Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, like my noble friend who has just spoken, I, too, have serious reservations about this amendment. Indeed, I am opposed to it. I take that view in the light of experience—some eight or nine years on the Front Bench on work and pensions and as a former chairman of a pretty large company pension scheme. This amendment would effectively remove the discretion of the trustees to exercise their powers in a way that is favourable or unfavourable to a particular group of people in the pension scheme. We do not know the exact cost, although the noble Lord, Lord Alli, put it at £80 million. I leave it to my noble friend on the Front Bench to say what the effect would be on public finances but the reality is that this would affect a number of pension funds.

We have to look at this in context. If there was one individual disaster, more than any other of Gordon Brown’s time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was the change that he made to the taxation of company pensions towards the beginning of the Labour Government. The result has, undoubtedly, been the decimation of final salary pension schemes and a transfer to defined contribution schemes. Either way, we have seen the finances of pension funds seriously deteriorating and, in many cases, funds giving up the final salary scheme or giving it up as far as new members are concerned.

As the noble Lord pointed out, a number of trustees have gone along with what the amendment does. However, some have not, and we must leave them the discretion. There may be good reasons why they have not, not least financial ones. It may be that some scheme is tottering—as many have been over the past 10 or 15 years—to the point where it needs to be decided whether the scheme should be closed or changed from a final salary to a defined benefit scheme and so on. It is wrong retrospectively to put a charge on the funds in such a scheme, to which the existing members are contributing but not the people coming into the scheme. Indeed, if we were to accept the amendment, we may find people in a same-sex marriage are brought into the final salary part of the company scheme when others, in the defined contribution part of the scheme, have not been allowed the same benefits. That would, I think, be unfair.

We should leave it to the overall discretion of the trustees. No doubt, over time, it is likely that many more will create the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, speaks of, if they have not yet. However, we should leave it to the discretion of the scheme and the trustees of the scheme—it is their responsibility—and not retrospectively impose a cost on those schemes. That, I think, would be wrong.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, throughout this debate, we have had to say to groups and individuals who are very unhappy about this legislation that, in the cause of equal marriage, they will have to contain their unhappiness. We have said, for example, to registrars—I use the example because I voted the other way in that case—that they will have to accept the change in the law.

It worries me that the moment that we talk about money, all sorts of people who have been perfectly happy up to now start being concerned. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not be upset when I say that I remember, in the debates in the Synod of the Church of England, that everybody was very happy until you started talking about money. Once you talked about money, it was surprising how all kinds of other issues were brought in. One of the things about pensions is that it can be more expensive for people if they get married than if they do not. Nobody goes around saying, “That is a pretty mean thing to do. That means less for the rest of us”. That is not how a pension scheme works.

It seems to me perfectly acceptable for the Government to have the opportunity—which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, with characteristic care, has offered—to look carefully in case one or two of the worries of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have spoken before turn out to be true. There might be something that we have not really thought through and it would be wrong to exclude that possibility. However, I do not think that this House can say that, for the time going forward, one sort of marriage will work in one way and another will work in another way. After all, we opposed an amendment that delicately pointed towards that by a majority of more than 200. It seems to me that Mammon is getting into this, and Mammon should always be very carefully considered before Mammon is allowed to win. I hope that the Minister accepts at the very least that every effort will be made to ensure that this Bill means what it says, which is equal marriage, and that it does not mean equal marriage until it comes to money, when the Treasury gets in on the act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend introduces a new, very complicated matter and I am struggling with the complicated matters in front of me.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am going to conclude very soon. Would my noble friend allow me to make some final remarks?

[Lord Higgins]

This seems to be the appropriate point to interrupt the very clear exposition my noble friend is making. I put this case to her: there is a company that had a final salary scheme for existing members and then, later in time, introduced a defined contribution scheme. The people in the defined contribution scheme cannot get all the benefits in the original scheme. None the less, the people under this retrospective legislation would be able to do so. They would be more privileged than the people in the existing defined contribution scheme.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is an interesting point. My understanding of Amendment 84 is that its proposals would only apply to those who are currently in a defined benefit scheme. This is not about introducing the benefits of a defined benefits scheme to those who are only in a defined contribution scheme. I do not think that what my noble friend is suggesting is what is proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment.

As I have tried to explain, any change to the arrangements set out in the Bill would impose costs on the public purse, which would be considerable. The House should therefore be aware that any change to the position set out in the Bill would have a cost to the public purse, so an amendment to the Bill on this issue would infringe the House of Commons’ financial privilege.