Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. When the Civil Partnership Act went through, it was interesting to note that employers were already ahead of the law and that a number of private schemes already recognised partners. When the civil partnership law was enacted, many more then did so. It is fair to say that in this House there are people who may have forgotten more about pensions than I will ever know. However, in the greater scheme of things, this is not very much money in terms of the overall pension contributions, yet it means an immense amount to individuals; those people who are doing all the things that we would encourage others to do, like being judicious in provision for their later life. It seems to me wholly wrong that they are not rewarded in the way that every other person would be if they did the same thing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, as my noble friend said, pensions might sound boring but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, pensions are extremely important to individuals. They do affect quality of life, so this is a very important amendment.

Liberty, to which I am grateful for its excellent briefing on this issue, is surely right in saying:

“This is an unnecessary and counterproductive anomaly in a Bill which otherwise makes landmark progress in equally respecting the rights of gay people”.

The same has been said from all Benches today.

Naturally, I recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married and same-sex civil partners. However, this Bill not only continues that discrimination but it takes forward the same distinction to same-sex married couples: in terms of these pension rights, they would be treated differently from opposite-sex married couples. This uneven treatment would, therefore, be continued. As my noble friend cogently argued, this should be an opportunity to get rid of the current anomaly rather than to extend the discrimination.

I was struck by what I thought was an extraordinary answer from the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation to compatibility with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights on this issue. She said that the reason for treating same-sex-marriage couples as civil partners is that they could have the option either of getting married or of forming a civil partnership—and that the legislation therefore treats them equally.

This is sort of true but it goes against the whole ethos of this Bill. As my noble friend said, arguments which are made against this on the principle of retrospection are misplaced. It is clear that actuaries base forecasts on a wide range of assumptions which are not necessarily proved to be correct. In its report on the Bill, the JCHR also noted: that,

“Depending on the provisions of the scheme, pension rights of same sex spouses may not be the same as pension rights of opposite sex spouses, which may give rise to an issue as to whether this is compatible with Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1”.

It has already been noted that the Government are currently fighting an appeal against the decision to uphold this view in the case of John Walker. However, if legislation is not amended to take account of the Walker judgment and the reliance on the European Court findings, it is likely that further action will be taken by same-sex married partners. One cannot blame them. They will seek similar redress in the courts to ensure that they, too, can access pension rights in an equal way. That would be regrettable.

Of course, I recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without cost but the real frustration is that we do not have the requisite information to debate the issue with knowledge of its full consequences. When responding to a similar amendment moved in the other place, the Minister, Helen Grant, said that,

“we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/13; col. 1144.]

However, how significant those burdens are is unclear. The House of Commons Library estimated that the potential additional cost to private contracted-in schemes would be £18 million. That is a significant figure by anyone’s estimates, but when compared with the total value of assets under management in the pensions industry it amounts to just 0.006%—as was pointed out by Mr Mike Freer on Report in the Commons. I accept that for a handful of small employers or charitable schemes this may have a disproportionate impact. However, the Government have accepted that around two-thirds of schemes already treat opposite-sex marriages and civil partnerships equally. I pay tribute to all those organisations, including the Church of England, which do the right thing.

In evidence submitted to the JCHR, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Hugh Robertson, stated that,

“We estimate that in total the impact on both contracted-in and contracted-out private sector schemes could amount to as much as £90 million. There would be very substantial costs for public service schemes”.

Will the Minister confirm to the House the costs, additional to the £18 million identified and widely accepted, on which £90 million figure is based, and the costs for public service schemes to which the Secretary of State was referring given the 2005 regulations identified by the Commons Library? On these Benches, we believe that the financial impact of the amendment would be relatively insignificant. However, the Secretary of State is quite clear that there would be a cost. Therefore, I echo the calls from around the Chamber and from the JCHR for the Minister to publish the full evidence on which the Government based their assessment as soon as possible so that we might approach Report armed with the fullest possible view of the consequences of this amendment—an amendment which I fully support.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and all others who contributed to this debate. I understand the strength of feeling behind this amendment and the speeches that have been made. Anticipating this debate, I decided to speak directly to the Pensions Ministers today and so was able to come properly armed with full information.

First, and as I have said in other contexts and in our other debates on the Bill, in making it possible for same-sex couples to marry we have sought to build on existing legislation and not amend the structure of marriage law. The point is that we focused on allowing same-sex couples to marry. In the context of pensions, we are following what already exists for civil partnerships, as has been referred to by several noble Lords in the debate. The introduction of civil partnerships was, as we have acknowledged several times over the last few weeks, a fundamental change in our society. It was a huge step forward. The Act was complex and covered a wide range of different issues. The Labour Government at the time decided to provide this exception for defined benefit pension schemes which are not contracted-out of the state second pension. They clearly did so for a principled reason: Governments do not generally make changes to pension schemes retrospectively. That is the general approach that is taken. That decision was made in 2005 during the passage of that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the Equality Act 2010 and suggested that it had then been open to this Government to remove the exception. It is worth reminding the noble Lord and the House that the Equality Act was passed under the previous Government. It was not a Bill that we were still debating and deciding after the election—it predated this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords have said that this amendment is not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, very helpfully mentioned Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which refers to sex education, and laid out for us subsection (1A)(a) and (b). He did not go on to subsection (1B), which says:

“In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance”.

Therefore we already have Secretary of State’s guidance in that Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that she did not want us to go into great detail in this. However, if she refers again to proposed new subsection (2) in my Amendment 46B, she will see that it sets out very clearly what that guidance will be. That is very necessary. Of course, sex education has very much changed a lot of teaching in schools. However, we are talking about something that is now so fundamental: the nature of marriage and how it is such a foundation for society. If it is important to have the Secretary of State’s guidance for sex education, it is much more important to have it for marriage.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am here as somebody who celebrates marriage and values the ethos of church schools, but I am also a very strong supporter of same-sex marriage. I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ concerns but I am not persuaded of the need for this amendment. Like the Secretary of State, I would not support a Bill that encroached on religious freedom or on freedom of speech, but this Bill does not do that.

I apologise for not having been here last Wednesday evening. However, of course I read Hansard, and many points similar to those made in the debate last week were made today about teachers. As was said on Wednesday it is clear that teachers will be under a legal duty to teach the fact of the law of the land—that yes, gay couples will be able to get married. However, those selfsame teachers in faith schools will also be able to express their personal views or those of their faith about marriage. Noble Lords have cited the present guidance, which is extremely well balanced.

I was very struck by a speech given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the Public Bill Committee on 12 February. I will quote a section of what he said:

“Our own view is that the promotion of marriage is part of sex and relationship education. What Church of England schools are good at doing, because the vast majority of them are community schools, is integrating the convictions of the Church of England with a recognition that the Christian opinions held in that school are not totally recognised within the whole of wider society … There is a balance to be struck, and I think that the Secretary of State for Education was right to say that in teaching there will need to be a recognition that we have a society in which same-sex marriages—assuming the Bill goes through—are possible, and of course the teacher would also indicate why it is that within the majority of Christian traditions such marriages are not celebrated”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 12/2/13; col. 26.]

That right reverend Prelate had it about right.

I noted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that in the other place the Minister, Mr Hugh Robertson, undertook to take this issue away and discuss it further with religious groups. I very much look forward to hearing what he will have to say.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, for his introduction of his amendment and for quoting what I said on Second Reading about this Bill being as much about promoting religious freedom as it is about allowing same-sex couples to marry. He was absolutely right about that. I am pleased that he was clear that his amendment is about religious freedom of faith schools. He sought to explain that this particular issue is quite different from the earlier education matters we discussed last week, which focused on the general freedom of any teacher to express a personal view rather than on the teaching of sex and relationship education in religious schools specifically. In responding to this debate, I will repeat several points that I made last week, not least because as the debate has unfolded it has become clear that the way in which the House considers this issue is very much to do with education in a wider context than just about the very narrow issue of religious freedom.

Noble Lords and others have expressed a concern that schools’ freedom to teach their beliefs about marriage according to their religious tenets will be threatened by the effect that Clause 11 will have on the meaning of “marriage” in Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 and guidance made under it by the Secretary of State, to which schools must have regard. As has already been noted, the Government have received representations from religious groups, in particular the Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, expressing concern that Clause 11 might affect the ability of faith schools to continue to teach about the importance of marriage for family life and the bringing up of children in line with their religious tenets. This concern was echoed by Muslim leaders in their public letter of 18 May.

The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was the first to raise a point about the origination of Section 403. It is worth saying that it was not in a piece of legislation originally in the 1996 Act. Section 403(1A) was inserted by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. I will begin by explaining that schools with a religious character provide an excellent education for their pupils while reflecting their beliefs across the curriculum, including in sex and relationship education. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that affects schools’ ability to continue to do this in future.

In schools of a religious character, teachers already deal admirably with teaching about marriages which may not be recognised as such according to the tenets of the relevant faith—for example, marriages of divorcees, or mixed-faith marriages. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, gave us a great example of how teachers deal with sensitive matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, reminded us that it is important that teachers must be conscious of pupils whose parents are of the same sex and married when teaching about marriage in the context of sex and relationship education. My noble friend Lord Baker also made a similar point. However, my noble friend Lord Eden reminded us of the rights of parents who are concerned about sex education and its content. I responded to his concern last week in the debate about the policies that are in place to ensure that schools properly consult parents on the content of sex and relationship education.

Last week I forgot to make a point, which is worth making in the context of this debate, that sex and relationship education is compulsory in maintained secondary schools. Primary schools are not required to teach sex and relationship education, further than anything specific in the curriculum for science. It is important that I make that point, because it is sometimes forgotten.

In order for teachers to handle the very sensitive situations in which they often find themselves, they already interpret the Secretary of State’s guidance according to their religious tenets. This will be no different when marriage is extended to same-sex couples by this Bill. If the tenets of a particular religion do not recognise same-sex marriage, they will be able to approach teaching about marriage in exactly the same professional way that they do now. Although teaching will of course need to cover the factual position that marriage under the law of England and Wales can be between both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, faith schools will also be able to explain the relevant tenets of their religion on this matter.

I think it was the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Elton, about the Secretary of State ensuring that teaching about marriage is given in accordance with religious tenets. It is important for me to make the point that I fully understand the intentions of the right reverend Prelate in the amendment that he has put forward, but I am sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to secure adherence to religious doctrine in teaching. This would amount to inappropriate interference by the state in matters properly for the relevant religious denomination. How faith schools approach such teaching is quite rightly a matter for the schools and faiths themselves.

While I think it is broadly acknowledged that the Secretary of State’s current guidance does not impinge on faith schools’ ability to teach in line with their doctrines, concern has also been expressed that the duty on the Secretary of State might allow future versions of the guidance to preclude religious schools from teaching in accordance with their beliefs. This was a point that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege raised—when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to my noble friend Lady Knight, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege expressed this point. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made my response for me by saying that it is clearly not the intention behind this legislation to envisage circumstances in which any Secretary of State might seek to interfere with matters of religious doctrine in the future. We are framing this legislation as things stand at the moment, and there is no way in which we are suggesting that a future Secretary of State might do anything different, but nor can I say from this Dispatch Box that things may not change in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noted that the second part of the duty in question, which is Section 403 (1A)(b), specifies that the Secretary of State’s guidance must ensure that pupils are,

“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned”.

Therefore, the existing legislation already makes clear that it is absolutely inappropriate for material to be used that would not have regard for religious faiths. For the Secretary of State to issue guidance specifying that a particular version of marriage be endorsed counter to a school’s ethos, and by extension the religious background of many of its pupils, would not meet this criterion that already exists in legislation. I emphasise that point in response to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who expressed concern that the new legislation would somehow remove some protection from schools that are against promoting same-sex couples being able to marry. I want to emphasise that that is absolutely not the case.

This country has a strong tradition of schools with a religious character; they are a valued part of our education system. It would be pointless to maintain a system of designation if such schools were unable to teach in accordance with the tenets of their religion. For this designation to have significance, the school has to deliver what it was set up for. The inherent right of schools to deliver their curriculum and to interpret guidance according to their ethos is evident in their existence as such schools. As I have described previously, such schools do already teach about topics that may be considered sensitive, such as divorce, and they do so without issue.

While the Government are clear that this Bill will not impinge on faith schools’ ability to continue to teach about marriage in line with their religious tenets, I do of course understand that the effect of Clause 11 on Section 403 of the Education Act has led to some concern about this. While we are not convinced that there is a need to change the legislation to clarify the position, we are continuing to discuss this with the churches. As the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Royall, said, the Government undertook to consider this issue in another place. I can assure noble Lords that I and my colleagues are continuing to examine it in detail.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

Of course, but it is not unknown for a wise, enlightened, independent judiciary, which I strongly defend, to conclude that Parliament has not indeed been clear, and therefore it is very important that Parliament should be clear. We talked about locks, triple locks and quadruple locks. I think that there are very few locks that my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are not capable of unpicking. We want to bear that in mind. It is very important indeed that this Bill, when it passes on to the statute book, has the full guarantees which I am sure my noble friend, in all honesty, wishes it to have.

To return to the point that I was making when my noble friend Lord Lester so courteously interrupted me, I hope that my noble friend, when she comes to wind up, will not only reflect on the concerns, and undertake further to reflect after this debate, but that she will give an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge and others to meet her and her officials to discuss these points in detail.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, although this has been an immensely courteous debate, I would start by wholeheartedly agreeing with the statement from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the need for tolerance and respect for the views of people with whom we fundamentally disagree, both inside and outside this House. It is important that all sides of the House recognise that.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, quite rightly said that it is important for Parliament to be clear so that the judges can take a view as regards what happens in the courts. From this side of the House we believe that the Bill as drafted is absolutely clear, including the meaning of the word “compelled” as referred to in Amendment 17. We believe that it would be readily understood and interpreted by the courts as such and that it needs no specific definition in this context. As my noble friend Lord Alli said, the Minister in the other place has given some helpful assurances about the Government’s intention regarding protection against compulsion, which I am sure the noble Lord will reinforce today, as well as clarifying that the definition has not been borrowed from the Matrimonial Causes Act.

Clarity is important but, as I said, there is already clarity in the Bill. That is not to say that I dismiss the concerns expressed around the Committee today. I am sure that the Minister will be able perhaps to assuage those concerns today but, if not, that he will come back on Report and, in the mean time, perhaps put something in writing. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there should be something substantive before Report was a good one.

On Amendments 13 and 18, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that I was confused about whether she was speaking on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is clear from the exchanges across the Chamber that there were disparities of view in the committee.

[Baroness O’Loan]

My Lords, for the sake of clarification, I did not speak on behalf of the committee but declared my membership, as I thought appropriate.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon. It is interesting that both noble Baronesses, and the noble Lord, are members of the committee.

We are clear that Amendments 13 and 18 are unnecessary. We believe that they would add confusion to the law. As the noble Baroness said, the public sector equality duty is a duty to have “due regard”, not a duty to act. The due regard must balance discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation equally with discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. It would not permit a public body, even with the intention of eliminating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, lawfully to treat a religious organisation less favourably on account of its beliefs about same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the authority would be in breach of the clear protections in the Bill that will permit religious organisations to remain outside the system of same-sex marriages.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the Equality Act 2010 is a carefully crafted piece of legislation, thanks to many noble Lords present in the Chamber today. It established a balance between protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief and protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. To single out one belief—that marriage should be between a man and a woman—risks undermining the protection afforded to religion as a whole, with its entirety of beliefs and practices, because it sets up this one belief as requiring explicit protection. Therefore, Amendment 13—and Amendment 18, which seeks to achieve a similar effect—would prove unhelpful and unnecessary.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I will start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge, and the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Hylton, for bringing the amendments before your Lordships’ House in Committee. It has given us an opportunity for a very useful debate, which has been conducted in a very courteous fashion. It was clear that genuine concerns were being expressed. What is interesting is that there is no distinction anywhere in the debate between the objectives of what noble Lords wish to see. It is very clear that religious freedom, including the rights of religious organisations that do not wish to opt in, should be secured.

I will take the advice proffered by my noble friend Lord Lester and not reply to every point. However, it is important that I reply to some of them. My noble friend referred to Pepper v Hart, but we cannot get to that stage if we do not in fact say anything. I will also take up his suggestion, echoed by my noble friend Lord Deben, of putting in written form the points that were raised and my responses.

Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that no religious organisation or individual is penalised by a public authority simply because it has exercised its rights under the Bill to not offer or facilitate same-sex marriages, or because it has expressed the view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. My noble friend Lady Berridge indicated that there was an anxiety that other religious denominations wished to have the same kind of safeguard and security as has been afforded to the Church of England and the Church in Wales. As I indicated to my noble friend Lord Cormack when he moved an amendment on Monday, there is a historic reason for the distinction for the Church of England and the Church in Wales: namely, the duty on priests in these churches to marry people in their parish. This duty is not incumbent on priests, ministers or imams in other religions and faiths.

The specific context of this amendment is Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on public authorities to,

“have due regard to the need to … eliminate discrimination … advance equality of opportunity … and … foster good relations between persons who”,

hold or do not hold a particular protected characteristic.

It is absolutely right—I think that this has been echoed on all sides of your Lordships’ House—that religious organisations and individuals should be free to express their beliefs about same-sex marriage, and to make the decisions protected by this Bill about whether to conduct or participate in same-sex marriages, without fear of repercussion or penalty of any kind. I hope I can clarify for your Lordships that, as the law stands, a public authority would in fact be acting unlawfully if it attempted to rely on the public sector equality duty to treat a religious organisation adversely simply because that organisation did not wish to conduct same-sex marriages, as is explicitly allowed under this Bill.

A policy of penalising people or organisations which have religious or philosophical beliefs with which a public authority disagrees would in itself be discriminatory. One element of the duty is to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. It is not meant to be itself an instrument to discriminate unlawfully. For a local authority, for example, to withdraw meeting facilities from a church because it decided not to offer same-sex marriage would be likely to be unlawful direct discrimination because of religion or belief. We believe that it would be subject to successful legal challenge, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, commented that there is nothing in the Bill which states that it would be unlawful for a public authority to punish a religious organisation which had not opted in. The courts have considered the question of whether a local authority can use equality legislation to punish an organisation with views of which it disapproves. In the case of Wheeler v Leicester City Council, the council banned a rugby club from using its ground after some of its members attended a tour of South Africa. It used the then Race Relations Act to justify its decision. The case went to the House of Lords, which held that the decision was irrational and that it was an improper purpose, because the members of the rugby club were legally entitled to go on a tour, just as an organisation is entitled not to opt in. I believe that the reasoning in that case to have a clear read-over in this particular case. Similarly, a local authority could not have a policy of refusing to promote staff who have expressed a belief that marriage should only be between—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If my noble friend had allowed me to finish the sentence that I had started when he intervened, I would have said that, having received it, those who wish to pursue this matter further in discussion with myself and my noble friend Lady Stowell—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to be consulted, but I suggest that the document or letter is put into the Library so that it is in the public domain. Otherwise it will not appear in Hansard.

[Lord Elton]

May I suggest that all those who have taken part in the debate should have a copy sent directly? Could my name be added to that list?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, used the word “courtesy”. I wish to make a plea for clarity. I have said already twice during our debates that I utterly support the rights of religious organisations to take a very different view of same-sex marriage than me, as passionately as I believe that public functions need to be open to all. I regret that none of the Methodist mafia is here today—they are usually around when I need one of them—but I want to make a particular point about the nonconformist churches. We spend an awful lot of time talking about the Church of England for obvious reasons, but I do not want any of the nonconformist churches to be left in any doubt that they will be subject to some kind of compulsion when the Church of England will not be. That is absolutely not the case.

One of the reasons I wished that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, or the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, were here would be to confirm my understanding that—on a slightly different point—the Methodist Church, at its conference, is being asked to uphold the view that it will not bless civil partnerships. That is its right and, along with any other church, it will have the right to exercise the same judgment in relation to same-sex marriage.

I want to go slightly further; I hope that churches that take those decisions make it known publicly and loudly that that is their decision. I have spent my life very seriously observing the rights of religious people and trying not to offend them. It is not my intention, as a gay person, ever to offend somebody who holds that religious viewpoint, but I would like churches to make it abundantly clear to me, as a gay person, what their view is, so that I may lead my life in a way that does not directly offend them.

[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.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

I am grateful for that clarification, although I know quite a number of free churches ministers of different denominations who would certainly line up behind the noble Baroness. However, if she or anyone else wished to table a further amendment to include the clergy of the free churches, I would raise no objection, but the Roman Catholic Church has made its position clear and unambiguous. That deserves recognition, and the priests of the Roman Catholic Church deserve the same degree of protection that is rightly being accorded to priests of the established church. It is in that spirit that I briefly commend the amendment to the Committee and hope that it will at least elicit some support. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the amendment is an unnecessary and potentially confusing addition, because it would, as the noble Lord said, add Roman Catholic priests to the list of persons exempt from the common-law duty to marry parishioners under Clause 1(5). As he also said, the common-law duty extends only to members of the Church of England and to Wales clergy, not the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a question of not wanting to offer protection to the Roman Catholic Church; it is just that it is not necessary to do this against challenge on the basis of any such duty.

Priests of the Roman Catholic Church are already protected in Clause 2, as are clergy of all other religious organisations that may decide whether to opt into performing same-sex marriage. Clause 2 is absolutely clear. It states:

“A person may not be compelled to … undertake an opt-in activity, or … refrain from undertaking an opt-out activity … to conduct a relevant marriage … to be present at, carry out, or otherwise participate in, a relevant marriage, or … to consent to a relevant marriage being conducted”.

The clause makes specific provisions for individuals, other than registrars, to be able to refuse to perform or participate in performing a same-sex marriage. This will allow priests, ordinaries, altar servers, organists and many others to refuse to participate in such a service, even if their governing authority has decided to opt into same-sex marriage. That is clear and the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to allow the Catholic Church to not opt into same-sex marriage with full confidence of protection under the law.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we live in a civilised and tolerant society, not in Alice’s Wonderland. I am proud to open this Second Reading debate on behalf of the opposition Benches. I know that a small minority of my noble friends are against this Bill, and, naturally, I respect their views, but the majority on my Benches, alongside the shadow Cabinet, Labour’s National Policy Forum and the Labour Party conference, warmly support both the Bill and the debate, which will enable us to recognise and affirm the loving and lasting commitment of couples who love each other. They must include the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who with his wife is today celebrating their golden wedding anniversary. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending them our heartiest congratulations.

I pay tribute to my right honourable and honourable friends and to those of all parties in the other place who have enabled the Bill’s safe passage. Many of them have shown considerable political courage. This is a hugely important milestone for equality, respect and dignity in our society, which rightly values stable relationships within the framework of marriage. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for an excellent introduction to the Bill—I hope that George Clooney was listening, of course—and for making herself available at all times to discuss concerns and answer questions. From experience, I know that it is particularly challenging for a Whip to take responsibility for a controversial piece of legislation, and I know that she will do a terrific job.

In an ever-changing world where turmoil and instability are too often the norm, it is a cause for celebration when two people of either the same or the opposite sex wish to commit their lives to each other through marriage. I am the product of a happy marriage and I had the good fortune to enjoy nearly 30 years of marriage. Our aim, like that of so many other couples, was to grow old together and to support each other in sickness and in health. We had our ups and downs, but the fact that we were married increased our resolve to make our relationship work, and it was the framework within which we wanted to raise our children. Of course, I have friends who are single and who are great parents, and friends who have lived together for many years and who are wonderful parents, such as my noble friend the Chief Whip—although I am delighted to say that on Saturday, he and his partner Jill are going to be married. I celebrate that and I would like to be able to celebrate the marriage of gay friends, with or without children.

Last week, I thought a lot about marriage: not just because of the Bill, but because I was choosing a wedding dress with my daughter, Charlie. We talked about marriage, which she described as an important ritual that would enable her to make a commitment to the man she loves in front of family, friends and our community. If Charlie wanted to marry Katherine instead of Kane, would I feel any different? No, I would not, and I would want other parents to have the same joy as I in celebrating the marriage of their children, whether they love people of the same or the opposite sex.

Some people ask why the Bill is necessary when we already have civil partnerships—often, I have to say, the same people who opposed those partnerships when we introduced them in 2004. Civil partnerships were a fantastic step forward and continue to be a great source of joy and security, but some people wish to choose marriage. It has a special status in our society, both historically and symbolically, and it represents a very particular value that the state has placed on the relationship. I well understand that this Bill has caused anguish for some people of faith who have concerns either because of the impact of the Bill on their faith or on the grounds of faith. I respect all genuine concerns—although clearly not those that are rooted in homophobia—and I am sure that our consideration of this Bill will be conducted with our usual tolerance, respecting our differences. I have to say, however, that I simply do not understand those who say that equal marriage can harm or undermine marriage between a man and a woman. Surely if we value and cherish marriage, we should want all those who wish to marry to be able to do so, and we should welcome the fact that marriage would be strengthened by opening it up to more couples. Surely we should be encouraging our young people, who see the love and strength their parents draw from their marriage, to aspire to the same commitment regardless of whether it is with another man or another woman.

There has been much discussion about whether there are sufficient protections for religious organisations. Just like equality, freedom of religion is central to a human rights-based society. That is why it is vital that the Bill does not impose an obligation on any faith group to conduct same-sex marriages. The Minister has spoken in detail about the quadruple lock and we are satisfied that the protections the Government have put in place in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that no faith group will be at risk of a human rights challenge for refusing to solemnise same-sex marriage. Naturally, this House will carefully scrutinise the protections contained in the Bill for religious freedom. I welcome that, and I look forward to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Baroness Kennedy, who were crystal clear in their evidence to the Public Bill Committee.

I look forward also to the contribution of the most reverend Primate to this debate. I know that the Church of England has rightly been working closely with the Government and I am pleased that there is agreement that the safeguarding of the position of canon law has been achieved and that the quadruple locks offer the necessary protection. I know that the Bishops now warmly support civil partnerships and I have read of the Bishop of Salisbury’s endorsement of same-sex marriage. Both are matters to be celebrated. I have also had excellent discussions with some right reverend Prelates in which we agreed that, from their perspective, the Bill would not result in the sky falling in or family life falling apart, while from my perspective it would not be a panacea for relationships, be they gay or straight. I also take this opportunity to send our best wishes to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for a speedy recovery.

Naturally, I am glad that the Government have listened to the concerns of the Church in Wales that were raised by my colleagues in another place, which resulted in an amendment to ensure that the Lord Chancellor will have no power of veto over the church’s decision, should it wish in future to provide for same sex marriages. The position of the Quakers and Unitarians, and of Reform Judaism, is absolutely clear, and I am delighted that the Bill will enable them to opt in to performing same sex marriage according to their religious rites.

Last week, while thinking about the Second Reading, I watched “The Times of Harvey Milk”. I wept at what one might call a chilling reminder of the pain and suffering that gays and lesbians endured a few short years ago—their lives blighted by society’s attitude towards their sexuality. That was 1970s America, but in the 1960s in this country people were locked up or punished for loving someone of the same sex. The Conservative Government introduced Section 28 in 1988 and it was not repealed until the Labour Government came to power. We had a proud record in making progress against discrimination and in favour of equality, and I am grateful for the generous comments of the noble Baroness. As well as civil partnerships, we equalised the age of consent, ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our Armed Forces, made homophobia a hate crime, outlawed discrimination in the workplace and in goods and services, and did much more. The measures were controversial at the time but now have widespread support.

We have come a long way, but there still needs to be a cultural shift. The Bill is not only hugely important for same-sex couples who wish to marry, and for transgender people who are in a marriage; it can play a critical role in driving attitudinal change. As noble Lords are aware, 20,000 homophobic crimes are still committed in this country every year, and many children suffer homophobic bullying. They are not just children who may be growing up to be gay, but those with lesbian or gay parents. Ninety-five per cent of secondary-school teachers have reported hearing anti-gay language in their schools. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will be a useful tool in tackling these attitudes. It will not just ensure legal equality in the eyes of the state but encourage society to celebrate the identity, relationships, commitment and love that lesbian and gay people share.

There are some outstanding issues in relation to the Bill that were raised in the other place and have not been resolved. First, pension rights are the subject of considerable debate. Currently, the Bill provides for less generous pension rights for same-sex married couples than for those of opposite sexes in respect of survivor benefits. In the Commons we called on the Government to come forward with an immediate review into the implications of equalising pension rights, and we will urge them to do this in the course of the Bill.

Secondly, our Front Bench supported amendments to allow couples to have humanist marriages in England and Wales, as almost 3,000 already choose to do in Scotland. On Report in the other place, the Attorney-General raised new concerns about the amendments’ compatibility with the Human Rights Act. However, we hope to resolve these issues in Committee in this House.

Thirdly, on transgender issues, the Bill will enable individuals to change their legal gender without having to end their marriage, righting a big injustice in our society. We welcome these amendments brought forward by the Government on Report in another place to protect pension rights for spouses who change their legal gender, as a result of issues raised by my colleagues and others during the Public Bill Committee. However, we will look carefully at further amendments that may be brought forward in relation to transgender marital issues.

With regard to heterosexual civil partnerships, a matter of much debate in the Commons, we are pleased that the Government have now committed to an immediate review of the introduction of such partnerships. I welcome the fact that the terms of reference for this review will be available before Committee. There were long debates on the issues of teachers and registrars. Our views on this are clear, but it is right that these issues of great importance should be debated fully in your Lordships’ House.

I am grateful to the Government for giving extra time for this Second Reading debate and ensuring that the vote will take place at a proper time. Some in this House will vote in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and against the Bill. I respectfully remind him that proposals to fragment our National Health Service did not appear in any of the party manifestos, nor in the coalition agreement. Perhaps more importantly, I refute the noble Lord’s suggestions about support for the Bill. The latest YouGov polling shows that 71% of people support same-sex marriage, including three out of five people of faith. The noble Lord also alleged that the Bill would affect divorce rates. It is true that divorce rates in Spain increased, but that was because it liberalised its divorce laws at exactly the same time as introducing same-sex marriage.

In respect of the composition of the Public Bill Committee and the allegations that its membership was stacked, the only reason that the committee was thus constituted is that the same MPs had previously insisted on a free vote across the Commons. This meant that the committee’s membership represented the very heavy Commons vote in favour of the Bill at Second Reading. In terms of e-mails and postbags, I am sure that those who are against the Bill wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, while those who are in favour of the Bill wrote to me. To that extent we should question the comments made by the noble Lord.

However, all in all, I trust that following the detailed and careful scrutiny that this House will give, noble Lords will be convinced both by the safeguards in terms of religious faith and the arguments in terms of removing discrimination and extending the dignity and joy of marriage to same-sex couples. I firmly believe that our society will be strengthened when more couples are able to choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other, and when all members of our communities are able to celebrate their identity and relationship within the institution of marriage.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

“I am a single mum to a 8 yr old who is doing well at school and he loves his life. I would never burst his bubble but I am on a work programme and under the threat of a sanction where I am to lose all JSA for a set number of weeks (I am to be notified by post) as I've sent a reply stating why I think it's unfair. I feel so useless and overwhelmed by the whole situation and my confidence packed its bag and upped and left. The sanction is over a missed Thursday 9 am appointment. My next appointment is 3 pm on a Monday. My advisor is well aware”—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, if I might intervene, there are several noble Lords in the Chamber who from a sedentary position keep saying that this is ridiculous. The only ridiculous part of the debate this evening is the fact that we are debating such a serious issue at 12.20 am, and we should be allowed to hear my noble friend in peace.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank my noble friend, particularly as I am quoting from a lone mother who is very upset. She says:

“The sanction is over a missed Thursday 9am appointment. My next appointment is 3pm on a Monday. My advisor is well aware that my son is at school for 8.50 am, it takes 25 minutes to get to WP, I collect my son at 3.15 pm yet I’m expected to attend at 3pm for 30 mins. So I’ll be taking him out of school at 2.30pm. I want to help him do well at school, attendance is a high priority of mine”.

Here we have the threat of sanctions demoralising a lone mother who is trying to do the right thing by her son. How making her feel useless and overwhelmed is going to help her in her jobseeking is a mystery to me.

As I have said, I have not been able to do full justice to the briefing that SPAN sent me. I therefore suggest that it be invited to submit evidence to the review established under Clause 2. Indeed, what provision will be made to enable outside organisations with experience of what is happening on the ground to feed evidence into the review?

Of course, the public sector equality duty is not just about lone parents. An international review of the evidence about the operation of sanctions within conditional benefit systems, conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation a couple of years or so ago, warned that evidence suggests that the administration of sanctions is not rational and equitable. The studies conducted in the US have identified racial bias in the imposition of sanctions.

At Second Reading the Minister emphasised that,

“we are trying to design a much more flexible welfare system in which we individualise responses”.—[Official Report, 21/3/13; col. 753.]

It is difficult to quarrel with flexibility and individualisation, but the downside is that they leave greater scope for discrimination, in the negative sense of the term, and they can undermine rights. It is therefore all the more important that the sanctions review allows us to judge whether the administration of sanctions is indeed rational, equitable and consistent with the public sector equality duty.

The Government’s willingness to discuss the terms of reference of the sanctions review with the Opposition is, of course, welcome. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept Amendments 4 and 5, in the interests of ensuring that the review is as thorough and informative as it needs to be, and that the Government will express a willingness to take evidence from organisations on the ground.

Welfare Benefits: Women

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the differential impact on women of changes to welfare benefits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Government are supporting women and families, for example by changing childcare support through universal credit and by lifting 2 million of the lowest-paid workers, six out of 10 of whom are women, out of income tax altogether.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. The noble Lord says that the Government are supporting women and their families; however the House of Commons Library analysis suggests that 81% of the £1.065 billion raised from the new direct tax credit and benefit changes will come from women. When the Government decided to make these changes, were they really aware of the specific impact on women? If they were not aware of this, it is a disgrace. If they were aware of this, it is an even greater disgrace.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the impact on women of the uprating changes, in a Bill that will come to this House shortly, is greater; 33% of women are affected, against only 29% of men. The redistribution under universal credit switches slightly and, in proportion, households with women do slightly better in numbers than households with men—40% of households with women are gainers, compared with 39% of households with men.

Crime: Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered what role police and crime commissioners may have in combating violence against women and girls.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, police and crime commissioners will be democratically accountable for cutting crime and ensuring that the policing needs of their communities are met. Given the prevalence of violence against women and girls across the UK, we expect PCCs to have a key role in tackling these crimes by setting the strategic direction, determining local budgets and holding their respective chief constables to account for the totality of policing within their force areas.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Domestic abuse is still a hidden crime that occurs behind front doors on every street in every town, city and village. Is the Minister aware that every Labour police and crime commissioner who is elected will adopt an excellent five-point plan on women’s safety? While I hear what the noble Baroness says—that the Government expect police and crime commissioners to act on these issues—what will they do to ensure that all such commissioners, of no matter what party, make tackling violence against women and girls a priority?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, we all want to see violence against women and girls stamped out. For the first time ever, victims will have to be listened to before decisions are made about policing priorities in their areas. If noble Lords want to know how big a deal that is for victims of crime, I urge them to read the speech made last Thursday by my noble friend Lady Newlove in the debate about PCCs. Whatever PCCs decide to do locally will be on top of the commitments already made by this Government and in addition to the measures in the organised crime strategy. I point to what has happened in London, where the Mayor of London provides the nearest example of what PCCs will be able to achieve once they are in post. In his first term the mayor increased the number of rape centres from one to four, using some of his own funding, and set up a helpline and a website for victims. It is interesting to note the way in which the local violence against women group has engaged with him in putting together that strategy and holding him to account for delivering it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

My intention this afternoon has been to clarify the long-standing position on financial privilege and the relationship that exists between both Houses. I urge your Lordships to listen to my noble friend Lord Freud to see whether, irrespective of privilege and legislation, he can offer the assurances and reassurances which many Members are seeking on the substance of the policy that this Bill seeks to introduce. On that basis, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his rather wide statement, especially for his remarks on issues relating to the Welfare Reform Bill. Since the Speaker in the other place indicated on 1 February that amendments to the Bill carried by your Lordships’ House could attract House of Commons financial privilege, we on this side of the House have been pressing the Government to give some indication of the procedural impact on the Bill of this designation.

We will deal with the procedural points, which the noble Lord has mentioned, as we consider the amendments before us today. They are important amendments that deserve proper consideration, and I do not wish to take time away from discussing them today or otherwise detract from the importance of the issues involved. However, the application of Commons financial privilege to a number of key amendments of the Welfare Reform Bill has prompted widespread comment in legal, constitutional and political circles, not only on the Bill but on the implications that might now be there for future legislation. Peers from all sides of the House have been in touch with me about their concerns on this point, some of which—but only some—were indicated in our brief discussions in the Chamber on this matter.

Commons financial privilege is a matter for the Commons, as the noble Lord said, and operationally for the Speaker of the Commons and senior clerks in the Commons, as the helpful note on the matter, issued yesterday by the Clerk of the Parliaments in this House, together with the similarly helpful note from the Clerk of the House in the other place, makes clear. However, once Commons financial privilege has been indicated, it is for the Commons to decide whether to waive its financial privilege.

The Government’s majority in the Commons means that politically in practice the Government have a huge influence on whether the Commons waives its financial privilege. It is therefore appropriate for this House to consider these issues and the issues arising in relation to the role of this House in the legislative process. However, I suggest that today is not the time to have such a discussion. I know that many Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House—very much including those on the government Benches—are concerned about these wider matters and want to debate and discuss them. I know this because many noble Lords have come to see me about this issue.

In light of these widespread concerns, I formally request that the noble Lord the Leader of the House makes provision to come to the House, perhaps on the basis of a short Statement, to enable the House to debate the application of Commons financial privilege in a way which a number of expert commentators have suggested is unprecedented and considerably extends the use of Commons financial privilege. In view of the seriousness of the issue, I request the noble Lord the Leader of the House to make time available for the House to consider these matters very early in the week beginning 27 February, as soon as the House returns from recess. I do so because such timing would allow the House to consider these matters well in advance of the House considering a similar policy Bill, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is due to have its first day of Report in your Lordships’ House on Monday 5 March.

I believe that these are incredibly important issues for the House to consider and I know that a large number of Members of this House believe that strongly too. I therefore urge the noble Lord to make time available, perhaps on the basis of a short Statement, to enable the House to debate this issue in the week beginning 27 February.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have a genuine respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, but I am bemused by the position she seems to have adopted. I hoped she was going to clarify her position this afternoon. I read with concern the report of her views in the Guardian last Wednesday, which stated:

“She attacked the way in which the government was trying to neuter debate on current controversial bills such as the welfare bill by claiming financial privilege, a means by which the Commons can order the Lords not to pursue an amendment because it has financial implications beyond Lords' powers”.

From what the noble Baroness has just said, I think she may regret having stated that. Perhaps she has been wrongly reported. I thought there was a common view about the use of the financial privilege circumstances—when the Commons can assert its privileges. I have experienced both ends of the House. I thought we knew where we were. There were many occasions, for example in the last Parliament, when much more minor issues came up that had financial implications and she, when she was on this side of the House, and her noble friends, defended the right of the Commons to assert its financial privilege on much smaller sums of money than we are considering this afternoon.

As we were told, the 11 amendments under consideration on which the Commons has asserted its privileges cost in total something in the region of £2 billion. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness in particular to an occasion on 24 November 2008 when she and her noble friend Lord West of Spithead, who has left his place, defended the use of the financial privilege assertion by the Commons. She stated:

“Having said that, I realise that the reason given for privilege is precisely because it is a financial privilege. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am informed that we are acting in accordance with the proper procedures”.—[Official Report, 24/11/08; col. 1294.]

The matter concerned a very small sum of money to be spent on DNA procedures under the Counter-Terrorism Act—far smaller in significance than the amendments that we are considering today. Therefore, I am bemused. I do not understand what the noble Baroness’s position is now. Is she trying to change the commonly accepted meaning of financial privilege, or is she going back on what she said to the Guardian last week? I hope she will clarify her position because it will do the House, and indeed her position in it, no good if we adopt an apparently selective procedure concerning financial privilege.

This afternoon is probably not the occasion to debate this in detail. However, I am very disappointed that the noble Baroness did not re-establish the point that she made when she was on this side of the House. There are long-standing conventions, nothing has changed and the very small number of amendments that have received this treatment from the Commons is in direct contrast to the many occasions when she asserted that privilege when she was in government.

Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, regrettably, I was not there when that remark was made. However, I absolutely insist that income transfer is not the way to solve poverty; we need a much more comprehensive approach. Recent research tells us that in-kind support is more effective than income transfers for children in poverty. We are making a sustained, long-term attempt to lift people out of not only poverty of income but poverty of aspiration and poverty of outcomes.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, will the commission be charged with looking at the impact of the legislation going through this House now, such as the Welfare Reform Bill and the Bill that affects legal aid? Will it specifically look at the life chances of the thousands of children who, we were told by the Evening Standard last night, are going to have to move out of London, their primary schools and their secure environment because of the cap on welfare benefits?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the job of the commission is to hold the Government to account on their strategy on child poverty and social mobility. That is what it will do across the wide range of this Government’s policies.