Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Alli Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alli]

84: Schedule 4, page 36, line 20, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
“( ) Omit sub-paragraph (1).”

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my manuscript amendment, Amendment 84A.

The amendment is, on the face of it, about pensions, but it is also about equal treatment of the ones we love. This is the only point in the Bill where we treat same-sex couples who get married prejudicially when compared with opposite-sex couples. All married couples should be treated equally. It is a principle that we have fought throughout the Bill to maintain. I know that it is a principle that the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Northover, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have defended. It is something that the majority of this House, regardless of party affiliation, has defended. If we let this clause go through as it is, it will be the first and only time that we breach that principle. Let me explain why.

If I were to marry a woman and was a member of an occupational pension scheme and died, my wife would be entitled to a survivor’s pension from my occupational pension scheme backdated to, I think, 1988. If I were to marry a man and was a member of the same occupational pension scheme and died, my partner’s survivor’s pension benefit would be backdated only to 2005, the date on which we introduced civil partnerships.

The Bill takes the inequality in the Civil Partnership Act and applies it to same-sex marriages, instead of taking the position of opposite-sex couples and equalising the pension arrangements. In effect, that means that same-sex couples are treated as civil partners for those schemes. That might be necessary if there was a huge cost to the public purse, given that we are in difficult economic times. However, let me make it clear in absolute terms that no public money is required to make this change. I will repeat that, because the Government may try to imply that there would be: no public money is required to make this change. If I am wrong, I am more than happy for the Minister to explain why. The cost is to private occupational pension schemes; that is in Bill. The Government’s estimate puts the maximum additional cost at approximately £80 million for those private schemes. By their own admission, that is a drop in the ocean, given the size of those pension funds.

The Government know that this is wrong. In 2005 the Government changed the rules of their own pension scheme for civil partnership survivor benefits, because it felt wrong to them to apply this principle to public service pensions. Equally, two-thirds of the private occupational pension schemes in this country believe that it is wrong and have changed their policy. We heard from the spiritual Benches that the Church of England has changed its pension scheme arrangements to reflect this. Why, therefore, let one-third of occupational pension schemes discriminate against married couples in the future only on the basis of sexual orientation? It is worth mentioning that, in order to qualify, the scheme member will have to have fully paid up towards the scheme. That requires a private occupational pension fund to disregard the contributions made prior to 2005 to stop the survivor’s benefit coming through.

I said in Committee that when you lose your husband, wife or long-term partner, it is, by all accounts, a terrible experience. The last thing you want to do is to have to argue your case to a pension fund trustee. Given that we have this legislation, it must be insulting to be told that having married, you are now to be treated as a civil partner.

Why are the Government opposed to this amendment? It is the Treasury and DWP. I know that the Minister will be forced to read out whatever they have asked her to read out. I suspect that it will go something like this. First, “We foresee problems with this amendment, as there may be unforeseen implications,”; or, secondly, “Even though there is no direct cost to the Treasury, we can see the possibility that someone could take a case that might lead to the possibility that we might at some time have to equalise pensions for men and women”—by the way, it would be a miracle if that case came off; or, thirdly, “Let us throw in a spurious cost: £2 billion, £3 billion or £4 billion—the Minister to choose whichever number they wish”—that is to do with gender equalisation of pensions, not occupational pension schemes—but noble Lords Lordships will be so bored and confused that they will not care; or, fourthly, “Let us make out that it creates an inequality because this is an equality Bill”; or, fifthly, “Let us say that we do not like to legislate retrospectively even though we changed our own pension funds retrospectively as soon as we could”.

Yesterday, I met the pensions Minister by the kind invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. At the end of our discussion, I could honestly say that I was no clearer about the objections of the Treasury or DWP to this amendment. The pensions Minister gave the usual unconvincing and unintelligible Treasury line. The Government are making a mountain out of a molehill here. This is a tiny issue affecting a small number of people at a terrible time of need.

I have also tabled a manuscript amendment which seeks to give the Government an alternative. I am calling it the “Lord Lester principle”. Basically, it offers the Government a two-tier process: first, a review of the issues involved and a report back; and secondly, order-making powers to implement their decisions, as we did with humanist marriages. If the Minister feels that the Government need more time, I would be happy to discuss these alternatives to try to find a solution before Third Reading. If the Government are not prepared to do that, I will move my manuscript amendment, Amendment 84A, and seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alli]

I was with the noble Baroness up to that point. I really think that the Government cannot say that there is a public cost, money coming out of the Treasury, for a section of the Bill marked “Part 6: Occupational Pensions and Survivor Benefits”, at page 36, which is limited to occupational pension schemes only. There is no public money, and the Government cannot say that there is. It is so clear that the House should not be put in a position of believing that public money is being spent on this.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I hope that I have been able to explain through my answer so far that there is a cost to the public purse in Amendment 84. Therefore, the amendment would infringe the House of Commons’ financial privilege. I have explained to the House why the Government believe that that is so.

Given the potential uncertainty and scale of these costs, we should be clear about what the implications and costs of the change might be before we make any legislative commitment in this area. I think that we can agree that this debate demonstrates the need for us all to be much better informed about the wider implications of equalising entitlement to survivors’ rights. Some of the points made by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lady Noakes demonstrate that there are issues which need proper and careful consideration.

All that said, I can see the sense in what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is trying to achieve via manuscript Amendment 84A that he has tabled today, which includes a review and order-making powers. I am grateful to him for reflecting further following the meeting we had yesterday with the Pensions Minister, my honourable friend Steve Webb.

I am conscious of the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this debate, and have considered the points that have been made very carefully. While I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment in its form today, I am willing to take it away and discuss it further with my ministerial colleagues with the firm intention of bringing back a government amendment at Third Reading. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will feel that he need not move Amendment 84A today.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. Before I move on, I will add a few things. It took eight minutes before all five of my responses were used. I mention that because this is a very complex area—I accept that. However, there is a lot of smoke here. The issue that most concerns me, and the reason why I intervened, is that there is no public money. I say that having looked very deeply into this issue. To those in Committee, I said that I had the honour at the beginning of my career to be the publisher of Pensions magazine, Savings Market and Insurance Age. Therefore, I have spent time understanding the pensions market. The £2 billion to £3 billion to which the Government refer is about taking out the gender discrimination between widows and widowers. Recent judgments have upheld that principle. It has nothing to do with occupational pension schemes.

The second correction that I wanted to make was on the issue about the Civil Partnership Act and why it was put in place. Under the Civil Partnership Act, there is no corresponding civil partnership for straight people, so the read-across between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples did not apply with civil partnerships. In this instance there is a read-across of a prejudicial treatment of two types of married spouses. That is my concern.

The final issue is that the cost is so minimal—£18 million at the low end and £80 million at the high end. The actuarial assumptions are so hard to make. Actuaries, in my experience, do not build the cost of gay people into their schemes. They do not look at whether someone is straight or gay and discount the rate. Historically, they do not go back and say, “Some gay people will have married because history allowed them to do so or society forced them to do so”. I am fairly sure that the actuarial calculations will remain pretty static. Those are the issues involved.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and given support. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for adding their support to Amendment 84. I also thank my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for adding her name and support to Amendment 84A. Of course, I also thank the Minister. We have all been on a huge educational process on pensions; I fear that there may be another week of pensions mania, for which I deeply apologise. I thank her for her response; it is what the House had hoped to hear and I am very pleased with it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 84.

Amendment 84 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, as an example of the category of person that the amendment is intended to cover, I support it.

Having lived for some 30 years in a shared household with my sister—a jointly owned home, with shared management and payment of household overheads, and the commitment of a happy family relationship, sharing everything but sex—it is therefore disappointing to find that the ties of blood and family love are less important than other bonds, and that the concept of equality does not cover this.

Sadly, my sister died three years ago so I gain nothing personally from this, but others can. I therefore fully support all that the noble Baroness has said in moving this amendment so clearly and helpfully, and I trust that your Lordships will give it very sympathetic consideration.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I listened carefully in Committee to the arguments why sisters, brothers, fathers, sons, mothers and daughters should be allowed to have civil partnerships, and I will try to address some of the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.

First, on the development of civil partnerships in terms of religious organisations, I set out in Committee why I believe that the gap between where we are today and same-sex marriage is too big for many churches to make in one step. I believe that I will see a day in the not too distant future when civil partnerships will be celebrated in churches. If we were to broaden civil partnerships beyond the scope that they have today, we will endanger that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Before the noble Lord moves on to that point, does he advance the same argument that Lord Marks advanced, that there must be a sexual element in every civil marriage? That, I feel, is the difficulty with the argument the other way.

[Lord Alli]

I have the same answer for same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. We do not ask that question; we just do not. We say that if you say you are married, you define the nature of your own marriage. The state intervenes only in the breakdown of that marriage, when you cite the grounds for your divorce and can choose adultery or unreasonable behaviour. It is the same for civil partnerships. However I understand that, like marriage, the majority of civil partnerships start with a sexual component. That must be broadly understood.

I have two principal objections to the proposition of the noble Baroness. The first is about the nature of the relationship in a civil partnership. The noble Baroness seeks to use the civil partnership to review the Government’s tax and inheritance law. That does not deal with the nature of civil partnerships as I understand it. They were devised and brought into being to recognise a loving and—I accept this point—in most cases, a sexual relationship, between two individuals of the same sex. It was devised to give those sexual relationships a status in law, but not exclusively sexual. In many cases, it gave them the same benefits as married couples. It specifically excluded relationships that were exempted from marriage, such as mothers, daughters, fathers and sons, brothers and sisters.

Because of my personal view of civil partnerships—which is probably the view of the majority of people in this country—the very notion of giving access to civil partnerships between family members is the same as giving access to marriage to a brother and a sister, a father and a son, and a mother and a daughter.

[Lord Cormack]

The fact is that there is to be a review. That is not in doubt. What possible exception can the noble Lord take to those who are conducting it looking at the relationships mentioned by the noble Baroness in her speech? As I said in my brief remarks, the review may come to the conclusion that they should not be included, but why does he want to stop these relationships being considered by the review?

[Lord Alli]

I thought I was giving three reasons. My first was about trying to get the churches to take a step and view civil partnerships as part of that transition, where they can recognise the stunning relationships between a man and a man and a woman and a woman without having to cross the line into marriage. The second, which I believe the noble Lord seeks, already exists for unpaid carers. They can enter a civil partnership in which they are the same sex. They can enter civil marriage and get those benefits. The third is that—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Is my noble friend saying that two sisters could do that? Could he make himself clearer? I did not understand that.

[Lord Alli]

The third component is the one I was coming to, about the nature of the relationships in civil partnerships. I do not view civil partnerships as a financial transaction between two people. As I said, they are based, initially but not exclusively, on a sexual relationship between two same-sex people. That sexual relationship, which often mirrors marriage, forms the basis of it. I know—actually I do not know—that your Lordships do not like talking about sex but sex is part of the foundation of marriage as it is the foundation of civil partnerships. For that reason, for me, civil partnerships are akin to marriage. The thought that a father could marry a son, a mother marry a daughter or two sisters or two brothers marry—substitute the phrase “civil partner”—is what makes it feel wrong. Civil partnerships make it feel like a relationship that should not be allowed. I do not question the sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I believe she sees this as a piece of paper that brings a financial benefit.

This amendment is one part of a process. It should be up to the Government of the day to decide on their inheritance tax policy. The Chancellor and the Treasury set out and have a well documented process for consultation. I said in Committee—and in 2004 to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain—that I, like many, think the current inheritance tax is unfair, particularly when it comes to family homes. I would be in favour of inheritance tax being paid on the death of the second or third survivor so the Treasury would suffer only a deferral of inheritance tax. But that is not a discussion for this Bill. It is a conversation to be had with government. I assure the noble Baroness that I will write to the leader of my party and advocate a change in policy to reflect that. I hope the noble Baroness understands why I do not support the amendment. We debated it in 2004 and the arguments have not much changed. However, the experience of civil partnerships might have helped the noble Baroness understand why this amendment could be seen as hurtful to those people who value their civil partnerships in a different way.

Finally, I risk the groans of the House by saying that in the intervening years since 2004 I have not noticed a single amendment tabled to another Bill to push this very point. Plenty of other Bills going through the House could have addressed it, including the Care Bill going through the House as I speak. I hope the noble Baroness and those who support this amendment will forgive me if I see it and the intervening nine years and ask: why now and not at any time over the past nine years? Whatever the reason, this is neither the time nor the place for civil partnerships to be used as a means of dealing with inheritance tax. I hope that the noble Baroness can recognise that and will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He said that the noble Baroness moving the amendment is to some extent motivated by the need to provide the financial benefits. That is not my reason at all. Of course, there will be financial benefits, but my reason lies far deeper than that. Civil partnerships should be available to the people covered by this amendment.

[Lord Alli]

I understand that. However, the noble and learned Lord is trying to break the notion of civil partnership as we understand it. I say to him that the issue of the churches being able to bless civil partnerships should be taken on board when considering the labour laws.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, raises the standard of debate on this issue. We on these Benches have enjoyed his contributions and deeply appreciate his commitment and share many of the things that he wants to achieve. However, just as he sometimes disagrees with me, I am going to have to slightly disagree with him over this. I do not know what the Church of England will do about services of dedication or blessing in relation to same-sex marriages. It is not entirely clear to me that extending civil partnerships to other dependent relationships might not actually increase the likelihood that the church would be able to move in this area. It is arguable both ways. Indeed, if you have two people whose lives are intertwined in a sort of covenantal way, as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, indicates, they may well want some sort of blessing or dedication upon that interdependence, without the sexual relationship.

The issue for me is partly that when civil partnerships were introduced, they mirrored marriage too much. Many people on these Benches were in favour of legal arrangements to support and protect in every way people whose lives were interdependent. We had a problem precisely because it was all narrowed down too much, to same-sex couples. There has, however, always been support from these Benches for a proper legal arrangement to support people whose lives, for one reason and another, are interdependent.

Moving on, we have not heard the word “justice” mentioned much, although the noble Lord referred to the situation as being “unfair”. There is a deep issue of justice here, across our society, which, given what the equal marriage Bill is trying to achieve we ought at least to acknowledge.

Another issue has not been mentioned at all so far. In our society we now have an increasingly diverse range of family structures and patterns. Allowing some form of legal support between people who find themselves not in marriage, and not wanting to be civil partners in that sense, would have a deep civilising effect upon society. We have a lot of single parents now. Maybe a single mother is bringing up one child, and that child may not marry. They may find themselves sharing a home as they have done since that child was a baby. We have increasingly diverse patterns of family life. Something ought to be there to provide support and, indeed, blessing in every sense for those who find themselves in that situation.

I hope that the review of civil partnerships will be able to look at the issues which are specified in the amendment. Certainly, I, in those terms, would be delighted to support the amendment.