Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, Amendment 34 is down in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Edmiston. I should like to convey his apologies for not being here today and although the words will be mine, the spirit will be ours.

When I spoke at Second Reading I think I was fairly clear. No one was confused. I was not in favour of this Bill. I had the pleasure of speaking immediately after my noble friend Lord Dobbs, and I am happy to do so again. I will come back in a few moments to something he said. I was not in favour of it because, as I pointed out, I had grown up in a home and environment where both Christian and Conservative principles and values had dominated. That was my view and I voted against the Bill receiving a Second Reading. However, I have been in this place long enough to know that when both Houses have spoken with such overwhelming majorities, we have got to address that issue. We then have the right to turn to how we can, if possible, make the legislation better.

I would like to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that I think he did some of us a slight injustice. We are not trying to rerun Second Reading and the concepts behind it by tabling these sorts of amendments. There is a difference between traditional marriage—as it has been referred to—and same-sex marriage, which the Government recognise in Schedule 4, Part 2 and Part 3 of the Bill. The word “marriage” is used to cover both. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, may be interested to know that I did not attach my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Cormack precisely because I thought that, having been as outspoken as I was at Second Reading, I would be accused of trying to undermine the principle of the Bill in some other devious way. That is why I did not attach my name to that amendment although I support it.

My amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Edmiston addresses a separate point. We have spent more than an hour talking about the substance of marriage, and in some cases rehearsing Second Reading, but in reality—in biological reality if nothing else—there are differences between a marriage of a man and a woman and a marriage of two men or two women. I am staying well clear of the symbolism and the aspirations. I am simply stating a fact. My noble friend Lord Dobbs said that we must address the political correctness which has concerned and dominated us for too long. I want to agree with him but in a different context. When this House and the other place have passed legislation around religious hate crimes, racial hate crimes and the like, once the well-meaning, carefully written legislation was subjected to general use, those whose sense of political correctness exceeded that of most of us in this Chamber got to work. People, employees and workers, particularly in the public sector, were accused of all sorts of things in the name of that legislation and in many cases it took them months and a fortune to prove that what they were accused of was not in accordance with the law of the land. Their reputations never totally recovered. I foresee that possibility arising out of this legislation.

Your Lordships will notice that I have not addressed the substance of marriage and I have not tried to define it. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I would like the Bill to state that for the general public who are not involved in all this deep theological and, if I may say so, legal analysis, it is all right to say—

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords—

[Lord Mawhinney]

I commend the noble Baroness for her enthusiasm. I will give way in just a moment. I would like the ordinary men and women of this country to be able to say, “It is legally all right; I am not involved in hatred of any sort if I talk about a traditional marriage between a man and a woman or if I talk about a same-sex marriage between two men or two women”. The Bill needs to reassure people that they can state what is factually the case and not have their jobs or reputations put at risk because somebody interprets this legislation in the way that race and religious hatred legislation has been interpreted thus far.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, my noble friend will have heard the exception taken by a number of our noble friends and others to the term “traditional marriage”. The term “same-sex marriage” immediately identifies what the difference is. However, there are two well known terms in the history of the Church of England which do not carry any such connotations, each of which I think might appeal especially to the predilections of the two confronted parties—that is, “ancient” and “modern”. I do not know whether he would consider changing his proposed two terms at a later stage; I just put that in his mind.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I think not, because “ancient” and “modern” carry with them designations which are likely to complicate an already pretty complicated set of circumstances. I am just a simple Belfast boy and “traditional” and “same sex” seem to me to be a fair reflection. However, in the same spirit as that shown by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Cormack, if somebody can find a better way to put in the Bill simple phrases that ordinary people can use to protect themselves against being charged with some sort of hatred, I would be very happy to consider that.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Is the noble Lord aware that the Government have tabled an amendment to deal with his precise point about free speech to make it clear that criticising same-sex marriage or otherwise will not in any way constitute a criminal offence? That is clearly spelt out in a later amendment.

[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.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, wished to speak but could not get up fast enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate about the definition of marriage and about this group of amendments. I accept fully that noble Lords are, with the best of intentions, trying to find a way through. However, we on these Benches think that the effect of all the amendments in this group would be the same. All, in different ways, seek to enshrine in law a distinction between what is referred to as “traditional marriage” or “matrimonial marriage” and the new, statutory definition of marriage that will be created under the Bill, which encompasses the union of both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Whether those who tabled the amendments intended to or not, they were in effect making two classes of marriage. Trying to find different definitions—and in some cases, I fear, jealously guarding the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples—suggests that one form of marriage is inferior to another and that flies in the face of the Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, was quite right in his remarks, as were other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, my noble friend Lady Turner, the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, in her excellent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They all appreciated that while those who tabled the amendments have a strong personal belief about marriage, in some cases rooted in their religious faith, their amendments would undermine the purpose of the Bill.

It is important to make a distinction between something that has the effect of undermining a belief or an idea and something that undermines an individual’s ability to hold such a belief. I find it difficult to believe that, when the Bill becomes an Act and same-sex marriages are a routine matter, as they will be, the noble Lords who have been so nervous today will feel that something important or precious has been removed from their faith or their strong belief in marriage.

Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights clearly enshrines an individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We must be absolutely clear in our protection of these rights. The Bill seeks to do that. The Bill does not in any way undermine those rights for individuals in relation to their belief about the appropriate nature of marriage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said, its purpose is to provide for the state to recognise equally the relationships of couples, regardless of whether they are between members of the same sex or of opposite sexes, who wish to make a loving and lifelong commitment to each other.

By inserting a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage back into statute, whether by describing one as a “union”, as Amendment 1 would do, or as matrimonial marriage requiring special privileges, as Amendments 46 and 57 do, or by setting up a separate register, we would undermine the purpose of the Act, which is to remove the distinction in law between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Therefore, we on these Benches have no sympathy with, and do not support, any of the amendments in this group. I ask noble Lords not to be seduced by what I regard as the lethal combination of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. The way they described what they wish to achieve was seductive, but it would have the same effect on the Bill.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I think that the noble Baroness suggested that my amendment was designed to undermine the Bill, although I explicitly made clear that it was not. What would she think about giving ordinary members of the public the assurance that they can use certain phrases, by putting them in the Bill, to protect themselves against undue political correctness? My amendment has nothing to do with the substance that she has addressed so far in her speech.

[Baroness Thornton]

I think that noble Lords’ concerns about free speech will be addressed at a later stage in Committee, in the next group of amendments but one. I am certainly happy to address those concerns. This group of amendments is about the substance and purpose of this Bill. The Government have addressed the freedom of speech issues; indeed, they are covered in this legislation and in the legislation that is already in existence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I shall certainly seek advice on that, but I have a feeling that my noble friend would be able to help me answer the question he has posed. I will certainly endeavour to respond to that point while I remain on my feet.

Amendments 33 and 34 give us an opportunity to discuss Clause 11. It may be helpful if I explain briefly what Clause 11 does. It is a significant clause to ensure that existing and future legislation in England and Wales will be interpreted so that all references to marriage and related terms will be read as applying equally to same-sex married couples unless specifically provided otherwise. This is right and necessary to ensure that all married couples are treated generally in the same way. The clause also gives effect to Schedule 3, which makes further provision for the interpretation of references to marriage in both new and existing legislation in England and Wales. It also gives effect to Schedule 4, which sets out particular instances where the effect of Clause 11 would give the wrong result.

I turn to Amendment 33—

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I understand that she just wants marriage without any bells or whistles—just marriage. Will those people who are not politicians or lawyers, and who may use the phrase “same-sex marriage” or “traditional marriage”, now be exposed to the charge of committing a hate crime?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Absolutely not. I was going to come on to respond briefly to the points that my noble friend raised. However, I am happy to make clear now that I will move an amendment to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case—not that it would have been anyway, but I am happy to clarify that. Furthermore, nothing in the Bill prevents anybody using any kind of terminology they choose to use in the course of their conversations, whether in public or private. The Government seek to ensure that we do not introduce distinctive terms into this legislation which separate out different people. That is the key difference.

Amendment 33 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay states that Clause 11 should be:

“Subject to the later provisions of this Act”.

However, as I said, Clause 11 gives effect to Schedule 4, paragraph 27(2)(a) of which makes Clause 11 subject to contrary provision made by,

“the other provisions of this Act”.

That achieves the effect that my noble and learned friend’s amendment appears to seek and so renders it unnecessary. My noble and learned friend also referred to the presumption of parenthood and to adultery and raised important points about both those matters. We shall discuss later amendments on these issues so it is probably more efficient for me to come back to those at the appropriate time.

As I have just said, we believe that Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney is unnecessary. Although we reject any designation that would create two tiers of marriage because there is only one form of marriage, Clause 11 does nothing to prevent anybody using any terms, including “traditional marriage” or “same-sex marriage”, if they choose to do so. As I have described, the clause interprets terms related to marriage for legal purposes; it does not prevent individuals or others making reference to, or supporting, traditional marriage. It is worth referring to the powerful intervention by my noble friend Lady Noakes on difference and the fact that there is a lot of difference in marriages, as other noble Lords have said. Some married people have no children, some stay married for life and others divorce. We do not apply different labels to those kinds of marriages and that is not something that we want to do in the Bill.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I say right away that I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I remember, as I am sure he will remember, the debates we had during the day, and in the watches of the night, over the original CSA Bill. We had certain disagreements at that time, but we have no disagreements this afternoon. Time is getting on, but the point I really want to make is that the Government, in imposing charges, are, in fact, undermining what they want. If there are no charges, the Government are in a win-win situation because it will not only help them financially but it will help family life, particularly for women, and will also give encouragement, perhaps, to the absent male, the absent father, to take a greater interest in the family if he is making a contribution towards the upbringing of the child. I appeal to the Government for their own sake to accept the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is a very sensible amendment that has been supported on all sides. There has been no criticism from any part of the House. I feel sure that if the amendment is put to a vote, the Government will suffer another defeat, and I am not at all sure that politically that is very wise.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, politicians regularly claim to have fairness on their side. It is sort of part of the trade, and it creates the impression that they are on higher moral ground than the opposition—whether that be the Opposition or the Government—who, by definition, cannot therefore have fairness on their side. In more than 30 years at both ends of this corridor, I can think of very few, if any, debates where we have debated quintessentially just the issue of fairness. It is always linked with a policy, and this is linked to a policy as well but, as has become clear during this debate, what we are really being asked to take a decision on is fairness.

I make no apologies for saying that I had the pleasure, some years ago, of working closely with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I have no embarrassment in saying that I learned from him and benefited from his integrity, wisdom and common sense. If any noble Lords had not had this pleasure and privilege, they will have had this evening. That was as powerful an explanation in simple language of integrity, clarity and humanity as I have heard. I have seldom if ever heard someone put the Government ever so gently but firmly in their place without creating any angst, unhappiness or unpleasantness in the process.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss: any Member of Parliament can tell stories about the failure of the CSA. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke of her experience of dealing with men who were intransigent beyond persuasion. I cannot be the only former Member of Parliament who has been physically threatened in surgeries by men because I tried to persuade them that I did not have the power to solve their problem. That threat of physical violence stemmed from an antipathy to their former partner which was time and again beyond remedy—in many cases, beyond even consideration.

I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that, just for once, I think the Government have got it wrong. I support what they are trying to do and I know of nobody in either House who would have the gall to stand up and describe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as a rebel. They would get laughed out of court if they tried. I cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with him, but they would also have a certain amount of difficulty labelling me that way.

If ever there was a time for the Minister to say, “This has been a very good debate, conducted in good humour but with surprisingly impressive intellectual integrity and humanity, and I will take this back and talk to my colleagues and come forward at Third Reading with the Government’s considered position, bearing in mind this debate”, it is now. I hope my noble friend might take that as a constructive suggestion for the way forward.

I made it clear before I came into the House for this debate that it was not my intention or inclination ever to vote against a proposal moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, my friend, but I did not commit myself on whether to abstain or to support him. Unless the Minister says something wholly remarkable over and above what has so far been said, I will join my noble and learned friend in the Lobby.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I do not often vote against coalition policy. I voted for the coalition on Monday, when the coalition was in fact defeated. I voted for the coalition policy then, not because I personally supported that policy but because it was something that I could and should accept as a member of my party and therefore the coalition. This occasion is entirely different. The draft that the amendment replaces has been shown to be very seriously defective. I cannot support that draft. I can and will support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mawhinney]

I and perhaps others in your Lordships' House would find it helpful if the right reverend Prelate would tell us the cost to the public purse if this amendment were approved.

Welfare Reform

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for that question. We have spent a lot of time looking at the lessons from abroad. When I was doing an independent report three and a half years or so ago, Australia was one of the places that I looked at very closely. I had someone who had been working there to inform me about what was happening. Australia and Holland are two places from which we learn a lot of lessons. There is a debate about whether action should be mandatory or voluntary. Voluntary action works if people have the self-confidence to say, “Yes, I want to try something”, but when you have been out of work for a long time, one of the first things that goes is your self-confidence. That is why mandatory action is not cruel. You need to pick people up and make them do things, because they do not have the self-confidence otherwise. That is one of the main lessons to be learnt from the Australian experience.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, perhaps I may say how many of us appreciate the fact that, in trying to unlock lives and aspirations, the Minister is focusing on allowing people to keep more of what they earn and trying to build self-confidence. There may be two other locks that he needs to unpick. The longer someone has not been in employment, the more inadequate or perhaps absent altogether will be their education and training. It would be my guess that those locks will need to be unpicked for very many people. Does he share that view? If so, who will have responsibility for addressing proven lack of education and training, and who will pay for it?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. I not only share his concern but am very firmly on the record as being very concerned about the division between the Work First strategies that we have been adopting in this country and skills and training. One of the mainstream drivers of the work programme philosophy is an attempt to pull training and employment strategies together. It does that partly by price differentiation, so as people become tougher to put into work, the price goes up. We need to find the right mechanisms to make sure that we price up. It does it also by ensuring that the payments system in the work programme is based on sustainment in work, which can be for one, two or three years. You do not sustain someone in work for a long time unless you pull in the whole training and education element. That kind of change should be going through.

Synthetic Biology

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I look forward to attending that debate. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the experiment by Professor Craig Venter consisted essentially of taking the DNA from one bacterium, mycoplasma mycoides, modifying it and then putting it inside another bacterium, mycoplasma capricolum. Technically, that is not the creation of an artificial cell, but that is prospectively the next invention that could come along. That is why we need to make sure that the regulations will cover it.

I can inform the noble Lord that Craig Venter’s experiment is being patented, although observations in the scientific press indicate that that does not represent a risk of him subsequently seizing control of the whole of synthetic biology.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord on his visit to the Dispatch Box for the first time as a Minister. As a former parliamentary member of the Medical Research Council, whatever the technicalities here, can I encourage the Minister to think carefully about the proposal that the Government should consult distinguished medical, academic and, perhaps, spiritual people about the potential development of this technology at this stage rather than, as has been the case too often in the past, leaving such consultations until it is too late?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. This is an important development and the UK takes a leading role in the area. We have several research establishments right at the forefront of this development, but I would take back from him the question of whether we should look at this brave new world—if you like—earlier rather than later. At the moment these are very early days in the development of this science.