Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020
Baroness Northover Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the statutory instrument, and her officials, who have laid out the Explanatory Notes and impact assessment so clearly. These address those who are working beyond our shores, whether as seafarers or as offshore workers, but who are normally considered as UK workers. I understand that an assessment of how the provision fitted with international sea law and with foreign-registered ships had to be carried out originally, but I am glad that these issues were resolved. Examining this reminded me of coalition days, when some of our coalition partners believed that there should be a bonfire of regulations, and that only one should be approved if two were thrown out. It was of course right to assess them, but the proposed bonfire almost resulted in the removal of flame retardant from children’s nightwear. My memory is that sunset clauses were put in to reassure those who wanted that bonfire, so that these issues could be considered again.
We usually argue for sunset clauses where there is a major intrusion of the state into people’s lives. This type of regulation is the opposite. I am glad that we seem to be in a different age now, one where the Chancellor speaks of putting the state’s arms around individuals in our current crisis. These statutory instruments are about helping to protect people. Young people think they will never get old. That is why it was very welcome when the Pensions Commission recommended that there should be automatic enrolment into workplace pensions, as people were not planning adequately for retirement. Those in zero-hours contracts still do not have these sorts of protection, and we see now how vulnerable they can be.
Clearly, those in maritime employment and offshore workers need this protection as much as others. Are other groups still outside the automatic enrolment arrangements and, if so, why? The noble Baroness mentioned North Sea workers. Would offshore workers such as those working for BP offshore in Angola and other places around the world also qualify? I think so. She is absolutely right to say that automatic enrolment should be the default position, but I also note with some concern that automatic enrolment itself will be kept under review. That should send a chill through people. As the economic crisis develops, we cannot allow a policy that has brought much benefit to be quietly set aside. I hope the noble Baroness, whose heart is absolutely in the right place, can reassure us on that. I welcome these regulations.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
We are not seeking to determine it this afternoon. We are merely asking that those experts, presumably dispassionate, and in whom we can all have confidence, should look at this and make the review a little more comprehensive than is at present envisaged. That is all we are asking.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report. If noble Lords have already spoken, unless with the permission of the House they are asking a question of a noble Lord, they should not speak again.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the noble Lord, in speaking in support of this amendment, has got exactly the right wagon but is seeking to attach it to the wrong train, which is going to the wrong place. I absolutely agree that this issue must be dealt with. However, I do not believe that noble Lords who have spoken are actually saying that they think the Bill is about anything other than same-sex marriage. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will find another vehicle to attach their wagon to, in which case I, too, as my noble friend Lord Alli said, will be their supporter.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
“(4A) The provision that the Secretary of State may make in any relevant instrument includes provision enabling the Registrar General to make regulations by statutory instrument (with or without the consent of a minister of the Crown).
(4B) But the Secretary of State—
(a) may not make enabling provision which gives the Registrar General power to require a fee to be paid or power to set the amount of a fee; and(b) may not make other enabling provision unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provision is necessary in connection with administrative matters relating to functions of the Registrar General or functions of superintendent registrars or registrars.(4C) Regulations made by the Registrar General under any enabling provision are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4D) But that is subject to any provision in a relevant instrument about the kind of Parliamentary scrutiny, if any, to which the regulations are to be subject.
(4E) In subsections (4A) to (4D)—
“enabling provision” means provision made under subsection (4A) enabling the Registrar General to make regulations;
“relevant instrument” means—
(a) regulations under section 9(1) or (2), or(b) an order under section (Marriage according to the usages of belief organisations)(4).”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 123A replaces government Amendment 123, which, as I explained to the House on Monday, the Government were considering withdrawing and have just done so.
To give a little background, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported on this Bill in its fourth report of the Session. We are most grateful to the committee for its comments and recommendations, to which we responded in a series of amendments that the House debated on Monday. One of the recommendations of the committee was that regulations made under Clause 9, which deals with the conversion of civil partnerships, should be made by the Secretary of State rather than the Registrar-General and should be subject to the affirmative procedure on first use because it was not clear that all such provisions would be purely administrative in nature.
We were happy to accede to this recommendation but were also conscious that, in the future, the Registrar-General may need to update her administrative procedures. To require regulations to be made by the Secretary of State regarding such matters would be overly bureaucratic and break with the convention that the Registrar-General makes regulations relating to her functions that are purely administrative. For example, the Registrar-General already makes regulations, without any parliamentary procedure, prescribing the detail of marriage and civil partnership registration, the duties of those responsible for registration and the forms to be used.
We therefore proposed through Amendment 123, which has now been withdrawn, that the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor could make enabling provision for the Registrar-General to make regulations relating to administrative matters. We continue to believe that such sub-delegation is the appropriate way of dealing with these administrative details. However, as the chairman of the committee, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, helpfully highlighted to us before Monday’s debate, the amendment had been drafted in a way that would allow the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to sub-delegate in respect of any of their order-making or regulation-making powers in the Bill.
While it was never the Government’s intention to use the proposed power in such a far-reaching way, and the use of the power was limited in any event only to where it was in connection with administrative matters relating to functions of the Registrar-General, superintendent registrars or registrars, we accept that it would not have been appropriate to move the amendment with such concerns outstanding. That is why we have tabled Amendment 123A, which is more restrictive as to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may sub-delegate regulation-making powers to the Registrar-General. Its effect is that there are just two provisions where the Secretary of State can now exercise such a power.
The amendment states explicitly that sub-delegation may occur only where the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary in connection with the administrative functions of the Registrar-General, superintendent registrars and registrars under Clause 9, concerning conversion of civil partnerships to marriages, and Amendment 90, concerning marriage by belief organisations—if the Government in future decide to allow such marriage. We consider that the sub-delegation of regulation-making powers to the Registrar-General is necessary and appropriate in these two contexts, but it must be subject to clear restrictions. In particular, there is no power for the Secretary of State to sub-delegate provision as to fees.
Amendment 123A also makes it clear that the default position is that any delegated regulations made by the Registrar-General would attract the negative procedure, unless varied by the Secretary of State in the event that she felt that this was justified because of the nature of the particular regulations. I can assure noble Lords that any regulations of the Secretary of State’s sub-delegating powers to the Registrar-General will be put before Parliament for scrutiny.
The chairman of the committee has written today to confirm that the committee is content with the revised amendment; I am pleased about that. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is a measured and appropriate response to the committee’s concerns, which delivers our policy intention while ensuring that there can be no inappropriate use of the powers. It is extremely nice to end Report on what I hope is a constructive and consensual basis; I note that many noble Lords left the Chamber as I started. I commend Amendment 123A to the House.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very clear exposition of this very sensible amendment. I am pleased to say that we will, of course, support it.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
“(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations about the procedures to be followed and the fees payable—
(a) on registration applications;(b) in relation to section 43B authorisations;(c) on cancellation applications.(2) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make—
(a) regulations modifying the application of section 41 or 43 in relation to buildings that are already registered under section 43A;(b) regulations about cases where a person makes applications under sections 41 and 43A, or gives or certifies authorisations under sections 43 and 43B, in respect of the same building at the same time (including provision modifying any requirement imposed by any of those sections or by regulations under subsection (1) of this section).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) In this section—
“cancellation application” means an application under section 43C for the cancellation of the registration of a building;“registration application” means an application under section 43A for the registration of a building;“section 43B authorisation” means the authorisation of a person under section 43B to be present at the solemnization of marriages in a building registered under section 43A.”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, in moving Amendment 37, I shall speak also to Amendments 41, 54, 56 to 59, 91, 92, 108 to 110, 113 to 118 and 123 which together comprise the government amendments brought forward in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s fourth report which addressed this Bill’s approach to the exercise of powers. I start by thanking the committee for its scrutiny of the Bill. As always, the report was thorough and made sound recommendations, the vast majority of which the Government have accepted in whole or in part. I will explain the amendments broadly in clause order.
Amendments 37 and 41 will clarify the powers to make regulations in relation to the registration of places of worship for the solemnisation of marriages of same-sex couples and the arrangements for some shared buildings. Amendment 37 responds to the committee’s recommendation that powers of the Secretary of State in new Section 43D of the Marriage Act 1949—to make regulations about the registration of buildings which are registered as places of worship to solemnise same-sex marriages under the provisions of the Bill—should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I warmly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wants to strengthen the Bill. Like him, I am very much in favour of strengthening marriage, and celebrating marriage at every opportunity. Therefore, I certainly agree with the sentiment of the amendment. Public commitment, made in the presence of friends and family, is an expression of that commitment and of the seriousness of the union that the two people are entering into. However, couples choosing to convert their civil partnerships into marriage, which of course they will not have to do, will already have gone through a very similar process. It is not the same and not with the vows, which I think are extremely important, although not everybody would agree; but they have made a public commitment in the presence of a registrar and witnesses.
Many of the couples who have done that, as the noble Lord himself said, might have wished to marry, but at that time they were not able to so they went through the civil partnership. Like my noble friend Lord Alli, I think that couples should not be required to have a ceremony to convert their civil partnership into marriage. However, for those couples that wish to embark upon marriage then, of course, it is absolutely right and proper. I am sure that when the guidance comes out, when the Government publish whatever they are going to publish in relation to the conversion of civil partnerships into marriage, should a couple wish to exchange vows and marry they will be able to do so. It is just that not every couple will be required to do so. It is the difference between requiring and enabling a couple to do so. I am afraid I cannot agree with the amendment, but I am fully behind the sentiment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this mini debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Elton for concerning himself so positively in looking at the conversion from civil partnerships to marriage. I think that the right reverend Prelate may have invited himself to some civil partnership ceremonies now that he has mentioned that he has not yet had such an invitation.
We have previously debated Clause 9 in Committee and the nature of the process that will apply for couples in a civil partnership to convert that partnership to a marriage. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for agreeing to withdraw a similar amendment to this in Committee on the basis that it was appropriate to await the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope that he is pleased with the Government’s decision, which I explained earlier this evening, to accept the Committee’s recommendation on Clause 9, so that the regulations under this clause would be made by the Secretary of State, rather than the Registrar General, and that the first such regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and subsequent regulations subject to the negative procedure. Therefore, we will be debating this further.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that, as legislators working on the Bill, our duty is to protect those who will be affected when it is enacted and not others. Section 28 of the Equality Act 2010 provides for a clear exemption for services provided in relation to marriage and civil partnership from the Section 29 duty not to discriminate. This will not change under this Bill. I therefore expect the Minister to confirm that a refusal to conduct a blessing of a same-sex marriage would be considered a “related service”, and thus protected under existing provisions within the Equality Act 2010. Therefore we believe that Amendment 15 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, is unnecessary.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, for flagging this issue so that all of us can answer it with clarity. Amendment 15 seeks clarity that the refusal by a religious organisation or its representative to conduct a service of blessing of a marriage of a same-sex couple would not be considered unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The amendment distinguishes between the legal act of solemnisation of a marriage and a religious blessing which does not have legal effect. The amendment is intended to ensure that there is no requirement to conduct such blessings. As with the last group of amendments, we are in agreement on the aim of protecting religious organisations, and I am glad that the noble and right reverend Lord was reassured by much of the previous debate, on that matter.
As the noble and right reverend Lord recognised, the Government are determined that, in opening up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, they will protect and promote religious freedom, as other noble Lords have said. The Bill ensures that religious organisations and their representatives will not be forced to conduct or participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. The quadruple lock in this respect amends the Equality Act 2010 to make clear that it is not unlawful discrimination for a religious organisation or representative to refuse to marry a same-sex couple, and I remind the noble and right reverend Lord that these protections apply beyond the Church of England, as my noble friend Lady Barker made very clear.
The amendment is unnecessary because it is already covered by the Bill, and I thank my noble friend Lord Deben and other noble Lords for their support. Clause 2(2) provides that a person cannot be compelled to carry out, attend or take part in a “relevant marriage”. A relevant marriage is defined in Clause 2(4)(a)(iv) as “including any ceremony” connected with the solemnisation of a marriage of a same-sex couple according to religious rites as well as—this is most important—a religious ceremony after a civil marriage of such a couple. The existing religious protections in Clause 2 therefore apply to a blessing of a marriage, which is the same target of this amendment.
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, explained, and I can confirm, in any event, the conduct of a service of blessing is not something on which the Equality Act 2010 bites, as being purely a religious matter outside of the scope of that Act in the same way that baptisms or the provision of communion are religious issues not covered by discrimination law. So any kind of blessing of a marriage which has no legal effect would not be covered by discrimination law and does not need protection in the way that the amendment envisages.
Lord Tebbit
My noble friend referred to Clause 2(2) which states that:
“A person may not be compelled”.
Is she able to say where in the Bill or elsewhere it is provided that a person who does not conduct a relevant marriage and so on may not be penalised in any way?
Baroness Northover
I am not sure if my noble friend was in his place for the earlier debate, but we had quite an extensive discussion. He may be interested in reading the letter that will be put together by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Tebbit
I was here for a substantial part of that debate, but not all of it. I ask a simple question: is my noble friend able to confirm that a person would not be penalised?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Yes, it comes free. When the noble Baroness replied to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, she may have had in mind not only what was said in the previous debate but the fact that at common law, as was said in that debate, it is quite clear that for a public authority to misuse its powers punitively is itself a public law wrong. The case quoted was that of Wheeler, but there have been others such as, for example, when Rupert Murdoch was penalised by a public authority so far as advertising was concerned. It was also when Shell was penalised because of a boycott. They were cases where public authorities were doing public law wrongs, and in my opinion that would apply equally at common law so far as this is concerned.
Baroness Northover
I find it amazing that my noble friend Lord Lester knows what is inside my head when I myself do not necessarily know what is inside it, and I appreciate his understanding. Coming back to the amendment that we are addressing here, I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord is reassured by what I have said, and by what other noble Lords have said in addition, and that he will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton
I thought commendation amounted to movement. However, I beg leave to move the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 24C sets out a procedure for the conversion from civil partnership to marriage to take place under Clause 9 of the Bill. My noble friend proposes an oath or affirmation to be made before three witnesses. We already have adequate powers in Clause 9 that would enable the making of provision for a ceremonial element to the conversion, which could consist of spoken statements and/or a requirement for the presence of witnesses. It would be premature to be more specific.
We are still developing detailed proposals for how the conversion process would work and these are not straightforward issues. For example, the more elaborate the arrangement, the more costly this is likely to be for the couple, many of whom may wish to have a very simple, essentially administrative process, given that they may have incurred significant costs when registering their civil partnership. Let us not forget that if marriage had been an option when many couples contracted their civil partnership they might have opted for marriage originally and will consider that they do not need to jump additional hurdles or show more commitment; they have already done that. It is important that we do everything we can not to force such couples down a costly route if they do not wish to take it.
I acknowledge that some would like a requirement for some form of declaratory or contracting words to be spoken in a procedure as an integral part of the conversion, while others would want a minimalist approach. We will be consulting interested stakeholders as we shape the detailed policy for conversions so that the regulations are as inclusive as possible of affected couples’ wishes. We should not lose sight of the fact that a conversion is not, and never has been, intended to signify the beginning of a relationship; rather it is a change of status of an existing legal relationship. Conversion will be an administrative process, although we believe there should be a possibility of an optional ceremonial aspect for those who want it. We will bring forward our proposals in good time so that we can get the process right.
I appreciate my noble friend’s recognition of the significance of marriage to couples who wish to convert their civil partnership. Nevertheless, as the methods of such conversion are very carefully considered, I hope my noble friend will bear with us and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I was very interested in the terms in which my noble friend asked me to do that. I wonder if she is familiar with the fourth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. Paragraph 6 says:
“We do not consider it appropriate to describe the powers conferred by clause 9 as being administrative in nature”—
which is what she has just done.
“The regulations will set out the entire process under which a civil partnership is converted into a marriage, including whether or not it requires the presence of the parties and (if so) the nature of the ceremony they are to take part in. This is a wholly novel process with no indication given in the Department’s memorandum as to the form that it will take or as to fees which may be required to be paid”.
It seems that not enough thought has been given to this in advance. In bold type the report then says:
“Accordingly we recommend that regulations under clause 9 should be made by the Secretary of State, with the affirmative procedure applying to the first exercise of the powers, and with the regulations thereafter being subject to the negative procedure”.
I hope that my noble friend will warm to that idea as the bare minimum that would induce me at a later stage to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My noble friend has neatly rolled up his previous amendment as well. I am aware of the Delegated Powers Committee report. We have just received it and will be studying it carefully, considering all its recommendations. I note what my noble friend says and I ask him to await our response to the committee’s recommendations.
Lord Elton
That said, and anxiously awaiting developments, which I hope will be ahead of Report stage so that I can digest them and maybe even have the honour of discussing them with the Minister before Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should google marriages at sea. It says that captains can perform marriages, but they need a licence to do so, just like anyone else. There are no laws that automatically grant captains the right to marry, although you would not know that from watching the television. Apparently this possibly originates from the days of sail when Europeans would have to travel by ship for months at a time to reach far-flung colonies. A couple might meet, court and marry while en route to their destination.
The same Google search threw up a quote. I am a great fan of “Star Trek” and the Starship “Enterprise”. Apparently, Captain James T Kirk said:
“Since the days of the first wooden vessels, all shipmasters have had one happy privilege, that of uniting two people in the bonds of matrimony”.
Captain Kirk’s successor, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, a fellow Yorkshireman and great Labour supporter, said, “Make it so”.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment would enable marriages of same-sex couples to be conducted by the master of a British-registered vessel on the authority of a superintendent registrar’s certificate outside the territorial waters of England and Wales. However, this is not a right possessed by opposite-sex couples, so this would in fact be out of line. I am absolutely delighted to fill in my noble friend on marriage at sea, and I have learnt a great deal about it as well.
At present, the validity of a marriage on board a British merchant vessel is governed by the law of the country in which that vessel is registered. In the law of England and Wales, the Marriage Act 1949 does not provide for marriages to take place on board UK registered vessels at sea, and the Foreign Marriage Act 1892 applies only to marriages outside UK jurisdiction. Neither is it clear that the common law of England and Wales provides authority for the validity of marriages that are celebrated on merchant vessels at sea, although there are historic authorities which suggest that a marriage could be formed under the common law only if it was not possible to wait until the ship reached port. It is unclear whether those authorities still apply, given that there is now statutory marriage law covering both domestic and foreign marriages. However, in any event, such a scenario is extremely unlikely to arise in current times. Therefore, at present, we do not believe that it is possible for a heterosexual couple to have their marriage formally solemnised by the master of a British ship.
I can fill my noble friend in on some additional material, but probably not tonight. The purpose of the Bill is to enable same-sex couples in England and Wales to marry in a civil ceremony, or in a religious ceremony if the religious organisation opts in. It is not intended that marriage for opposite-sex couples should be altered, even if everybody does want them to get married at sea, or that the Bill should bring about wider changes to marriage law. I hope, therefore, that although he is no doubt disappointed, my noble friend will be happy to withdraw his amendment. Lastly, I will supply him with more information than either Google or his own investigations have produced.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have to be honest and say that I am more mystified than disappointed. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talking about the Starship “Enterprise”, I am tempted to ask whether the captains of aircraft might be granted this right, but perhaps that would press the extent of the amendment just a little too far. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 33A in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, which is a probing amendment. Our interest in this issue is to draw attention to people born with an intersex condition; individuals whose anatomy or physiology differs from contemporary cultural stereotypes of what constitutes male and female.
Being intersex is not a disease, it is not a disorder, it is a perfectly normal—and quite common—variation within human development. The need to use the term is made necessary by society’s insistence on maintaining a rigid classification of all human beings as male or female. In many ways, those with an intersex condition can be termed non-gendered. Sometimes a person is not found to have an intersex anatomy until she or he reaches the age of puberty or she or he finds himself an infertile adult, or dies of old age and is autopsied. Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone, including themselves, ever knowing.
If we take the classic stereotypes of what constitutes male and female and consider the biological, social, gender or sexual orientation in the round, there are very few human beings who completely conform in all aspects to the rigid stereotypes. Most people vary from the standard stereotypes in some ways, sometimes in small details, sometimes significantly. Some commentators would now consider sexuality as a continuum with the standard stereotypes as the extremes of this continuum.
One major difficulty with the use of bipolar stereotypes is that there is no precise way of determining into which of the two boxes someone should be placed at birth. All the available yardsticks are flawed: karyotype, gonads, secondary sexual characteristics, appearance—none of these, or even any combination of them, can determine sex with absolute certainty. It is only by ignoring the vast amount of biological evidence to the contrary that this fiction of a strict bipolar sexuality can be maintained. Those who clearly do not fit these classifications—a substantial minority—are dismissed as being disordered or biological errors which require fixing.
It is understandable to discover that, when an infant is born, there is often great pressure on parents and clinicians alike to come up with a clear definition of sex for the newborn. Such people are often subjected by the medical professions to surgical and chemical interventions, usually without their explicit permission, to normalise them and thereby eradicate the evidence of difference.
Your Lordships will understand that, with this amendment, we are talking about a largely hidden and often overlooked minority of people. Estimates of this population run to as many as 1% of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, regretfully including involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.
If we lived in a legal jurisdiction where marriages were defined without reference to the sexual identity of the couples concerned, these complications would not occur. However, the approach underlying the Bill is based on an assumption that the sex of the participants is settled. The UK of course recognises the legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual person to be legally married in accordance with their adopted gender identity. However, those intersex people who identify as non-gendered do not always, if they are allowed to, attempt to transition and are therefore excluded at all levels. Our amendment would specifically include in legislation, for the first time, those who identify as non-gendered.
Unless there is some consideration given to this largely hidden and often overlooked minority, they will be isolated yet again from the rights accorded to other, higher-profile groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill would allow individuals who identify themselves as being non-gendered—neither male nor female—to marry. We understand the challenges that intersex conditions can pose and appreciate the difficulties people affected by this can face. The noble Lord has, with great sensitivity, outlined the case for consideration of this group of people. I have great sympathy for their situation but, as the noble Lord is aware, we cannot accept this amendment.
As the noble Lord acknowledges, the law of England and Wales recognises only two genders—male and female. Although we understand that some people do not see themselves as either male or female, none the less everyone has a legal gender status of either male or female. The Bill does not change that, and it would not be an appropriate legislative vehicle in which to seek to do so. However, the Bill, by enabling same-sex couples to marry, will ensure that in future there will be no bar to an intersex person, or a person who identifies as non-gender, marrying anyone whom they choose. The effect of the Bill will be that people will be able to get married, and remain married, regardless of their legal gender. The issue raised by this amendment goes well beyond marriage. Having a gender in addition to male and female, or not recognising gender at all, would change a fundamental aspect of our law. Such a change would need to be considered carefully, in order to understand the implications for the many aspects of law which are based on gender differences.
I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I appreciate his statement that this is simply a probing amendment and I am grateful to him for addressing the concerns of those individuals who feel that they do not have a gender. However, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her understanding response. It is the first time, I think, that a Minister of the Crown has recognised this group in this House. That is an important first step in discussing this issue and addressing the needs of this group of people. I thank her for the sympathetic approach. My understanding is that, through various changes in the environment, this is actually a growing problem and it is an issue that will have to be addressed over time. However, I wholly accept the point that the Minister is making. This is a very complex issue and it will need very careful consideration and a very sensitive approach from all those involved in the debate. I am happy to assure the Minister that we do not intend to take this matter further forward in this Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
Baroness Northover
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 38 I will speak to the other government amendments in this group. These government amendments relate to technical but important provisions of marriage law which determine when a marriage is void—that is to say, considered never to have existed in the eyes of the law. Clarity in these provisions protects both couples and organisations conducting marriages. They also clarify the provisions for courts to issue a declaration of the validity of a same-sex marriage in prescribed circumstances.
I start with government Amendment 38. This ensures that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bill is consistent with the rest of Part 1 of Schedule 3 in that it does not limit subsections (1) or (2) of Clause 11. It is necessary because, as a matter of statutory interpretation, specific provision may reduce the effect of general provision. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11 make general provision and Schedule 3 makes specific provisions related to that clause. The schedule as drafted may give the impression, by omission of reference to paragraph 3, that that paragraph should limit Clause 11. This could cause confusion about the meaning of both clause and schedule.
Government Amendments 42, 43 and 44 clarify the use of the term “declaration of validity” in the Bill. They ensure that when the courts have jurisdiction to make a declaration of validity relating to a same-sex marriage as set out in Schedule A1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, inserted by Schedule 4 to this Bill, the 1973 Act works properly for same-sex marriages.
Government Amendments 49 and 50 make provision for when marriages of same-sex couples will be void in circumstances where the religious organisation concerned has not agreed to same-sex marriages, according to its rights. In relation to the Church of England and Church in Wales, Amendment 49 provides protection to couples to prevent their marriage from being considered to be a non-marriage. If it was held to be a non-marriage, this would mean that the court could not exercise its powers in respect of financial relief, which they can do if the marriage is held to be a void marriage. This amendment also provides clarity for the Church of England and Church in Wales, and I can say that this issue was in fact raised with us by the Church of England, which we have consulted on the drafting of this amendment.
In the case of other religious organisations, Amendment 50 provides that where a couple is unaware that the religious organisation has not opted in to marrying same-sex couples, the marriage will be valid. However, if the couple took part in the marriage knowing that the religious organisation had not opted in, then the marriage will be void. If the couple marry in good faith, believing that the person who solemnised their marriage was representing the religious organisation, and that the organisation had opted in, they may live as a married couple for many years before the mistake comes to light. It is not right that they should be penalised for the mistake of the person who solemnised their marriage.
This amendment mirrors the provisions currently in place to deal with errors and mistakes in relation to the formation of opposite-sex marriages, which will also apply to same-sex couples. Government Amendment 52 provides the same clarity about the status of same-sex deathbed marriage under the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970, which has been conducted by a member of religious organisation which has not opted in to conducting marriages of same-sex couples. Such marriages will be void if the couple knew the religious organisation had not opted in.
Finally, turning to government Amendment 58, the other place approved a government amendment on Report further to ensure that the protection for the Church of England in this Bill is both full and clear. The amendment replaced the power previously provided in Clause 11(5)(c) with an overarching reference to “other ecclesiastical law”, which, on balance, the Government felt would provide the church with more effective protection from the effect of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11, so that Church of England law should continue to be interpreted as referring to marriage of a man with a woman. Government Amendment 58 is consequential to that substantive amendment and removes from Clause 16 the parliamentary control procedure for the now deleted power in Clause 11(5)(c). I commend these government amendments and hope that noble Lords will support them.
International Women’s Day
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the debates in the House of Lords for International Women’s Day are always outstanding and this one has been no exception. There is such a huge range of experience and commitment among your Lordships in this area that it is a great privilege for me to respond for the Government. I start by paying a particular tribute to right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, who chose to make his very moving maiden speech in this debate today and who will clearly make a major contribution to our debates in the Lords. I welcome him and, with him, hope that it will not be too long before we do indeed hear a maiden speech from a woman bishop.
We have marked International Women’s Day for more than a century, and it is right that we do so. The lives of women in this country have been transformed over that century, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe so clearly showed. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, noted this as the most profound social transformation, and she is surely right. For many of us, we are the first in our families to go to university, yet our daughters, as well as our sons, expect nothing less should they wish to do so. We have the vote and the right to own property, to be employed on equal terms and not to belong to our husbands, fathers or, for that matter, to our sons. However, as noble Lords have made very clear in their speeches, inequalities persist: women earn less and we have by far the larger responsibility for children, the home and the care of elderly relatives as well as working. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and others pointed out, women are less likely to be in the House of Commons or House of Lords, on boards, at the top of companies, in our Supreme Court, among our judges, on our sports boards, editors of newspapers and so on. We see progress but sometimes it seems to be at a snail’s pace. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, said, it is a long road. Where women are not able to fulfil their aspirations to play their full part, in whatever way that might be, as my noble friend Lady Stowell so effectively explained in relation to her friend Julie, that is quite simply a loss of talent. Our economy and, more importantly, entire society miss out.
Supporting the most vulnerable in our society has been fundamental to our approach. That is why we are cutting tax for more than 23 million working people, lifting 2 million out of income tax altogether, the majority of whom are women. We are making changes to our state pension that will provide enormous benefits to older women, who may have broken records or contributions because they took time out to care for children or the elderly. Our ring-fencing the health budget particularly assists women, who are greater users of healthcare than men, whether through maternity care, through taking their children for care or in later life. Our acceptance of the Dilnot proposals, addressing an issue that has plagued our health and social care system since the establishment of the NHS, and about which no party in power since has been willing to do anything other than undertake yet another inquiry, is game-changing. Noble Lords will recall that it is women who are disproportionately the recipients and givers of care.
We want to support women, empower them and, most importantly, transform the opportunities available to them. We are investing in education, expanding our apprenticeship programme and improving careers advice to encourage young women to make ambitious choices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, suggests, there are areas of the labour market where women still seem invisible. We need to encourage women to choose subjects such as science, technology and engineering at A-level and at university to enable them to flourish in today’s economy. We are introducing shared parental leave, extending the right to request flexible working to all and working with business to ensure more women are in the boardroom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked about progress in relation to women on boards. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said at Question Time, since the noble Lord, Lord Davies, issued his report, the proportion of women on boards has increased from 12.5% to 17.3%. As of yesterday, there are now only six all-male boards. The Women’s Business Council will also be making recommendations on how we support women executives progressing up the executive ladder. I do not think that there is a shortage of potential talent. I was a trustee in a leading organisation, and when I stood down I urged that more women should be appointed. However, I was told there were none. I mentioned a name; they said, “Yes, but besides her, there aren’t any”. I mentioned several others; and, as with the “Life of Brian” and the Romans, they said “Yes, but besides those there aren’t any”. To my satisfaction, that board is now chaired by one of the women I recommended.
We have role models elsewhere. This summer, we have seen so many. London 2012 was a triumph for women’s sport, showcasing positive role models such as Jess Ennis, Victoria Pendleton and Ellie Simmonds, as my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint made so very clear. Hearing my noble friend on the subject of various sexist golf courses reminded me of an experience I had in Saudi Arabia. I was part of a parliamentary delegation staying in a very western hotel. I hope that my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint will appreciate that I took my swimsuit with me and, one evening, went down to the pool to swim. I was told that I could not because it was not the “women’s hour” to swim. I asked when the women’s hour was and was told that there was not one. There are more women taking part in sport but there is clearly so much more that we need to do and, as my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint has made clear, we need to do so much more especially in the running of sports. UK Sport and Sport England have included an expectation that all the national governing bodies will have at least 25% women on their boards by 2017.
As well as discrimination, girls and women face very serious challenges, including violence. Various noble Lords have made reference to that, and I assure my noble friend Lord Sheikh and others that we seek to tackle violence against women and girls and take it very seriously. We have protected central government funding for tackling violence against women and, last year, we announced that forced marriage will now become a criminal offence in England and Wales. We are also clear that we will change damaging behaviour only when we have changed the underlying attitudes that cause that behaviour, a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye. Prevention is key, which is why, with our teenage relationship abuse and rape prevention campaigns, we are helping young people to recognise abuse and understand when to seek help. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, asked about PSHE and when the outcome of the review will come through. The Government’s internal review was extended to take account of the outcome of the wider national curriculum review and the Department for Education expects to make an announcement shortly. I assure her and my noble friend Lady Benjamin that the statutory guidance for sex and relationship education makes clear that schools should ensure that young people develop positive values, realising that this certainly applies to sexual relationships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and others mentioned the powerful One Billion Rising campaign, and it is extremely important to have that kind of campaign keeping us all on our toes. The noble Baroness specifically mentioned FGM and rightly paid tribute to the work in this area of her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. The Government are also frustrated, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, by the lack of prosecutions in the past 25 years. We welcome the fact that Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who published a CPS action plan in November, is seeking to improve prosecutions for FGM. As the noble Baroness will know, a major new programme is also being designed by DfID to support efforts to end the practice in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. This has been led by my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone, whose aim is that this should disappear within a generation. She is formidable and I am absolutely delighted that she is taking this forward.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Healy, asked about women in the penal system. I assure them that we fully understand the challenges that women in the penal system face, and that many have suffered all sorts of problems in the past and maybe suffer still from domestic abuse, alcohol and drug abuse and mental problems. We are striving hard to follow through from the work done by the previous Government to keep women out of prison. I visited Holloway prison and realised very strongly how important it is, not only to the women themselves but to the children who are usually dependent on these women. I saw in Holloway Prison the support that is given for drug and alcohol abuse. We have accepted the majority of the Corston report and are actively taking it forward. I assure noble Lords that my noble friend Lord McNally really gets this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, asked about pregnant refugees and asylum seekers and the response to the report on dispersal. We introduced a new policy last year which includes a commitment not to move any pregnant women within the last four weeks of pregnancy, and any asylum seeker is moved only if it is safe to do so.
Noble Lords have addressed the sexualisation of girls and the risks thereby. We need to address the confidence of girls and, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, their need for dignity and the dangers of that sexualisation. The Government appointed Reg Bailey to look into the issue of the sexualisation of children and young people, and he published his recommendations last year. We are using these to work with media, business and regulators to implement, and they include stricter guidelines from the Advertising Standards Authority on sexualised on-street adverts, the launch of the ParentPort website for people to make complaints about media and advertising—we heard some horrendous stories earlier—and an agreement from four of the largest internet service providers on a code of practice, including active choice on whether to access age-restricted material. I am sure this is an area we will need to continue to monitor extremely closely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, mentioned invisible women and flagged it up in relation to politics and other areas. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we have extended the ability of political parties to use women-only shortlists to 2030. Labour transformed the House of Commons with these and although the initial reaction of the press to “Blair’s Babes” was horrendous, nobody would term them that now. They contribute in a formidable fashion and this has acted as a spur to the other political parties, including my own, and I pay tribute to what Labour did in this regard. We are also working with the main political parties to collect and publish diversity data on election candidates, to give us better insight into where we need to target efforts. I note what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in this regard, and on the wider fields I can assure her that we are working with the Runnymede Trust to look at the general barriers facing, for example, Bangladeshi and Pakistani women in the workforce.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady O’Neill, talked about public appointments; we aim to ensure that 50% of new public appointees are women by the end of this Parliament. We have established the Centre for Public Appointments in the Cabinet Office, which is working throughout Whitehall and the private sector to modernise recruitment practices, and we will keep a very close eye on this.
I heard the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, with enormous interest and I look forward to her profound thinking being applied to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She has asked me whether we could have a debate on CEDAW before July and I will of course feed this into the normal channels. Meanwhile, I encourage all noble Lords to put this down for debate at the first opportunity in the new Session, and the noble Baroness might like to do that herself. I will feed that back.
Noble Lords have made reference to the work that we have done overseas. I am extremely proud of that, and I thank my noble friend Lady Brinton for congratulating us on delivering 0.7% of GNI on aid. Noble Lords who have referred to the situation of women and girls overseas have pointed out that they are of course the poorest and the most marginalised. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was right to flag up the importance of UN Women.
We have put girls and women front and centre of our international development efforts. What we have heard from my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lord Sheikh and Lord Black, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, shows why we have done this and why it is so very important. Every year, more than a third of a million women die in pregnancy and childbirth. Almost two-thirds of those who are illiterate are women. Women own less than 10% of the world’s property. One in nine girls is forced into marriage before their 14th birthday. DfID’s key aims in addressing the situation for women and girls focus on delaying first pregnancy and supporting safe childbirth—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the challenges here—getting economic assets directly to girls and women, getting girls through secondary school and preventing violence against girls and women. They are major programmes.
In the past year alone, we have provided nearly 750,000 women with access to financial services, and supported more than 2.5 million girls into primary school and 250,000 girls into secondary schools. We know that education is critical as far as girls are concerned and that girls going through school are likely to be safer, to marry later and to have fewer children. It is of benefit to them, their families, their societies and their countries. There is also an economic dividend from that, which we recognise.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that we have improved property rights and land rights for nearly 250,000 women, supported 1 million additional women to use modern methods of family planning and helped 300,000 girls and women to access security and justice. We had a passionate debate in the Chamber last night on preventing sexual violence in conflicts. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry is right to flag up the especial vulnerability of women and girls in conflict. I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is pushing forward an important initiative to increase awareness and data collection and to bring perpetrators to justice. We recognise that sexual violence is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and is liable to be seen as a war crime to be brought to the International Criminal Court. It is important that we publicise that fact and make sure that the structure is in place to gather data and that cases are brought, with the intention of trying to curb the dreadful abuse of women in these situations. Right now, we have teams of experts in Syria, for example, working on just that task.
I assure my noble friend Lord Black that we are acutely aware of the risk of AIDS. He has clearly shown the vulnerability of women in that situation.
I appreciate the strong support for our international programmes right across the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right about the power of working together. She and I have seen, as her noble friend Lady Royall will also have seen, the power of working together across the political spectrum in Pakistan. There, in a National Assembly of 270 or so, there is a quota for 60 women’s seats. When I visited in 2006, women parliamentarians were marginalised, but they have used their block of seats in the most extraordinary fashion in the past five years. Working together across political parties, they have identified laws that discriminate against women and had them thrown out. They have moved on to laws that protect women; for example, on workplace harassment and criminalising acid attacks. The women have carried out 70% of all parliamentary business and their achievements are remarkable. I visited the survivors of acid attacks; for example, a woman who sought a divorce from her husband and he threw acid at her. If he was not to have her, then no one should want her. She sat bravely on the steps of the Parliament when the Bill came up, supported by civil society and highlighted in the media. The women persuaded their male colleagues and saw the Bill passed. I think that the work of the Pakistani women parliamentarians is a beacon to others and a model to show what can be achieved worldwide, and I salute them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, drew our attention to the continuing plight of women in Iran, who have seen a further erosion of their rights after being excluded from many fields of study at Iranian universities. I found her exposition of Islamic doctrine enlightening, and it is no wonder that the Iranian regime is concerned. We can assure her that we make clear to the Iranian regime how we view its record on human rights, because, as someone said earlier—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill—women’s rights are not in contrast to men’s rights; women’s rights are human rights. They are all part of human rights. We make very clear to the Iranian regime how we regard this. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, that, in the light of this development, it is vital that we attract talented Iranian women to study at UK universities.
This has been a wide-ranging and informative debate. We are determined to do everything in our power to transform the rights and opportunities for women both here and across the world. We have achieved a huge amount in the United Kingdom. I am constantly reminded of that when I see some of the situations in which women find themselves in developing countries. Yet we do not sit back: we realise how much more there is to achieve in the UK and we work with those in developing countries who seek, often against enormous odds, to ensure that the position of women and girls is transformed in the lifetimes of those born today. I beg to move.
Equal Marriage Consultation
Baroness Northover Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her support. I recognise that her Government did much to enhance equality in this country during their time in office, and I am pleased that we are able to do more and that we have her support in doing so. However, I do not want to polarise this debate. I and the Government have absolute respect for religious freedoms and those who object to same-sex marriage on principled grounds. I want people to feel able to express any concerns that they may have or to raise questions, because I think that many people want to support same-sex marriage and will do so if they can be reassured that religious freedoms are protected. I certainly see that as my responsibility.
The noble Baroness asked a few questions, which I am happy to respond to. On her point about the conversion of civil partnerships to civil marriages, it is certainly our intention to propose in the Bill that the 50,000 or more people who have entered into a civil partnership since that was enacted will be able to convert it to a marriage. There will be a process for them to follow, and I am pleased to confirm that it will not be time-limited.
The noble Baroness also asked about the consultation responses. Today we have published the Government’s response to the consultation document, and that provides some details of those responses. Clearly, having received more than 228,000 responses, it is not our plan to publish all of them individually, but I hope that the details of the consultation document will provide the sort of information that noble Lords will be interested in.
She also asked about the Equality Act and why it was necessary for us to amend it, as we have proposed as part of the quadruple lock. This is necessary because we need to introduce a safeguard specific to the conducting of same-sex marriages so that anyone, such as a member of a religious faith, who chooses not to do so on religious grounds is not in any way at risk of any kind of legal challenge.
I think that covers all the points that the noble Baroness raised. I restate that obviously I am here to respond to questions. I hope that all noble Lords will feel free to express any views and that they will be reassured that those views will be respected today.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that Statements are a time for brief comments and questions. Could noble Lords please show consideration to each other to enable as many as possible to contribute?