. But his argument is fundamentally flawed, because the devolved Assembly is not working. The amendment is very clear. It gives the Assembly the right to make the decision within six months of the legislation being laid out; it does not take that right away. But, if that legislative body cannot come together, then it is quite right that this House should make the decision to give equality on same-sex marriage to all people in every part of the United Kingdom. If this amendment is passed, it does not say that we are taking this right away. It puts pressure back on the politicians of Northern Ireland to come together and make a decision on marriage equality in their part of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I would like very briefly to say how much I support the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and my two noble friends. I led from the Labour Front Benches on the equal marriage Bill, and one of the proudest legislative moments of my life was when we put it on the statute book. It is not often that we legislate to create happiness but that is definitely what we did on those days five years ago. It is grieving that my relatives in Ireland and Northern Ireland do not have the same access and right to marry that we have here in England. This is a human rights issue. I absolutely recognise the frustration that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, expresses about getting this through. The Government know that political will can be brought to bear on many issues: with political will and the support of the different parties we can do pretty much what we desire to do. This is one of those issues where we need to make progress.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I shall be very brief. The case for change has been powerfully outlined by my noble friend Lord Hayward, and endorsed by my very great friend on this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. This is a day of muddle and confusion. I mean the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. How could I make such a fundamental mistake? I align myself with their comments and repeat what has been a theme of so many comments: this could be the moment when the Government associate themselves firmly with the proposition, which many have been waiting a long time to see adopted, that human rights must extend fully and consistently throughout the length and breadth of our land. Was that not the noble aim of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Lord Cashman
My Lords, if noble Lords will allow me, there is a wonderful song, which I think is from “Cabaret”, called “Mr Cellophane”. I feel like the noble Lord, Lord Cellophane—“they look right through you”. It was remiss of me in my contribution not to specifically mention the professor the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and I worked with on trying to bring forward a Bill on this very subject. It was of course Professor Paul Johnson of the University of York.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, the Northern Ireland Assembly approved same-sex marriage but it was rejected by the procedures of the Northern Ireland Assembly by a petition of concern. When we drew up the Belfast agreement and the petition of concern was created, it was intended to be used so that one political party would not impose its will on another on issues such as economics, social policy or constitutional politics. I do not think it was ever considered the means for one community to impose its moral standards on another. The basic problem here is that the petition of concern has been used to negative the decision of the Assembly. What needs to be addressed is whether the petition of concern should be amended to ensure that it is not used by any religious minority to impose its will on others.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I will be brief. I welcome those last comments because the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has today offered us a way forward that addresses the issue of devolution and the role of the Assembly. The journey that everyone has been on, which I referred to earlier, has also been taken by the DUP. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, is no longer here; when I used to visit Northern Ireland on many occasions as a trade union official, I would never have dreamed that I would see the DUP leadership on a Gay Pride march, but we have seen that. We have seen them engage with the LGBT community. So I am not pessimistic. This is a really good way to show the people of Northern Ireland that we want them to have equal rights, and this is a clear way of doing so without affecting devolution.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hayward, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman. I have considerable sympathy with their arguments, as they will all know—I spoke to my noble friend yesterday—but I am afraid I cannot support the proposed new clause.
The amendment seeks to change the law of Northern Ireland to extend same-sex marriage to couples there within 10 months of the Act receiving Royal Assent. Equality, civil partnerships and marriage are all devolved matters, so it is for the relevant Administration in Northern Ireland to legislate to make any necessary changes to the law relating to civil partnerships and marriages, but I note with considerable interest the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on the matter of the petition of concern. That gives me hope that things might be resolved there in future. However, at this point in time, Northern Ireland has chosen not to extend marriage to same-sex couples. While noble Lords might disagree with that position, it is clearly a matter for the Administration in Northern Ireland. The Government have made very clear that same-sex marriage is a devolved issue and the Assembly is the proper place for such legislation to be considered.
The fact that there is not currently a functioning Government in Northern Ireland does not alter the principle that it is for the devolved Administration to legislate on such matters, although I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I appreciate that this situation is not ideal and understand noble Lords’ desire to make progress on this very important issue. Restoring the Executive remains a key priority for the Government, which will allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to take important decisions on issues pertaining to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, in light of what I have said, my noble friend feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks on this important issue, and the noble Lords, Lord Hayward, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, for tabling the amendment. The Minister has given her view and we can have a separate debate on what happens about making law in Northern Ireland in the absence of the Assembly. However, I ask that the amendment not be pressed to a vote. It might cause difficulties with the Bill’s progress and the realisation of its very important aims.
Lord Hayward
My Lords, in the light of the comments that I have heard, I indicate that I intend to withdraw my amendment, but I also intend to pursue it further on Report. I believe for a number of reasons, including the clarifications and comments from the likes of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and others, that this is an issue that has found its time. Therefore, this Chamber and the other place need to find a solution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, so aptly put it, if the amendment were in the Bill, I am absolutely clear, as I think the vast majority of people in this Chamber are, that both Houses would find a way to pass it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I intend to be as brief as possible, not least because I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, will not have to continue to be as amazing in her stamina as she has been so far. I direct the Committee to an issue of considerable concern. Clause 3 deals with registration of pregnancy loss. It asks for there to be a report into whether it should be possible for those who have suffered pregnancy loss before 24 weeks to have that registered. I will not go back into the arguments put so eloquently by my noble friends Lady Benjamin and Lady Brinton.
Similarly, Clause 4(1) asks for a report to be conducted by the Secretary of State into the involvement of coroners in the investigation of stillbirths. We know from Second Reading that this is similarly a very important and sensitive issue. However, the problem is that the rest of Clause 4, in particular subsection (4), confers on the Secretary of State quite wide-ranging powers to bring about regulations in the light of that report.
My contention is simply this: I understand the sensitivity and importance of the issue, but I do not think that Members of this House or of another place have yet been able to understand the very deep and serious issues on both sides of the argument. Obstetricians and gynaecologists have some fears that the involvement of coroners may impact on their professional practice and their ability to talk openly with patients, for whom this is a very sad reality. Equally, on the other side there are those who believe that the current system is wrong and that coroners should be involved. I take no view on that; I simply think that Parliament should be able to consider the case in much more detail.
It is therefore wrong at this stage to go ahead with these wide-ranging Henry VIII powers. Today, all that I ask is that the noble Baroness. Lady Hodgson, might undertake to talk with some of us between now and Third Reading, to see whether we can find a way to deal with something which we all agree is important, so as not to jeopardise her Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury
The Delegated Powers Committee made a clear recommendation, and the reasons for it were clearly set out. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that this is not about saying that Parliament should not do these things but just, “Let’s wait for the evidence and then act”. We have the opportunity to act, so I am minded to support the noble Baroness.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward her amendment, but I am afraid that I am not able to support it. Amendment 3A seeks to remove from the Bill an important provision that will allow for the extension to parents of stillborn babies the same transparent and independent investigation into their loss that is granted to the parents of a newborn baby whose life ends soon after birth. The power is needed because the provisions for the exercise of coronial powers are limited to very explicit duties. There is no provision for coroners to undertake investigations beyond this. A stillborn baby, having not lived independently of its mother, is out of scope of the investigatory duties of the coroner.
We will consult on this issue. It is our intention that, if we conclude at the end of the consultation that it is right for stillbirths to be investigated by coroners, their duty to determine who has died—and how, when and where that death occurred—will be extended to apply to specified stillbirths. Should that be where the consultation takes us, we will want to learn lessons from investigations into stillbirths, just as we do at the moment in child and adult deaths where, under certain circumstances, the coroner will produce a prevention of future deaths report.
Coroners’ powers to investigate a stillbirth would mirror those relating to other deaths, with powers to compel witnesses and require the production of documents and order medical examinations of the stillborn baby. The powers provided for in Clause 4(4) are intended to allow for the existing framework for coronial investigations to be extended to include the investigation of stillbirths. The existing provisions were thoroughly scrutinised when the Coroners and Justice Bill, now an Act, was debated in this House and another place. In exercising this power, the Lord Chancellor will be required to lay any regulations before your Lordships’ House for consent when the regulations amend primary legislation.
Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State will report on the question of coroners investigating stillbirths. But, having consulted and produced that report, if the conclusion is that coroners should investigate stillbirths, the Government should then move forward in a timely way. Clause 4(4) provides the mechanism to do that, with the safeguards provided in subsections (5) and (6) appropriate to the changes that are in scope. The power is rightly limited by Clause 4(6), a sunset provision which sees the power fall away if it is not used within five years of the Secretary of State publishing his report.
Reforms to the way that health providers review stillbirths have been evolving, with significant developments under way. This period provides the flexibility needed should the final legislative proposals need to reflect these developments, while providing for the Government to act quickly if the report finds that this is what is needed.
I am sure that it was not the noble Baroness’s intention, but to amend the Bill to leave out Clause 4(4) without also leaving out Clause 4(5) and (6) and without further amendments to Clause 5(2) and (3)—which also reference the power provided through Clause 4(4)—would leave Clause 4 not in a coherent state, if I might put it like that. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hodgson will agree to meet the noble Baroness in due course, but I hope that at this stage she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
I thank the Committee for putting up with my very croaky voice today. I hope that I have not spread any of my germs around too much. I thank the Minister for clarifying how the enabling power in Clause 4(4) would be used.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses. I take the Minister’s point that the drafting of the amendment is not correct, but I share the concerns set out in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that some pretty wide-ranging powers are conferred on the Secretary of State. There is an inconsistency between asking for a report under Clause 3 and then similarly asking for a report but also conferring these powers under Clause 4. I do not want to delay the matter. I simply wish that we should pass legislation which deals correctly with what is a very difficult and sensitive matter. In my long time in the House, I have been involved in a number of discussions about NHS liability and the best way to ensure that patients get what they most want: to know why something happened and, if possible, to stop it happening to anybody else. That concern is not fully addressed by the provision. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I reserve the right to come back to the matter at a later stage.
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in consequence of regulations under section (Extension of civil partnership).”
“(a) regulations under section (Extension of civil partnership), or(b) regulations under any other section of this Act that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation,”
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Bill
Friday 1st March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 158-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (27 Feb 2019)
“Removal of exemption for clergy under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as is necessary to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to enable the Church of England and the Church in Wales to opt in to the provisions of that Act allowing the solemnization of the marriage of a same sex couple.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3) Subject to subsection (2), regulations under this section must be in force by the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend—(a) section 1(3) of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013,(b) section 1(4) of that Act, or(c) section 2(5) or (6) of that Act.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury. This amendment is similar, but not identical, to the amendment I moved in Committee. The changes I have made to it reflect the concerns expressed in that debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the briefing note I subsequently received from Church House.
Your Lordships will be aware that under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 the Church of England and the Church in Wales are subject to what is called the “quadruple lock”. The first three elements of that lock apply to all religions, but the fourth states that the common law duty of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners does not apply and that the canon law of the Church of England does not conflict with, and is not overridden by, civil law. So those churches are exempted from the general ability of a religious organisation to opt in to perform same-sex marriages. The Church of England can change those provisions through measures, and the Lord Chancellor can make similar changes in respect of the Church in Wales with its approval. My amendment gives the Secretary of State a duty to make the sort of changes that the Church might otherwise make through measures—or the Lord Chancellor, in the case of Wales—while maintaining the quadruple lock as far as possible.
This amendment differs from the amendment I moved in Committee by virtue of proposed new subsection (4). Paragraph (a) preserves the position of canon law; paragraph (b) preserves the exemption for same-sex marriages from the common law duty of members of the clergy to solemnise the marriages of their parishioners; and paragraph (c) reserves the carve-out from the Equality Act that allows religious organisations or ministers to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage.
I hope that your Lordships, and in particular my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, will agree that this is a modest amendment. It simply says to the Church of England and the Church in Wales that Parliament will not stand in their way when they eventually get round to extending the right to marry in church to same-sex couples.
I also hope that this debate will have another consequence: to send to gay people everywhere the message that our society is loving and inclusive and that there is room for everyone in it. I must tell your Lordships that the main reason I persevered with this amendment was the numerous messages of support I received from the clergy. For example, I received this email from the vicar of St Peter’s Church, Hammersmith, the reverend Charles Clapham:
“I am writing as a Vicar in the Church of England to express my thanks to you for your interventions … in the House of Lords debate, and your support for the amendment to remove (in part) legal restrictions on the ability of Anglican clergy to solemnise same-sex marriages.
You will know this is an extremely contentious issue in the Church of England at present. But I hope you will also be aware that there are very large numbers of clergy and lay people who are supportive of equal marriage, and would like to be able to conduct such marriages in our churches. As things stand, these views are not being represented by our current House of Bishops.
The response to the amendment by the Bishop of Chelmsford in the chamber … was, to my mind, disappointing, and (to some extent) misleading. The Bishop made reference, for example, to the current ‘Living in Love and Faith’ project being undertaken by House of Bishops which is exploring issues of sexuality and gender. But he did not make clear that the parameters of this project are quite restrictive: it is an educational process only, and will not pronounce on the rights or wrongs of gay marriage (as the chair, the Bishop of Coventry has made clear). So this project will not result in the bishops recommending a change in current church practice regarding equal marriage.
My own parish in west London is hardly radical: we are a very ordinary suburban ‘middle-of-the-road’ Anglican church. But we have a number of LGBT people, some of whom are in civil partnerships or marriages, amongst our most valued parishioners and worshippers. It is a matter of embarrassment (to say the very least) that we are not able to celebrate their relationships formally in church, and a frustration that our bishops are unwilling to represent our views.
So I thank you for your advocacy and support, and do hope you will keep pushing the issue”.
Writing on Facebook on 8 February, the Dean of Leicester, the very reverend David Monteith, who entered into a same-sex civil partnership in 2008, said:
“I’ve had one of those weeks where the reality of being gay in the Church of England came home. I spend a lot of time with many sceptical folks encouraging them to hang in there. I find myself often encouraging others not to be daunted and to believe that one day God’s grace might actually be seen abundantly and more consistently in God’s church. But there are some weeks when it is difficult to know that deeply realised hope in practice as well as in theory. It gets no easier as a ‘senior priest’”.
That comment from David Monteith attracted more than 100 supportive messages, such as:
“With much love and prayer David Monteith. Many people are inspired by the fact that you and others in senior posts are willing to be courageous and prophetic at such personal sacrificial cost”.
Somebody else said:
“Sorry to read this David. I have found The Scottish Episcopal Church to be a kinder place”.
Unfortunately, there are still many examples of negativity in the Church. The Lambeth Conference of bishops is to be held in 2020. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited “every active bishop” in the Anglican Communion, and the conference planning group is to run a joint programme for bishops and their spouses. The Lambeth 2020 website says that this is,
“in recognition of the vital role spouses play across the Anglican Communion and a desire to support them in their ministry”—
but not if they are same-sex spouses. I understand that there are three in the Episcopal Church in North America who have effectively been disinvited.
The reverend canon Simon Butler, who is the vicar of St Mary’s, Battersea, and a member of the Church of England’s General Synod since 2005, asked an important question in the debate on the Pilling report on human sexuality at the February 2014 synod:
“My question requires a little context and a large amount of honesty. I’m gay; I don’t have a vocation to celibacy and at the same time I’ve always taken my baptismal and ordination vows with serious intent and with a sincere desire to model my life on the example of Christ simul justus et peccator. Those who have selected me, ordained me and licensed me know all this. My parish know it too.
My question is this: at the end of the process of facilitated conversations will the College of Bishops tell me whether there is a place for people like me as priests, deacons and bishops in the Church, rather than persisting in the existing policy that encourages a massive dishonesty so corrosive to the gospel? For my spiritual health, for the flourishing of people like me as ministers of the gospel and for the health of the wider Church I think we will all need to have an answer to that question”.
I suspect that we will not get the answer to Simon Butler’s question any time soon. However, I hope that, by debating this amendment today, this House will send a message to the Church of England and the Church in Wales—and to the Anglican Communion worldwide—that we in this House, at any rate, think it is time that they moved forward at rather more than the glacial speed we have seen so far. This amendment is intended to help them. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and very much welcome the introduction by my noble friend, who has set out the issues extremely well. As we heard in Committee, this is about a journey that the Church of England in particular has been on, and there has been some movement. I certainly recall opposition in this House when I was hoping for agreement to civil partnerships going through. That opposition came from the Church of England too, and it delayed my civil partnership by a year, as it happens. However, when we came to the same-sex marriage debate, I welcomed the fact that the most reverend Primate spoke up in favour of civil partnerships. Therefore, there has been movement on the journey and I very much welcome that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution. I absolutely support the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Collins. I speak as a heterosexual pew member of the Church of England. I echo the comments made in the letters read out by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: many of us look forward to the day when same-sex marriage can be solemnised in the Church of England. I am reminded of two friends of mine and my noble friend Lady Barker’s who chose to leave the Church of England and have their marriage solemnised in the Unitarian Church. It was a very moving event where God recognised their sincere and solemn relationship.
I completely understand the problems inside the Church of England. I am appalled that there are members of the Church who would write to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in those terms, describing him and his relationship as an abomination. That is certainly not where the Church comes from at all.
I support the amendment as a facilitator for the moment at which the Church of England and the Church in Wales want to say, “Yes, we will move it”. We will be removing one hurdle here in Parliament to make that journey faster and smoother.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am in favour of this amendment. I commend and congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner on the passionate way in which he introduced it, referring to the personal experiences of people who have written to him. I equally commend the contribution of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury.
I was very fortunate to have a civil partnership with the wonderful Paul Cottingham. Before he died, on one of those chemotherapy afternoons where the head cannot quite come up from the sofa, I was stood behind him doing the ironing—this is an insight into my domestic life—because I find that it clears the mind. I looked at this man who I had spent 31 years of my life with, and who I knew did not really have much longer to live. I said to him, “Paul, will you marry me?” Without a moment’s hesitation, he looked up and said, “Today’s not a good day, sorry. No”. But what if the answer had been different? Does it matter to people like me, who are not of religious persuasion or religious belief? It matters because one has to think, “What if that were me?” What if my faith and the roots of my relationships were absolutely within my faith community? What if I were not allowed to participate with the love and support of that community? Would it matter? The answer is yes. And if I would not want to experience that in the celebration of the person I love, how dare I allow another to experience it?
I welcome the changes that have happened in this country. They actually happened in advance of public opinion, which took courage and leadership. It is interesting that all the other religions and faiths do not need the legal protection that the Church of England has been given. As my noble friend referred to, that sends a worrying signal to the worldwide Anglican Communion. It reinforces the concept that it is okay and legitimate to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. We have witnessed enough atrocities across the globe to have evidence of that.
The amendment is simple. It takes on board the concerns of the Church of England and it forces the Church to do nothing. It allows what I would call a free sprint, once it gets over the internal obstacles that it needs to dismount. What would it achieve? As I have said, it would send a signal that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and difference is coming to an end, as is alienation within faith communities.
Research carried out by Stonewall—I refer to my entry in the register of interests as its founding chair—should, if nothing else, accelerate the desire of the Church of England to bring forward change. One-third of lesbian, gay and bisexual people of faith are not open with anyone in their faith community about their sexual orientation. One in four trans people of faith are not open about their gender identity in their faith community. Only two in five LGBT people of faith think that their faith community is welcoming of lesbian, gay and bi people. Lastly, just one in four LGBT people of faith think that their faith community is welcoming of trans people. For no other reason than that, I hope noble Lords will give support to this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, those were extremely moving speeches. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the contributions they have made in the Chamber today and the moving way in which they have spoken. I thank them for sharing their personal experiences so movingly, and for the important and necessary articulation of the views they have heard within the broader Church of England in favour of movement and inclusion. I deeply regret the language used in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others; it has no place in the contemporary Church.
The Church is committed to listening carefully to the wisdom of the nation, to the wisdom in our continued debate in this Chamber and to the voices of LGBTI people at all levels in the life of the church. We are committed in our public statements to the inclusion and welcome of all. I and the Church collectively remain deeply conscious of our imperfections and the journey that we still have to travel. We recognise that discrimination is still experienced; I accept the validity of the Stonewall research just cited, and it distresses me beyond words.
As noble Lords are aware, together with other Churches and faith communities across the world, the Church of England is exploring these issues in depth—and, I accept, at length. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle chairs our pastoral advisory group, and last week brought a helpful series of pastoral guidelines to the General Synod. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry chairs a process of exploration under the title Living in Love and Faith, which was referred to by noble Lords. Both processes are due to report to the General Synod in 2020. It is true that these proposals will contain resources for reflection. They may not contain recommendations for action but they will be followed by further work, debate and proposals to be tested by the General Synod in due course—as soon as possible, I hope.
Recently, I issued a pastoral letter with my fellow bishops to our own diocese of Oxford under the title, Clothed with Love. We are taking pastoral steps in the diocese to encourage greater inclusion and support within the Church’s existing guidelines. That letter has been warmly welcomed by many LGBTI clergy and laity, and more widely across the Church by those who want to see further change. It has led to many fruitful conversations. However, it is also a sign of where the Church is, and of the deep views held in good conscience on the issue, that the same letter has dismayed and unsettled some others who fear that the Church will change what is regarded as essential and core doctrine. The correspondence illustrates the need for further deep and respectful dialogue within the Church, and I remain committed to that.
My response to the amendment is that, as a Church, we need more time for deeper reflection and prayer; for listening, recognising the urgency of the situation; for listening to those outside and within the Church; and for developing our responses. I am grateful for the intention behind this amendment and the opportunity to air these issues in this Chamber. Nevertheless, I need to resist the amendment on two grounds, both of which have been referred to.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, I ask for some clarification. Has he heard from those who have spoken that there is no intention or desire to ask the Church of England to proceed in a secondary place in response to this debate? We recognise the hoops you have to go through and the legal difficulties that are encountered. I just heard him say that the Church must make its mind up first; I think everybody here would agree with that. But why take so long? If the Church of England has admitted openly gay people to its ranks as priests, has the ground not already been covered? Are the essential issues not already clear? Has the agonising not already taken place? The next step is not a difficult one.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
I thank the noble Lord for the question and the invitation to respond. During the time of my ministry, the Church of England has grappled with two other issues: the remarriage of divorcees and the admission of women to different orders of Christian ministry. In both cases, it has taken the Church in its processes a very long time to come to judicious conclusions. That is the way we are. Our decision-making processes are naturally set up to be conservative and to take time to implement serious change after careful thought.
To change canon law, there will need to be significant majorities in favour of such change in the General Synod of the Church of England. Therefore, I anticipate that this debate will continue into the lifetime of the next synod, which begins in 2020. The debate this morning has accurately highlighted the diversity of views across the Church and the significantly shifting diversity of view in favour of change—that is a subjective view. One of the things which impedes that change of view in the life of the Church is a fear lest it be seen to be in any way compelled to make up its mind by external forces, even if that is not the intention of the amendment—I recognise it is not, very clearly. However, that external pressure would itself be a rallying call to those opposed to change.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I interpose briefly on the mechanisms of the Church of England. I hope that when Anglicans read this debate, they will remember that they have a duty to be in contact with their representative on the General Synod. There seems to be a discontinuity between the pew and the synod. That can be remedied only by the Church becoming aware of its own mechanisms of government. That is a complicated process and it has to be slow. If we hasten it, and push the barrow too fast, it will fall apart. The great thing about the Church of England is the width of those it includes. That means that when change is necessary, it percolates; it does not sweep. The Holy Spirit does not suddenly work through all the limbs of the Church at the same time. I hope noble Lords opposite will take in good faith the wishes of those on this side who wish to progress, but to do so in community with their fellows who have not yet changed their minds.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, at earlier stages of this Bill, I informed the House that I was brought up in a religious household. It was a nonconformist household, so in this debate I find myself very firmly on the temporal side of the House, rather than the spiritual side. As the person who spoke in the same-sex marriage debate immediately before the right reverend Prelate, I have long watched the agonies of the spiritual Benches on this issue with some interest.
I thank noble Lords on this side of the House who spoke on this matter. As I said at the previous stage of our debate, the importance of the teachings and statements of the Church go far beyond its own confines. It is true that the stance of the Church causes the greatest hurt to its members and to people of faith, but the harm it does is general and more widespread. I have to say to the right reverend Prelate that statements to the effect that the Church welcomes and includes all ring very hollow when we debate these matters.
That said, I understand that we have to defer to the Church as a body which sits within canon law and exercises its right to proceed in ways which are not subject to the other laws of the land. I watched this debate and I talk to members of the Church of England—to members of very different strands of thought in the Church—and, as an outside observer, I think there are certain elements and traditions of faith in the Church of England that will take considerably longer than others to move forward and progress to join the rest of society in its appreciation and support of gay people.
With that in mind, I wish to ask a technical question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner; the right reverend Prelate may also want to comment. When the same-sex marriage legislation went through, I distinctly remember that the provisions made for religions were that the governing body of any religion had to agree, in order for it to recognise and solemnise same-sex marriage. It was then up to individual clerics, congregations and parishes to agree that they would do so. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whether his proposed new clause falls underneath that scheme. In effect, I am asking whether, were his amendment to go on the statute book, it would enable individual churches and parishioners to maintain or change their stance on the subject, as they have done in relation to the ordination of women. Frankly, if we wait for every single member of or church in the Church of England to afford to the rest of us the dignity that we enjoy in the secular world, we will wait far too long. The harm that will be done to our society by people who profess these views will be incalculable.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and supported by my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, seeks to provide the Church of England and the Church in Wales with the ability, if they choose to do so, to opt in to the Bill’s provisions when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Nothing in the amendment seeks to compel either Church to do anything if they decide they do not want to or they decide they want to take this step at some point in the future. That is the right thing to do, with the state making it possible if the two Churches want to do something. We should not stand in the way of the Church and any decisions it might make in the future.
My noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Collins of Highbury set out clearly why this amendment should be supported. I fully endorse all their remarks. It is a facilitating amendment and we should put no obstacle in the way so that this change can happen in future.
I have many friends who are gay and I have attended many civil partnerships and marriages. People who love each other wanting to make commitments to each other is something we should all support. The first ever civil partnership I attended was that of my noble friend Lord Cashman when he joined together with Paul. Of course, we were not noble then: it was just Paul and Michael, and Alicia and Roy. It was a lovely, wonderful day. I will never forget it and nor will Alicia. It was a wonderful time and Paul was a wonderful man.
I was brought up a Catholic in a Catholic household. I must admit that I am not a regular churchgoer, but I regard myself as a Catholic. My parents are from the Republic of Ireland, so I come from an Irish Catholic background. I have been hugely impressed with the Church of England in this House. I was always impressed by the Church and the work it did when I was a local councillor in Southwark. I always remember Reverend Shaw who ran St Paul’s, but I never met a Church of England bishop until I came into the House of Lords. I knew a few Catholic bishops but I had never met a Church of England bishop. I am hugely impressed by the work that the Bishops do in this House. They bring a breadth of experience and understanding that really helps our work.
I very much hear the right reverend Prelate’s comments. I am also impressed at how the Church of England has gone on a journey on a number of issues. In the end, things have moved remarkably quickly. I hope that discussions will take place in the Church at some point and that it can make these decisions, but I accept that that is a matter for the Church. I fully support the amendment and the intent behind it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Collins of Highbury, who outlined the various challenges here. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, articulated, this amendment is in a way a message for the Church. He outlined the progress that the Church of England has made, while the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, articulated some of its lack of progress. If we were to sum it up, the message is one of leadership and determination. This will be a matter for the Church, but I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for his thoughtful explanation of the current situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, also talked about the support the Church has given to this agenda to try to move it forward. My noble friend Lord Elton talked about the message we of the pew can send to the synod in making progress in this area. But clearly, the Government have to resist the amendment. It is probably best for me to go through the Government’s position regarding what we can do.
The amendment’s aim is to require the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make changes to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act to allow the Church of England and the Church in Wales to opt in to the provisions of that Act, which allow them to solemnise the marriage of a same-sex couple, as noble Lords have said. It requires these regulations to be made through the affirmative procedure and to come into effect within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I think we all recognise that this is a very sensitive issue. One cannot fail to be moved by some of the speeches we have heard, but I am grateful to the Minister and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for clarifying the matter at hand. I hope noble Lords feel reassured by the words spoken in the debate and that these matters are being considered carefully by the Church of England and the Church in Wales as part of the ongoing debate about the nature of marriage. I hope the noble Lord feels he can withdraw the amendment so that we do not hamper the excellent progress the Bill is making on some very significant matters.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Baroness with a reply to that very last point. I gave her my word during the week that I did not intend to divide the House at the end of the debate for the very reason she said. I would not wish to do anything that made it more difficult for the Bill to get through the House of Commons and become law. It is a very good Bill. I congratulate her on the way she has presented it. She sat patiently through a debate that was not directly on the main subject of the Bill, and I accept that. For that reason, I will not divide the House.
I would like to thank all my noble friends and other Members of the House who have spoken, so movingly and strongly, in favour of the principle contained in my amendment. I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, whose tone in this debate, I have to say, was different from that of his brother bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who accused me in Committee of being divisive. I do not think I have been divisive, either today or on that occasion. It is important that the House has the chance to say to the Church of England, as the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Cashman and Lord Elton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Barker, have all said, that we want to see more progress from the Church of England in coming to its own decision, not at some point 10 years hence. My noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out that five years have already passed since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed.
If this is going to synod next year, I hope that will be the occasion when the House of Bishops takes a lead and wins over other members of the synod. I am not seeking to dictate or force the Church of England and the Church in Wales to do things that they do not want to; I want them to understand just how much support there is for a change of this sort. I particularly appreciate the words of the Minister, with whom I also had a discussion about this Bill during the week. Her message, that the Government support progress, is one I hope the Church will take on board very seriously. The support of my noble friend Lord Kennedy is also very important. I thank everybody who has taken part. The message from this House is clear: it is over to the Church of England to make some progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hayward
“Marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the law relating to marriage in Northern Ireland to provide that marriage between same-sex couples is lawful. (2) Regulations under this section must be in force within 10 months of this Act being passed, subject to subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.(4) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument under subsection (3) are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.(5) If no Northern Ireland Executive is formed by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in rising to move my amendment, I will make reference to a number of different aspects, but it is appropriate on St David’s Day to start and follow a theme through my comments. That is on comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others in reference to what has changed. Since I last spoke on this amendment four weeks ago, the Welsh beat the English—damn them. I notice at this point the Welsh contingent is moving, although I tried not to offend them and to acknowledge their achievement.
Before I come to my own amendment, I will refer to fears arising from it. First, I refer to my own comments in col. 1308 of Hansard on 1 February. I made clear then and have made clear on a number of other occasions:
“I do not want to delay the Bill or lose it at any point”.—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1308.]
That is the key message I convey to the literally hundreds of people who have written to me in fear of the possibility that they may lose their opportunity for a civil partnership. As far as I am concerned, that is not in question. Actually, gay relationships and gay marriage have gained hundreds of supporters in Northern Ireland, because all the emails I have received have not only been overwhelmingly courteous but have also committed to supporting what I am trying to achieve. From whichever part of the land, they have made that clear.
In saying that and congratulating those who have organised it, I make two observations. One is that there was a fear about what the Conservative Party would do, which is based on an incorrect premise, because what I am asking this House in this amendment is a matter of conscience. People should therefore be allowed a free vote, under the circumstances. That is clear. I have also commented on previous occasions—and I come back to the message of change—that there is a clear indication that attitudes are changing markedly in Northern Ireland. This applies across all sectors of the community, and I believe it will continue. Therefore, the supposition of opposition there is also incorrect.
I say on this in conclusion that I have had some touching comments from the civil partnerships lobby. I will quote from one that clearly exemplifies the reason for this legislation, as one is tempted to forget the key element. This is a message I had from somebody in Newton Abbot in Devon, close to my birthplace. This female partner says in part of her letter,
“I am always afraid if he”—
her partner—
“is late from work that something may have happened, and the knowledge that I am not his legal next of kin hurts me deeply”.
That summarises incredibly well what this legislation, as it stands, is trying to achieve. I wish all those well who will benefit from the Bill. The number of representations I have had leads me to the conclusion that so many people will have the opportunity to celebrate their partnerships that we will kick-start the economy in one go by all the parties to which we might be invited—although I note I was not invited to the celebration of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman; I will feel scorned for ever hereafter.
Regarding my Amendment 2, which relates to Northern Ireland, as I said at the start of my comments, things have changed. I concluded my speech here on 1 February by saying:
“Sooner or later, on behalf of however many people, we have to say enough is enough”.—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1310.]
I believe that. I believe it sincerely, on behalf of large numbers of people, because things have changed. When we stood here on 1 February, did anyone think that England’s cricket captain would turn to a West Indian player and say:
“There’s nothing wrong with being gay”.
I praise Joe Root for his comments, which meant so much to so many people. That resonated not just with me and the gay community but the whole of this nation. I ask everybody in Northern Ireland to recognise that matters are changing.
I have paid compliments to those who lobbied on civil partnerships. The other thing that has happened since 1 February is Valentine’s Day. I pay credit to Patrick Corrigan from Love Equality and Amnesty International and the hundreds of people in Northern Ireland who, on Valentine’s Day, indicated that they wish to be in the same position as people in England, Scotland and Wales to celebrate their partnerships by marriage, as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, spoke at the last debate. He was very courteous. He came to me and I acknowledged there was a problem with flights. I therefore did not comment on his comments at the time. He said:
“Respect goes two ways. It must be given not only by those on one side of the argument but also by those on the opposite side of the argument”.—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1310.]
I respect people who hold different views from me. I recognise that it is important, in any debate on whatever subject, that we respect people who hold different views. As long as they have been carefully thought through, we must respect every point of view.
But the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, made no reference in his comments to when we might make the change if we go back to a proper devolved Assembly, nor did he indicate what his view would be if that were the position, because the position has changed in Northern Ireland. I made reference previously to the series of votes that had taken place in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Finally, in November 2015, there was a majority, but there was a petition of concern against it. As I indicated in reference to that petition:
“That is quite reasonable, because that is the constitutional practice in Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1308.]
I respect that, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who is in his seat today, acknowledged in a brief intervention in that debate:
“When … the petition of concern was created, it was intended to be used so that one political party would not impose its will on another … I do not think it was ever considered the means for one community to impose its moral standards on another”.—[Official Report, 1/2/19; cols. 1313-14.]
That was one Northern Ireland representative speaking with authority. After all is said and done, the noble Lord was deeply and heavily involved in the negotiations for the Belfast agreement.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for continuing to push this issue because it is a fundamental one. It is not unrelated to the debate that we had on Amendment 1, because no one disputes the rights of religious people to determine their own rules and regulations and to determine their view. But freedom of religious belief is also about not imposing on others. That is what this debate is about today.
The debate is also about means. We get stuck into this issue because, at the moment, there are no means to ensure that we treat all our citizens in our United Kingdom in the same way, apart from pushing this sort of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, if the majority of people in Northern Ireland so desire to adopt same-sex marriage, at the moment there are no means to do it. The fact of the matter is that there is huge support in Northern Ireland for same-sex marriage. I never thought that I would see the day when a referendum conducted in the Republic of Ireland would result in support for it. In fact, we have seen huge change in communities, and it is about recognising the human rights of individuals. That is what today’s debate is about.
Of course, it is not correct for me to say that there are no means for change because this Parliament has the right, as Ministers have said. I heard the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, in Committee, and I recognise that there is an issue about devolved government and devolved powers. In fact, I am sure that everyone in Northern Ireland who has been campaigning for this would rather that they won it in their own communities and their own Assembly. They would rather have that, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, they do not know what means will be available to achieve that at the moment. They are asking for our support and encouragement, and I am certainly prepared to give that.
I agree with the noble Lord that no one wants to hinder or harm the Bill in its progress through Parliament. I certainly do not. I have had many emails from people saying that they do not want to lose their hope of civil partnership, because they have been against marriage as an institution but want to protect their legal rights; civil partnership is a means of doing that for the first time. I certainly do not want to stand in their way, but I also know of the frustration and hurt that many people in Northern Ireland feel because they cannot exercise the same right as the rest of us in celebrating a same-sex marriage.
It is about time, and I hope that this amendment will send a clear message: that our debate today is saying that Parliament must act to address this fundamental denial of equality and human rights. Parliament must act and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, this is about having a free vote—a vote that we can all support, across all sections of Parliament.
However, I hope that during this debate we will hear the Minister being able to address the question: if not now, when? If it is not now, will she commit, as my party will, to guaranteeing the next earliest opportunity to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has the same rights? We want to hear about progress and a timetable, so I support this amendment.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, perhaps I may make a few brief comments. We have had quite a number of challenges from those who have already spoken on this issue. They recognise, I think, that the Northern Ireland Assembly is the place to decide this matter, and, as a former serving Member of that Assembly, I could not agree more.
We need to keep things in perspective, because it seems to me that a number of debates are contained within one debate today. In our previous debate, about animal welfare, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that it would be up to the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide these issues. When asked about the position in relation to Northern Ireland, he said that it was a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wondered then whether the next issue for debate would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I will repeat what I have said on other occasions in this House: give us the Assembly or give us direct rule. At the moment, we are in no man’s land, and we cannot abide there much longer. Northern Ireland deserves to be governed, just like any other region of the United Kingdom.
There was allusion to the fact that the petition of concern is the problem. Let me make it very clear: at no time did my party ask for a petition of concern to be inserted into the Belfast agreement. We believe that it is very bad government to have it and we will say that anywhere. However, it is there; ironically, at the last talks neither Sinn Féin nor the SDLP wanted it withdrawn. We believe that there is a much better way to do it.
We have to be very careful. If we start cherry picking—saying that we will do this piece of legislation but we will not do that—where will that take us? We can draw only one conclusion. When this House and the other place start to make legislation relating to Northern Ireland, irrespective of the issue—and this is where we get lost sometimes—the message will go out very clearly that both this House and the other place have given up on devolution.
I have said this before and I think it bears repeating: if devolution returns tomorrow—it is unlikely to be tomorrow, since it is Saturday, but we will take Monday—the first through the door will be my party. We will be at the head of the queue. We did not bring the Northern Ireland Assembly down, but, because of the way the Belfast agreement was constructed, one party can at any time bring the whole thing to a halt.
Let us face the elephant in the room. We were told that Sinn Féin could not continue because of RHI. But there has been a public inquiry into RHI and it will make its findings known within months or perhaps weeks—that fox has been shot. What is now holding it up? Sinn Féin has another list of things that it needs—and you can be sure that, once there is any move to bring back the Assembly, another list will appear to say we cannot have devolution because this has to be done. Remember, this is not the first time that the Northern Ireland Assembly has come to a standstill. Noble Lords will recall that there was another occasion.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Can the noble Lord give an assurance that the DUP would not block the equal status of the Irish language if it were part of a devolution settlement and the restoration of the Assembly?
Lord Morrow
That would be equivalent to the DUP asking Sinn Féin to give assurances tomorrow that it will never again bring the Assembly to a standstill. We do not know what the circumstances will be. Sinn Féin brought it to a standstill. The last time it did this was on social security issues; then, after a long delay, it caught on that this was a matter that came from London, and so it could not change it.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
Does the noble Lord understand what the phrase, “equal status for the Irish language” means? Because I do not. Less than 1% of the people of Northern Ireland show an interest in the Irish language, so equal with what? More people speak Polish, Chinese or Lithuanian. Irish is very much a minimal language in Northern Ireland.
Lord Morrow
There are many occasions on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, but this is not one of them. I could not say it better myself. He has put it very eloquently, and he was one of the architects of the Belfast agreement. It is a flawed agreement, I might add, but it is there. It is not the best structure for good government and it is quite confusing. Even those of us who tried to work within it, and those of us who served as Ministers within it, know how restrictive it is and how complicated it can be. Indeed, when you explain to the general public, they throw their hands up and say, “And that is in the name of democracy”. They bid you well, give you a pat on the back and say, “Carry on in your own wee world”.
Let us be very careful, irrespective of how sincere people might be on any issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said something that struck me. He said that things are changing in Northern Ireland—and he might be right. I live there and have lived all my life there. In 1973, I went into politics as a local councillor and served for some 40 years—I know I do not look that age, but there you are. I went into the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I served for some 18 years, and I have been in this House for some 12 years. I have some idea of what is happening and of what makes Northern Ireland tick. Today, we say very clearly to this House: give us back the Northern Ireland Assembly and bring every issue that you wish to the table—every issue, even those I might emphatically disagree with.
I finish by saying that I was not one of the signatories to the Belfast agreement, but I had to accept it. When it was put to the people, they voted for it by a very small majority—particularly on the unionist side. As a democrat, I said: the people have spoken and I must listen to them.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, when I approach the subject of Northern Ireland, I do so with sensitivity to its troubled history and with an overwhelming conviction that devolution in Northern Ireland is very important. While it is certainly far from perfect, Northern Ireland politics has been greatly enhanced by devolution. Mindful of this fact, the point must be made with respect to the amendment before us today that we cannot start legislating on devolved matters as if we were in a direct rule situation without unsettling and potentially unravelling devolution. If we do so on this matter, a precedent will be set and then there will be pressure to do it in other areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, we cannot cherry pick.
Given the special value of devolution in the history of Northern Ireland, I would not want your Lordships’ House to act in a manner that created new pressures that would make the general unravelling of devolution more likely. Of course, I accept that at some point in the future there may have to be a decision to reintroduce direct rule, but we are not there yet and it would be wrong for your Lordships’ House to act in a way that does anything to revive direct rule practices, with all the attendant constitutional implications, by way of precedent.
In making this point, I should say that I have spoken to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He regrets that he cannot be here today, but has given me permission to quote him in saying that,
“for so long as a matter is devolved, notwithstanding the current difficulties, it would be quite wrong for your Lordships’ House to pass legislation in relation to it”.
Mindful of these considerations, while today’s debate has served the useful purpose of putting these matters on record, I hope very much that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for his amended amendment, which is helpful for the House. It addresses some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in that it covers both the reconstitution of the Assembly as well as what happens if there is not one.
I will make one further point. I completely understand that the Belfast agreement and the devolved Assembly are very important, but there is also an issue here about human rights. It is extraordinary that one community in the United Kingdom cannot have the same human rights that are available in England, Wales and Scotland. In the debate on the previous amendment, the comment was made that it has now been five years since the same-sex marriage Act was passed. Many friends of mine in Northern Ireland recognise that things have certainly moved on, and they completely understand and echo the sensitivities about what is happening in Northern Irish politics at the moment and the deadlock around the reformation of the Assembly. But there are people there who do not have the same basic human rights as other citizens of the United Kingdom. At the very least, this amendment serves to highlight that once again.
Whether or not the amendment is pressed today, I certainly hope that the message can go back to politicians in Northern Ireland, as well as in your Lordships’ House, that this is a live issue for people who feel that they are being disadvantaged—worse than that, they cannot profess their love for one another in the way which many others can thankfully now take for granted.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I feel profoundly frustrated about this issue, a feeling which I think is shared by many in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, needs to appreciate that there is profound frustration.
I have some questions for the Minister. Is this an issue of human rights? Are human rights a devolved matter? My understanding is that they are not, and that is the context in which we are having this discussion—that in this United Kingdom, our fellow citizens do not have the same human rights as the rest of us. What are we going to do about that under these circumstances? It seems to me that, even if the noble Lord decides not to push this amendment, having this debate is very important because it is a legitimate way of taking forward the discussion—I am just waiting for the next passing bit of legislation on which we might be able to do the same. My experience after 20 years in this House is that when you do that, you usually get there, because the political will is here in both Houses to resolve this issue.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for the manner in which brought forward his amendment, and the respect with which he has treated those who have different views on this subject. As I have said before, I respect and do not doubt the sincerity of noble Lords who hold different views from me, but nor do I apologise for the views which I hold with deep conviction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about profound frustration. I suggest to her that she knows nothing about profound frustration when it comes to Northern Ireland. I have been an elected representative—for 25 years in another place, for 37 and a half years in local government and for 15 in the local Assembly—and I know what it is to represent the people. For each of those posts, I was elected by the people, not chosen or given some honour as I have been for this House.
However, there is certainly a profound frustration when it comes to what is happening in Northern Ireland because, as my noble friend Lord Morrow rightly pointed out, it was one party—Sinn Féin, and Sinn Féin alone—that brought the Assembly down. Many in your Lordships’ House seem reticent to condemn or name it for pulling down the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many of these issues could once again be debated in that Assembly, because that is the debating chamber in Northern Ireland under the devolution settlement.
During every debate I have attended that has made reference to the Belfast agreement and to the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland, it has been emphasised and re-emphasised that nothing will be done by this Government or by the Opposition which would undermine that settlement. However, I suggest to noble Lords that these amendments do just that. Whenever this issue was referred to the court, it was acknowledged that it was the prerogative and the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly to debate and decide this issue.
I have been asked a question about when this will be. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that, in this conversation with Sinn Féin, perhaps we could ask it when it is going to lift the embargo and allow the Assembly to come back into existence, because it and it alone is stopping that. Again, as my noble friend Lord Morrow said, if the Assembly were to be started on Monday morning, my party would be through the door and take its rightful place there. It is Sinn Féin alone that is blocking the Northern Ireland Assembly from coming in to sit. I cannot in good conscience have any knowledge of when the Assembly will come into existence, because I do not know when Sinn Féin will lift or remove its objection and be willing to come back into it.
Let us be quite honest. There are many very demanding issues that need to be decided. For example, people are dying because things are not happening through the health service, which is happening because Ministers are neglecting their position. Many decisions have not been made because Ministers are not there. But it is Sinn Féin alone that is stopping those Ministers from being there—it needs to be pointed to and shown up for what it is doing. There are many issues that Ministers need to decide on, but the Government have decided that no other Minister will come, that devolution must not be undermined and that direct rule will not take place. At this moment, direct rule is certainly not in the offing, and devolution is the only show in town.
While there is a possibility of the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I appeal to noble Lords not to close its doors and remove a major plank for the existence of the Assembly in making these issues, as was acknowledged by the court.
Lord Collins of Highbury
May I ask the noble Lord one simple question? If the Assembly comes back, will the DUP support this amendment—or this principle of allowing same-sex marriage?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
I thank the noble Lord for that; it is the very point I was coming to. I said that there was another point in the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. It is a question not only of when the Assembly will come back but of when the legislation will take place. But that is what devolution is all about: deciding in the Assembly, not the understanding of this House in deciding for the Assembly. That is what the Assembly is all about. It makes the decision; when a matter comes to the floor of the Assembly, it is a decision for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. It is at election time that the electorate decide who will be their elected representatives. I shall not dictate to this House, but I make no apology for stating that I genuinely believe, with all my heart and deep conviction, that the scriptures of holy truth clearly say that marriage is a covenant entered into by one man and one woman. That is what I believe.
Before this debate, we started with a reading of God’s word. After the reading of God’s word we prayed and asked God to guide us in our counsel according to His will. “According to His will” are His words. I know that others may suggest that they do not accept that and I accept that that is the reality. However, I also believe with all my heart that God’s word gives us authority and declares on the issue of marriage.
In a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, referred to the petition of concern. My noble friend Lord Morrow rightly said that it was not my party that brought the petition of concern into existence. However, in response to what was stated in the previous debate, if the petition of concern had been exercised in the Assembly illegally, it would have been overturned. But it was not exercised illegally; it was exercised in accordance with the law. Therefore, I have to say that it is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide this issue. This House should not cherry pick what it believes should be devolved; that was decided under the devolution settlement. I warn noble Members not to pull the rug away completely and close the door of the Assembly. Many are asking: if these issues are removed from the Assembly and its elected representatives, is there any reason why an Assembly should exist at all?
Lord Cashman
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in this debate and pick up on the point noted by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, who said that one should approach these matters with absolute sensitivity. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was right to say that things have changed. Indeed, in the 2015 Assembly elections, out of the 90 Assembly Members elected, 55 declared that they would vote in favour should such a measure on equal marriage come before them. We know that polls can be skewed by the question asked, but a Sky poll in Northern Ireland indicated that 76% of the population of Northern Ireland would be in favour of same-sex marriage.
I speak in a similar vein to how I spoke earlier on the issue. This was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Thornton: it is the principle of equality. If we are a union, we are a United Kingdom and all rights should apply equally across that union. I absolutely accept the principle that you cannot devolve equality or human rights and I believe we are talking about a human right. It was suggested that it should be left to the Assembly, but there is no Assembly. And when there is no action, action must be taken to address the inequality. Some have said that one cherry picks. If we look at the issue we are talking about—the right to marry in a same-sex relationship—I do not believe it is a cherry. The concept of all people being treated equally across the United Kingdom is not fruit to be picked from a tree. It is the root and the branch of democracy. It is what keeps us together.
Therefore, this is an extremely sensible amendment. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said about wanting the Bill to proceed. Like him, I place on record my thanks to Love Equality and Amnesty International, and to all those who have written to me to say that they care about equality for other people in Northern Ireland.
Lord Elton
My Lords, we have been speaking at length about the constitution and we have gone a good deal wider than the terms of the Bill. I want to heighten just one point about devolution. I echo my noble friend Lord McColl and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay on the need for sensitivity. I think the amendment goes more to the heart of doing harm than is intended. Proposed new subsection (3) states:
“If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly”.
That is a direct statement that, even if the Assembly returns, direct rule will be exercised on this devolved matter. I am sure my noble friend does not want to make a pugnacious statement, but if he proceeds with this I think he will find that he has engendered more opposition than he deserves.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for the considered way in which he introduced his amendment. The way that he set out for the House how he has prosecuted his case was telling. In so doing, he has brought together a bunch of people with disparate agendas from very different standpoints to move together for a progressive cause that will have benefits not just for a small part of a community but much more widely. As such, it is fitting that he raised the matter in consideration of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger.
Her Bill comprises three or four very different issues, but a thread that runs throughout it is that it looks at practices and laws—some of which have been in place for hundreds of years—assesses them in relation to our society today, which has progressed in different places at different times for different people, and finds a unifying set of laws that will enable people to move forward and make life better for individuals and our society as a whole. I invite those who observe our proceedings to listen to the contributions of all Members of the House and assess each one against that background. I say this as a Liberal Democrat. I absolutely support devolution but I do not support it as a means to abrogate human rights. That has never been what devolution is about.
I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrae, and I understand that they try to convey the complex and heartfelt views of their community. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that if, as he appeared to do, he equates animal welfare with that of human beings, I am afraid he does not help his cause.
I thoroughly respect the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, when he says that he does not wish to jeopardise the progress of the Bill. However, with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that I believe that her Government deserve as much respect as we can give them for trying to get the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running, in the teeth of widespread opposition from within Northern Ireland, and that we will continue to support the Government in doing that. However, there comes a time when human rights cannot be held hostage any longer. I therefore ask her to work with those of us who seek not to cherry-pick but simply to reinforce the human rights of people who are members of the United Kingdom, and to find a way through on this and other human rights issues in Northern Ireland.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, we are debating a subject which is very sensitive in Northern Ireland. The background is that the people of Northern Ireland largely have faith, which is not a common thing in other parts of the United Kingdom. The largest faith is the Roman Catholic Church; the second largest is the Presbyterian Church, which is of Scottish background. Both those Churches—the two largest in Northern Ireland—are opposed to same-sex marriage. On the other hand, in the political scene in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as has been correctly mentioned, a majority would support same-sex marriage. So there is a division between the two main Churches on the one hand and the politicians on the other.
Why has the issue of same-sex marriage not proceeded? It is because of the petition of concern, which is part of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. It is wrong to have à la carte devolution, and it is a nonsense to suggest that this is simply a human rights issue. Marriage is a devolved issue for Northern Ireland, as it is for Scotland. It is not a question of the national Parliament imposing its will on a devolved state, and we must be careful to maintain the right of devolution, which I strongly support—I was involved in the negotiation of the Belfast agreement. The people of Northern Ireland—Catholic and Protestant, unionist and nationalist—must together make their own decisions on internal devolved matters.
It has been said that this has to be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly when it is reconstituted, and I agree. However, there is the problem of Sinn Féin. I advise noble Lords that the likelihood of there being a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland is years ahead. There are two reasons for this. First, you could not get agreement in the present circumstances of Brexit, which has caused an even greater division in politics in Northern Ireland. Only yesterday, two fishing boats from Northern Ireland were impounded by the southern Irish authorities, for the first time ever. This has caused great political bitterness overnight in Northern Ireland, and I gather that today the Dublin Government have announced that they will urgently revise the laws of their country so that it does not happen again. That is the kind of thing that is happening in Northern Ireland because of Brexit, and the sooner we get a decision on Brexit, the better—I hope that it will not be extended beyond 29 March, as some people are now suggesting.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, tabled Amendment 2 and my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury supported it.
To be clear at the outset, I support the amendment. It is disappointing that we find ourselves in this position, but, for me, this is about equality. It is about people in all parts of our United Kingdom enjoying the same rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, it is about people in Northern Ireland having the same rights as their fellow citizens in England, Scotland and Wales. I very much agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that these are matters of human rights and that where we are is a matter of much regret.
One of those rights is that people in Great Britain can get married. It is as simple as that for me. I want to support people enjoying those rights elsewhere in our United Kingdom. This is not me supporting direct rule over devolution. I entirely accept that other people in Northern Ireland, other Members of this House, have a different view to me. I respect their view completely: I acknowledge it and I respect it, but I do not agree with it. I think we have to continue this debate to get solutions to move forward. I speak very much on that basis.
We have an Assembly in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, but it is not meeting. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that the matter should be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are in complete agreement on that. The Assembly should be meeting to debate, discuss and make decisions. The amendment is intended to address an issue that needs to be resolved. It is providing for this Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it is functioning, to consider regulations that would in effect bring the intentions of the amendment into effect.
As I said, I want the Northern Ireland Assembly to be up and functioning to decide these and other matters—we have heard about a number of issues that are not moving forward in Northern Ireland because the Assembly is not sitting. We need to get these issues dealt with very soon. As my noble friend Lord Collins asked: if not now, when? That is the most important thing.
We have strayed into other issues in this debate that are not necessarily part of the amendment, but I thought that I should comment on one or two of them. I entirely accept that it was Sinn Fein, with Martin McGuinness resigning as Deputy First Minister, which collapsed the Assembly. There was the issue of the renewable heat initiative. He asked the First Minister to stand aside and she would not, so he collapsed the Assembly. I entirely accept that and put it on the record.
On the issue of Gaelic, my mother comes from Connemara and spoke Gaelic when she was a child. She does not speak it any more, but she certainly did. I am always conscious that Gaelic is a language that covers not just the island of Ireland, north and south, but Scotland and parts of France. It is a language in these islands. People speak Breton in parts of Brittany, which is a Gaelic-tongue language. In Scotland, 1.1% of the population speaks Gaelic. In Northern Ireland, 10% of the public claims some knowledge of Gaelic and 6% claims to speak the language. That is higher than in Scotland, although obviously I accept that it is not a majority. I just do not see the issue with the language. In Scotland, there is legislation to protect the language. Welsh is obviously widely spoken in Wales. I think it is about protecting languages that have been spoken on these islands and in other parts of the world. We should protect them. For me, this is a key part of the language issue.
Lord Kilclooney
Does the noble Lord accept that in Northern Ireland, Government after Government since 1921 have financially supported and encouraged the teaching of Irish, the creation of Irish language schools and everything possible to support the Irish language? What problem does the noble Lord see with what is being done about the Irish language in Northern Ireland?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I accept the point that the noble Lord makes; perhaps we can chat about it outside the Chamber. I accept that this is fairly wide of the Bill. I accept that Irish is spoken in schools, which is why I do not understand why there is such a problem, personally. Anyway, I will leave it there with the other issues, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in what has been quite a wide-ranging debate, and in particular my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving the amendment. I am also grateful for the conversations I have been able to have with him in the past few days on the matter.
The Government are rightly very proud of their role in demanding and defending LGBT rights. We are proud to have introduced same-sex marriage in England and Wales, for which we have legislative competence, and that the Scottish Government followed that lead shortly afterwards. Of course we want Northern Ireland do likewise and legalise same-sex marriage. The Prime Minister shares this view and has said so on a number of occasions.
I commend my noble friend Lord Hayward for his determined commitment on this issue. I know that many people—and the list is clearly growing—in Northern Ireland and further afield greatly appreciate his efforts, as demonstrated by his recognition recently by PinkNews as its politician of the year. I also pay tribute to the many others who have campaigned and shared personal and very poignant stories in support of his amendment.
Same-sex marriage is a devolved matter, as noble Lords have said. The proper and best place for it to be addressed is in the Northern Ireland Assembly, by Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s top priority remains to restore the Executive and Assembly at Stormont; this should be the focus. There is a need to rebuild political dialogue and she continues to encourage the parties to come together to work towards restoring devolved government, including in a recent meeting with the five parties to progress this objective.
It is important that any legislation legalising same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland is afforded a level of consultation, debate and scrutiny, using the precedents of the UK and Scottish Governments. Legislation should be developed having taken into account the wide range of views on this issue in Northern Ireland, as well as the various legal requirements. My noble friend Lord Hayward knows that we do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle for extending same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland. We have concerns about the drafting of the amendment, in particular the nature of the duty it would place on the Government.
It is not clear that the amendment would allow for all the legislative changes needed to fully implement a same-sex marriage regime in Northern Ireland equivalent to those in England, Wales and Scotland. For example, the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales necessitated the amendment of more than 50 Acts of Parliament. The Government have heard the growing calls for change, and much progress has been made since my noble friend Lord Hayward introduced his Private Member’s Bill in March last year. Parliamentarians have played an important part in continuing to raise the profile of this issue, and I hope that, despite the potential disappointment that some people will feel today, everyone will have listened to the debate and the growing support on all sides of the House.
I will add one very important final point. We support the principle of my noble friend’s amendment—that it is right for same-sex marriage to be extended to Northern Ireland by a restored Executive—and we recognise that the ongoing absence of devolved government is having an impact on addressing this issue. We would encourage a restored Executive to progress legislation on this issue as one of the first things that they do. On that note, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks on this important issue, and my noble friend Lord Hayward and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for tabling the amendment. The Minister has expressed her view, and it is clear that this issue cannot be resolved easily through this Bill and at this stage. Frustratingly, we will need to show a little more patience, but I am assured that conversations are ongoing. I know that we all want to see this issue resolved. I too have had a very large postbag on this Bill, and I know that a lot of people are anxious for it to go through without further amendment. In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment so that it does not undermine the progress we are making on the important matters on which the Bill touches.
Lord Hayward
My Lords, this has been a full and very constructive debate. First, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, if I leave the Chamber immediately after my amendment is dealt with—I will return as quickly as possible.
Secondly, somewhat surprisingly, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others, who talked about responsibility in relation to gay marriage and equality in Northern Ireland. I do so on the basis that a legal case is coming, which may decide where the responsibility lies. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney, Lord McCrea and Lord Morrow, that it would appear that, under the legislation, responsibility for this matter would fall to the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were sitting. If it did not fall within that remit, this House and the other place should have made that clear when preparing the legislation. So, to some extent, the problem we are in falls to us as legislators in Westminster.
I was particularly pleased by the acknowledgement by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that things in Northern Ireland are changing.
Lord Hayward
Yes, maybe. I would quote another senior Ulsterman who the other day said to me twice that, “It has got to change”. There was no caveat. There is an acknowledgement that the position is changing in Northern Ireland.
The problems I face with this amendment have been identified by my noble friend the Minister, who has indicated the difficulties associated with the drafting. I understand the comments of my noble friends Lord McColl and Lord Elton and I certainly hesitate to comment on any legal matter opined on by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I enter into such fields at great risk.
However, the amendment is quite specific. The amendment as I have tabled it, as I identified at the start of my comments, is to make reference to finding a solution at some point, but we have to say at some point that enough is enough. The reason that the timing is there is quite specifically to provide that, if over the next few months there is a different position in relation to government, I will be happy to put the issue back to a Northern Ireland Assembly. I have believed and still believe, on the basis of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others have said, that that is a reasonable way through this terribly difficult position.
However, difficulties have been identified by the Minister in relation to the phraseology and structure of the amendment. I thank my noble friend for all the assistance that she and other Ministers have given me over the past few days. We have been working enormously hard, as have her officials, to find a way that does not block the Bill but achieves what I and so many other Members of this House are trying to do, but it just does not work under these circumstances. I say that with enormous regret, because we have come very close—a lot closer than when I first tabled the amendment. I am surprised at the apparent development of a breakage in the logjam, and I am heartened by that fact.
I will be looking, as will other Members of the House, for another vehicle because I believe that the Government have made it clear that they are also looking for one. The comments made by Members from the other political parties also clearly indicate that they too are looking for another vehicle. If we can find it, it is not that far hence.
In conclusion, I understand the points and I greatly respect the position. I desire that there should be an Assembly in Belfast that can take hold of this matter, but we cannot say that it will go on for ever. I have to give due notice that in the future I will be seeking a vehicle that is correctly phrased and covers the full range of legislative requirements. If we do that, I will be pushing the matter to a vote, because I believe that that is what this House would want. Having made those comments in relation to what are sadly the difficulties associated with timetabling, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker
My Lords, in moving the amendment I want to return to the issues I talked about at Second Reading and in Committee. The matter is about the involvement of coroners in the investigation of stillbirths. As we acknowledged at earlier stages of the Bill, this is a very difficult and complex subject. I want to preface my remarks with an expression of my deep gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and to the Bill team for the discussions they have had with me and the spirit with which they have accepted my probing on this matter.
Like other Members of this House, over the years I have taken part in many discussions about the NHS, litigation and investigation of medical negligence. We know it is a very complicated subject. It is at its most difficult when one tries to find a way for medical professionals to be open about things that have gone wrong—tragically wrong, in circumstances such as these.
When Tim Loughton first came and introduced this Bill to a meeting of Members of your Lordships’ House, he was the first to recognise that this was a complex subject. Nevertheless, he felt that women and families who had been in this position needed the additional protection of the involvement of coroners to investigate cases of stillbirth. Since then, I have been indebted to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for sharing with me its detailed briefings, which have gone to the department in the last couple of years. It is well known in this House, not least because of the work of a number of Members on the Conservative Benches, that in the wake of scandals there has been a great deal of work by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives to improve practice in this area. Yet there is still more to be done.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I will not press these amendments to a vote today; they are here to be a vehicle for this discussion to happen. In moving them, I simply ask a number of questions. The aim of all of them is to ensure that, whatever happens as a result of this legislation, the involvement of coroners—the legal process—does not, in ways that may be unintended, get in the way of women and families having fairly swift access to discussions with medical professionals about what has gone wrong in their cases. I firmly believe that, like most victims of medical negligence or poor practice, people do not want money or compensation but to know what happened and to try to stop it happening to somebody else. My efforts in this regard are to try to make sure we do not delay that process.
I make the points that I make in the knowledge that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has moved a long way, with its Each Baby Counts programme and its involvement in a number of multidisciplinary programmes to try to monitor and improve performance in perinatal deaths.
When this Bill is passed, there will be a consultation, which I hope is widespread, about what exactly the involvement of coroners should be. I simply ask that that consultation include the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and other medical professionals, because only they will be there in future at a delivery to take into account the findings and the learning of what may happen and what may come out of any coroner’s inquiry.
Secondly, I ask that there be widespread consultation on the regulations. It was perhaps the misfortune of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, to bring forward yet another Henry VIII power at a time when this House is knee deep in them, and we on this side feel an obligation to challenge them. But again, I want to know that there will be widespread involvement of the health professionals in the consultation on the regulations.
Thirdly, the training of coroners for this new responsibility must involve professionals such as those in the royal colleges who know about medical practice specifically in this area—an area that will be new to coroners.
Finally, will this new scheme be held under review? I hope that I am wrong and I am being unduly pessimistic about it delaying not improving transparency for parents, but if it does, I want to know whether it will be kept under review so that we swiftly begin to learn. I understand from Tim Loughton and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, that it is envisaged that the involvement of coroners will happen in only a small number of cases. Happily, there are very few cases overall, but most of those are resolved within the existing systems of disclosure within hospitals. But it would be helpful to know at this stage roughly what percentage of cases it is expected will involve coroners. We will know from the review whether there has been a shift away from the existing processes within the NHS and a move towards a more legalistic, coroners’ procedure.
I want to look at whether the existence of a new process automatically means that there is more use of it. Classically, when the Government set up tribunals for a number of different reasons, they thought that it would lead to a decrease in court cases. In fact, it led to an increase in cases full stop. That is not what is intended with this measure, and I want to keep it under review to make sure that that is not what happens. With those questions, I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for prompting this debate on the provisions contained within the Bill relating to the coronial investigation of stillbirths. I am aware of the reservations which the noble Baroness has in relation to the scope of the power contained within Clause 4(4) of the Bill, but I hope that what I am about to say will reassure her.
The amendment, like the one we debated in Committee, would remove from the Bill an important provision that will allow for the extension to parents of stillborn babies the same transparent and independent investigation into their loss that is granted to the parents of a newborn baby whose life ends soon after birth. This power is needed because the provisions for the exercise of coronial powers are limited to very explicit duties which do not provide for coroners to undertake an investigation of a still-born baby.
As I said in Committee, we shall consult on this issue. The consultation will be wide-ranging and will seek views from a number of interested parties, including, as the noble Baroness asked, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, whose members provide crucial services to all expectant mothers. We recognise that, while there are those who are keen to see this change, there are others who have well-considered reservations, and it is important for us to hear from them.
Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State will report on the question of coroners investigating stillbirths and, having consulted and produced that report, if the conclusion is that coroners should indeed investigate stillbirths, the Government should then move forward in a timely way. Clause 4(4) provides the mechanism to do that, with the safeguards provided at Clause 4(5) and Clause 4(6) appropriate to the changes that are in scope. I reassure the noble Baroness that, if the Government decide to proceed with giving coroners powers to investigate stillbirths and draw on the power provided at Clause 4(4), we will publish our regulations before they are laid in Parliament. This additional scrutiny will ensure that robust and well-understood provisions for changing Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 are brought before Parliament. Should we make such change, the Government will also undertake a post-implementation review within two years of its implementation.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for prompting further debate on the provision in the Bill relating to coronial investigation of stillbirths. She knows that this is an issue that has touched me personally, and I much appreciate the thoughtful way she has approached this. I know that the noble Baroness is keen to see this Bill make its way on to the statute book, but she has some well-considered reservations about the merits of the proposal that coroners should investigate stillbirths and about how the powers in Clause 4(4) will be exercised. I hope that she is reassured that the Government have listened and have responded to her concerns.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the Report stage of the Bill today. I much appreciate their thoughtful input and attention to the Bill.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the statements she made from the Dispatch Box. She has gone a long way towards dealing with my concerns. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for understanding my motivation. I will act as they wish.
At this stage, I think I may be so bold as to offer on behalf of several noble Lords around the Chamber the deepest thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, not only for bringing this Bill but for being a trooper when we all feared that she was so ill that she was not going to make it here—but she would not be defeated.
In many different ways, this has been one of those Private Members’ Bills that does the very best we can do in our Parliament, which is to pay a great deal of attention to a number of issues which are of great importance to a small number of people. This House, by its example, has shown just how wrong Sir Christopher Chope can be in another place. It is entirely possible to do good and right things in Private Members’ Bills. I sincerely hope that one lesson that might come out of this for another place is that it should look at changing its procedures to make Private Members’ Bills far less vulnerable to unwarranted attack.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and congratulate her on having this Bill under her name on the statute book.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Bill
Thursday 7th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 158-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (27 Feb 2019)
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank colleagues across the House who participated in the Bill’s progress. The three debates were excellent and I am grateful to my colleagues for ensuring the Bill’s safe passage through the House. I also thank officials in the Whips’ Office and on the Bill team, especially Linda Edwards, for their help. We return the Bill to the other place, where I hope it will be considered at the earliest opportunity to get these important measures on to the statute book. I beg to move.
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill
Friday 15th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 158-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (27 Feb 2019)
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
Said with alacrity and buoyancy. With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 6.
Tim Loughton
First, I echo the comments made by you, Mr Speaker, and all other Members on the senseless and brutal murder in New Zealand. New Zealand might be one of the furthest countries from the United Kingdom, but at times like this we stand shoulder to shoulder with our close cousins in all communities in New Zealand and express our sincere condolences and sympathy after this terrible tragedy.
Said with alacrity indeed, Mr Speaker, because today is quite an exciting day. In fact, it is so exciting that I got halfway to my office in the Commons this morning before I realised that I had non-matching jacket and trousers on and had to return. I have quite a nice tie on, and I am taking it personally that I was not singled out for such an accolade, too.
Tim Loughton
Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. Having made the journey back home, I eventually got to my office to realise that I had left my mobile phone in my jacket that I had taken off, so things can only get better today.
We have before us technical amendments. The Bill has had a long journey. It had its First Reading on 19 July 2017—those heady days when we had a relatively stable Government and could get legislation through the House. Today is a culmination of that, with ping-pong, which I hope will be solely ping and leave no pong.
Members will remember that when my Bill left the Commons last year, it contained my last-minute amendment obliging the Government to bring in the legislation on civil partnerships within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. Curiously, although the Government at that time were not supportive of it, when it came to the possibility of a vote, a rather curious new parliamentary term was coined by the Immigration Minister, who said that the Government were not “actively” opposing my amendment. Hopefully that has now transmogrified into the Government supporting it.
While the wording of clause 2 has changed since the Bill left this House, I want to assure Members that the intention of the clause—to create equality between same and opposite-sex couples in their ability to form a civil relationship—remains. I amended my Bill on Report, before it left this House, to give the Government the ability to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, rather than just review the possibility of an extension. The Government, although slightly belatedly, came to support the principle of opposite-sex civil partnerships, perhaps spurred on by the Supreme Court judgment in a case last June. I accept that there were technical deficiencies in the drafting of my original amendment.
Since then, I have worked with the Government and the noble Baroness Hodgson of Abinger, to whom I pay great tribute. She guided the Bill through the Lords as a private Member’s Bill virgin, as she described herself, but did so skilfully and with great deftness, steering it on an even course so that it is back here with us today. Baroness Hodgson was able to correct those deficiencies and improve the drafting of the Bill. She then tabled and successfully moved the revised clause 2 and related changes in Committee in the other place, despite some rather indulgent attempts by certain peers in the other place to add their own agendas to the Bill, which were, alas, defective and would have had the result of scuppering the whole Bill. I pay tribute to the way that Baroness Hodgson steered those through potentially choppy waters to avoid the Bill being holed below the water line.
Lords amendments 1 and 2 replace my earlier version of clause 2. The new clause now requires the Secretary of State to amend by regulations the eligibility criteria of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 so that two people who are not of the same sex may form a civil partnership. The Bill requires that these changes be made so as to come in no later than 31 December. That will mean, as we have agreed with Ministers in the other place, that the legislation needs to be in place by 2 December, because notification of a clear 28 days is required before a ceremony can actually take place. There was an undertaking that civil partnerships would be available before the end of 2019, and I look forward to a series of invitations to civil partnership ceremonies on new year’s eve.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Many congratulations to my hon. Friend on steering this Bill through so successfully and on getting his timing absolutely right so that it could incorporate the decision of the Supreme Court. May I ask him whether he is concerned about the fact that subsection (1) of the new clause says:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations”
thereby indicating a certain discretion, but subsection (2) says that if he exercises that discretion under subsection (1) then he “must” do so before 31 December? Is my hon. Friend suspicious that the contrast between “may” and “must” in subsections (1) and (2) could be used by the Government to undermine what he has just asserted?
Tim Loughton
I know my hon. Friend is always vigilant, rather than suspicious. Having sat through many Committees over many years in this House arguing the toss over whether the word “may” should be replaced by the word “must”, I have to say that I am not concerned about the wording of the Bill. I have had many conversations with the Ministers responsible, and the Government are absolutely committed to delivering on the undertakings in this Bill. It had to be put together in such a way to give some leeway to Ministers to be able to produce the right legislation at the right time. That involved a degree of discretion, which I know my hon. Friend and others in both Houses were concerned about. A number of undertakings were therefore added to the Bill and were given orally, not least a sunset clause, so that this clause, which I know my hon. Friend has had concerns about in the past, could not be used for other purposes as something of a Trojan horse. I entirely appreciate his observation, but I do not share his concern that this will not actually be produced. I think it will be produced in a fairly short space of time. Goodness knows, we tried for long enough to get mothers’ names on marriage certificates.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Fairly shortly after being elected, I was approached by several opposite-sex couples who are determined to have a civil partnerships, and tens of thousands of people around the country would like to have such a civil partnership. Does the hon. Gentleman share my confidence that, were the Government to try to renege on it at this very late stage, such demand would be enough of an incentive to make sure the Secretary of State actually followed through on this?
Tim Loughton
As I will come on to say shortly, there have been some ups and downs with getting this Bill through. Back in October, on the civil partnerships clauses, the Prime Minister herself, in an article in the London Evening Standard, made it clear that Government policy was now firmly in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. That was a clear undertaking, which was almost unanimously supported by Members of this House and very largely supported by Members of the other House. We have factored in the legislation in such a way that it can be brought in this year, which is really important and means it will also comply with the Supreme Court judgment. If there are people who have not entered into a civil partnership—presuming there are those who want it, and I know there are—before the end of this year, I shall be more than a little peeved, but I shall also be greatly surprised. That is not a problem I anticipate.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I think this is an excellent Bill in principle, but I want to clarify one specific point. Subsection (2) of the new clause says:
“The Secretary of State must exercise that power so that such regulations are in force no later than 31 December 2019.”
Presumably, that does not stop them coming in earlier. Has my hon. Friend any expectation that they will do so?
Tim Loughton
That is a very good point. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s support in saying that the Bill is very good in principle, but I also think it is very good in practice. If he remembers, the amendment that I added on Report said that the Government needed to implement this legislation within six months of Royal Assent. That was actually quite a tall order and, for all sorts of reasons, the Government were not as prepared as they might have been for this change in the law, which the Prime Minister finally gave her complete assent to in October. I was therefore content to let the six months slip, but the principle that it needs to happen by the end of the year is very important. As I will mention in a minute, a number of consultation exercises still need to take place to make sure that we get this absolutely right. Let us remember that this legislation does not give rise to the specific changes in the law; it enables the Secretary of State to bring in the changes that will enable opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership. An awful lot of detail still needs to go with that, although I am glad to say that a lot of work has now been done by civil servants.
Tim Loughton
Everybody wants to chip in, and of course I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has the second best tie in the House, for giving way to the person wearing the best tie. Subsection (6) of the new clause imposes a duty to consult. Who does he expect to be consulted, and is he in any way concerned that this consultation process may lead to a further delay?
Tim Loughton
I am going to come on to the consultation, but, absolutely, that cannot lead to further delay because we now have a timeline in the Bill. There is some detail still to agree—I absolutely appreciate that—but that should not prevent this new legislation from coming in before the end of this year. Again, my right hon. Friend is right to be slightly suspicious, and I am very grateful to him for taking the time to be here today. I am not sure how much longer he is staying, but I hope he does not get a ticket on his car—if he is parked on a line or somewhere on private property.
Subsection (3) of the new clause enables the Secretary of State to make other provisions by regulations if this is appropriate in view of the extension of eligibility. The current civil partnership regime is bespoke to same-sex couples, and this subsection enables the Secretary of State to ensure that a coherent scheme can be introduced for opposite-sex couples. Subsection (4) sets out some of the areas in which regulations will be needed, including matters such as parenthood and parental responsibility, the financial consequences of civil partnership and the recognition of equivalent opposite-sex civil partnerships entered into overseas.
Subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the conversion of a marriage into a civil partnership and vice versa. At present, same-sex couples are able to convert a civil partnership into a marriage, and in implementing an opposite-sex civil partnership regime, the Government will need to consider what conversion rights should be given to opposite-sex couples. That is actually an important point about the practicalities of how this will be brought in. If hon. Members remember, the original Civil Partnership Act came in back in 2004-05 and then there was the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, but there was a delay between same-sex marriage becoming available and conversions from same-sex civil partnerships becoming available. Interestingly, however, according to the last figure I saw, only about 15% of same-sex civil partnerships chose to convert into a same-sex marriage after that became available.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this very important Bill, which I fully support. I am very impressed by his prescience in introducing this Bill a year before the Supreme Court decided that this was a very good idea. He mentioned the power in subsection (3) of the new clause to make “any other provision”. Will he detail what kind of provision that might be in that particular part of the clause?
Tim Loughton
As I have mentioned, how one converts is one of them. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Scottish Parliament has been slightly ahead of us in that it has been making preparations to bring in opposite-sex civil partnerships, and it has launched a consultation. That is one reason why I have said that the Government here could actually get on with this rather more speedily, because they could take what Scotland has already done. However, there were some gaps in the Scottish consultation, including the whole thorny subject of conversions. That is why we need to make sure that we cover all those areas. As I know, because they have contacted me, a small number of people, who got married because that was all that was available, would be more comfortable with a civil partnership. On such details, it is perfectly reasonable to get some form of consensus. By and large, the principles in the Bill seek to emulate and reflect the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for same-sex couples.
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Subsection (4)(c) of the new clause refers to the financial consequences of a civil partnership. Has he received any assurance from the Government that such an arrangement will have no adverse financial consequences?
Tim Loughton
There are some financial consequences—mostly about private pensions—just as there were when civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples. That was accounted for in the Government’s previous consultations—my right hon. Friend may remember that there was a consultation on extending civil partnerships before the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, and again afterwards as a result of an amendment I tabled. The Government are aware of the financial consequences, which are not huge and are relatively insignificant, and they have consulted on them. He need not worry that this Bill will be costly—indeed, I assure him that parts of it will save money.
Subsection (7) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that protect the ability to act in accordance with religious belief. That could include, for example, ensuring that religious organisations are able to decide whether to host opposite-sex civil partnerships on religious premises, which should remain a decision for an individual religious organisation—I am not proposing any changes there. Subsection (8) enables the regulations made under the new clause to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, and amendments to clause 5 will ensure that those regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—I know that right hon. and hon. Members will be concerned about that. That will ensure that the regulations receive proper parliamentary scrutiny and are debated in this House and the other place.
Amendments 3, 4 and 5 make the necessary changes to the supplementary provisions for making regulations in clause 5, and amendment 6 changes the long title of the Bill to reflect the fact that clause 2 no longer relates to the publication of a report on civil partnerships, and instead relates to the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples—that is how it was when the Bill first started out, before the Government wanted me to change it. We are back where we were originally, but there has been a lot of good fun in the process.
Other clauses in the Bill that attracted widespread support across the House and beyond are completely intact, helped by various assurances given in the Lords by Baroness Hodgson and Baroness Williams, particularly about the consultation on moves to extend the power of coroners to investigate stillbirths. Other parts of the Bill add mothers’ names to marriage certificates—that has not been available in England since 1834—enable coroners to investigate stillbirths where appropriate, and oblige the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to review how we might register stillbirths before 24 weeks, which are technically referred to as late-term miscarriages. A working party has already started work on that. It has slightly ground to a halt since last autumn, but it will be obliged to report under provisions in the Bill. A lot of work still needs to be done on that difficult subject, about which hon. Members heard many emotional testimonies during the passage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may crave the House’s indulgence before I conclude my remarks, because this will hopefully be the final hurdle for a Bill that started in this House on 19 July 2017, but had its genesis in amendments that I proposed to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in 2013. This Bill has kept me awake for much of the past 20 months or so, and I wish to say some thank yous.
Even if I say so myself, this Bill is quite a remarkable achievement—[Interruption.] I am going to say so myself, and I really do not care: it is a remarkable achievement, and will be law in a few weeks’ time. As I said at the outset of my remarks, this is the most greedy and ambitious private Member’s Bill that I have seen in my 22 years in this House. It proposes not one but no fewer than four main changes to the law. It involves legislation involving not just one Department but four, and the engagement of not one but four Secretaries of State, three of whom unhelpfully got reshuffled when the Bill was approaching Second Reading, which meant that I had to start my difficult negotiations all over again in January 2018.
This is not a handout Bill, and it would not be happening had not various people supported putting all these clauses together. As I said, I made it so complicated because in my 22 years in this House of applying for the private Member’s ballot each year—other than when I was a Minister—and failing to be picked, this was the first time my name came up, and no doubt it will be the last. I went for broke, and I think we have come up trumps.
We started in the Commons on 2 February 2018, not knowing whether the Bill would receive its Second Reading, and we had to make a number of last-minute compromises. We had a lot of help from Baroness Hodgson and Baroness Williams, and other organisations that have fought tirelessly for this Bill, such as the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign—its members are looking down from the Gallery very sedately and excitedly, ahead of the celebration that we will have later on—as well as other organisations, such as the Campaign for Safer Births, and I particularly pay tribute to Nicky Lyon, Michelle Hemmington and Georgie Vestey. A few other institutions were not quite as supportive, but we got the Bill through anyway and I will not name them.
James Cartlidge
I was pleased to speak on Second Reading, but I think one question was not covered—forgive me if it was. It will be interesting to see what happens to civil partnerships before we break up the fundamental partnership that we are currently debating, but what is the impact on nationality rights for those in civil partnerships compared with those in a traditional marriage? Is it the same, because that issue will be important in the coming months for those in a civil partnership with an EU citizen?
Tim Loughton
As I think I said rather unfairly to one of our colleagues who made a not-dissimilar slightly technical point on Report, nobody likes a smart-arse. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend and I are very good friends, Mr Speaker, and I am grateful to him because he raises a good point. I have had a number of emails from people who live abroad or who have had ceremonies in other jurisdictions, and part of the consultation and final details that need to be added to the Bill are on such matters. The principle is to replicate absolutely the rights and opportunities that are available for same-sex couples. If the Bill does not try to achieve complete equality, or as close to it as is physically possible, it will not have achieved what it tries to achieve. This is all about equalities and equal opportunities.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Having heard my hon. Friend’s observations on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), I am loth to ask a question, but I wonder if he will reflect on the Lords debate on civil partnerships between siblings, and say how he feels about that.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend, who attended previous debates as assiduously as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), raises a good point. I think it is the noble Lord Lexden who has a private Member’s Bill in the Lords, and, in the past, other Members in this House have tried to change legislation so that a formal civil partnership would be available to sibling couples, typically two sisters who have lived together in a jointly owned property over many, many years. When one dies, the other is faced with a large inheritance tax bill and all sorts of other things that are clearly disadvantageous. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, but my response—Baroness Hodgson spoke to Lord Lexden and others about this—is, first, that the Bill is not the place to address that situation, because it is essentially a financial matter.
The Bill is about families and partnerships; that situation is about fair financial treatment between blood relatives who are committed to each other. If it were to be addressed in a finance Bill or a similar measure, I would have some sympathy for it. I think it should be judged on that basis. I am talking about couples who come together and may have children. I know there are some special circumstances, for example where a couple of sisters may be looking after a niece or nephew of a deceased sibling. It is complicated, but essentially it is a matter of financial unfairness and I would like to see it dealt with in financial legislation.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
On that specific point about financial matters, does my hon. Friend therefore think that that should also apply to pensions and the passing on of pension rights?
Tim Loughton
Again, that is a good point. As the law is framed at the moment, they would not qualify. Some generous schemes might recognise that there was a dependent relationship, but those issues need to be looked at in greater detail, with the wisdom and scrutiny of officials and Ministers from the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. I would certainly suggest that the Government, or any other Member whose name comes up in the private Member’s Bill ballot, look at the issue separately. Private Members’ Bills cannot be used for financial matters, so there might be a problem there, and that is why this Bill would not be the most appropriate vehicle to deal with it.
Hundreds and hundreds of mothers and fathers of potential civil partners have written to me and other hon. Members in support of the Bill on its long journey. There have been some heart-rending accounts, particularly from those who have suffered the trauma of stillbirth. I have to say that at times the progress of the Bill has been in spite of the Government, rather than with their support, although I think they have come to realise that the Bill always was the best and the speediest vehicle to deliver civil partnerships and marriage certification with mothers included, especially after many abortive attempts.
If I could just single out one Minister it would be the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). He wanted to be here today. He has a lot of skin in the game with many of the issues in the Bill that he has championed in this House. He has gone above and beyond. He stepped in to bash heads together in Departments to find a way through and he has done a lot of work within his own Department on preparing for the power to go to coroners to investigate stillbirths. When the Bill becomes law, I think there will be a short space of time before it is put into effect. I pay particular tribute to him and give him my thanks for all the help he has given in some uncertain waters that we have charted on the Bill’s journey.
Lastly, I would like to thank the officials. A number of officials have also suffered sleepless nights. They have pulled their hair out and sent me emails at some very antisocial hours as they battled to ensure we got this through the Lords in particular. It is invidious to single them out, but if I could just mention Ben Burgess in the House of Lords, whose quiet but skilful diplomacy in convincing certain Members of their lordships’ House that less is more kept the Bill on an even keel. I would also like to mention the redoubtable Linda Edwards from the Home Office, whose combination of energy, cajoling, diplomacy and forthrightness has been the absolute making of the Bill. I am convinced that without her guiding it through as the lead official in her role in the Home Office, we would not be where we are today. I pay tribute to them.
It has been a long journey. I first raised this issue in 2013 via an amendment on civil partnerships during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. It would have prevented an awful lot of angst if at that stage the Government had agreed to full equality by agreeing to amendments, which were supported by many Members on both sides of the House, to bring about equal civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. The genesis of the Bill is even longer than Brexit, but unlike with Brexit today we will have closure and a reason to celebrate.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman—in fact, now probably right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
Well, if he isn’t, he jolly well ought to be. I feel sure that it is only a matter of time.
James Cartlidge
It is a great pleasure to stand up as an anointed smartarse and talk on this important subject.
Before I do so, I want to echo all the words that have been spoken today about what has happened in New Zealand. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. If I may say, Mr Speaker, as the Foreign Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, it is possible—I hope this is not the case and I have no information—that, given the links between our two countries, family members will be worried about loved ones who may be abroad. As always, the consular service is there and available. I am sure all colleagues know that there is a private number they can use if constituents who are concerned about family members in New Zealand contact us. Let us hope that that is not the case.
It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Bill and I very much agree with the principle behind it. When I spoke on Second Reading, I said that if there was one question that it raised in principle—this goes to the core of the amendment we are discussing—it was whether, in effect, this was a commitment-light choice; we were saying to people that they could have a civil partnership if they did not want to make the full commitment of, shall we say, a conventional marriage. I reflected on that and came to the conclusion that, on the contrary, civil partnerships were a way for people who, for many reasons, would not have wanted to go down the traditional route, to show commitment to a far greater degree.
One very real case reinforces that and underlines the point of the Bill, which I think will have huge use and ramifications for our society. It is the case of a councillor in Babergh District Council in my constituency. It is her personal testimony and it just so happens that she is also my parliamentary researcher. She is Councillor Harriet Steer and she has given me this testimony to share with my hon. Friend. She will be getting married in May. She says:
“We would have chosen a civil partnership if the option was available to us. The main reason being that traditional marriage carries a lot of archaic rhetoric that does not sit comfortably with us as a couple, or with me as a woman and Gustaf as a Swedish man brought up to believe fully in equality. This in no way diminishes our desire to commit ourselves to the relationship and each other.”
This is key. She goes on to say:
“We want to cement our commitment for a number of reasons, including that if we were to have children, they would be part of a committed family structure. I have grown up with the security of knowing that my parents are committed to one another and our family, and that provides a level of security that I would wish to afford to our children in the future. It is also a celebration of the fact that we have spent nearly a decade with each other, and provides legal benefits to the relationship. For example, if I were in an accident I would want Gustaf to decide what happens rather than my parents, as he will have a much clearer idea of my wishes.”
She concludes:
“A civil partnership would provide us with the elements of a traditional marriage that we are seeking without the heavily sexist sentiments and history. It would not diminish our commitment to the institution that we are joining but result in a better fit.”
Neil O’Brien
Does my hon. Friend agree with his researcher that marriage has sexist connotations?
James Cartlidge
I am reading out her personal and passionately held views. I certainly would not make any judgment on them. The interesting thing is that when my researcher passed me this note, she said that she was discussing the Bill last night with friends. She is in her mid-20s. They all said that they would prefer this route than marriage. I think that that is profoundly interesting.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I have heard equally powerful testimonies from those who are the product of broken marriages and who come to the idea of marriage with a lot of baggage. Is that something my hon. Friend recognises?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent point. Frankly, whatever form the legal joining takes, we cannot legislate for humanity’s various ways of working positively and negatively and interacting with one another. There will be breakdowns in civil partnerships just as in traditional marriages. I hope that having this structure means that more people bring more stability for their children and to their lives in a way that they find amenable. I think that this is a historic moment and that this option will become very common. I do not know what assessment or predictions have been made of the likely take-up—who can possibly say?—but I think that this change will have a very significant impact.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech and it is really interesting to hear the thoughts of his parliamentary assistant, who feels similar to me. Does he agree that people of faith—I am a person of faith—also have to have strength in their faith to understand others who do not have that faith and perhaps to allow them complete equality under the law?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In reading this real-life testimony and talking about the potential impact of the new structure, I can imagine that there would be those who say, “Well, hold on a minute. What about religious marriage? What about commitments through historical, established ways?” but the point is that the Bill is no threat. It just provides a different way for people who do not have those views. As my hon. Friend rightly says, a part of faith—particularly of the Christian faith and, I imagine, all other faiths—is that we tolerate people who take a different view. Indeed, the vile act overnight goes against all religions, precisely because it goes against the principle of religious tolerance.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that all true followers of a faith would absolutely abhor what happened last night. No religion calls for blood, slaughter and murder in that way.
Turning to the Bill, a comment was just made about the idea of marriage versus civil partnership, but many people who have a religious faith have a very different view of marriage from those who do not have faith and get married. It is not just the idea that people in a marriage have one set of views compared with those in civil partnerships. Those entering into marriage will have varied views. I view it as an act of union before God, whereas those getting married at a local register office may take a very different view. It is about what it means to the couple and the individuals concerned.
James Cartlidge
That needs no further comment—it was brilliantly put, as always, by my hon. Friend. I look forward to hearing from him today, as we so often do on private Members’ Bills.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to the principles that lie at the heart of the Bill and this particular part of it in terms of equality, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), but there is something else as well. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) read out the note from his constituent—I think he said she was a councillor—and she used the words, “We would have chosen”. Is not the principle choice and freedom? Today more than ever we should absolutely make sure that we reinforce that principle at the heart of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent contribution and he is absolutely right. It is interesting that the Bill brings not only choice, but responsibility. We are not talking about some sort of libertarian agenda. The Bill provides a chance to have a choice and also to bring greater stability to people’s lives and for the children that they may have, so that is a very good point.
I want to make one more point about my researcher, Councillor Steer, whose testimony on this important matter I read out. It is fair to say that she is not a Brexiteer and that she sees certain advantages in marrying a Swede—although, of course, that is not the reason. I raised that point in intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the promoter of this very good Bill, because it is important and will bring focus in future to what happens on someone’s nationality if they have a civil partnership as opposed to a marriage, and so on. However, there are finer legal minds in the Chamber today to comment on these matters, and I will leave that to them.
On timing, it is interesting that my researcher would have chosen the option under the Bill. The sooner that it can be available, the better, because there really are people on whose lives the Bill would impact and who would choose to go down this route. It is satisfying to know that the very latest that the provisions may be used is new year’s eve. I imagine that if that is when there is the first civil partnership under the Bill, there will be quite a party.
Finally, I note that amendment 1 refers to the “financial consequences” of civil partnership. In my experience, there is a lot of complexity around inheritance tax regulations, pensions and so on, and I hope that others may be able to clarify the implications of some of those points. I am very happy to support the Bill. Not only is it a very good Bill in the areas that it covers, such as marriage certificates and others, but I think it will be historic and in future standard practice by which people cement commitment and show their love for each other in a way that is no more or less worthy than any other.
Victoria Prentis
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who spoke very passionately. I echo what he said at the beginning of his speech: it is relevant, when, on Fridays, we consider important, life-changing events, that we think about people around the world recovering in the aftermath of a horrific attack in New Zealand. I think today about my constituents going to Friday prayers at our two mosques in Banbury. That will be a difficult and worrying experience for people all around the world and it is right that we should think of them.
This is the third time that I have risen to support the Bill. We could view it as hatched and matched, and now is the time to dispatch it to the wider world. I am very glad to see that the Lords considered it in such detail and to be here today for its return to the Commons. I appreciate the Bill’s far-reaching scope, but it has come a long way since it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—my good friend. It is customary on Fridays for us all, at this point in the dispatching process, to praise to the skies the hon. Member who has brought the Bill to its dispatching moment, but as he did that so well himself, I do not know that I need to add much, apart from to congratulate him on ultimately getting dressed this morning and to thank him for the persistence and good humour with which he has involved very many people in both Houses in the production of the Bill.
Looking around the Chamber, I see my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who I remember had a very emotional debate in Westminster Hall when we first arrived in this place about mothers’ names on marriage certificates. I think that he, like me, would like to pay tribute to our other right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has worked particularly hard on that issue, which really is irritatingly long overdue.
In all seriousness, I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who has worked hard, even if he knows it himself. I wish all parts of the Bill well. It has had cross-party support and I hope that we can come to an agreement today so that it can get through its remaining stages and receive Royal Assent before the end of the parliamentary Session. I also hope that Members in the Chamber continue to push. We may have achieved consultations and we may have got the Government to agree to look at things, but we want to deliver on all the Bill’s promises, so that dispatching means fruition rather than the sadder meanings of the word.
The focus of amendments from the Lords centre around extending civil partnerships to other couples. We have moved from a position where the Government were going to undertake unspecified work on how that could be done to putting an obligation on the Minister for Women and Equalities to prepare a report on the subject. We find ourselves today with a real commitment to bring in the necessary regulations before the end of the year. This is a great example of how Back-Bench MPs can work with Government to bring about change, and it is possibly also an example of why we think that a deal is better than no deal.
I also welcome the reassurance in subsection 7 that the decision to host an opposite-sex civil partnership on religious premises will remain a decision for individual religious organisations. I know that the Bishop of Oxford made an extremely thoughtful contribution when the matter was discussed in the other place last week.
Kevin Hollinrake
I had the great privilege to take a couple of private Members’ Bills through the House myself, one of which my hon. Friend strongly supported. When I explained those two Bills to the public, their reaction was “Why do those provisions not already exist?” Surely the same applies to this Bill: all three of its provisions should have been introduced long ago.
Victoria Prentis
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am forever indebted to him for his sterling work on parental bereavement leave. That is, of course, something else that we should have thought about earlier, but the fact is that we used not to talk about baby loss, or indeed death, in the way that we are now beginning to be able to. I think that the conversation about death is one that we need to have in a grown-up way.
I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham again today. He has done sterling work, and we should all support him.
Julian Knight
Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me add my comments to those of other Members about the tragedy—the abomination—that has been unfolding in New Zealand overnight. As one who represents a very diverse community in Solihull, I have seen at first hand just how disgusting religious intolerance is: not so long ago, a pig’s head was left at a mosque. I shall be writing to and communicating directly with leaders of the Muslim community in Solihull. We really must stamp out this religious intolerance.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has been very modest during the debate. He is noted for that. [Laughter.] I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has persevered relentlessly with the Bill, in the face of some opposition at times, for the way in which he has worked across parties, and for the way in which he has put his case. All that has been an example of true, fine parliamentary activity.
I am sure that I speak for the great majority of Members when I say how pleased I am to see this important Bill making such fine progress. As my hon. Friend said, it is an ambitious Bill. It tackles several social wrongs at once, and does so with great precision and attention to detail. Many of its provisions, especially those updating the law on marriage, are long overdue, and will do much to bring that ancient institution into line with the evolving values and mores of British society today.
The absence of mothers from marriage certificates is an absurd anachronism which, my hon. Friend tells me, has persisted for 182 years; I had thought it was 150. That is utterly ridiculous. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) in paying tribute to my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who is another fine parliamentarian and a superb neighbour, for the work that she has done.
As I have mentioned before, I have personal experience in this regard. The stark reality is that 90% of single parents are women, and I myself was raised by my mother from the age of 10. She worked two jobs and raised me single-handedly, which probably equates to a third job. She worked herself to a standstill, and between the ages of 14 and 18 I had to become a young carer because of all that hard work. She had worked for British Telecom, and in a bar at night; she would start at 8 am and finish at 11 pm. I was lucky enough to keep a good relationship with my father over the years, but my mother raised me, and I was appalled to find, when I got married in 2014, that as far as the official documents were concerned, she might as well not have existed. But she mattered, of course, and that was entirely unjust. I am delighted and relieved that this glaring oversight will be corrected in the very near future.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and personal point, and we all admire him for his bravery in doing so. Does he not agree that one of the great powers and privileges we have in Parliament is the ability to correct historic injustices that we have experienced directly, so that others may not suffer the same fate?
Julian Knight
I thank my hon. Friend. He is a very compassionate and good friend of mine, and he is absolutely correct. I just wish we could have done this sooner, but we are here now, getting it done, and that is thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
I am pleased that the Government are taking the opportunity provided by the Bill to review the way in which we record marriages in this country. The fact that the alternative means of achieving some of these important reforms via secondary legislation, which would involve reissuing tens of thousands of paper records, was found to be so extraordinarily inefficient, time-consuming and expensive has shone a spotlight on how analogue the marriage registration system still is. I know that some of this officialdom has become part and parcel of the wedding ritual, and I hope that the process of signing the register and receiving a certificate can remain for those who want it, but there is no doubt that moving towards a secure, streamlined and centrally accessible marriage register is a logical step forward.
The second important change ushered in by the Bill is the opening of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. As I said earlier, I am married and I am pro-marriage. It is an ancient and precious institution, which offers happiness and security to millions of people in this country. As a Conservative, however, I recognise that institutions only survive to become ancient and precious if they are able to adapt to social change. As I also said earlier, people of faith must have strength in that faith, and must understand and adapt. There is no doubt that public attitudes towards marriage, in both its legal and its religious dimensions, have evolved since the law was last updated.
I am a person of faith, although sometimes it is quite a fragile faith, but an increasing number of my fellow citizens are not, and I quite understand why many of them would be uncomfortable at the prospect of marriage. Even a civil ceremony carries the weight of a long and deeply religious history. I recognise, too, that after decades of rising divorce rates, there are doubtless many people who have experienced marriage, either personally or close at hand, and decided that it is not for them. The fact that I myself did not marry until I was nearly 40 may be an indication of the long-term effect that a marriage breakdown can have. None of that should for one moment be taken to imply that those people’s love for, and commitment to, their partners is any less than the love and commitment felt by those who do decide to get married, but the law as it stands assigns an inferior legal status to their relationships.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned financial implications. It is important to align inheritance tax and pension rights so that heterosexual civil partners have the same rights as those of the same sex. That should not be left to the discretion of trustees in private pension schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised the question whether pensions could be passed to siblings. It would be a matter for the trustees, but I know of very few who do that at present.
I had hoped for a change in the way in which heterosexual couples in civil partnerships are treated in more sensitive circumstances, such as those involving hospitals. On Second Reading, I spoke of my personal experience when I lost my partner in a road traffic accident in 1999. I will not go over that particular story again, but I will say that I had to almost beg my way into a ward where the woman I loved was dying. That was not right, and I really hope that no one else will have a similar experience.
As for the law governing stillbirths, I am glad that the Bill deals so sensitively with what must be an unimaginably painful topic for so many. It is never right when arbitrary officialdom intrudes to compound the grief of a bereaved family, let alone when it stands in the way of a proper investigation of a child’s death. It is quite right that the law will be changed so that coroners are able to investigate stillbirths; that is an important extension to unborn children and their parents of rights due to every living person.
Kevin Hollinrake
Some time ago, when I was taking the Bill I referred to earlier through the House, one of my constituents contacted me to say that their son was born after 23 weeks and six days and sadly passed away two days later, but had that not happened they would never have been able to register the baby. What a massive difference between those two positions. It cannot be right that this will not have been possible until the Bill has been brought into effect.
Julian Knight
I could not have put it any better myself; that is absolutely the right approach and the right thing to say, and we are correcting that wrong in this place today.
As well as allowing for official investigation, the Bill opens the door to providing official recognition to babies who are born dead before the current deadline, allowing their parents to name them and have their birth officially recognised. That is a very positive step forward to say the least, and I deeply hope it will provide some comfort to those poor parents of stillborn children. Of course there may be some for whom such matters are the very last thing they want, and I hope and trust that their rights and feelings will be properly accounted for in the implementation of any new system and that it is done in the most sensitive way possible.
This is an exemplary Bill: rather than trying to deliver big changes through broad wording and aspirational intentions, it bundles together a number of detailed, well considered changes that will deliver real, tangible change in several important areas. It will bolster marriage and the alternatives to marriage, and afford long overdue recognition to both mothers and unborn children. I hope the entire House will join me in supporting its swift progress on to the statue book.
Kevin Foster
It is always a pleasure to be called to speak by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to see you in the Chair. This is a welcome chance to say something about this Lords amendment, but first I wish to join other Members in reflecting on the events in New Zealand yesterday. Having visited New Zealand and its Parliament last year, I saw how often throughout history our two nations have stood together. It is worth remembering that at the moment when this nation faced its greatest peril in 1940 there were Kiwis who travelled thousands of miles to come here and defend our democracy; they literally stood on the shores of Britain ready to meet a Nazi invader had they ever managed to cross the channel. So we stand in solidarity with them in facing the fascists today in the way that we defeated the fascists of the past.
This Bill is very welcome, and particularly the new clause being inserted into it. People should have a choice about what type of relationship and legal partnership is right for them. As I alluded to in an earlier intervention, when I got married in June 2017 it was a religious sacrament; that was part of being united together. It was a very special experience—we had the mass straight afterwards, as that was the first thing we wanted to do as a married couple. But that is not everyone’s choice, and it is not everyone’s view on marriage.
There are different religious faiths and different religious communities, including in the Christian faith. There are very different views across the spectrum of Christian opinion, for example on divorce and remarriage. There are those who have annulment as the only option and those who recognise civil divorce in a religious context.
Sir Greg Knight
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good that the Bill imposes on the Minister the duty to consult and that people should be consulted before we change the law? Does he also think this Bill will have any impact on landlord and tenant relationships and the rights of a civil partner?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I was a great fan of his private Member’s Bill, which I am delighted to hear now has Royal Assent.
On the impact this Bill might have on the rights of landlords, we should be clear that we are not creating a new legal concept here: civil partnerships have now existed for some time and courts are familiar with dealing with them, so I would expect any rights accruing under tenancies through being a civil partner in a same-sex situation to transfer in exactly the same way to a civil partnership between persons of a different sex—a mixed-sex couple. I do not see why it would extend, or for that matter contract, the rights that have already been created effectively under law by allowing civil partnerships between same-sex couples. I would expect the courts to view them as exactly the same—I think that is the thrust of the Bill—in the same way as civil partnerships, when they were created, had much of the legal history of civil marriage attached to them. That was a large part of the argument used at that time, when it was felt that it was the right step for Parliament to legislate for civil partnerships.
At that time, of course, there was not the option of a legal union for a same-sex couple, hence civil partnerships were created. The intention was to provide much of the legal status of marriage without actually having a civil marriage. Of course, the law has moved on and we now have same-sex marriage, allowing the option of civil partnerships for mixed couples. But I would not necessarily see anything that a landlord should fear from the Bill, other than the same things they would be used to dealing with for a same-sex couple who have entered into a civil partnership.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend will be aware from his legal background that marriage or civil partnership affords both members of a couple additional rights to a position where they are just cohabiting. It may well be the case that some people are more comfortable in a civil partnership, and through the Bill they can effectively grant each other greater rights in case there is ever the need for them due to any unforeseen circumstance.
Kevin Foster
I agree, and as always my hon. Friend brings his expertise in that industry to the Chamber. Yes, this does create tenancy rights, and again I do not see any reason why extending this to mixed-sex civil partnerships would have any different impact on the landlord-tenant relationship from that which same-sex couples and civil partnerships have had.
This Lords amendment is very welcome, and I want to reflect briefly on one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton): that this does not force a religious organisation to offer civil partnerships. If a Church decides it wishes only to offer marriage in a sacramental sense, it still has that choice. This is not about taking away anyone’s right or ability or forcing someone to offer something they do not wish to offer; it is about extending choice to those who currently do not have it.
I appreciate that not everyone wants to get married in church; that is not the right option for everyone—although for me it was. Not everyone necessarily wants to have the institution of marriage, given what some people foresee as its historical position. I personally profoundly disagree; I believe it is about a unique partnership that puts two people together for life, and that is very special.
My mother passed away in 2014, but my father would still see himself as married to my mother today, five years after her death. My grandparents were together for 57 years prior to my grandmother’s death. For them it was something that was unique and very special, and it signified what they meant to each other. I accept that for my family that was achieved through religious marriage in church, whereas for others it would be through the choice of a civil partnership which they feel better reflects their lifestyle or the choices they wish to make. I do not see why now in the 21st century the law should not allow them that opportunity. No one is not going to be able to get married because this has passed; it just gives people a choice.
James Cartlidge
We are used to this tradition of Friday speeches. The whole point is that we are giving a new right, not taking any away from people.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I could not have put it better myself. This is about new rights, new choices and new abilities for people, to reflect the different lifestyles and relationships of today.
The Bill will also help to deal with the idea of the common law spouse. Too many people think that they have some sort of status as a common law husband or wife, right up until the point when tragic circumstances occur and they suddenly discover that they have virtually no status at all. In fact, they have the same status as a mate they know down the pub. That is when things start to go wrong, but the Bill should help to reduce the number of such occurrences.
Victoria Prentis
I cannot emphasise enough how critical it is that we get the message out that there is no such thing as a common law spouse and that it confers no rights at all. What more does my hon. Friend think we can do to get that message across? This is what I was referring to, slightly facetiously, when I said that deals are better than no deals.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to get the message out there. Ironically, people think that it is somehow easier to be a common law wife or husband, when it is actually easier to be viewed as married in a religious sense than it is in the legal sense.
There is a story that I will not go into in too much because it involves the last week of my mother’s life, and there are difficult memories, but I will mention it briefly. My mum was in a hospice, and a little blessing service was held, at which Hazel and I were present. It was referred to in some of the coverage that our engagement ring was my mother’s ring, which she gave to Hazel that day. Had the priest run through the vows there that day, Hazel and I would have been a married couple in the Christian religious sense. Under the law, the marriage would not have had any legal status because we would not have complied with the terms of the Marriage Act 1949; we would not have posted banns, given notice or obtained a special licence. However, in a Christian sense, we would have been a married couple, had she run through the vows that day. People forget that it is easier to be viewed as married in a religious sense than it is in a legal sense. And, as my hon. Friend says, there is no such thing as a common law wife or husband in the legal sense.
Kevin Foster
I will in just a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) asks how we can get this message out there. We are doing it through debates such as these, but we are also creating an option for people who want to have a legal relationship but not necessarily a religious one. Agreeing with the Lords amendments today is certainly a good way of doing that, and we must ensure that, as the legislation is brought in, the Government conduct a clear information campaign to make people aware that this will be a partnership with legal status, rather than just living together and hoping that that will count.
Sandy Martin
The hon. Gentleman has just answered the question I was going to ask. However, does he agree that getting the message through to all the people who believe they have a common law marriage that they need to do something about it is possibly one of the most effective parts of what we are doing here today?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome intervention. I hope that that is indeed the case.
Some of this grows out of the time when it was very difficult to get divorced. It was expensive, and the legal system reflected a different era. This is about simplifying the options. It is also about same-sex couples. Sadly, for too many years they were denied the opportunity to have their relationships—often close, loving relationships that had lasted for many decades—recognised under the law, whereas an opposite-sex couple could quite easily get married purely for convenience or to avoid certain tax liabilities. We have rightly moved the law forward in that regard to give people options and opportunities. People now have a choice if they do not necessarily want to see themselves as married but want a form of legal recognition for their relationship.
Sadly, there have been too many cases over the past 30 or 40 years involving same-sex couples who have had a close and loving relationship, and when one of them passes away, the relatives have suddenly developed rather Victorian attitudes to such relationships when they realise that there might be a few quid in it for them. Those relatives often launch legal actions that the deceased partner would certainly not have wanted to see, because they would have wanted their property dealt with in a very different way. We must get the message across that there is something about being married or being in a civil partnership that gives people legal recognition and puts their status and wishes beyond doubt.
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend is making a number of powerful points. Does he agree that there is a case for the Government pursuing a publicity campaign in the wake of this Bill on the issues that he is talking about?
Kevin Foster
Yes, absolutely. There may well be a case for having a publicity campaign to advise people of the details of the legislation and to ensure that they are aware of the option it gives them to become a statute law partner rather than a common law partner. This would apply to people who are in a long-term relationship, and who have perhaps bought a property together, but who do not want to get married. As the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) said, relatives are often very supportive of such relationships until they discover an old legal case that might give them the chance to get some money after one of the partners has died. I hope that the Government will look at what information can be made available. This could also apply to venues that have in the past advised that they could accommodate only civil marriages. Perhaps they could now also offer civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples looking to be joined together. I hope that the Government will look at how these matters could sensibly be promoted.
The Lords amendment is welcome, particularly because it gives the opportunity to convert a civil partnership into a marriage. I do not think that that will be an issue for the Bill. I am also pleased that the Lords resisted the temptation to table amendments relating to the role of the clergy. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, it would have taken the Bill in an unwelcome direction and perhaps endangered its passage through this House if we had had to send it back to the Lords just to deal with such an amendment. It is unlikely that such an amendment would have received the support of a majority of Members in this House. We made it clear when the provisions relating to same-sex marriage came in that there would be a protection there. I sometimes debate whether there really needs to be a complete ban on one particular religious group, in relation to same-sex marriages on Church of England premises. Perhaps in future years we might look at providing a choice, but I accept that this was about giving reassurance and a firm commitment on choices relating to religious rights and opportunities.
I shall bring my remarks to a close in time for the minute’s silence that we will all wish to participate in. I noted the point about siblings with a close relationship who live together, but I do not think that this is the time to legislate for that. That relates more to financial matters than to loving relationships, and it might be confusing to legislate for it here. We have made it very clear that civil partnership is similar to marriage in its legal effect. For good reason, we also have criminal offences—for example, relating to people being married to two people at the same time. Again, extending the law into this area would create confusion and we might have to ask whether we should exempt that. I understand the points that have been made on these matters, but as I said to the hon. Member for Ipswich, I think we need to consider how we would deal with them via the tax system.
The Bill is long overdue, and very welcome. I was genuinely saddened that I could not put my mother’s name on my marriage certificate, but this legislation will allow me to do that. I urge the House to concur with the Lords in their amendment.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I announced earlier, and it was supported by colleagues across the House, I propose that we hold a minute’s silence at 11 am. That silence will be held in respectful memory of the 49 people who perished in the terrorist outrage in Christchurch, New Zealand, in respectful memory of those who were injured as a result of those atrocious acts, and in solidarity with Muslims in New Zealand and throughout the world. This barbarity, this evil, this depravity will not prevail. We will stand up to it, and it will be defeated.
Mr Speaker
I thank colleagues and everybody attending our proceedings today for that demonstration of support and solidarity. As I indicated earlier, I will write to my opposite number in New Zealand conveying the sympathies and the sense of outrage felt in this House. Nothing will bring back those who have perished; I hope simply that what we have said and done today will offer some modest succour to those who are having to live with the daily reminder of the evil that has been perpetrated. Wherever we are and whatever our ethnicity or faith, by virtue simply of our common humanity we resolve, because we can do no other, that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated or go unpunished. It will never prevail for it is, in simple terms, fascist conduct. Wherever they are in the world, people who think that “might is right”—that if you are bestial enough, you will get your own way—will have to be disabused of that notion. It will not happen.
Neil O’Brien
I start by agreeing with your extremely wise words on the evil that was done in New Zealand, Mr Speaker. I also send my thoughts to my constituents at Oadby mosque as they gather for their Friday prayers. I want them to know that they should not be afraid and that we will always protect them. The evil done in New Zealand will not be allowed to happen here, and the ideas that it represents will not prevail in this country. I was recently at Oadby mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, learning things such as how my name is written in Arabic. It was wonderful to see everyone, and the thought that someone on the other side of the world could inflict an act of such wickedness on people just like them going about their daily basis is abhorrent.
I rise to speak with some trepidation, because this Bill does two wonderful things—some of the best things that we will do in this Session—but it also does one thing that I do not agree with. I will say why I do not agree with it, but I am somewhat cautious because I am surrounded in this place by good friends and great fountains of wisdom who take a different view.
First, starting with the things that I do agree with, the inclusion of mothers’ names on marriage certificates is a wonderful improvement. When I got married up in Northumberland in the wilds of College Valley, I was amazed that we were unable to put my mother’s name on the certificate. It seemed implausible that that should still be the case, and the unbelievably powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) underlined why that reform is so important.
Secondly, the opportunity to commemorate the life of unborn children is another hugely important reform that will offer some closure to a large number of people. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Colchester (Will Quince) on their work raising the issue of baby loss in this House. They have been tireless champions, and this Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is another step towards achieving an important objective. Someone may not realise how often this happens until it happens to them; they then find out that other people have had similar experiences.
Victoria Prentis
It is important while discussing this issue that we pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has spoken passionately about her experiences.
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is right to add that.
As I said, this Bill does two wonderful things with which I completely agree, but I will now talk about my dog in the manger. There is no point in having a Parliament if we cannot have disagreements in it, and this is the whole point of the exercise. I start my remarks on this by putting on the record my support for equal marriage for gay people. I always have done, including when that hugely important reform was made. Despite the fact that this country has made a huge amount of progress, there is still a large amount of discrimination against gay people, and it is easy not to notice it if one is heterosexual. For example, I read not that long ago about a man who was kicked to death by a gang of wicked people in Trafalgar Square—the centre of our capital city—just for being gay.
I was a strong supporter of equal marriage for gay people because it marked another step towards just treating gay people like everybody else. I support the goal of equivalence for heterosexual and homosexual couples, but I would rather achieve it in a different way. I thought that civil partnerships were a useful stepping stone towards equal marriage for gay people, but now we have got there, I would prefer simply to have equal marriage for heterosexual and homosexual couples.
When this Bill was previously debated in Parliament, two different arguments were made for having two different types of marriage, and I use “different types” advisedly. The first argument was that a lesser type of marriage was being created—a sort of “try before you buy”—but that argument was strongly objected to by other supporters of the Bill, including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that the two types of marriage were equal. There was no consensus on that argument, and it has not been one of the main arguments made today.
The second argument is that marriage is in some way a religious, paternalistic or sexist institution. Some Members have alluded to that with references to people getting in touch with them to say that that is how they feel about marriage, which is why they would like a civil partnership instead. It is important to note that the Lords made a clear, adamantine distinction between religious and civil marriage and that this House cannot regulate religious marriage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) pointed out, the two are completely different. We cannot put a window into men’s souls, and it was important during the passage of the legislation for equal marriage that we made the huge distinction between civil and religious marriage, which continues in this Bill. There is no question of religious ministers being forced to do anything, but they are welcome to choose to do so if they want. That is the right balance.
Several Members have described how people have suggested to them that marriage is a religious or sexist institution, but if there is anything sexist about it, we should change that and ensure that it is not. It would surprise my wife if I told her that she had agreed to take part in a patriarchal or religious institution. We are both atheists, and we were not allowed Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” as a wedding song because it is religious, so we missed out on that opportunity because of the important distinction. One of the reasons why I do not agree with this measure is that I do not want to endorse that argument. If people feel like that, they are wrong. We must do everything we need to do, because they are wrong. Let us change it if there is a problem, but the onus is on those who want the change to make the case for it.
I believe that a single institution would be better for equality. It would be a simpler story. Gay people can get married and straight people can get married. We can all get married—simple. There will not be different types of things for different types of people. I am nervous, as the House can tell, about some of the arguments made for extending civil partnerships, not least this “try before you buy” argument about it being a softer thing. I find that particularly concerning.
I have put my concerns about this measure on the record, and my eloquent hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) is right that this will be a popular measure and that a lot of people will take it up. I think it will be widely used, and he is right about that, but I am concerned.
James Cartlidge
Forgive me if I am wrong, and I imagine that it would be hard to measure, but many of the people who go down this route would not have got married. This is an additional choice, rather than something that removes a choice. We should open our eyes to the fact that people see this is as something different that suits them, and we should embrace it as a positive new development.
Neil O’Brien
That is probably the strongest argument for it, but my hon. Friend has already said that his constituent was going to get married in the absence of this measure. I am nervous about the argument, “I would prefer something else because I feel that marriage is sexist.”
Tim Loughton
I completely respect my hon. Friend’s view, but the reality is that there are 3.2 million opposite-sex cohabiting couples who have no protections within the law, and half of them have children. One of my local registrars is running a waiting list for people waiting for this legislation. There is a lot of demand for it, and it can only bring about greater family stability, greater commitment and greater benefits in safe, healthy, loving upbringings for those children. That is why this is really important.
Neil O’Brien
We will find out in due course when we pass this Bill whether that is the case. My fear is that the dissolution rate may be higher if people believe that civil partnerships are a softer institution.
Tim Loughton
I assure my hon. Friend that where there are different options—in France for example—the divorce rate among those who are conventionally married is rather greater than it is for those who have entered an opposite-sex civil partnership, so the data does not support that assertion.
Neil O’Brien
At the moment, the dissolution rate for civil partnerships in the UK is higher than for marriages. Of course my hon. Friend is correct that it is not a good example, because there are a lot of other pressures on gay people. We will not know, in the unique circumstances of the UK, who is right until we do it, and I hope he is right.
I have said my bit on this subject, and today we will be passing some measures that I hugely welcome, that put right some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and that give comfort to grieving families, who are much larger in number than is often realised in this country.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) again on introducing this important Bill. He said that this was about complete equality, and the Bill is about some basic principles, including equality, fairness, choice and freedom, which I believe in very much. The UK has a proud record in all those areas, and there are many examples of equality that we have championed, whether it be disability, equal pay, same-sex marriage—I was not in this place when the House voted for same-sex marriage, but I certainly would have supported it—race and, most importantly today, religion.
All our thoughts today are with the loved ones of those connected with these horrendous crimes in New Zealand. Everyone who believes in peace and peaceful co-existence just does not understand what could possibly drive someone to perpetrate these terrible, terrible acts.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is not correct. If a child is born before 24 weeks with signs of life, the birth will be registered. If a child is born before 24 weeks with no signs of life—what we would define as a stillbirth—the birth will not be registered. That is the actual position.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend has cleared up that point. Nevertheless, this is an important part of the Bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend yet again on introducing this Bill, which I fully support.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the comments about the terrible events in New Zealand. I am sure everyone’s prayers and thoughts are with those involved.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) again on introducing this important Bill, and I am grateful for the great work of our colleagues in the other place to improve it further. The Opposition are pleased to see that the duty to investigate deaths in certain circumstances will be extended to the death of newborns of any age, including those who die immediately after birth.
My sister had a baby who was stillborn, and I know at first hand just how traumatic it is. I know the huge sense of grief, loss and emptiness. People think that, because a parent did not know the baby, it is somehow different, but it is not—it is really not.
As I have previously indicated in the Chamber, the UK has a woefully high number of stillbirths for a western country. I have worked in reproductive services in the NHS, and I have seen at first hand how traumatic stillbirths can be for mothers. We need to do more to support mothers and to prevent stillbirths. We agree that stillbirths that occur before 24 weeks should be formally acknowledged and registered, but I reiterate that by no means would we want to see such a measure used to undermine abortion rights and a woman’s right to choose.
I spoke in an earlier stage of the Bill in this House, and I remain proud that civil partnerships were a landmark policy introduced by Labour. My party has fought for the equal rights of LGBTQ+ people, and it was our Civil Partnership Act 2004 that paved the way for same-sex marriage. This Bill should be the final step in creating equality in the formal recognition of relationships, but while I am pleased that we are nearly there, it is obvious that we have not quite arrived.
Times have changed since the days when Labour Members cautiously did not push to further extend civil partnerships during the passage of the 2004 Act for fear of losing it altogether. I remember we were met with much hostility, but we were on a mission to ensure some level of equality as quickly as possible, and we achieved just that. With changing times, however, must come a change in how we approach matters of equality.
We welcome the Government’s willingness on suitable amendments to draw up appropriate regulations for equal civil partnerships by the end of 2019, but I must share the concern of my colleagues in the other place that they may be using consultations to drag their feet. We cannot wait any longer. I agree on the importance of gathering information, but it should not be used as a delaying tactic. The measures in the Bill are long overdue, and we will do a disservice to all those we are meant to represent if we do not get on with the job of ensuring equality.
On marriage more generally, I echo the concern of Members in the other place about the failure to deliver equal marriage for all citizens in the UK—namely, in Northern Ireland. I also reiterate the concerns about humanist marriages. The Government held a consultation in which more than 90% of respondents were in favour of legally recognised humanist marriages. Surely there is nothing inconclusive about such a response. Further, in 2015, the Law Commission reported that failing to grant humanists the same rights as religious people in marriage was fundamentally unfair. With the Northern Irish Court of Appeal ruling in June 2018 that there is a human right to a humanist marriage, I hope that Ministers will get on with the job of ensuring that humanist marriages are also recognised in England and Wales.
It is disappointing that the Government, having joined us in passing same-sex marriages, have previously made excuses for not expanding civil partnerships to all couples. One of these was inconclusive consultations. This is precisely why we accept them hesitantly. Some voices still suggest that we abolish civil partnerships altogether. This would definitely be a step backwards. It is our job as lawmakers to give further protections to our constituents, not to claw them back. The institution of marriage is not for everyone, and it is wrong to prevent those who want their relationship recognised in the eyes of society and the law from having it so recognised. It can put them and their families in legally challenging situations.
In conclusion, we in the Opposition support the Bill, as we have done throughout its passage. We ask only that the Government act to expedite these measures, which clearly have the support of the British public.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his thorough explanation of clause 2 as it now stands in the Bill. I also pay tribute to him and his co-promoter, Baroness Hodgson, who guided the Bill so expertly through the other place, for their commitment to the vital issues that the Bill seeks to address, including the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.
The Government are very supportive of clause 2 and the policy intentions behind it. I would like to answer the concern voiced earlier about the difference between “may” and “must”. Clause 1 confers a power to make regulation, but clause 2(2) imposes an obligation to exercise that power by 31 December 2019. I hope that sets at rest those concerns arising from this long and often held debate about “may” and “must”.
I thank my hon. Friend and Baroness Hodgson for the open and receptive way in which they have worked with the Government, officials and others to improve the drafting of the clause. As my hon. Friend outlined, clause 2 now requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples by no later than 31 December 2019 and empowers the Secretary of State to make other provisions in view of the extension of eligibility.
There remains much work for the Government to do before then. There are some complex implementation issues that will need to be considered in the coming months, including the formation, dissolution and voiding of civil partnerships; considering what religious protections should be put in place; the implications for private sector, state and public sector pensions; other financial entitlements, including tax credits, capital gains tax and housing benefit; international recognition of relationships formed here and abroad; the consequences for a civil partnership of one partner seeking a gender recognition certificate; a series of devolution issues; conversion rights between civil partnerships and marriages and vice versa; checking the many thousands of existing references to civil partnerships across the statute book; and drafting the necessary amendments, scrutinising and laying the regulations, and scheduling time for debates in Parliament. This is because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is bespoke to same-sex couples and simply amending that legislation will not give opposite-sex couples the necessary rights, protections and entitlements.
It is also important that we take the views of the public and stakeholders on many of these issues to ensure that we exercise the regulation-making powers to create a new civil partnership regime that works for opposite-sex couples, that is fair and that is human rights compliant. Previous experience suggests that we are likely to receive thousands of responses to the consultation, and we will need to allow time to consider these and for the Government to respond.
That said, the Government are committed to changing the eligibility requirements for civil partnerships by the end of the year. This is very much an end date, rather than a target, and we are working to implement the new regime at the earliest opportunity. Our aim is that by the end of this year opposite-sex couples will be able to register and form civil partnerships. I hope that hon. Members will support my hon. Friend’s amendments, which will enable the Government to make the necessary changes so that opposite-sex couples will finally be able to express their commitment to each other in the way that best suits them.
Throughout this debate, many colleagues across the House have contributed and paid tribute to my hon. Friend and the good work that the Bill is trying to do. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who gave a moving account of his mother and the desire to see her name on his marriage certificate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and to the Opposition Front-Bench team.
The Government have no intention of dragging their feet. It will come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is not a normal part of my portfolio as Security Minister, but I asked in preparation for this debate what exactly would take time to implement.
James Cartlidge
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this measure will bring security to a great many people?
Mr Wallace
I think we all need stability these days, and this will definitely add to that. Stability in our relationships is incredibly important. We all aspire to that as a good basis for our society. Strong personal relationships will lead to a strong society, and I fully endorse the aims of the Bill.
I rarely attend private Members’ days, but it is nice at this time—with the awful goings-on in Christchurch and the goings-on outside in this divided country—to see a succession of Bills, especially this one, that are about doing some good in people’s lives, which is what everyone across the House wants to do. I am incredibly pleased to have been a part of that in these few short hours. It is easy to forget that Members of Parliament, who are denigrated and now targeted and ridiculed at both ends of the political spectrum, more often than not do good things together to make people’s lives better, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has steered through both Houses a Bill that will make a difference for the good to many people’s lives.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 6 agreed to.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 26th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 158-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (27 Feb 2019)