Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 2 to 5, on the subject of occupational pension benefits. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for adding their names to this group of amendments.
The Government have listened carefully and understand the concern that has been expressed that same-sex married couples will be in a different position from opposite-sex married couples as regards occupational pension benefits. The effect of the difference in treatment, which is permitted under the exception in Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, is that currently civil partners and, by virtue of the provision made in Schedule 4 to this Bill, people married to someone of the same sex may not benefit from their civil partner or spouse’s pensionable service prior to 2005 in respect of any survivor benefit payable on the death of their civil partner or spouse.
We discussed this issue at some length in Committee and on Report, when we had a full debate on Amendments 84 and 84A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I am grateful to him and other noble Lords for highlighting this important issue and for engaging in constructive discussions during the passage of the Bill, which have led us to bring forward this group of amendments.
I will begin by making clear that we are talking here about which period during which contributions were actually made to a pension scheme will be taken into account when calculating survivor benefits on the death of the pension scheme member. Therefore, this issue does not affect people whose pensionable service began in 2005 or later. For those whose pensionable service began prior to 2005, the concern is that contributions that they have made will not benefit their partner on their death. I should also make clear that if the Government were confident that equalising these benefits was straightforward and sustainable, we would be happy to support a move towards equalisation. But as a matter of principle, and as I have explained previously, successive Governments have avoided imposing retrospective costs on pension schemes, particularly private sector pension schemes, which have not been taken into consideration in their funding assumptions.
It would be irresponsible of any Government to commit themselves to imposing potentially significant costs on businesses and the taxpayer without first undertaking an assessment of all the implications and knock-on effects, and assessing the scale of the costs involved. This group of amendments therefore requires the Government to arrange a review of the differences in survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in legal relationships, both marriage and civil partnership. It will look at the issue in the round and will include looking specifically at the effect of eliminating differences in treatment because of sexual orientation in terms of survivor benefits between people married to someone of the opposite sex and people married to someone of the same sex. I can therefore assure the House that the review will include an exploration of the issue which is the focus of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Alli.
As I have said, we must also look at the full costs and implications of any change. This means looking at the effect of equalisation across the board, because any changes made for one group could have significant wider implications. The review will therefore also consider the differences in treatment between widows and widowers of marriages of opposite-sex couples and the impact of removing the current exception permitting these gender-based differences of treatment provided by Section 67 of the Equality Act. It is important to emphasise, however, that these existing gender-based differences in treatment for widows and widowers in relation to survivor benefits arise from changes that have been made over time as a result of societal change. These longstanding differences reflect the historical fact that in the past many women were not economically active and relied on their husbands for their pension. These differences are therefore not consequences of the measures in the Bill, but it is important that the review considers all the interdependencies between the arrangements for different groups in occupational pension schemes in the round.
It is also important that interested parties are consulted and that all relevant voices are heard. The review will also therefore include consultation with those interested parties that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. This point was raised by my noble friend Lord Higgins. I can assure him and the House that consultation will include, for example, pension scheme trustees and industry bodies, as well as organisations representing the interests of lesbian and gay employees.
Following this comprehensive review, the amendments require the Secretary of State to publish a report of the outcome before 1 July 2014. The amendment also includes an order-making power. This ensures that if on consideration of the outcome of the review the Secretary of State thinks that the law needs to be changed in order to reduce or eliminate differences between survivor benefits, this can be achieved through secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure.
I hope that these amendments reassure the House that we have listened to the strength of feeling on this issue and have responded in good faith with a sensible and measured way forward. The Government’s amendments will ensure that if we were to make any changes to the existing arrangements for differences in survivor benefits we would do so with an understanding of the full implications of such changes and of the potential costs both to schemes and to the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for making this amendment possible. I am glad that the Government will re-look at this issue and that if they can they will change the law.
This is also my last opportunity to speak on the Bill. I want to say thank you not just to the Front Benches on both sides of the House but to the House. I have been truly humbled to have been part of the Bill in this place. This week will mark the 15th anniversary of my entry into your Lordships’ House. As a gay man, over those 15 years you have changed my life. You have given me dignity where there was sometimes fear, you have given me hope where there was often darkness and you have given me equality where there was sometimes prejudice. Those who want radically to reform this place come with their plans. Let me say this to them: witness this day; witness this Bill; judge us on the creation of the liberties that we protect and extend.
This is a special place and I am proud to have figured in it. My life and the lives of many others will be better today than they were yesterday, and I thank the House for that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am glad that I put my name to these amendments. I add my support to the Minister for the wisdom of the amendments. It is an open-ended consultation that is not prejudged, it is time-limited so there will not be undue delay, and if there are changes it will be subject to affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament will be able to be properly consulted, as the public and all the interested groups will have been.
To add a further point, if change is brought about it will avoid the need for further litigation that could finish up in the European Court of Human Rights, as I read its case law, because if there is to be change it will remove a source of discrimination that, it could be strongly argued, is not compatible with convention rights. For all those reasons, I am very glad to support this.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, has described me in the past as a lone ranger, but I was not sure that that was a compliment. I sit among my Liberal Democrat tribe not as a lone ranger; we are full of support for that team. I should say, though others will also say it from these Benches, that we are very proud of the fact that we were the first to think of civil partnership, to do civil partnership in a Private Member’s Bill and then to support the admirable Equality Act, so I do not think that I am a lone ranger. Anyhow, I do not watch cowboy films because I am too frightened of what will happen to the horses of the Indians.
I join in the tributes to the Minister and her extremely skilled team. Part of that team was responsible for the Equality Act 2010, which I have described as the best civil rights legislation in the world, and that I believe to be the case. The Minister has had to deal with the Bill in difficult circumstances; there are some in the House who are strongly opposed to it. However, the way in which amendments have been considered and debated across the House honestly and transparently has been extremely important, and I have learnt a great deal from listening to those debates.
I joined the House 20 years ago and I can tell those who are a bit younger that it would have been quite inconceivable for the House to have been able to approve this measure then. It would have been fairly impossible 15 years ago. What has changed for the better has been the modernisation of this House through appointments, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for the appointments that they made that I think have secured a House that is truly countermajoritarian and truly concerned with individual rights and with protecting minorities against the abuse of powers by the tyranny of the majority.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alli
My Lords, I have spent some time trying to understand the issues raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in this amendment. As I understand it, the right reverend Prelate is worried about the teaching of marriage in faith schools and academies as part of sex and relationship education. He has explained his concerns and in particular the conflict that he perceives between the guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the teaching of the tenets of the religion as protected in the Bill.
I am sorry that I cannot support the right reverend Prelate on this amendment, for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, outlined. I am also afraid that, if we agree to this amendment, which I do not believe is absolutely necessary, it will provide a foothold for those who are opposed to this Bill to reopen old debates and old wounds. I believe that it has the potential to be quite destructive in the hands of those who do not want this Bill to succeed.
While I cannot support the amendment, I want to put on record my growing appreciation of the new direction of travel within the Church of England. I did not know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would be in this place, but anybody who heard his presidential address to the General Synod cannot but have been impressed by his thoughts on the matter. He said that, after listening to our Second Reading debate, he could not fail to be struck by the,
“overwhelming change of cultural hinterland”.
He said:
“Predictable attitudes were no longer there”.
He committed the Church of England to work tirelessly against homophobic bullying in the schools that it runs and among the children whom it educates. I want to pay tribute, once again, to him for fuelling this journey which, I believe, can only help society as a whole.
I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I know that this Bill is not what the Church of England wanted; it would rather that this Bill had not come about. However, the right reverend Prelate, under difficult circumstances, has navigated very choppy waters with some skill and conviction. It is not the right reverend Prelate’s amendment I fear but those who would use it against us and do the opposite of all that he wants. That is why I cannot support the amendment. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will understand that. I also hope that he will not test the opinion of the House because I, like many in this House, have no appetite to vote against him, for the reasons already given.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I support the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Pannick, particularly the compliments paid to the right reverend Prelate and the most reverend Primate for their work on this issue. I want to raise a slightly different issue. The right reverend Prelate referred to the difficult balance that faith schools have to strike between complying with the tenets of their trust deeds and having due regard to the directions of the Secretary of State. I absolutely understand that. It may be helpful to quote an Oral Question of Monday 8 July on the new sex and relationships curriculum. I asked about academies, but the answer that I was given refers to all schools. I asked about academies not having to provide sex and relationships education. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, replied:
“My noble friend is quite right that academies are not obliged to teach sex education, although, if they do, they have to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on these matters. I repeat the point that Ofsted inspects for all social, moral and cultural provision in schools, and we will be ensuring that it focuses on this point”.—[Official Report, 8/7/2013; col. 6.]
I raise that point because I see a distinct parallel for faith schools with the way that religious education is taught, whereby the schemes of work that the Church of England has for covering a range of other faiths are sensitive and educational but do not promote those faiths. I absolutely see that parallel here, in that faith schools are not required to promote same-sex marriage but merely to educate pupils about it. Often we get bound up in the idea that SRE is taught only in sex and relationship education classes. However, young pupils will ask about this at peculiar times. Therefore, a school needs a policy. I have seen many faith schools’ policies on SRE that recognise that fact and all staff are empowered in that regard. Therefore, I hope that the right reverend Prelate does not press the amendment because I believe that schools of a religious character can find the protections that they need in the existing Education Act.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure all of your Lordships will remember, was a three-minute speech on a motion put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about supporting counselling for young homeless people. That was two minutes more than I needed to say what I knew about the subject. Ever since then, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is somebody to whom I have paid the utmost attention. His consistent devotion in this House to the cause of children and their well -being is an example to us all. He never ceases or gives up campaigning for that, and is doing so again today.
I agree with him only to the extent that it is important that in future research is undertaken on the effects of the Bill and on families which will come into being when the Bill is passed. I disagree with him, because I think that I detected in what he said that he starts from a base position of belief that somehow this will be bad. I do not, necessarily. This is a very hopeful Bill, which will bring a great deal of stability to families in future—families that have not had stability until now.
It is very helpful that the noble Earl led us into thinking about these matters. I sat and thought during the last debate about how much of a change the Bill will bring about. When I was at school, nobody talked about being gay at all. If they did, they talked about it at best only in terms of a joke, but often in pretty horrible terms. Nobody in their right mind would talk about being gay—we did not. In order for people of my generation to lead the lives we felt we had to lead, we had to go away. Lots of us went off and lived in other places. That will not be an option for many young gay people in future. That is why it is so important that in the communities in which they live they, and their families are understood and accepted, and schools—including church and faith schools—will have a very important part to play.
The noble Earl is right: there is very little research into these issues, not least because not that many families have been able to take part in the research. What research there is is often seized on and used in a very partial way, either by those who take the view that I do or by those who take a more cautious approach. Professor Golombok’s work is peer-reviewed research of the highest level. She may be misinterpreted at times for different purposes, but it is the beginning of an important piece of work. It is also interesting that organisations such as Barnardo’s have begun to look at the effects of earlier legislation on children.
As ever, I take my hat off to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for having children first and foremost in his mind. I do not think that his amendment is necessary, and I do not think that the Minister will be able to accept it. However, I am glad that he has raised the issue and put it on the agenda for social researchers in future. He is right that this legislation deserves to be researched and tested just like any other.
Lord Alli
The noble Earl has the same effect on me as Tony Benn. Whenever I listen to Tony Benn, I am always convinced. I believe him. He is amazing. When I walk away, I realise that he said the opposite thing to what I believed, and that in my view he was wrong. The noble Earl believes that children brought up in same-sex relationships will do much less well than those brought up by heterosexual parents. That is the noble Earl’s central premise, and every argument he puts forward is about proving it. On Amendment 1, he supported two classes of marriage. On Amendment 46, he contended that there was no definitive research on the subject of children in same-sex relationships, and that the arguments were finely balanced. Given that the noble Earl believes that there is no definitive research, how can he then ask the Secretary of State to provide evidence-based research as part of the guidelines on what to teach? If there is no evidence-based research, how can the Secretary of State use it to inform teaching guidelines?
It is worth reminding ourselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, did, that my noble friend Lord Winston, who is now in its place, referred on Monday to,
“research on children who are being raised by people who are gay—either lesbian or male homosexual … There is now a large and incontrovertible body of research evidence—particularly from Professor Golombok of the University of Cambridge—which shows that on average such children do better than children who are born in the normal way of current marriage”.—[Official Report, 8/7/13; col. 28.]
The central point is that, at worst, there is no evidence-based research. At best, it does not support the noble Earl’s premise. Therefore, I have to do what I always do with what Tony Benn says. I have to nod and smile at the noble Earl and say that while I recognise and value his contribution, it is nonsense.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Constitution Committee, of which I was then a member, recently produced a report on referendums. We said that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums, essentially for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Our advice to the House was that they should be confined to fundamental constitutional issues. This is not a fundamental constitutional issue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that helping out the Prime Minister, if he needs help to get off any hook, is not a fundamental constitutional issue.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I, too, do not want to help the Prime Minister, but let me say that I am most grateful for the Prime Minister’s help. He has shown huge personal courage in bringing forward this Bill, for which many of us would want to pay tribute to him.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Singh: a December 2012 MORI poll showed that 73% of people agree that gay people should be allowed to marry. On 5 February, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, it was 400 to 175 on a free vote. On 21 May, at Third Reading in the House of Commons, it was 366 to 161 on a free vote. On 4 June, at Second Reading in the House of Lords, it was 390 to 148 on a free vote. On 8 July, the first day of the Report stage in the House of Lords, the votes were 344 to 119 on Amendment 1, followed by votes of 278 to 103, 163 to 32 and 84 to 15. The noble Lord seeks to suggest that this is undemocratic and unconstitutional, but in doing so I fear that he is treading on very dangerous ground. He risks insulting the integrity of both Houses of this Parliament.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
With the leave of the House, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to speak to my amendment now for the convenience of this debate and respond to any questions raised at the end.
The noble Lords, Lord Lester, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, have also put their names to Government’s amendment. I welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I am sorry that she was unable to be here for the debates in Committee. I echo her good wishes for a speedy recovery to my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones who we are sad to be missing this evening.
When I responded to the debate on this issue in Committee, I undertook to have further discussions with colleagues about what the Government could do about the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. I recognised the strength of feeling in that debate and am pleased to bring forward on behalf of the Government amendments that provide for a statutory review, including a full public consultation, on whether belief organisations should solemnise marriage and, if so, what such a provision would look like. Crucially, the new clause provides the means to make any future changes by providing an order-making power that may amend any England and Wales legislation, both primary and secondary. In taking this approach, the Government’s amendment reflects the solution proposed by my noble friend Lord Lester in Committee, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, among others. Since then, I have had the opportunity to speak to some Members of your Lordships’ House with an interest in this matter. My officials have also met the British Humanist Association and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given up some of their time to engage in discussion with the Government, and to the British Humanist Association for its constructive approach to finding a way forward on this matter.
Perhaps I may say a little more about the government amendments and why they offer the best way forward in resolving this important issue. The arrangements for the review, which will be a statutory requirement, must provide for a full public consultation, and the Secretary of State must arrange for a report on the outcome of the review to be published by 1 January 2015. The new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make provision by order permitting marriages according to the usages of belief organisations. Our amendment defines a belief organisation as an organisation whose principal or sole purpose is the advancement of a system of non-religious beliefs which relate to morality and ethics. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said about the importance of belief organisations and their purpose.
Such an order may amend any England and Wales legislation, both primary and secondary, and may make provision for the charging of fees. The point about fees is a technical one: it merely enables the Registrar General to charge a fee, as she does currently, to cover her costs in administering the service.
An order must provide that no religious service may be used at any marriage solemnised under the provisions of the order. This is because it has been a principle since their introduction that civil marriage ceremonies should be clearly distinct from religious marriage ceremonies. We do not want this review to open up the system by which religious organisations carry out marriages which has been in place for years, and this Bill has been drafted on those foundations. The intention is to maintain the distinction so that no religious elements should be used in a marriage according to the usages of belief organisations. Any order made under this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure. So, were the Secretary of State to take advantage of the order-making clause, both Houses of Parliament would have an opportunity to debate it and the order would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Although the Government maintain that this Bill is not the right place to make broader changes to marriage law, as I have said already, it would be wrong not to recognise the strength of feeling in support of the humanists. A statutory consultation as a means to effect any change is the right way forward in responding to the support for humanists, ensuring that the wider public are able to contribute to the debate, and securing that arrangements for belief-based marriages are made on a sound footing and that any implications of them are fully understood.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to what is already in place in Ireland and Scotland. There the law has been changed to allow for humanist and other belief marriages, but they operate a different system to what we have in England and Wales. None the less, in both those countries the changes were subject to extensive dialogue over a period of time with interested parties to develop a solution that fits with their marriage law. It must be right that, if we are to change the law in England and Wales, we should do so only after proper consideration, as it has already been given in Scotland and Ireland, and therefore after a proper public consultation.
In addition to a public consultation, we also need to give consideration to the impact of the changes on the voluntary, private and local government sectors and on religious organisations, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, we have not received any suggestion from the churches that they object to the amendment we are bringing forward in order to achieve proper consideration. Likewise, consideration must be given to what safeguards may be required and how these should be established and, in particular, how we ensure that the significant legal commitment made through marriage is properly regulated and recorded. Such fundamental public policy changes would normally be subject to these considerations and a review and consultation will allow us to do this.
Furthermore, we need to consider whether there are other belief organisations in addition to humanists which may wish to solemnise marriage, and therefore draw up criteria accordingly. I note what the noble Baroness said about the criteria in the amendment in her name. While we will, of course, have due regard to the proposals put forward by the BHA, we need to make sure that the criteria are set in a way that would allow belief organisations other than the BHA to conduct marriages should they wish to do so.
Let me now respond to some of the specific questions put to me by the noble Baroness. She asked me about commercial organisations. I can confirm that it is not our intention to allow commercial organisations to solemnise marriage. Marriage is an important institution and marriage for profit risks undermining key safeguards—for example, it could increase the instances of forced and sham marriages—if the emphasis is simply on increasing the numbers of couples going down the aisle, as it were, as opposed to undertaking proper checks on the couples. I hope I am able to reassure her on that point. She asked me about taking account of the expertise and experience of the British Humanist Association. I can certainly give her an assurance that we would want to give due weight to the expertise of humanist celebrants during the design of the review and consultation. We will also look carefully at the criteria set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness as part of our work on this.
The noble Baroness sought further assurance about future timings. As I have said already, the clause states that the outcome of the review must be published by 1 January 2015. I stress that this is a final date for publication. I am confident that we will be able to provide a response before that time. Over and above that, it would be premature at this time to give a commitment to implementing the regulations. We must consult openly. Ministers will consider the results of the consultation and will, of course, have regard to the debates in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. It is clear that Ministers will have the power to make these changes. That is power that they do not have now, so the power will be there to make the change.
I am very grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken by all noble Lords with an interest in this matter. I believe that the Government’s proposed approach offers the best way to address this issue. When it comes to the right point on the Marshalled List, I hope to move the amendments then, and I shall commend them to the House. As I say, I will be happy to respond to any further points that are made in debate.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 7. I have made my strong support for the legalisation of humanist marriages clear and said in Committee that the ball is well and truly in our court. In our discussions in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, like the lone ranger, and not for the first time in this Bill, rode over the hill to our rescue and gave us this formulation. I am more than delighted that the Government have tabled the amendment, bearing the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble friend Lady Thornton. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for all her efforts in securing the change in policy. I know that she spent many hours negotiating with many different interests, and it is to her credit that we have this amendment.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lady Thornton. I know that it is a personal mission for her and I believe that many of us in Committee were moved by her interventions on this subject. I hope that my noble friend’s sister is as proud of her today as we are on these Benches. I urge all those who support humanist marriage to support the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I, too, added my name to Amendment 7, and attempted to put my name to some of the government amendments but was pipped to the post by others. I, too, offer my thanks to Julian Huppert MP who started the process in another place, to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and to my noble friend Lord Lester for the work they have done in conjunction with the Minister. We are extremely grateful for the progress that has been made in the short time since Committee. The only point I would reiterate from the debate in Committee is that this Bill is very much about equality. So far the equality has been based on same-sex and heterosexual marriage. This issue is vital for people who do not follow a religion or faith to be able to celebrate their marriages in the way they wish. It is long overdue and I am delighted that the government amendments pave the way. I look forward to the first humanist-celebrant wedding that I will be able to attend.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment. No doubt the detailed wording will be subject to criticism.
When civil partnerships were introduced, there was always an ambiguity. It was stated very strongly that it is not marriage and yet every provision on the statute book relating to marriage was trawled and reproduced in the Civil Partnership Act, which is a great big thick Act as a result. That ambiguity is what we are confronting at this point. Is a couple in a civil partnership almost essentially married? The language of marriage has been used in popular terms for civil partnerships in recent years—I acknowledge that—but we must remember that when the civil partnership legislation was put in place the view expressed was, “This is not marriage”.
Marriage is a commitment of two people to each other. That is the centre of the same-sex marriage Bill, but marriage is also a public and social institution. I am not suggesting that people around the Chamber who are in favour of the Bill deny that at all. As we go forward, measures that strengthen that sense of the social institution of marriage will be good for marriage in every sense. Vows that are essentially strong promises made between the couple are a vital part of creating that institution.
I have never been to a civil partnership; I have never been to a civil wedding. I have led a sheltered life, no doubt. However, the making of vows to one another in a personal way in the presence of representatives of the wider community is an essential part of the dynamic. When regulations for converting civil partnerships to marriage are drawn up, while we should not make any onerous requirements, I hope that we take matters seriously and reflect the social institution that must be at the heart of marriage.
Lord Alli
I understand the motivation behind the noble Lord, Lord Elton’s amendment, and I did not view it with huge suspicion. I understand that a conversion of civil partnership to a marriage should be marked by a ceremony to convey the solemnity of the occasion. I completely accept that. In other circumstances, I would be with him on this amendment, but I am afraid that the past is the past and the future is the future. We have to start the journey from where we are. Many same-sex couples will have already had big celebrations when they entered their civil partnerships. They will have had family and friends witness their civil partnerships, and they will have made vows and speeches. For them, I suspect, it was the nearest they probably thought they would get to a marriage and they would not wish to repeat that whole process. There will be others who simply went to the registry office and had a small civil partnership in the expectation that one day they would be able to marry. For them, this would provide the opportunity to recommit their vows in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wants them to do. There may indeed be others who wish to wait until the right reverend Prelate, and his colleagues, sanction same-sex marriage, or even permit civil partnerships in their churches, mosques and temples.
I am afraid that I do not think it is up to us to place an unnecessary hurdle in the conversion of civil partnerships in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. There is a further point. We should remember that many of those ceremonies are for the young, and we should also respect the financial burdens that another ceremony might place on those who are just starting off in life. While it is a lovely idea, I do not believe that it is necessary or that in the end will help those in civil partnerships who want to convert their civil partnerships into weddings. I am sorry, as I wanted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I am sure that we will find a way of doing so in future. However, I cannot support the amendment, although I commend the sentiments behind it.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I support my noble friend on this one. I had a ray of hope when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Alli, start to speak. I thought that at last we would unite the House. My noble friend’s arguments are unassailable. It is absolutely right that we should be strengthening marriage, and this is a marvellous way to do it. I think of the weddings I have been to. I have been to a same-sex wedding, a pagan wedding, and what I consider to be normal weddings—Christian weddings. When I go to weddings the most moving part for me is when the vows are exchanged. There is always a hush in the town hall, church or the venue wherever it is taking place because people recognise that this is the very heart of the ceremony. It is the total commitment of two people to each other. I so agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is a public and social institution. It is something that you should make very public—what you are doing, why you are doing it and what you hope for the future. I am afraid I do not agree with any of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I think this is equity, fairness and what we should be doing.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, in Committee, I spoke to a similar but not identical amendment at midnight. Today, I start two or three minutes later. It makes me wonder whether it is a ploy of the government Front-Bench to make sure that I speak to an amendment on this subject after 9 pm. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made that suggestion in Committee. In Committee, I spoke at some length, despite the hour, about the importance of trust between those who enter into matrimony, so today I shall be very brief. Trust can be destroyed if one spouse has a relationship outside marriage and breaks the concept of faithfulness. That extramarital relationship strikes at the root of the marriage bond and can be devastating. It seems to me that the behaviour of the erring spouse should be identified as adultery, as it is in the Matrimonial Causes Act. I do not see why the injured spouse should petition for unreasonable behaviour, which is a wholly different matrimonial offence.
I have made changes to the amendment to refer to a sexual act similar to adultery. I do not consider that it would be very difficult for judges to decide what the amendment means, but it is most unlikely that a judge will ever have to do so. There are almost no defended divorces today. A divorce is a very easy process when it is undefended.
This amendment will apply to existing marriages between opposite-sex couples where one spouse enters into a same-sex relationship outside their marriage, so it is broader than the marriages of same-sex couples and would right a broader wrong. Unlike the perception of many in this House that amendments today are in effect wrecking amendments, this amendment, like the previous amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is intended to be helpful. It is of a wholly different type and is intended to help faithful spouses to deal with this devastating blow to their marriage by treating it as a failure of fidelity, rather than a matter of what used to be called cruelty. I beg to move.
Lord Alli
The noble and learned Baroness will recall that I also spoke in Committee on her amendment. The issue we wrestled with then is the same that we are wrestling with now, which was that definition of adultery and the sexual act that defines it. I see that the noble and learned Baroness has said that a judge could interpret that but in every instance bar that of a lesbian relationship, we could find an accommodation. The issue of how you define adultery between two lesbians is something we have tackled over and over again from the Civil Partnership Act onwards. I do not believe that the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment deals with that. I have huge sympathy regarding the issue that she raises but I do not feel that the amendment is drawn in a way which will make it clear. Given that there are grounds of unreasonable behaviour, it is probably unnecessary.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I, too, cannot support this amendment. Under existing law, if a married man has a sexual relationship with another man his wife cannot sue for divorce on the ground of adultery. She can sue for divorce on the ground of unreasonable behaviour, based on sexual infidelity. As I understand it, the Bill adopts the same approach in relation to same-sex marriage and sexual infidelity with another same-sex partner. This seems to be consistent with existing legal principle. It involves no detriment whatever to the other party to the marriage, who can obtain a divorce on the basis of unreasonable behaviour. I, too, am concerned about the uncertainty inherent in the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment. What is,
“a sexual act … similar to adultery”,
in the case of lesbians?
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) Omit sub-paragraph (1).”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
I thank the noble Lord for that helpful intervention. That has been the Government’s position looking at the established church but there is a different situation for those who are authorised people. Generally in our law, you can get married at the registry office, or at the hotel with the registrar there, or you can marry without any intervention of the state when the banns are read in the Anglican Church. In addition, there is a whole group of people and religious organisations—for example, the Catholic Church and Pentecostal churches—which do those marriages as authorised people. They can decide whether to opt in to do this. First, that places them in a different legal context for conducting marriages. Secondly, the Anglican Church can make no decision at all to opt in; in the Bill it is not allowed to. These groups in the middle, many of which are in the ethnic minority community, are in a very different legal position from the Anglican Church.
The risk that religious organisations face when they move from conducting only heterosexual marriages to also conducting same-sex marriages as a public function is exacerbated by the fact that the decision to opt in is not like a decision by a private members’ club where you can look at the rule book and say that the decision was made based on the rules. The discretion to make a decision is in this statute which lends to the argument that it is a public discretion that these organisations would be acting on. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not come to a firm conclusion on this matter because of a divergence of opinion. However, I believe that helps the case for this amendment. The divergence of opinion makes this amendment necessary because the basis of litigation is a divergence of legal opinion. The Government need to give some reassurance to these religious organisations because without this amendment the lock provided in Clause 1 could be ineffective.
Lord Alli
I apologise again to the noble Baroness. I am trying to get to the core of the mischief here and I am just not getting there. Is she saying that Church of England registrars are not covered by this and that this is for the general pool of registrars who are conducting the registration?
Baroness Berridge
If you attend a Catholic church, the authorised person is the registrar. No one comes from the local authority’s office. That person performs that public function and the registry office is not involved. It is the obligation of the priest to fill out the register and to return it quarterly to the local authority’s office. No local authority official is present at all. Interestingly, the Catholic Church expressed concern to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I have heard this concern from other religious organisations—that unless we get clarity in the Bill religious organisations may consider not conducting these marriages at all because they believe the only way to protect themselves is to not be the registrar. That, of course, would have resource implications for the Government.
I am asking the Government to throw away the public function key—the key to actions under the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and judicial review—and avoid this threat of litigation which would discriminate against some of the nation’s smallest charities. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has urged the Government to consider formulating a new clause to provide additional reassurance to any religious ministers or office holders who perform the dual function of officiating at a marriage in a spiritual capacity as well as performing the public function of the registrar under the Marriage Act 1949.
We have ended up in a situation, by responding quite rightly to the concerns of the established Church, whereby other Christian denominations and other faith groups believe that they do not now have the same level of protection as the Church of England and the Church of Wales. It is important that other religious organisations and individual ministers of other faith groups have the same level of protection as the Government have now afforded in this Bill to the Church of England and the Church of Wales.
Lord Alli
I apologise to the noble Baroness for taking more than my usual length of time to understand the issue. I think I now understand where the issue arises. What worries me is the nature of what the noble Baroness seeks. It seems to me that she wants cast-iron guarantees and, although I am not a lawyer, I assume that we cannot give those in law. Certainly no government Minister, no Member of this House and no Member of the other place can give cast-iron guarantees that any religious organisation will not be subject to vexatious legal actions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there is a whole range of people thinking of ways to progress their own politics through the courts, and when they have not succeeded either at the ballot box or in Parliament, they continue to do so. I can put it no better than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in Monday’s Committee in his rather complex and detailed legal argument. He said:
“The fact that idiots in the public sector or private sector misunderstand it is no reason for us to have to amend this Bill to deal with such idiots”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. 69.]
The question is not whether these people will take up a nuisance case; that is a matter for them in a democratic society. They must have the right to take up that nuisance case. I like it no more than anyone else, but they have that right in a democracy. The clear intention of this House and of the other place can be in no doubt. We have specifically created a process to opt in so as to protect religious organisations. The Minister in the Commons made it quite clear during the Commons Committee stage when he said:
“The imposition of any penalties on or subsequent unfavourable treatment of a religious organisation or individual in order to compel that organisation to opt in to same-sex marriage is already unlawful under the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee; 28/2/13; col. 280.]
The locks in this Bill are strong and robust. The intention of this House has to be beyond question. I believe those locks are secure, and I am not sure that we can help the noble Baroness with an assurance that there will be no legal action over these cases.
Baroness Berridge
I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I am not seeking a cast-iron guarantee. I have previously been a lawyer, so I know how people can look at us, but there seems to be a case for some sensible, straightforward language in the Bill that could avoid—as we have put it—a situation in which small charities have to take discrimination claims to deal with that kind of behaviour, and it would provide that reassurance.
Lord Alli
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for giving way. I know that he will know the Church of England a lot better than I do but in order to conduct a religious blessing, let us say of a civil partnership, in a religious building, it is up to the House of Bishops and the General Synod to approve a liturgy. Without that approval there is no approved blessing by the Church. There is surely, therefore, a mechanism because if I am a priest I cannot conduct a blessing without a liturgy and, therefore, the synod would have to have pre-agreed that it was permitting the blessing, and without such a blessing it could not do so.
Lord Carey of Clifton
Yes. I thank the noble Lord for that intervention but I am referring to nonconformist churches which have liturgies that are laid down. In some cases, the very fact of an extempore liturgy is a liturgy itself. The point is whether it is done in a house or a church is immaterial. I am referring to a specific area that is not covered by the Bill. Such bodies would therefore be vulnerable to litigation.
Lord Carey of Clifton
The noble Lord is exactly right but I am not talking about the Church of England because there are liturgies for blessing. I am talking about other areas of church life.
Amendment 15 addresses this problem by amending Clause 2, which already inserts an appropriate protection into Section 29 of the Equality Act with respect to marriage provision. It uses an identical form of words to extend a similar protection in relation to the provision of same-sex marriage blessing ceremonies. In amending Section 29, as Amendment 15 makes clear:
“A person does not contravene Section 29 only because the person (a) does not conduct a service of blessing for a relevant marriage, or (b) is not present at, does not carry out, or does not otherwise participate in, a service of blessing for a relevant marriage, or (c) does not consent to a service of blessing for a relevant marriage being conducted, for the reason that the marriage is the marriage of a same sex couple.”
I cannot conceive of any reason why the Government or any Member of your Lordships’ House, who agrees with the Government’s commitment to protecting religious bodies and ministers of religion from officiating at same-sex marriages, could oppose Amendment 15. It applies exactly the same principles to the increasingly important area of blessing ceremonies that seem to have been overlooked in the drafting of this Bill.
I commend Amendment 15 to the House and hope that the Government and all sides of the House will feel able to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am a lapsed humanist. When I was at Cambridge I was a member of the most privileged club which was the Cambridge Humanists and I lapsed because it was too religious. My most memorable experience was asking EM Forster to give a lecture. He said he would give a lecture on whether Jesus had a sense of humour. I said, “That is a splendid subject”. I was just thinking that now you could not give a lecture like that. You could give one on whether God had a sense of humour. I am not sure you could give one on whether the Prophet had a sense of humour. But certainly the proposition at the time was very interesting in Cambridge.
I completely agree with the speeches in favour of these amendments for all the reasons that have been given. One further reason why I am in favour is because both the Equality Act and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognise the rights not only of those of religious belief but also of those of no belief, and the Strasbourg Court has repeatedly explained that in a plural society agnostics, atheists and non-believers have as much right as believers of all kinds to equality of treatment. I have no doubt that there is inequality of treatment at the moment between humanists as a belief system and others. If you look at those registered as religions, they include, for example, theosophists. It is very difficult to distinguish between a theosophist and a humanist except that one believes in God and the other does not. And Buddhists and Jainists are registered but they are not theistic religions. I believe that, in terms of equality and common sense, we must move on this, and not only because my party thinks so.
My noble friend Lord Deben said that unlike the United States we have orderly systems in this country when we legislate and I am a bit concerned that in the other place they do not seem to take Long Titles seriously. I cannot imagine that these amendments would have slipped through if this legislation had been introduced into this House because, as the Long Title says, the Bill is to make provision,
“for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons”,
et cetera. It says nothing at all about the rights of humanists or anybody else. Therefore, being boring about it, this falls completely outside the purpose of this Bill. I do not want to do anything to jeopardise the coming into force of this Bill but the poor old British Humanist Association has already gone through hoops to get to the position we are in. Originally, it tabled amendments just for humanists and then the Attorney-General said, “That is discriminatory”. It quite rightly changed the amendments to include all belief systems and now I am saying that this is not an appropriate vehicle for doing so.
It seems to me that there must be movement on this and if this Bill is not to be the vehicle, then either there has to be a Private Member’s Bill with government support on this separate issue to comply with Article 9 and 14 rights or some kind of inquiry leading to action. Noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in particular—will recall that we had similar problems when we introduced the concept of religious discrimination but did not include discrimination based on sexual orientation. He, with my support, found an ingenious way round that with a regulation power which enabled us to deal with homosexuality as well as with religion. Although that may not be the right way forward here, the Government need to be imaginative and think of ways of giving effect to the object of these amendments without being able to support them in this Bill.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I am not a humanist; I am afraid I am a closet believer in God. But I wanted to add my support to the legislation for humanist marriage and the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill. The Bill is about equal marriage, and allowing fellow citizens to conduct their own legally recognised weddings within their own framework of humanist beliefs seems to me to be a proposal that we should support.
I also believe that there is popular support for this proposal. I suspect the other place was minded to move forward with this but the Attorney-General’s advice at the last minute that the amendments as drafted would breach the European convention and put the quadruple lock at risk meant that there was insufficient time to deal with this. As with so many other issues, the ball is now in our court. I understand that these amendments have been changed to address the issues raised by the Attorney-General and I have seen and even read the advice from Matrix Chambers to support that case. There is huge support for this in my own party, in the Liberal Democrats and on the Cross Benches. I think that this House is minded to pass this and would like the Government to find a way to make this happen. The Government should put their best minds together to see whether we can get these amendments through. On behalf of those who have worked in this area for many years, waiting for a Bill to come along that will allow this to happen, I ask the Minister to look carefully at this.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, before the Minister replies to the debate, I would like to follow up the observations made by my noble friend Lord Lester. This touches on the “slipstream” argument brought forward by my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones. I must admit that I am having difficulty enough coming to terms with the Bill as it is and is likely to become, without any further amendments to it of any kind, as I made clear at Second Reading. I believe that what is proposed in the Bill will lead in due course to a fundamental alteration of the concept of marriage in the Church of England such as I have been brought up to know it and indeed as has been the case for many years.
This is clearly not the Bill for an amendment of this kind. None the less, when this matter was considered in the other place in March this year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities—I am indebted to the Library for a briefing note on this subject—talking about the inability to hold legally valid humanist marriages in England and Wales, said that the Government would,
“consider amendments to marriage law when an appropriate legislative opportunity arises”.
The Minister felt that this Bill was “not the right vehicle” for the proposed change, and that it,
“must not be thrown off its path by attempts to make wider changes to fundamental marriage law in England and Wales”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 12/3/13; col. 475-76.]
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The responsibility I have as the Minister responding to this debate is to make clear that something which on the face of it seems quite straightforward would significantly change our marriage law. We have to consider the implications of that before a decision could be made as to whether to change this law. The system we have of registering and authorising people to marry based on religious premises has been in existence since 1898. To introduce a new system for new organisations to be authorised in a different way is a significant change. If we are going to make that change we need to make sure that we have properly considered all the implications.
Lord Alli
There is huge respect for the Minister in this House and for the way in which she has conducted the passage of the Bill. We all want the Bill to go through. However, the noble Baroness should take the temperature of the House and of the other place. There is a will in both Houses that this should go through. You see this sometimes when the Front Bench are making their response: the explanation of why it should not go through has been crafted by the Civil Service and does not feel like one any of us understand. The unintended consequence argument, the argument that it could delay the Bill and a whole range of financial arguments are the standard set of arguments put forward generally to stop amendments going through. We would be very sympathetic if we understood what was worrying the Government about this amendment but as yet I, like many others, am lost as to what it is that cannot be done in the timeframes that we are talking about.
Lord Garel-Jones
Before my noble friend replies to that, she will, I am sure, have observed that not a single voice in your Lordships’ House has been raised against these amendments. She will have observed that the right reverend Prelate, while unable yet to tell us precisely what the position of the Church of England would be, spoke with, one could say, sympathy towards the position. I think what we are all asking is that if the Ministers, both my noble friend and the Secretary of State in the other place, were to say to the civil servants that they would like to find a way of accommodating this, we know that they could it. We would really like an explanation as to why that cannot be done.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Waddington
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, brought to the attention of the House certain remarks made by my noble friend in her speech at Second Reading. I will remind the House of some of her words. In particular, she said:
“Teachers will be expected to teach the factual and legal position when teaching about marriage … but they will not be expected to promote or endorse views that go against their own beliefs”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]
That surely means that the teacher must teach the new definition of marriage and must explain the significance of the change. That may be very difficult for some teachers. The Minister says that the teacher does not have to endorse the new definition, and by that I think she means to accept it as right.
Lord Waddington
I appreciate what the noble Lord has to say and he will be able to say it in his speech. I wish he would just hear me out on this little piece of the action. He surely must agree that this begs the question as to whether it is anything we should complain about; he surely must agree that the teacher must teach the new definition of marriage and must explain the significance of the change. The noble Lord must concede, whether he likes it or not, that that may be offensive to some teachers. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. I should have thought that after all our debates he knows how divisive this legislation is. Some people find it very difficult to accept that a marriage between two people of the same sex is a proper marriage. It is ridiculous him just shaking his head. We have to face the facts.
Lord Alli
I was shaking my head because I do not believe that it is difficult for a teacher to teach the facts. They may not like it, but I believe teaching is a fantastic profession and every teacher I have met is capable of distinguishing fact from opinion. People in this profession are capable of dealing with this issue because that is what they are trained to do.
Lord Waddington
A number of teachers will find it extremely difficult to have to explain the new regime. At Second Reading the Minister said that teachers do not have to “endorse” the new definition—by that I think she means accept it as right. She then went on to say that,
“the expression of personal beliefs should be done in a professional way and not in a way that would be inappropriate or insensitive to pupils”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]
I wonder whether some people might judge that any statement to the effect that the only true marriage is one between a man and a woman is bound to be thought insensitive to some pupils and that therefore it should not be allowed. When we come to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which was again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, there is a strong case for giving some protection to safeguard the position of teachers who cannot in conscience teach that the union of two men or two women is a marriage.
As to conscientious objection, there was a debate about that the other night. One thing was not mentioned. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was reported on 12 July 2011 as saying that the court should have done more to protect Christians affected by equality laws. In the case then pending before the ECHR the commission was going to call on the European Court of Human Rights to back the principle that employers should do more to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs like they accommodate staff with disabilities. I am quoting from the commission. Later, for quite unexplained reasons, the commission beat a hasty retreat but we can take some comfort in the fact that for a short time it looked as if we were going to get somewhere. Surely if in the dark days of the war you could give people who had a conscientious objection to fighting the right to opt out of military service we could do something similar here.
There have been so many cases where the demands of equality have been allowed to trump the right of people to observe the dictates of their faith. There may be a case in every enactment for protection of those who would find observance difficult on grounds of conscience. I raised that matter in a Question in the House on 8 July 2010. Unfortunately, I got the usual expression of sympathy followed by a statement that the Government had not the slightest intention of doing anything.
I noted the words of my noble friend Lord Deben earlier this afternoon. He talked about tolerance. I do not see much tolerance in this place tonight—not on that side of the Chamber. The Government would be practising tolerance if they gave protection to teachers who find it difficult to teach the significance of the new law on marriage.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, perhaps I may put in my 10 cents-worth on this. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that the teacher must teach what the law is. There is no doubt about it. I have the utmost sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said. As I have said previously, it is the duty of teachers to support the child, whatever type of relationship the parents with whom they are living may have. I have happily granted adoption orders to same-sex couples. They are or can be excellent parents—as good as any other. I start from that basis.
However, I have a concern. It is really what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said about being a grandparent. I am a grandparent and my grandchildren ask awkward questions but the concern is about when the question is asked of a teacher. The teacher is there, trying very hard to give a neutral account of what the present law of marriage is. Then a child asks an awkward question and the teacher answers honestly. It could be a question such as, “What do you think about it, miss?”, and the teacher says, “I have to say that I am a member of the Church of England and my view is that I do not believe in same-sex marriage”. The child goes off and tells the mother, and the mother comes and complains to the school because a member of that family is in a same-sex relationship. That is what worries me. It is the perception; it is the interpretation. It is that which has gone beyond the ordinary, perfectly proper teaching of the teacher. It is for that reason that what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is asking for is a necessary protection for teachers.
I do not support the noble Lord’s second amendment. I think that children should learn everything. When I was a judge, I remember the father of a Roman Catholic family, who was very devout, telling me that I should make an order that in the Anglican school to which he had sent his children they should not attend religious education because it was Anglican education, not Roman Catholic. I basically told him to get lost and that if he had chosen to send the child to that school it was right that the child should learn what the school was teaching. Children should be learning everything and they will then distinguish between matters.
However, the first of the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, should not be dismissed out of hand. There is a problem here that has to be recognised.
Lord Alli
I wonder whether the noble and learned Baroness has seen the Secretary of State’s Second Reading speech in the other place and what the Minister in the other place said. The Minister said that,
“no teacher is under any duty to promote or endorse a particular view of marriage, and neither would they be as a result of any revised guidance in the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 311.]
If a loophole exists—and I have said this to the noble Lord, Lord Dear—we should try to close it, but it seems to me that the loophole is not there.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I shall be brief because I know that the Committee wants to make progress and there is still quite a lot to be done. This will be handled in exactly the same way as teachers currently deal with the issue of divorce. Teachers in schools up and down the country who hold deeply religious views and do not agree with divorce are free to express those views in the classroom. Nothing prevents them doing so. However, they are required to tell pupils the truth about the world we live in and that divorce exists. I do not think that that causes a problem. The principle applies and it can read across to another set of issues. Teachers have a much better grasp of this than perhaps we are giving them credit for.
Lord Elton
My Lords, there are a couple of things which have not been mentioned that we need to bear in mind before this is resolved. The first relates to classroom teaching. I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, on giving a perfect example of proper and professional conduct, and some perfect examples of how extremely awkward children can be. However, noble Lords have not actually grasped the fact that many teachers are required by their heads to teach to a particular programme which has been produced by a publisher, by some think tank in a comprehensive, or whatever. It will take an attitude to this which to some teachers will appear as though it is promoting a particular interpretation. Teachers need to be able not to have that forced on them.
The other thing is that, of course, a lot of a teacher’s life is spent in the staff room. No doubt they hold to the view that they are highly professional and will do exactly what the teacher the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, told us about did under all circumstances, yet in the staff room may express views contrary to those that we are now going to be told are mandatory. If they express an objection to same-sex marriage which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has said, is interpreted as being tantamount to homophobia, and that sort of conversation is held in the staff room, particularly of a large school, there will be those on the staff who will regard it as making them unfit to teach. Those teachers will find themselves under undesirable pressure. No doubt the Minister will take this away and think about it, and indeed all these exchanges will prove to be useful.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who said that this is something of knife-edge issue, and I sympathise with that observation. I hope that I will not embarrass her, but I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and I certainly have a lot of sympathy for her whole approach to this subject. However, I have one deeply held anxiety which I would like to express very briefly in the hope that it will be allayed by the response of my noble friend the Minister.
It is not the objectivity of teaching that worries me. It is not the way that teachers will interpret or rehearse the law before their pupils or their classes that is my concern. On the whole, I have enormous respect for the teaching profession, having been associated with it for some time, and I think that teachers will do their job admirably. That is not my worry. My worry lies in what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said, and certainly others have mentioned; namely, the difference between what I would call the objective teaching or factual teaching, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, and promotion. That is the knife edge. It is done so easily. It is done by emphasis and by inference. We know through our respective interests how easy it is, almost subliminally, to encourage a viewpoint that is held firmly by the particular promoter of that view. It is done carefully and sometimes not quite so carefully. This is my worry and I hope my noble friend will be able to reply.
I have seen, as other noble Lords have doubtless also seen—there is nothing peculiar about me, there is no reason why I alone should have seen this—material in the public domain which is promotional material advertising the good things about same-sex relationships. I have heard it said—I give no particular credence to this; it is hearsay—that teachers sometimes encourage pupils in their class to experiment, to find out in terms of sexual relationships, “what makes you happy”. This is what worries me. There is an undercurrent there of crusading on behalf of same-sex relationships which I think has no place in a school. I accept teaching factually; I do not accept promotion or promotional material.
Lord Alli
In the spirit of tolerance that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked for, will the noble Lord accept that, for many of us, the use of the word “promotion” and the language that the noble Lord has just used is particularly emotive because of Section 28? Will he therefore accept, in the spirit of tolerance, that where the amendments are crafted in such a way that that phraseology is embedded in them, that is the reason for the perceived reaction that the noble Lord may get? Will the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also accept that where there is a mischief we genuinely want to solve it, but if the language is inflammatory, if the arguments put forward are inserted into the Bill, it is very hard, in the air of tolerance, for us to have a proper and constructive discussion?
Lord Eden of Winton
I am very sorry to hear the noble Lord say that because I certainly do not want to offend him or anybody else of that persuasion. However, he is right to say that I am emotional about the issue, because I feel very strongly about it. I hope he will accept that there are strong feelings on the side that I represent, as strongly as he represents the feelings on his side. I cannot help that. I feel I have to express these views, because we are talking about legislation, which is likely to become the law of the land, in which case my views will be sublimated and the law takes over. Now is the time for me to express these views, and I hope I convey the feelings which I believe represent the views of others beyond this House. I hope that I will get a response from them.
We talk about teachers being required to teach the law correctly. What is the position of teachers in Church of England schools? They will also be required to do this. This is one of the areas of difficulty which I find being developed by the proposals in this Bill, which I hope will be satisfied, if not by the existing protections, at least by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dear.
Lord Alli
My Lords, the effect of Amendment 26A is to remove the schedule that converts same-sex marriages into civil partnerships in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Bill makes legal same-sex marriages in England and Wales. I state from the outset that the amendment does not alter the laws of Scotland or Northern Ireland in relation to conducting same-sex marriages. These are prescribed matters for the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to trespass on their jurisdiction any more than the Bill already does. My intention is not to amend legislation in Northern Ireland or Scotland by the back door.
The effect of the schedule is to state that, even though a couple are lawfully married in England and Wales, they are deemed not to be married in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government’s view seems to be that a couple lawfully married in England should not be treated as such elsewhere in the union where such marriages are not performed. In particular, a couple of the same sex married in England and Wales should not be recognised as married but rather treated as civil partners, even if they have not entered into a civil partnership. If I were to get married in London and move to Belfast—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would be very pleased about that—the Bill would convert my civil marriage to a civil partnership.
I am not persuaded that the Government are right about this. As the union develops, with increased devolution of the nations and regions, we are all to a certain extent fumbling our way forward together. Our absence of a written constitution has the advantage of flexibility, but there is not always the certainty that would be helpful. There will be times when one of the regions or nations passes a law that does not sit comfortably with the laws of the other parts of the union. The question is how we should resolve that, and whether there are any precedents that might be helpful. I am not aware of any, and the Government are in danger of creating an unhelpful precedent.
In the absence of past guidance, it would be helpful to look at basic principles. A first principle must be that as our devolved union develops, it is very important that it should do so on the basis of what we have talked about this evening: namely, mutual respect. For example, it would be wrong for England to try to force another part of the union to pass laws on which it has devolved powers, but it would be quite appropriate for England to expect other parts of the union to respect English law. A law passed in one part of the union cannot simply be ignored in another part because it is unpopular there.
On the point in hand, it would be a constitutional nonsense for a couple to be deemed to be married in one part of the United Kingdom and not in another. If that were the case, it would be difficult to understand exactly what the union was for. I argue that it is up to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers, to ensure that a couple married in England and Wales are treated as married in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not for us to presume to convert English and Welsh marriages to Scottish and Northern Irish civil partnerships. I hope that the Minister will agree and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to clarify how the Bill, which makes provision for marriage of same-sex couples under the law of England and Wales, affects Scotland and Northern Ireland. I assure your Lordships that the Government have had lengthy and considered discussions with Scotland and Northern Ireland Ministers and officials to ensure that where the Bill touches on devolved matters, it does so appropriately. I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is coming from on this but it is not possible for us to accept his amendment or, indeed, those spoken to by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, which would cut across the approach that we have been discussing with the devolved Administrations.
Indeed, the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, would be to remove the relevant part of Schedule 2 to the Bill. It might be helpful if I explain the effect, and importance, of Schedule 2. Without the provisions in Schedule 2, if a same-sex couple married in England or Wales, their relationship would not have legal status if they subsequently travelled or moved to Belfast or Glasgow. It is not that their marriage in England or Wales would become a civil partnership; it would have no status whatever under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Lord Alli
But it does not have a legal status in Northern Ireland and Scotland because it is a marriage in England and Wales. What the Bill is proposing is for this Government and this Parliament to request—because that is all we can do—the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Parliament to accord it a lower status in those territories.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the position is that, as things stand at the moment, there is no provision in either Scotland or Northern Ireland for same-sex marriage. Therefore, if a same-sex couple who are married in England and Wales were to move to Scotland or Northern Ireland, their relationship would not have a legal status of marriage in Scotland or Northern Ireland because that provision does not exist. There is no such thing at the moment in Scotland or Northern Ireland as same-sex marriage. Schedule 20 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 lists the overseas same-sex relationships which are treated as civil partnerships in the United Kingdom. This partly answers the question raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
At the moment, overseas same-sex marriages are not recognised as marriages in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They are treated as civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, and Section 213 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, under which Schedule 20 has effect, also sets out the general conditions which must be met for such relationships to be recognised in the United Kingdom. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, were to be carried, we would have the slightly anomalous situation where a couple moving to Belfast or Glasgow would be in a worse position than a same-sex couple who married in Portugal, or elsewhere overseas where same-sex marriage is permitted, and then went to live in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Under the current law, the 2004 Act, these same-sex marriages contracted, for example in Portugal, would be treated as a civil partnership. If this Bill becomes an Act, we do not wish to see a situation where a same-sex couple married in England would have lesser legal status in Scotland or Northern Ireland than a same-sex couple who married in Portugal. It is for that reason that Schedule 2 exists. As the noble Lord indicated, marriage and civil partnerships are devolved matters. The noble Lord asked why Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland could not get together with Scottish or Northern Ireland Ministers to make them marriages. That is not how devolution works. Legislation would have to be passed by the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As the Bill anticipates, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Scottish Government have indicated that they will bring legislation before the Scottish Parliament to bring about same-sex marriage as a legal status in Scotland. That is why, if noble Lords look carefully at the provisions for Scotland in Schedule 2, the order-making power would not have effect if the Scottish Parliament passes legislation for same-sex marriage. In many respects, what is there is deliberately framed, recognising the likelihood that same-sex marriage legislation is to be brought forward in Scotland in the relatively near future.
It is probably also fair to say that same-sex marriage legislation does not appear to be on the horizon in Northern Ireland. That is why the position regarding Northern Ireland is that there is not an order-making power, which will lapse in Scotland when or if Scottish law changes, but rather one that sets out in primary legislation the same position for same-sex marriages contracted in England and Wales in Northern Ireland, as is the case for same-sex marriages contracted in other countries, such as Portugal. People there would be in the same position in Northern Ireland as they would at present.
Last week, the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent Motion to the provisions in this Bill which impinge and deal with devolved matters affecting Scotland. The question was asked what would happen if we could not get a legislative consent Motion from Northern Ireland. Our concern would be that this would risk leaving couples with no legal status in a part of the United Kingdom. This could have important European Convention on Human Rights implications. We would need to consider this carefully if this situation arose and whether amendments to the Bill would be needed.
I know that this is not what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wishes to see, but given the devolution settlement, this Parliament should not legislate for same-sex marriages in Scotland or Northern Ireland and I do not think that anyone in this Parliament is arguing for it. However, in the absence of legislation there, it is important that we give couples who have contracted a same-sex marriage in England and Wales a legal status in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Without the schedule they would have no legal status, so we are putting them on a par with couples who are married in other countries which have passed legislation on same-sex marriage.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As ever, my noble and learned friend expresses it far more concisely than I do.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but, as he probably recognises, I am not happy with it. If I got married in England or Wales, I would expect my marriage to be recognised in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is the essence of the union. For us to have found a mechanism in the Bill to convert marriages into civil partnerships feels as though it was too difficult politically to keep them as marriages. It is clearly a nonsense for couples to be married in England and Wales, and then be treated differently in Northern Ireland and Scotland. For us, in this Parliament, to determine that a marriage in England and Wales should not be treated as a marriage in Scotland and Northern Ireland, without putting the question—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, just indicated—to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and those Scottish Ministers for that order, or indeed to the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and Ministers, is for us to be complicit in perpetuating an inequality. Nevertheless, I will read what the Minister said and reflect, but I have no doubt we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
Again, I support a probing amendment. I am concerned that marriages between people of the same sex should enshrine the same standard of fidelity as marriages of heterosexual couples. As it stands, the Bill does not quite deliver this. Indeed, the Bill enshrines a very important inequality in the way that the virtue of fidelity is manifested in relationships. Marriage between people of the opposite sex is partially defined by the fact that sexual infidelity—adultery—is a recognised and long-standing ground for divorce, as has been expounded very eloquently by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. This is not found in the Bill.
Faithfulness is intrinsic to the promises a married couple make to one another. I feel very strongly that, as we go forward in our scrutiny of the Bill, this House must find some way of including that faithfulness equally for all married couples, if we are looking to something that has been described as equal marriage. On the grounds of equality that is an omission and in terms of the social significance of faithfulness, which is central to marriage, this omission diminishes the status that couples of the same sex stand to receive from being married. As the Bill stands, such same-sex marriages could be accused of being of a lesser standard in terms of faithfulness than heterosexual marriage unless this point is attended to.
Lord Alli
I thank the noble and learned Baroness for bringing forward this amendment. I have listened to what she said most carefully and I can see the point she raises. Unfaithfulness is understandably a cause for which many people seek divorce but I do not think that anything in this Bill will prevent people divorcing their partners for unfaithfulness. In my view, marriage is a contract that varies in its nature, understanding and commitment from couple to couple. The issue and the importance of fidelity is one that, equally, varies from couple from couple, but it is fair to say that fidelity is a cornerstone of most religious marriages. I think the same should be said of civil marriage, too.
The definition of the sexual act that defines fidelity for heterosexuals is outdated and, in my view, very cumbersome. The noble and learned Baroness is very brave to bring the issue to this House. When one looks at penetration as part of that definition, or we try to import the definition of penetration from rape into this, it does not deal with lesbian couples, for example. So much of our sexual law is defined by the male and not by women that a complete class of marriage is ignored by what the noble and learned Baroness is trying to do. If we had had more and broader discussions on the Civil Partnership Act and over the Bill, we may find common ground, but simply importing the definition of penetration—anal, vaginal or oral—into this would leave lesbians at a complete disadvantage regarding fidelity. While I completely understand what is behind this, we come back to the definition of fidelity. I think the Government’s position has been not to disturb the current arrangements as far as possible, to avoid tampering with existing legislation. It is a much wider question, which I certainly welcome. There is no way anyone can accuse the noble and learned Baroness of being homophobic in her amendment.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Waddington
I was just getting to the experience of other countries, and it does seem that some people have been put off. Dr Patricia Morgan produced evidence to show that since gay marriage was introduced in Spain in 2005, the decline in heterosexual marriage has been precipitous. It has been just the same in Holland since 2001, and also in Scandinavia. There is not one example of this change going ahead and marriage increasing. The result has been exactly the opposite.
Lord Waddington
I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong about that. It was certainly true that in Spain there was a relaxation in divorce at the time of the introduction of same-sex marriage, but I am talking about new marriages. There was a big decline in new marriages in Spain since the change came about. So it seems obvious that if marriage between same-sex couples is to be allowed, at the very least it should be made clear that it is very different from traditional marriage.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. He knows, perhaps better than most in the House, that I have a fairly strong commitment to freedom of expression. That commitment to freedom of expression and the Government’s commitment to freedom of expression have been there for years. However, that has not stopped people being accused of hate crimes, race crimes and religious crimes. I do not believe that simply using the term “freedom of expression”, or repeating it, will be any more effective than it has been over the past 30 years. Something simple needs to be put in the Bill that everybody can understand and behind which everybody, whatever their view of the issue, can take refuge, if necessary.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank the noble Lord. I wanted to make a very brief intervention to bring your Lordships back to the discussion of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It seems to me that that amendment cuts at the very heart of the Bill, for which we have already voted. Clause 1(1) states:
“Marriage of same sex couples is lawful”.
In other words, we are talking about the basis of the Bill that we have discussed and was voted for by a very large majority in both Houses. The amendment seeks to replace “marriage” with “union”, which then makes something quite different from what the Bill is all about. In my view, it is not an amendment at all, because a union of same-sex couples, as I understand it, is lawful anyway.
What we are talking about here is legislation for same-sex marriage, and amending that sentence in Clause 1(1) as proposed cuts at the very root of the legislation. That cannot be acceptable. If it were pressed, I certainly would not vote for “marriage” to be replaced by some other word. In fact, I cannot think of a word that would be at all suitable, because marriage is what we are talking about—marriage between same-sex couples, which we have already agreed in principle with a very large vote at Second Reading. I certainly do not want to repeat a Second Reading speech, although one could say quite a lot about traditional marriage because that also has been referred to in the debate. As far as I am concerned, the wording that was before us as concerns traditional marriage is very much based on a religious outlook, which I respect but do not share; and certainly it has a provision for a kind of opposition to divorce, which I do not share. Of course, I imagine that very many people in this House at some time have been in a divorce court and therefore would not qualify under the traditional marriage position outlined in some of the amendments before this House.
The main point that I want to make is that I do not see how Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, can possibly be accepted because it cuts at the very root of this Bill, for which we have already voted. We have had our Second Reading debate and have already voted in this House and in the other House with a very large majority, so I do not see how that can possibly be an acceptable amendment.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I rise to speak against Amendment 1. I will also touch on Amendments 2, 9, 33, 34, 46 and 57.
The clear purpose of the Bill is to allow same-sex couples to marry. These amendments seek, in one way or another, to create two classes of marriage, which is exactly what the Bill is avoiding. This occurs in the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Cormack, which replaces “marriage” with “union”; and in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, by adding “marriage (same sex couples)”. Let me say to the noble and learned Lord that he did not do his cause justice by linking the abuse of children to a speech about same-sex marriage. Many of us found that absolutely offensive.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Let me make it absolutely clear that it had nothing to do with that. It is important—to me anyway—that children are considered. That is what I wanted to be considered. I do not link it to same-sex marriage at all. I never did and I do not think that anything I said could reasonably be so construed.
Lord Alli
The noble and learned Lord should not have said it then. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Edmiston and Lord Mawhinney, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, have opted for the term “traditional marriage”. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, want a separate register too.
Lord Carey of Clifton
Perhaps I may interrupt. I withdrew my name from that amendment, even though I fully support my noble friend Lord Dear in what he has said. I was a teller when we had the debate and it was clear to me that, almost by three to one, we as a House declared our unanimity with the House of Commons. Therefore this debate is not about going over old ground again, but about finding a way forward to meet the deep discord and anger in the country. Many people are very worried about this Bill. How can we go forward together and find some unanimity of language? That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is suggesting that amendment.
Lord Alli
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for that intervention. I had heard that he had withdrawn his name from the amendment. I think he described it as mischievous and dangerous and I very much agree with that, too. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, wants to use the term “matrimonial marriage” for opposite sex-marriage. All these amendments are cut from the same cloth with the same purpose: to create inequality in the use of the term marriage between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, that these amendments are wolves in sheep’s clothing, designed to preserve marriage and the use of the term exclusively for opposite-sex couples, with the exception of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, which seeks to introduce a new concept of traditional marriage.
Lord Cormack
I apologise for interrupting and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I appeal to him to accept that many people in this country are deeply troubled. Many wish to see a true equality and true equality is based on difference. Can the noble Lord not concede that it would be a good idea to find a formula that both would give him what he wants and would ease the minds and consciences of countless people outside this Chamber?
Lord Alli
I do not accept the noble Lord’s premise. I understand that there is concern outside this Chamber, but the vast majority of people in this country want this measure to go through. Poll after poll, the majority in the other place and, I suspect, the majority here want it. The problem with the noble Lord’s suggestion is that it is diametrically opposed to what we wish for in terms of the use of the word marriage.
I am a little confused about what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has in mind when talking about traditional marriage. Marriage not just predates Christianity, but is found in many different cultures and traditions and, as has been said, in many different forms. As an aside, the noble Lord may be interested to know that in ancient Rome, Emperor Nero was married to a man—a fine tradition, in my view, but perhaps not what the noble Lord had in mind.
Lord Dear
First, I hope that the noble Lord will clear up the point about whether I am being mischievous. I hope that he will say in the Chamber that I am not. Secondly, subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 9 states simply:
“A ‘traditional marriage’ is one where the basis of the marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others”.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I think I am right—I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, will correct me if I am wrong—that in an e-mail purporting to come from the noble and right reverend Lord, he described his own amendment as mischievous and dangerous. It was not I who used those words.
Attempts to create inequality in the Bill seem to be the sole object of these amendments. To create a separate term or register would be both divisive and unnecessary. I hope that noble Lords will think again and not press their amendments. I suspect that there is no appetite for them in the House.
Lord Elton
Perhaps I may make a point to the noble Lord. The homosexual community has long been a minority in our society and has protested, understandably loudly, at being unfairly treated. He has just pointed out that those opposed to the Bill are now a minority. Could he not extend the same generosity that he expects, and try to reach an accommodation in that direction?
Lord Alli
I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. These two concepts are diametrically opposed. What the noble Lord wishes to happen is completely opposite to what I wish to happen. At some point, when two sets of rights are in conflict, these great Houses of Parliament have to decide which rights are pre-eminent. If there was a course of action that we could find that would satisfy and accommodate everybody, there is nobody in the House, on any side of the argument, who would not work night and day to find it. However, these concepts are opposed. Therefore, our job as a Parliament is to say which is pre-eminent, the first or the second. I suspect that the public and Members of this House—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Is that quite right? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, states:
“Nothing in this Act takes away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage”.
Nothing in the Bill takes away that right. It is not a question of one right trumping another. The rights of the traditionalists are protected completely under the Bill, and the rights of gay people are also protected.
Lord Alli
Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, would create a separate register—so there is a difference in the noble Lord’s amendment, which would create a new category of marriage. More broadly on the noble Lord’s point, I contend that we have to consider the emotional response of the communities involved. The issue cannot be gauged simply by the words in the Act. I argue very strongly that it is not acceptable to have a differentiation in wording or name between different types of marriage. That would be exacerbated outside this Chamber the moment the legislation went through.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I will make two brief points. First, I am very uncomfortable with the references we have heard to a new definition of marriage. As I understand it, the aim of the Bill is to enable same-sex couples to share in the existing understanding and status of marriage. My understanding of my marriage is not primarily gender-based; it is based on the fact that I love my wife and wish to stay with her for the rest of my life. That has nothing to do with gender.
Secondly, I would love to find a compromise—I am a compromising sort of person, and I very much welcome the recognition of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss that the word “marriage” is essential in whatever we end up with—but I find it extremely hard to imagine any compromise that would not formalise the idea that there are two different forms of marriage. Therefore, I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that it is either one thing or the other.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, we heard earlier a number of instances, which I shall not repeat, in which expressing views in relation to same-sex marriage has led to sanctions against people in various walks of life. The amendment is, in effect, intended to avoid any risk of that sort of thing happening in connection with a public office. I beg to move.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 5, 7, 8 and 19, government Amendment 53 and Amendment 54. This group of amendments seeks to put into the Bill a series of protections for those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, who want to make clear that they believe it is wrong, and who are employed by public authorities or subject to the Equality Act.
Robust provisions in the Bill and that Act already give such protections. Indeed, the Minister made this clear at Second Reading and, if she does not mind, I shall repeat her words. She said:
“It is lawful to express a belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and it is lawful to do that whether at work or outside work. That is a belief that is protected under the religion or belief provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and penalising someone because of such a belief would be unlawful discrimination under that Act”.—[Official Report, 4/6/13; col. 1104.]
The Minister and the law cannot have been any clearer. In addition, as promised, the Government have brought forward—unnecessarily in my view—reassuring language in Amendment 53 regarding freedom of speech. As regards Amendment 37, which was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and Amendment 56 of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, the Government are, in Amendment 53, giving the noble Lords all that they ask for but in more inclusive language. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, who is not in his place, will accept that and move on.
Given that the law is clear and the Government have strengthened the language on free speech, what are Amendments 37 and 56 for? I have a sneaking suspicion that their impact, like many others tabled throughout the Bill, will not be helpful but raise alarm with the public and insert inflammatory language to fix a mischief that never really existed. I accept that that is probably not intended by those who tabled those amendments. However, I call it the “Section 28” effect. What do I mean by that? The last time that such an impact was felt was after the introduction of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. The inflammatory text damaged the reputations of the party opposite and this House. We have come a long way since then. I ask the Committee and the Government that where there is no mischief that they can identify please do not seek to remedy it, as is the case with these amendments dealing with public authority employees expressing their opinions on marriage. Please be wary of those offering helpful solutions, as some of us have had to live with the terrible consequences of those tactics as a result of Section 28.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others on the other side of the House. My hearing aid, or my hearing, or both, gave way last time and I could not hear a word that was said. I was very fortunate to have a prompter near me. I do not think that anything I say now will provoke a large number of interventions but if that happens, I am now in better shape to deal with them.
The amendment deals with discrimination against someone because he expresses the view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I want to take this opportunity to mention something which has been very much on my mind. This sort of discrimination may become prevalent because it has got about the place that even before the Bill has become law, it is plain wrong to express support for traditional marriage. I hope others were as concerned as I was to read how the Law Society and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre cancelled conferences to be held on their premises by Christian Concern to make the case for traditional marriage, with a very distinguished body of speakers. Each of those bodies had the nerve to say in its notification of cancellation that the nature of the event was,
“contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage”.
It never seems to have occurred to the writers of those letters that they were quite deliberately interfering with the right of free speech in a country where free speech is greatly treasured as the hallmark of a free society. I hope that a clear message goes out from the Government today that the behaviour of those bodies was clearly unacceptable. We must safeguard free speech, whatever we do tonight.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornton speaking from the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Alli have argued, no doubt persuasively in their view, that the current protections are adequate: the Equality Act is in place. However, in my judgment that contention is belied, first, by the fact that a number of leading counsel take a contrary view and say that the protections are not adequate, and, secondly, by the fact of some of the cases, some of which have already been cited. We will come to the registrar later, as well as the chaplain to the police and other such cases. It would be helpful if we could have a response from the Minister that these cases would in fact have received protection under government Amendment 53 and any other protections which the Government may seek to provide.
My own starting point is clear: as a House, we should seek to protect minorities from what is, sometimes, the tyranny of the majority. We can refer to the wonderful literature on this, such as by Mill and de Tocqueville. I would recommend all colleagues to read and re-read what they say about the tyranny of the majority. Surely, part of our duty is to ensure—so far as we are able—that minorities are protected. In this case, we seek to protect and to give dignity and equal rights to a minority in our country. I would hope that those in this minority would also see the importance of giving protection to another minority—those who think highly of traditional marriage as defined.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My noble friend is playing on words somewhat. At Second Reading there was much contention as to what the majority opinion in this country was. In my judgment, the Government carried out a fairly spurious, bogus consultation where they chose to ignore a petition containing a very large majority which, had it been added, would have shown a majority against the Bill. One chooses one’s public opinion poll. My noble friend may choose one particular poll; I may choose another, both of which bolster our respective opinions. The point I am making is that my view of traditional marriage—which is not just Christian marriage, but that of a number of other confessions—is something worthy. It should be protected, and those who espouse it should achieve protections. That is important even if, say, 46% of respondents to the latest poll oppose this Bill. I do not know what overall public opinion is.
I would challenge the Government to test that opinion. I shall move an amendment later which suggests that, if the Government are so confident that this represents majority opinion, they should hold a referendum, given their record in other areas, such as the relatively trivial transference of sometimes quite minimal provisions to the European Union. This may not be relevant to this particular clause but, even if the views which I and many other colleagues espouse are in the minority—and there is some uncertainty about that—that minority deserves to be protected. Those who have been a clamant minority and who have won support during the passage of this Bill, should also be conscious of the protection of other minorities, if that is what we are.
In answer to the contention of my noble friend that the protections are adequate, let him look at some of the cases that have been brought. It is sad that there are many zealots on both sides of the argument—zealots who seek to use the law to the full for their own purposes. There are many ordinary, decent folk who find that they are the subject of litigation. Not only are they in an agony of uncertainty in the intervening period before their case comes to court, but it is also a very expensive matter. With very limited resources, they may find that they are up against very well-padded groups. That is the reality of these matters. Whatever the legislative provisions, people on both sides will push at the borders. I would urge my noble friend, consistent with the views which he and I generally espouse in respect of minorities, to look carefully to see that the tide has not run so far in one direction that there is indeed a tyranny—in this case, the tyranny of a minority.
I refer specifically to Amendment 19. I know this is not a view that my noble friend has espoused, but the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, has called people like me “bigots”. I resent that because there are many people on our side of the argument of all stripes—lawyers, academics, atheists, those of all religions, straight people, gay people—we are not bigots. We are people who happen to hold a traditional view of marriage. I have not heard that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has withdrawn that assertion. I hope that he will. I have not taken it out of context. It means that he has applied a label to many of us which we thoroughly resent.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. That is absolutely true. As a Sikh, expressing my beliefs in public should not subject me to harassment in any way. Clearly, some people have a problem respecting the beliefs of those who believe in traditional marriage. Rather than equality law protecting—
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
The amendment is not as clear as it should be. I want it to be very precise in protecting these sorts of abuses. We will come to discuss that more fully, but I personally believe that it is right and proper to air concerns at this stage.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Lord Alli Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alli
My Lords, gay men and women have waited for far too long to have the same rights as straight married couples—the right to say, “Not tonight dear, I have a headache”, or, “You don’t look fat in that dress”, the right to tell all those wonderful mother-in-law jokes, and even, in the case of the noble Baroness on the government Front Bench, the right to marry George Clooney.
Before I move to the substance of my speech, I want to pay tribute to two Prime Ministers. I start with my right honourable friend Tony Blair. It is his unstinting commitment to equality, taking us from the unequal age of consent through same-sex couple adoptions, the repeal of Section 28 and civil partnerships, that has made it possible for us to be here today. I also want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister. Change requires personal courage and, on this issue, there can be no doubt that David Cameron has shown a huge amount of that. I also pay tribute to the others in the Conservative Party who have joined us on these and the Liberal Democrat Benches in our fight for equality. The vote in the other place was a source of real pride—to see so many MPs, and particularly so many Conservative MPs, add their voices to ours in a free vote—and I hope that we will see the same again today.
The Bill is not about the right of one group against the rights of another. It is about love. It is about who we love and about how we express that love between one another. Marriage is not a contract based on property. It does not belong to one group of people or one group of religious organisations. It is not a contract that is based on financial advantage or disadvantage. It is a contract of love and commitment.
Some of those who have opposed this Bill have spoken passionately on the basis of deeply held religious views. I am sincerely glad that the Government have listened to their concerns and put watertight protections into the Bill. However, the Bill is equally designed to allow those religious organisations that want to marry same-sex couples to do so: the Quakers, the Liberal Jews, the Unitarian Church.
Many to whom I have spoken in the Church of England have argued that allowing same-sex couples to marry would risk the breakdown of the Anglican communion—the African churches would pull away. Last week in Nigeria, a law was passed prohibiting gay marriage and banning gay organisations with a 14-year prison sentence for anyone who advocates gay marriage—that is, people like me making arguments like these. The church should not be opposing same-sex marriage because of the African churches; the church should be supporting it because of African churches.
I want them to show the same leadership that they have shown on issues such as tackling debt and poverty. That is a fight well worth fighting. If the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and others on the Benches Spiritual support civil partnerships, then I, like many gay people, wait with bated breath for the liturgy to allow civil partnerships to be blessed in churches. They have talked the talk; it is now time to walk the walk.
There are also those who say, “We don’t understand why you want marriage. Civil partnership is different but equal”. It is an understandable question. However, it is an emotional response. To find the answer, they need only to have listened to those powerful speeches of their noble friends on their own Benches: the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Browne of Madingley, yesterday. Different, in this context, is not equal. Different is different and equal is equal.
There are also those who oppose the Bill because they just do not want change. They have by and large opposed every change in equality over the past 15 years. They are the people who campaigned for Section 28, and I heard echoes of it again last night as they spun the lie that teachers will be made to promote gay marriage. They are the people who campaigned against same-sex couple adoptions, regardless of the interest of the child. They are the people who campaigned against civil partnership but find no problem with it now. For them, no argument will suffice.
That brings me neatly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I am sure there are many like me who believe that this amendment is wrong in principle. It does not uphold the best traditions of this House in spirit or in the manner in which it has been managed. However, the noble Lord has put his amendment down, so vote we must. I hope that today we will demonstrate to those who seek to wreck the Bill that they will fail. I ask noble Lords to vote for the Bill because everyone deserves the right to have their love recognised equally by the state and because religious organisations should have the right to marry same-sex couples, but not the obligation to do so. I hope that noble Lords vote against the amendment because it is the right and decent thing to do.
Leveson Inquiry
Lord Alli Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alli
My Lords, first, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.
Like many in this House, I have watched the events of the past 16 months with a degree of horror and disbelief but also with, I have to be honest, not a huge degree of surprise. So many lives have been destroyed by so few for so little, but perhaps the greatest victim of them all has been public trust—public trust in print journalism and its current system of voluntary regulation; public trust in the police and their ability to investigate the criminal activities of some of the press; and public trust in us, the politicians, to stand up to press intimidation, especially in the face of commercial pressures. We have all been found wanting and today is our opportunity to begin to put things right.
I am optimistic that we can do so, in part because of the extraordinary work of Lord Justice Leveson. He has produced a measured, thoughtful and, I believe, extraordinary example of what works in our society. We should all be proud of this report because it has created a backdrop for rebuilding public trust in our most valued institutions. Like others, I am a little disappointed by some elements of the newspaper industry, who have deliberately misrepresented the report in order to scare the public in pursuit of their own self-interest.
First, I want to look at what I think we can all agree on. I believe that we can find much to agree on in the following nine judgments contained within the report. The first is that a free press, with all the rights and responsibilities that that entails, is essential. The second is the clear inadequacies of the PCC. The third is the need for a genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation for the press. The fourth is the creation of a new body with teeth that promotes high standards of journalism and protects the rights of the individual. Fifth is the importance of maintaining a plural media, particularly when it comes to sourcing news. The sixth is that the commercial pressures and ambitions of national newspapers should not be an excuse to lower standards or trample on citizens’ rights. The seventh is that the relationships between senior politicians of all parties and the press should be much more transparent. Eighth is that the Metropolitan Police was probably too close to certain newspaper groups, and its judgments were poor in the investigation of the criminal activities of those newspapers. The ninth is that the culture of tip-offs and payments to the police and other public servants by some should not have been tolerated by any of us.
Those provide us with common ground to move forward. So the debate boils down to one single issue: a system of self-regulation underpinned by statute, or not? There it is in a nutshell: underpinning by statute or not? I fully accept that there are other important issues of detail in the report, but that single question is what each of us has to answer. I have reluctantly come to the view that, in the absence of any other credible structure being put forward, the time to underpin self-regulation by statute has finally come.
I will raise three further issues. The first is funding. If self-regulation is to work, it needs to be properly funded. I believe that there is a strong case for looking to state funding. It is not a discussion for today, but I would like the Government to look seriously at the issue.
Secondly, I would like a new offence on the statute book to deal with the issue of press intimidation. When a newspaper group uses information on an individual to coerce them into revealing details of their own or others’ private lives in return for protection or non-publication, it feels to me like blackmail, and we should make it a criminal offence. Thirdly, the lobbying of newspaper groups on their own behalf in their own papers needs to be looked at again.
Finally, what are we to do with this report and its recommendations? I find myself in agreement with John Major who, in his evidence, said:
“I have no idea what this Inquiry will recommend, but if it makes recommendations that require action, then I think it is infinitely more likely that that action will be carried into legislation if it has the support of the major parties. If it does not, if one party breaks off and decides it’s going to seek future favour with powerful proprietors and press barons by opposing it, then it will be very difficult for it to be carried into law”.
I believe that it was no accident that Lord Justice Leveson highlights John Major’s remarks as his final concluding remark.
I understand that it is tempting for Prime Ministers of all political parties to seek to accommodate powerful proprietors, and I feel no animosity towards the Prime Minister for his attempts to broker an alternative solution. However, I say to the Prime Minister, to the leader of my own party and to the leader of the Liberal Democrats: come together and lead, because this report sets out a once-in-a-generation route map to ensure a free and fair press.
I also say to my fellow Back-Benchers on all sides of the House that leadership, as noble Lords may know, does not always come from those on the Front Benches, We, too, have our role to play—by the way, this would not be a good time to intervene on timing. If we believe that the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson require action, we on the Back Benches in this place have a special constitutional role to play in making that happen. There is an onus on us to ensure change. In doing so, we can help to restore trust in the press, in the police and in this Parliament, too.