Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Barker

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.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Barker

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.