Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Alli Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alli]

45: Schedule 4, page 35, line 13, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
“( ) Omit sub-paragraph (1).”

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, the amendment is boring to most because it deals with pensions issues, but important to some because it deals with what happens to their loved ones once they have gone.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is being very courteous in hesitating a while. If I intervene for long enough, that may have the effect of clearing the Chamber almost altogether, and then we will have a little peace and quiet for him to present his amendment.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, this amendment is about addressing an inequality in pensions in relation to survivor benefits that will affect a small number of people in a very unfair way.

Let me try to explain. The Equality Act allows occupational pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees prior to 2005 when it comes to paying out survivor benefits to civil partners. This stemmed from an original exemption in the Civil Partnership Act that I argued against at that time. This Bill would see the same thing happen to same-sex spouses.

I will say from the outset that the majority of occupational pension schemes have ignored this provision and pay out fully to survivors. They do this because they believe it to be fair and I recognise that and thank them for it. However, there are those that do not. Their reason is mostly cost. This is odd, as the Office for National Statistics calculates that it would cost only £18 million to the private sector.

In a past career, I was the publisher of a magazine with the snappy title of Pensions. In case your Lordships are interested, I also published Planned Savings, Insurance Age, The Savings Market and a statistical compendium called Rateguide. So I am pretty confident that no pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals within a pension scheme will be gay, how many will marry under this Bill when it becomes law or become civil partners and how many will outlive their partners, husbands or wives by a significant period. I am also pretty confident that for the one-third of schemes that do not pay out, the actuaries who run the numbers probably have already built in the additional costs associated with this amendment. Pensions actuaries—and I have met many of them—deal constantly in uncertainties around the length of life, the possibility of illness, the number of scheme members who are likely to marry and many more issues. Given that two-thirds of schemes already do, I do not understand why we cannot insist that the rest treat same-sex couples who marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples who marry. They have all paid in the same pension contributions.

I know from the other place that the Government think that this is a matter for the schemes themselves. However, in debating amendment after amendment we have discussed the rights of those who disagree with same-sex marriages to be able to do so, and we have resisted giving public servants the right to pick and choose what services they will give to whom based upon their deeply held beliefs. That is effectively what we would be doing here with employers and pension scheme trustees—we would be allowing pension fund trustees who genuinely believe same-sex marriage to be wrong to have the right to create two classes of spouses in their schemes. This legislation would permit it.

If we were not dealing with pensions, which are boring and complicated, but some other form of service, we would not allow this to happen. The cost to the Government is nothing. These changes were made for the public sector in 2004. I ask the Minister not to let the subject matter perpetuate an injustice into this Bill that is completely unnecessary. It is not a huge issue—£18 million does not set the world alight, but it is a kindness that we can give to a few people at the most difficult time in their life. I cannot demand that the noble Baroness do something about it; I can only ask, with the sincerity of those who have asked me to take up this issue, to take it away and see if we can do something about it. We should have solved this issue in 2004. The party opposite probably should have done so in 2010. People have waited far too long for the compassion that they deserve. I hope that we might find that in this Bill. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I speak with some sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. For once, these Benches are able to say that we put our money where our mouth is. With civil partnership arrangements, the Church of England pension scheme has done exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has suggested. I think that that is the right way forward and I hope that the Government might give this amendment consideration.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, treating a gay employee less favourably than a straight colleague under an occupational pension scheme purely because of the gender of his or her partner, is direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was the conclusion of the employment tribunal when giving judgment in the case of Walker v Innospec. Rather than heeding these conclusions and reflecting on the inherent injustice that this case addressed, the Government have applied to be joined to John Walker’s case in support of his employer and pension provider. They also seek to legislate in this Bill to extend the discrimination so that it applies not just to civil partners but to same-sex spouses, too.

As we know, this issue is not new. During the parliamentary passage of the Civil Partnership Bill, we considered the position of public service schemes. Initially, the then Labour Government claimed that benefits under such schemes should accrue only in relation to future service, arguing against imposing retrospective burdens. Thankfully, on that occasion the Government had a change of heart and recognised the need to secure equal treatment. The situation was similarly equalised for contracted-out schemes, while the law in relation to the state pension was also changed to allow civil partners to draw on the contribution record of their civil partners. These were welcome concessions but, sadly, the discrimination ultimately banished from other schemes remained in the case of contracted-in occupational pension schemes.

That this inequality remains on the statute book will surprise and sadden many who believed that the Civil Partnership Act gave civil partners all the same legal entitlements as spouses. The reason that the Government have given for extending rather than remedying this discrimination is a reluctance to impose retrospective costs on pension schemes. The fact that this discrimination has already been rectified in relation to public schemes rather undermines the Government’s objection to retrospection. It is far from unprecedented to take such a step but perhaps it is the Government’s position that in relation to public schemes, for which they have more direct responsibility, the basic demands of equality prevail over concerns about retrospection. I would argue, however, that the Government should not only refrain from discrimination but refuse to sanction direct discrimination by the private sector. This is the principle which underlines much of the substance of all our equality legislation.

A society in which the state refrains from discrimination but in which you can be turned away from a restaurant or hotel because you are gay is not a fair society. For decades, the love and commitment shared by gay couples was not afforded any form of recognition by the state. Prior to the Civil Partnership Act gay couples did not have access to the legal benefits available to straight couples in so many areas of life, from property rights to pensions. If this Bill is, as I believe it to be, about correcting these injustices, why are we relying on historic discrimination to justify real, ongoing inequality?

The argument goes like this. Before 2005 we did not formally recognise gay relationships, therefore gay couples cannot expect to receive the benefits they would have received had we awarded their relationships the respect they deserved at an earlier juncture. Discrimination should not beget discrimination in this way. It is surely wrong, and against the whole spirit of the Bill. I warmly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and very much hope that the Government will do what he proposes.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The best thing I can do is to endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate has said. If this is a Bill about equality, we have to treat people equally. As that is what we are told it is, that is what I expect will happen.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, a very powerful case has been made. I simply want to draw attention to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said on this and to the oral evidence that the Minister gave to the committee, where he talked about wanting to find the fairest place to put same-sex married couples within the pensions framework. What we have heard this afternoon shows that this is not the fairest place. I would be very interested to hear how the Minister can justify this discrimination as being the fairest place.

When he gave evidence to us, the Minister gave some large sums and made it all sound incredibly complicated. He talked about £3 billion to £4 billion. It is not at all clear to me where those sums come from. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify why such large sums are being bandied around. The committee called for a full review of pension provision in relation to survivor pension benefit entitlements of same-sex married couples and civil partners to ensure that there is no unjustifiable discrimination in pension scheme provisions. What we have heard sounds like unjustifiable discrimination. We call on the Government to provide precise information about the potential costs of equalising pension rights.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, I realise that I am not providing the kind of response that noble Lords had hoped for. However, I hope that I have at least provided an explanation as to why the Government have taken this decision. It may also be helpful for me to inform the House that the exception, as in this difference of treatment, will be considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Walker—somebody who sought to appeal against their own pension scheme provider—and the Government have been added as an interested party in that appeal. We need to wait and see the outcome of that case. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, feels able to withdraw his amendment at this time.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of this amendment, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, who I know stayed late the other night in the hope that this amendment would come up. I also thank the Minister, in particular for taking the time to speak to the Pensions Minister and for taking a personal interest in this.

To lose your husband, wife or long-term partner is by any account a terrible experience. It is a time when you are least prepared to be able to deal with the complexities of pension scheme trustees. You just want to be left alone with your grief. Putting people through the court system to try to equalise this does not feel particularly humane. We all want our loved ones to be provided for once we go. To rely on the good will of the two-thirds of occupational pension schemes that are doing the right thing, or, if one is unlucky enough to be in the third, having to fight a battle to receive the benefit paid for by their partner, again seems wrong.

I am only asking the Government to show a bit of compassion for what is a tiny amount of money. They have already conceded the principle in the public sector. I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what all noble Lords have said in this debate and to see whether it might be the Government’s position to resolve the anomaly in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Indeed, it was the rejection of the sisters amendment that led me to vote against the Third Reading of the Civil Partnership Bill in another place. I thought it was discriminating and unfair to concentrate entirely on sexual relationships and not to recognise the sort of close relationship and affinity to which the noble Baroness has referred.

Nine years ago, we were told that it was inappropriate to put it in that Bill—and somebody interjects, sotto voce, that it was. Well, nine years have gone by and the commonly recognised discrimination, which has been recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others, has not been put right. We have an opportunity in this Bill to put it right. Although I hope that we do not come to a Division in Committee on this, if we do not have a satisfactory answer from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lady O’Cathain will consider retabling this or a similar amendment on Report—one on which we can vote.

[Lord Alli]

I wonder whether the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would accept this point. I stand by those words in relation to carers. I was deeply passionate about the issue and I offered the noble Baroness any assistance that I could, not only at the time but after the debate. I believe that carers are an undervalued group of people in our society and I have no quarrel with that proposal. However, to prosecute the case for carers by devaluing the nature of a civil partner relationship is where our paths divert. Considering the countless civil partnerships that have gone on, with the types of celebration and the nature of the relationships, does the noble Lord not accept that there is now a significant difference between civil partnership as we understand it and what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are proposing?

[Lord Cormack]

Clearly, that was meant to be an intervention so obviously I will respond to the noble Lord. I said at Second Reading that I accepted that civil partnerships were now a permanent part of our social fabric. Indeed, I went much further. I will not repeat what I said then as the noble Lord was in his place and heard it. I made similar comments during the debates in Committee last week. However, that does not in any way invalidate the basic justice of the case enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I support it too and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that surely he and I are concerned with justice and equity for everybody. Although I have my reservations about the word “marriage” being applied right across the board, I have tried to make it plain in my brief interventions in Committee that I accept that he and those who share his beliefs thoroughly deserve a better recognition than they have had in the past—better even than in civil partnerships. In saying that, however, I can also say, and I do, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that there are others in our society—siblings and carers have been named, but there are others—who deserve, if they have made a life-long commitment to each other, as have those sisters and as has the young man with the gentleman who was so severely injured in a hunting accident, a recognition of the personal sacrifice and commitment that they have made which is at least equal to the recognition that we have given to civil partnerships. I hope very much that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace will be able to encourage us today when he comes to respond to this debate. I repeat my strong support for the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, it is surely not difficult to construe the meaning of Clause 14. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we know that the Secretary of State has agreed to arrange for the “operation and future” of the Act to be reviewed and for a report following that review to be produced. We know also, in subsection (2), that such a review is not prevented from dealing with other matters. What is absolutely clear from the debate thus far is that everyone who has spoken—those in another place, too—recognises that there is a particular injustice and anomaly in the case of siblings and carers. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on raising this question yet again. She has been a consistent campaigner in this regard. She spoke eloquently and elegantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said.

I would find it anomalous if the Government were to say that they cannot take this further because of the European Court of Human Rights judgment. That would be a little puzzling because obviously they have not adhered slavishly to the judgments of the European Court in respect of prisoners’ rights, for example. They have shown that they can be quite selective about that. Perhaps the Minister will, as in the past, draw on the manual available to all Ministers. I am sure there must be a little book of various forms of objection. One of them is: “This is not the appropriate vehicle”. That may well be relied upon in this case. It may not be appropriate but at least the review can include matters that Members of this noble House deem important because we feel that sense of injustice.

The genesis of the review provision is of interest. Perhaps in their desperation to get the Bill through speedily and strike a deal with the dissidents, the Government came up with the idea of accelerating the review. Historians will no doubt find of interest the bargaining that lay behind those deals. Clearly, there was an initial contradiction in the Government’s position. They placed everything on the altar of equality. Equality was worshipped and all other considerations were pushed aside. It is hardly equal if homosexual couples have the choice of either a civil partnership or marriage whereas heterosexual couples do not have that choice and must be content with traditional marriage. There is a basic contradiction there.

To end, my own judgment is as follows: one thing I have learnt over very many years is that the British people have a fundamental sense of justice. Of all those who have spoken, I commend particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He gave some telling examples from his village and his own experience. His questions need an answer and should be addressed at some stage by this House and Parliament generally. It is surely anomalous that, following the passage of this Bill, homosexual couples with perhaps a deathbed marriage will be in a far more advantageous and favourable position relating to inheritance tax provisions and tenancy than people who have looked after sisters or brothers or cared for others, as the Burden case has shown. People who have perhaps been together for decades will continue to be disadvantaged. It may well be that nothing substantial will emerge from the review but I commend and congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this question and relying, again, on that sense of fairness in the House.

[Lord Alli]

At the heart of this debate is the basic premise that, given that gay marriage will occur, we should open up civil partnerships to a range of other people. We will see that in a number of amendments as we proceed through Committee. My problem with that is that I do not believe that gay marriage is being opened up as part of this Bill. This Bill creates civil same-sex marriage but it does not create equal marriage in the case of religious organisations. It is an enabling Bill and removes the prohibition for same-sex marriages in England and Wales, with the notable exception of the Church of England, which retains so many locks. The Bill preserves an inequality in religious marriages for the very good reasons we have debated throughout Committee. This is an important point in why I think civil partnerships have a very important role to play going forward.

I have listened very carefully to almost every word of the debate and I detect a real mood on the Benches Spiritual and in other religious organisations to recognise, respect and show good will to same-sex couples. When listening to the debates, there is no doubt that that movement is happening. I pay special tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for the way in which he has sought to shine a new light on these relationships. I believe that before we see same-sex marriage in our churches, temples and mosques, we will see civil partnerships celebrated. We will see liturgies and special services created to bless gay couples without the churches having to change their views that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That movement forward in some religious organisations can happen only if civil partnerships stay in place for a little while longer and do not apply to these other categories of people. For example, while I support those who want civil partnerships to be extended to opposite-sex couples, civil partnerships for same-sex couples will have a unique role to play that justifies their position in a way that is not the same for opposite-sex couples. For me, that is a fundamental part of why I want to resist the extension of civil partnerships in this Bill. Religious organisations have made it clear that very soon a number of them will want to bless civil partnerships, and these amendments would remove the ability for them to do so.

In direct relation to Amendment 46A, there has been a huge amount of discussion about the fairness of these relationships but I cannot imagine that many carers or family members who share a house would wish their relationship to be solemnised before God and in the presence of their friends and family. That, for me, is the fundamental difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was quite right to quote me, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, will recall that we had significant and detailed discussions of this issue during the passage of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The other place was not sympathetic to what was being proposed because of the different aspects for same-sex couples. I really applaud the work of the noble Baroness and that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, in trying to advance the plight of carers but I implore your Lordships to look at the role that civil partnerships will have in the context of religious organisations and allow them the ability to bless these stunning relationships in a way they see fit. It is the other side of the coin to not having gay marriage in religious organisations.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

I, too, strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, and I supported the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, in her earlier efforts. It is extremely disappointing to be told, “Not now, another time” or, “Not tomorrow” or, “In a little while”. How do we know that it is going to be a little while? We have no idea. Reviews do not normally take a little while and even then they may not be successful.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and his genuine support for the idea behind this, but we are told every time, “Yes, we agree with what you say but this is not the vehicle in which to do it”. What we need to be told is, if this is not, what is? We need some idea of that because the injustices mount as the years go by. Many people, who would have been helped if the original amendment had gone through, are now gone. They are dead, finished; they faced burdens which they need not have faced. I, for one, am not prepared to sit here year after year and hear, “Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow”. Tomorrow never comes.

--- Later in debate ---

It would not have to be a civil partnership. I am worried that the terms of reference, as were cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will be too narrow.

[Lord Alli]

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

[Baroness Deech]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Richardson of Calow]

My Lords, this amendment sounds eminently reasonable until you try to imagine yourself a child within a classroom in a school of a religious foundation. If you are talking about marriage and you know that your parents, who are legally married to each other, are both of the same sex, how would it make you feel if you were told that their union is legal but not moral and not in accordance with Christian teaching? Perhaps I might ask the right reverend Prelate whether there is to be any guidance on the criteria issued for entrance into a school of religious foundation to alert parents of same-sex unions and their children that this may be the case. I am trying to see how it will work out and what it will mean to them if they are told that their parents are legally married but that this is not within the Christian religion, and whether the criteria for selection might need to be changed—or at least for parents to be alerted.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords—

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, I think it is probably the noble Lord’s turn.

[Lord Alli]

I was just trying to be polite; I know that the noble Baroness likes that. If I recall correctly, it was the Conservative Government in 1996 who wrote the specific conditions into the Act. I suspect that the broader supporters of this amendment would have been the very people who wanted that provision written into the Act in the first place. If I recall the nature of the debate at the time, it was about family life and family values. The term was supposed to refer exclusively to heterosexuals, and the reason for it being in the Act was to allow those who did not approve of alternative family structures to be placated. We are now giving access to civil marriage to those who have been denied it. We therefore need to look at these provisions again in that light.

When I think about the majority of the contributions that we have listened to here in Committee and in the other place, there is general consensus that marriage has an important and very special place to play in family life, and in the bringing up of children. I think that we are all agreed on that. While I have heard no one in this place say that one-parent families or divorced, separated or same-sex parenting are somehow inadequate, we have all recognised that marriage can have a unique and special role to play in bringing up children.

The requirements of the guidance will be the same after this Bill is enacted as they were before. My problem with the amendment is not with what it seeks to do, because it is right and proper that faith schools should be allowed to teach the importance of marriage as they see it in relation to family life. That is the case now, as I am sure that the Minister will say. My opposition is to continually writing into the Bill something that is not necessary and should be a matter for the guidance, not the Bill. It would be equally unnecessary for me to amend the amendment, although the right reverend Prelate might allow me to do so, to add the words, “and in doing so, must pay due regard and respect to other forms of relationship, including but not limited to same-sex marriages”. We could keep adding language to the Bill until we are all happy with a whole range of words.

I plead with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness not to reduce this clause to a series of well-meaning words that will not help teachers or children, but may make us all feel a little better that we managed to negotiate it into the Bill. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will reflect on adding any more to the Bill and will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, I want to put another point to the Committee, particularly following what the noble Lord has just said. This Hansard of ours is a record for ever of what is said and considered during the course of Bills passed in both Houses. It is very important indeed to make sure that all the necessary points are brought up. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, mentioned teachers. I am quite sure that I am not alone in the volume of letters that I have received about this Bill. In fact, I can say that never before on any Bill while I have been in either House have Members ever received as many letters as we have. Quite a number have come from teachers who are very worried on this point. It ought to be brought out in the debate that teachers themselves, who know perfectly well what their duties are in accordance with the Bills passed in Parliament, have written to express their deep concern that they are going to be forced to teach something to which they have a basic and very important objection.

In an earlier debate on this Bill, I mentioned how concerned I am that the right of a person’s conscience is being eroded, day after day and Bill by Bill. We have now had some 50 years of promises, made by different Governments at different times, stating very clearly that we all have a right to a conscience and to live by that conscience. That is why so many letters have come to us all, I am sure, from teachers on this very point. It is not a question of adding a few words to make people happy. It is about giving people the right to continue to live by the conscience which is in their heart and soul.