Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

46A: Clause 14, page 12, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The review under subsection (1) must deal with the case for amending the criteria in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which define the eligibility of people to register as civil partners.
(1B) The review must in particular consider the case for extending such eligibility to—
(a) unpaid carers and those they care for, and(b) family members who share a house, who have cohabited for 5 years or more and are over the age of eighteen.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, the co-signatory to this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, has asked me to give her apologies. She is chairing the House’s EU Sub-Committee B at this moment. However, she asked me to make clear her total support for this amendment. It is nine years to the very day since the House agreed to her amendment extending civil partnerships to family members, especially in view of the financial disadvantage they suffer under, for example, inheritance tax. At that time, the Government acknowledged the importance of this issue, yet the amendment was overturned in the other place and still nothing has been done. Because there is to be an urgent and wholesale review of civil partnerships, we firmly believe that family members and carers should be first in the queue to benefit.

I have tried to persuade the House more than once to take heed of the unfair way in which carers and siblings are treated in our law, compared with those in a sexual relationship. Clause 14 provides for a review of civil partnerships and a chance at last for fairness. When the Civil Partnership Bill was passing through Parliament, an amendment to it was adopted in this House by 148 votes to 130, which would have had the effect of extending the availability of civil partnership and the associated inheritance tax concession to family members within the so-called “prohibited degrees of relationship”. The amendment was reversed when the Bill returned to the other place.

During the course of the debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said:

“I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, when she talks about siblings who share a home or a carer who looks after a disabled relative. Indeed, she will readily acknowledge that I have put the case several times—at Second Reading and in Grand Committee—and I have pushed the Government very hard to look at this issue. There is an injustice here and it needs to be dealt with, but this is not the Bill in which to do it. This Bill is about same-sex couples whose relationships are completely different from those of siblings”.—[Official Report, 24/6/04; col. 1369.]

In the same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said:

“There is a strongly arguable case for some kind of relief from inheritance tax for family members who have been carers to enable them to continue living in the house where they have carried out their caring duties. But that is a different argument and this is not the place or the time for that argument. This Bill is inappropriate for dealing with that issue”.—[Official Report, 24/6/04; col. 1374.]

During the course of the debate in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, Jacqui Smith, the then Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, said:

“We heard a widespread agreement from Members across almost all parties that the Civil Partnership Bill is not the place to deal with the concerns of relatives”—

although she agreed with them—

“not because those concerns are not important, but because the Bill is not the appropriate legislative base on which to deal with them”.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 19/10/04; col. 8.]

There is no dissent from the desirability of extending a legally recognised partnership of some sort to related and carer couples. However, we are repeatedly told—whatever Bill is before Parliament—that it is not the right one in which to address the issue. That is not a good argument when their human rights are concerned. The situation is now even more pertinent and pressing, because the unfairness has increased. Civil partners and married couples, gay or straight, will be treated in law far better than, for example, two elderly sisters who share a house or an elderly father and the daughter who cares for him.

I first became interested in this topic because two of my most brilliant former students at Oxford were counsel for two sisters in a case that I am about to describe. One of those students now sits on the Cross-Benches, my noble friend Lord Pannick. The case to which I refer and which is the best known in this field, is that of Miss Joyce and Miss Sybil Burden, sisters, one of whom is now well over 90 and the other approaching 90. They are still alive, to the best of my knowledge, and have lived together for about 85 years. They remain single. They cared for their parents and two aunts to the end and did not allow them to go into a home.

On the death of the first sister, inheritance tax was estimated in 2008 to be about £120,000 and may be more now if the value of their house has risen. The sisters lost their case of discrimination before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The court held that marriage was different. With respect, the judgment was unsatisfactory not only because of the narrow defeat in court but for the lack of logic. The Government took down the barriers between marriage and other forms of association by enacting advantages for same-sex couples entering a civil partnership and now, shortly, gay marriage.

The European Court of Human Rights held that there was discriminatory treatment of the sisters, but that the UK had a wide margin of appreciation afforded to it and could treat benefits differently according to status in pursuit of the aim of promoting stable relationships by providing the survivor with, inter alia, financial security on the death of a spouse or partner. The lines drawn by the court in that case will no longer exist. All will be redrawn by the passage of the Bill. The unions or marriages that the Government seek to bolster will no longer have to be heterosexual, will not have to involve sex or procreation, but need only to be stable, loving and committed. Those are to be the only criteria in future.

Many siblings are connected perhaps coolly and only by common parentage, but where there are two, such as the Burden sisters, who have lived together for decades in a loving, committed and stable relationship and sharing a home to the exclusion of all other partners, they are indistinguishable in terms of deserving recognition and support from gay marriages or civil partnerships. Any two family members or carers who stay together for decades as an act of self-determination and personal development are a recognisable and welcome unit. Treating them like married people will in fact save the state costs that might otherwise be involved in taking care of them and giving them benefits because, on the death of one of the two elderly sisters whom I mentioned, the survivor will end up paying a large amount of inheritance tax which will mean selling the home, possibly pushing the survivor into state care.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids discrimination in rights that are granted on the grounds, inter alia, of birth or other status. There is a clear case here which must urgently be addressed in the review of civil partnerships, ideally by an amendment to the Bill. Why should consanguinity be any less important than the relationship between married and civil partners? The state should not prefer sexual relationships, which may be short-lived and serial, over blood relationships that have proved to have endured decades. The Government should show—they cannot logically—that it is reasonable or necessary to exclude carers and related couples from the new marriage. I cannot resist quoting from Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas”—some of your Lordships may remember it:

“Sisters, sisters. There were never such devoted sisters”.

How true in many cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, if there is to be a relationship recognised as an extension of the concept of civil partnerships for inheritance tax, it also produces a responsibility for mutual financial support called social security. The one goes with the other. The way around it is something that I think my Government should have explored, and that I hope the current coalition Government will explore; the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, was absolutely right about this. We should see a way of avoiding a survivor, particularly in the case of the two elderly sisters who went to the courts, having the inheritance abated on the first person and being rolled over to the second death. That seems to me to protect the position of the two sisters, which I think we were all deeply moved by, but would avoid the long-term problem of social security which would otherwise follow.

[Baroness Deech]

I think that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, have misunderstood my point. Of course there would be no question of making anybody enter any sort of contract of union. I am sure they would sit down and work out whether it was worth doing because of inheritance tax, and then of course they would—and should—happily take on the duty of supporting each other. However, if they do not want to, and they want their benefits, then that is it; there is no question of dropping this on them without their consent. There would have to be some sort of formality.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

On that issue, the situation is surely this: there is no compulsion, and if any couple, be they carers or siblings, were minded to consider that new relationship, they would surely sit down and work out what could be a major downside. They would no doubt take professional advice to see what the advantages and the disadvantages were, and if the disadvantages of that relationship far outweighed the advantages, they would not proceed. It is as simple as that: there is no compulsion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is the responsibility of a different department. I would be very brave to make that kind of commitment here without consulting, but I am sure that my noble friend’s words will be noted. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made the point that he never liked the arguments about vehicles. I am not really trying to make that argument, because I have argued that there are in fact some very serious differences. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also made the point that the issues being raised are really not appropriate for this Bill. They are relevant perhaps to a finance Bill rather than a partnership Bill, as they relate to the rules of inheritance tax or the terms of benefits.

As the noble Baroness knows, those arguments have been well rehearsed. I was not in your Lordships’ House nine years ago, but my noble friend Lady Northover has said in response to one or two of the comments that have been made, “Oh, I remember that point being made then”. The Government then sought to oppose proposals of this kind, and this Government share the view that civil partnership, as it then was and as it has evolved and developed over time, is not the appropriate place to open up these new, significant policy questions. The review is about civil partnerships. It would be inappropriate to open it up to look at unrelated issues of carers and family law, and particularly the question of tax and benefits. We have also indicated that we do not wish to delay or add to the cost and complexity of a review which the Government have committed to undertake as soon as possible in response to calls that were made in the other place. The other issues that are opened up are vast, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made clear. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, before I forget, perhaps I may correct the Minister on the following point: it was Irving Berlin who was invited to the White House to discuss politics and the conduct of a war. It was only much later that it was discovered that the President had called for Isaiah Berlin.

I am grateful to all those who have spoken. Our discussion has caused me to focus on three themes. The first is obvious: there is no time to waste. There are lots of old folk who need help. Every time I have inquired at the Whips’ Office or the clerks’ office when Bills have come forward, I have been told, “Oh, it’s not relevant. This won’t do for siblings”. It is not that the issue has been forgotten, as some have said.

I am focusing also on freedom of choice. Once this Bill has passed, everybody in the country who is over 16 will be able to choose to enter a legal bond with somebody else, except those who are related. That is why I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Lester—as he knows—in relation to cohabitants. They can choose; they could get married. Maybe in future they could have a civil partnership and make a contract if they have not done so; I would not dump our very unsatisfactory matrimonial law on them without their choice. However, siblings have no choice at all. They are faintly recognised as relatives in some other laws, but there is really very little help for adult siblings.

There has been some talk of my amendment somehow devaluing equal marriage. I say to those who have made that point that this Bill is about equality. Those who are gaining equality should not rest on their laurels. On the contrary, having reached their target, they should hold out their hand to others to give them the same help, despite perhaps the same objections, as is being given in this Bill for same-sex marriages. It is not a religious question. I cannot imagine for a minute that any review would ever expect any religious authority to bless the union of related people. Religion has nothing to do with it—so I did not quite follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. What I am thinking of is some union—it need not necessarily be a civil partnership—some formal contract or some recognition that could be extended to siblings, and, believe me, there has been no opportunity to do this in any of the Bills that I have followed during the past few years.

I support the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in saying that this need not cost anything in relation to inheritance tax. It could be rolled over; it could be deferred at nil cost to the Government.

I do not agree with those who say that civil partnerships are different. Sex has got nothing to do with it—some chaps here may not agree with that—now that we have changed the definition of marriage. Even at the moment, if two people get married, no one inquires as to whether it is a sexual relationship. As we all know, neither adultery nor consummation will play any part in remedies or definition of marriage in the future. This really has nothing to do with sex. We are not talking about sisters committing incest—that is a crime anyway. We all realise that that is beyond the bounds of possibility; it is nothing to do with that. It is to do with the fact that the whole definition of marriage has changed. My bet is that a new case before the European Court would probably succeed because the law of Europe prohibits discrimination on the grounds of birth, status and sex inter alia. I cannot see a ground for not extending some advantages, as appropriate, to those who are related and therefore unable to take advantage of all the variety of unions that are open to others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alli]

I have been reflecting on what the noble Baroness has said about not understanding the civil partnership aspect in terms of religious organisations. We passed a provision in this House allowing civil partnerships to happen in religious buildings. One reason for our doing so was the need for same-sex couples to be able to have their unions blessed with the congregations with whom they had prayed. We saw this as being progress towards marriage being celebrated in churches. It was recognised that there would be two speeds, where we would see religious organisations wanting to bless civil partnerships in their churches and some already doing so. Does the noble Baroness accept that if her plan went through as envisaged, it would drive a coach and horses through the church’s ability to bless civil partnerships, because the nature of those relationships will have been changed from the wish of two people to have a solemn union to a set of arrangements that fall outside that?

[Baroness Deech]

I am sorry, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, but I really do not get it, because what I envisage is that the review would come up with some sort of partnership, union or contract suitable for siblings. I cannot imagine for a moment that they would want to celebrate that in a church—although anyone, I suppose, can go and get a blessing. The proposal does not impinge in any way on the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Alli.

I am concerned that the terms of reference cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, are too narrow. I would like him to remember that everybody in the country will have a choice, except siblings. They will be the only people who will not have available to them a civil partnership or a marriage of some sort. They will be unable to take advantage of this legislation because there will be no vehicle for them. Men and women can get married; two people of the same sex can get married; there may still be civil partnerships; there may even be civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. The excluded category is those who are related. There is probably little point in keeping the prohibited degrees any longer, save for the point about abuse within the family—but, sadly, we know that abuse within the family goes on anyway, regardless of what the arrangements relating to bonding may be.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I regret intervening again, but I have seen cases in my life as a domestic abuse counsellor. The noble Baroness talks about two sisters. What about a father and daughter? That has not been raised. There can be abuse within family relationships involving coercion and violence. I am not arguing against what the noble Baroness wants to do in terms of the rights of people who have given up their lives to care, but bonding can bring a whole set of different problems. It could be a brother and sister or a father and daughter, and this worries me.

[Baroness Deech]

My suggestion was, of course, a free choice and under the definition I have given, they would have been living together for several years anyway. I should remind the noble Baroness and the Committee that our law already provides for contracts to be vitiated if there is duress. Our law already provides that if someone is dragged to the altar in some fashion, that marriage is not valid. It may be hard to enforce and I wish there was more of it, but we already have those provisions.

Because these people are getting old, I therefore ask the Government most urgently to please bring forward their own amendment, or somehow ensure that the terms of reference in reviewing civil partnership are wide enough to look at bonds—or whatever name you wish to give them—of other people who may wish to enter such a bond but are unable to do so at the moment. That way they may enjoy the fiscal and maybe emotional benefits that result from it. Otherwise I will bring forward this issue again on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46A withdrawn.