Commonwealth Countries: Reciprocal Pension Agreements

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Commonwealth should be united by a common commitment to human rights and the well-being of all. Sadly, this has been marred by our silence over the brutal repression of the farmers’ dispute in India. Does the Minister agree that reciprocal pension arrangements can help restore the image by, for example, allowing retirement to Commonwealth countries, which will reduce healthcare needs in the UK?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The UK has different social security arrangements with different Commonwealth countries. While some bilateral agreements provide for uprating, others do not. I am very happy to meet with the noble Lord to discuss this further if it helps him.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, perhaps I might come to the noble Earl’s aid to some extent. I support his request for evidence-based research, and will add that the evidence presented should be tested. I am well aware of a body of research put forward to the Government during their initial inquiries before they drafted the Bill which was very seriously challenged by apparently well qualified people. The challenge was never answered or rebutted. I will happily write to the Minister about this because it should be looked into further. Where advocates of a cause commission or present research, it is as well to test it very carefully before taking it at face value.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I rise briefly to say that, in the next amendment, I will produce some evidence-based research that very much supports the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

[Lord Pannick]

I agree entirely with everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. But the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is about the implications of the measures in this Bill. I can see no reason whatever for thinking that it could be any less favourable to the interests of a child to be brought up by parents in a same-sex marriage than to those of a child being brought up by parents in a civil partnership. I would have thought that the stability and status of a marriage would be as beneficial to the child as it will be to the partners of same-sex marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

96: Before Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Referendum provisions
(1) A referendum is to be held in England and Wales on the issue of same sex marriage.
(2) The referendum is to be held on 24 October 2013.
(3) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is impossible or impracticable for the referendum to be held on 24 October 2013, or that it cannot be conducted properly if held on that day, the Secretary of State may be order appoint a later day as the day on which the referendum is to be held.
(4) Any day appointed by order under subsection (3) must be before 1 November 2014.
(5) Where a day is appointed under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may by order make supplemental or consequential provision.
(6) The Secretary of State must by order make provisions for the conduct of the referendum.
(7) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—
(9) Those entitled to vote in the referendum are the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.”

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the need for a referendum is important for two reasons. First, as we all know, no attempt whatever was made to consult the electorate before the last election, or through Green or White Papers, on the proposed redefinition of marriage, which millions see as an essential building block of society. Respect for the electorate demands their explicit consent for this major social change.

Secondly, many of us hoped that the wider implications of this legislation would be discussed and genuine concerns listened to in the progress of the Bill in the other place and in your Lordships’ House. Sadly, this has not happened. What is concerning about the support for the Bill is the narrow crusading zeal with which genuine concerns are either ignored or brushed aside. Many of us concerned with making ours a fairer society for all welcomed the civil partnership legislation which gave legal rights and dignity to the gay community in our wonderfully diverse society. The legislation recognised both dignity of difference and equality of respect.

The Sikh gurus from whom I take my cue taught the importance of recognising and respecting difference and the right to differ, but they also taught that all of us, men and women, are equal members of one human family. I vainly hoped that some of this sort of thinking would become evident in this debate. Sadly, those pushing the Bill, perhaps because of a collective guilty conscience over past persecution of homosexuals, looked only to the supposed wishes of the gay community with no thought for the rights of others.

Three tactics have been used as spoiling measures to stifle genuine debate. First, past persecution of gays has been used to demand unreasonable reparation from the wider community by appropriating, distorting and diluting the accepted meaning of marriage without consideration of the consequences for family relationships and the care and nurture of children.

Secondly, we have seen a deliberate misuse of language to suggest that sameness and equality—I mean equality of opportunity and equality of respect—are one and the same thing, and that to recognise and respect genuine difference amounts to prejudice and notions of superiority. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Cricket and football are different sports but this does not mean or imply that one is superior to the other, yet in seeking to blur difference in gay and heterosexual relationships in Monday’s debate, the learned noble Lord, Lord Lester, put forward this same spurious argument. He said:

“The attempt to define same-sex marriage differently from opposite-sex marriage while claiming that they are somehow equal would inevitably be seen by ordinary men and women in the street—and by me, as a not very ordinary man in the street, I suppose—as attempting to give the traditional view of marriage a superior status”.—[Official Report, 8/7/13; col. 16.]

I believe that the man in the street is far more discerning and would resent being wrongly patronised in this way.

Thirdly, as we have heard this evening, statistics have been used to confuse debate. A small survey—the Cambridge survey—has again been quoted. It is said to have found that some children do better with gay parents. Perhaps that is so, but why ignore a much larger and more extensive survey of 3,000 people conducted by the University of Texas over a number of years on a random population which included interviews with children who had grown to become adult? It showed that the children who flourish best, measured in categories such as education, employment status, depression, crime, welfare dependency and drug misuse, are those who spend their entire childhood with their biological mother and father. All other family arrangements did significantly less well. The worst outcomes were in children brought up by their mother in a lesbian relationship. Are we doing our children any favours if we simply refuse to look at such studies?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, Amendments 96 and 134 seek to provide in the Bill for a referendum on marriage of same-sex couples, to be held on or after 24 October 2013. I recognise that the date has been brought forward somewhat from the amendment that we discussed in Committee; otherwise, it is very nearly identical to that amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, supported by my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Singh.

It will come as no surprise to the House that the Government are unable to accept these amendments. We do not believe it is a sensible course of action, nor is it required. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Singh, said in moving his amendment, and I recognise his strength of feeling on this issue. As he knows, he and I do not agree on the principle of the Bill. Nevertheless, I profoundly respect not only his view but the depth of feeling with which he holds it.

There are one or two points that I wish to take up on this matter. There was one practical matter to start with. The noble Lord almost suggested that it was a conspiracy that the Government could put my noble friend Lady Stowell’s letter into the Library, but somehow his could not be. That is just the way the House operates. However, what I can say is that the Government can place documents in the House Library and if the noble Lord would like me to, I am happy to place a copy of his reply to my noble friend Lady Stowell in the Library, and would be pleased to do so if he feels it would be helpful to the debate.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I was not saying that it was conspiracy. It was my ignorance about the proceedings and the way the House operates. I was happy that there was a way of debating something, and then I found a block. You cannot do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I know that the noble Lord did not say it was a conspiracy. I think that he used the phrase that it was blocking off debate and almost suggested that it was done deliberately. It was not. As he indicated just now, these are the rules of the place, but if he wishes a copy of his reply to be put into the Library, we will certainly arrange for the Government to do that. The noble Lord is nodding assent to that proposition.

The letter which my noble friend Lady Stowell sent to the noble Lord relates to issues about consultation. She noted, for example, that the British Sikh Consultative Forum issued a formal submission to the consultation on equal marriage and that government officials met representatives from the Sikh Council UK as recently as 4 April this year. They held pre-consultation meetings with the Sikh forum in December 2011 and held another meeting during the consultation period with the interfaith community in May 2012, which involved representatives from the Sikh faith.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

What is the meaning of consultation when you talk about a course previously decided on? That, in my view, is not consultation. My other point is that I have spoken to all those groups that have been mentioned. They were totally opposed to the legislation, but that is not reflected.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there will always be situations where there are disagreements. Nevertheless, it has been the case that efforts were made to engage with not just the Sikh community but with other communities. It is a fundamental part of the Bill that the Government readily recognise—indeed the official Opposition readily recognise too—that there are religious organisations and faith communities which do not believe in same-sex marriage. That is why an important part of the architecture of this Bill is to give protection to these faiths. That is an important part that has come out of the discussions and the process that have brought us to where we are today with this Bill.

It was also suggested that the Government had somehow been impervious to argument. It is worth reminding the House that, as part of the whole process, the Government listened to what the Church in Wales said and produced an opt-in procedure. There has been additional protection for chaplains employed as members of staff. We added ecclesiastical law to the measures not affected by the Bill. We have clarified that marriages of same-sex couples are void when the couple are aware that their religion has not opted in. We have ensured that the consent of a governing authority to opt in to same-sex marriage does not automatically fall if the governing authority changes.

Significantly, on Report on Monday—and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, commended the Government for this—we introduced an amendment which gave extended meaning to the word “compelled”. We also brought forward an amendment to change the Public Order Act to clarify that criticism of same-sex marriage is not a hate crime. On other issues, for example on humanist weddings, the Government have been prepared to listen. There were amendments earlier today on fast-track procedure for gender recognition, and a technical, though important, amendment to reflect the absence of a legislative consent Motion from Northern Ireland for overseas marriages in consulates or Armed Forces bases. On a number of these issues the Government have listened and made appropriate amendments to the Bill.

It has also been said that the use of referendums in the United Kingdom remains very much the exception in our constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, and indeed myself, were members of your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee when it looked at the issue of referendums. I do not think that I am betraying any secrets—it comes through in the report—that we thought referendums should be the exception. However, the genie was out of the bottle and therefore if referendums were going to be used the report clearly stated that they should be on matters of substantial constitutional significance. It gave some examples: to abolish the Monarchy; to leave the European Union—the subject of the debate in the House of Commons last Friday; for any of the nations of the United Kingdom to secede from the UK; to change the electoral system for the House of Commons; and to change the UK’s system of currency. While I recognise that what we have been debating in your Lordships’ House on this Bill is a matter of profound social policy, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination it could be described as a matter of substantial constitutional significance. We acknowledge that what we are doing is a significant change to marriage law, and I recognise that many are uneasy about the proposals, but I say again that this is not a significant constitutional matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The point is that under our constitutional, democratic architecture, Members of Parliament make their judgments, cast their votes and then answer to the electorate. That is the appropriate way in which we go about these matters.

The Prime Minister was mentioned. Anyone who has heard the Prime Minister talk on this issue knows that he does so from real conviction. It is a great credit to the Prime Minister that he has had the courage to give leadership on this issue and that this Bill has got to where it is today.

Support has also been reflected in recent opinion polls. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth referred to that. I remind your Lordships of a House of Commons Library research paper on this Bill. Here is a summary of polls on same-sex marriages offering a two-way choice: October 2011, ComRes—51% support; 7 March 2012, ICM—admittedly not a majority but 45%; May 2012, YouGov in the Sunday Times—51%; December 2012, YouGov—55%; December 2012, Survation—60%; December 2012, ICM—62%; February 2013, YouGov in the Sunday Times—55%; 5 February 2013, YouGov in the Sun—54%; 19 May 2013, YouGov—55%.

However, I make the point that numbers are not everything. This Bill is about putting right a wrong. We believe in the importance of the institution of marriage. We wish to ensure that gay and lesbian couples can be part of it in the same way as opposite-sex couples. We want to get on with that, and therefore I ask the House to reject this amendment.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for the graciousness of his response. I also thank noble Lords who spoke in favour of this amendment: the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Waddington, and my noble friends Lord Martin and Lord Listowel. They put the position perfectly, although I was a little concerned to be called a “conservative”. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. He did not respond to any of the specific concerns raised, but in many ways the manner of his response exemplified the concerns that I raised earlier; my thanks again to him. It is late, I sense the mood of the House, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 96 withdrawn.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

With respect, this response is unconvincing. As we have seen, there is already uncertainty about which decisions are public functions. The proposed new clause would introduce a degree of clarity in one area of activity, and that can hardly be regarded as unhelpful. A risk, possibly a significant risk, has been identified. Even if litigation against a religious organisation may ultimately be successfully resisted, that will be so only after the organisation has incurred costs. Religious organisations should not be exposed to such costs, particularly if they are not public bodies, as the Government assert. The explicit protection provided in the amendment is clearly needed. I beg to move.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 13. As was mentioned on Monday and has been mentioned today, the public sector equality duty rightly requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination, work for equality of opportunity and foster good relations. It is a welcome measure that makes ours a fairer society.

However, we all know that those in authority can, and often do, misuse their authority to intimidate or bully others in employment or those who approach them for goods and services. As Shakespeare and Dickens observed, office can be intoxicating, particularly if you feel that you are working for the greater good. It can lead to a messianic zeal to convert others to your way of thinking. There is a real danger that if this legislation comes into force, some will use it to try to convert those who believe in traditional marriage to their way of thinking. I believe that the amendment is necessary to draw attention to and protect sincerely held beliefs that harm no one—beliefs that will with hindsight be seen as having important implications for family cohesion and the well-being of children. Clarity of the law benefits everyone; lack of clarity benefits only the lawyers.

[Lord Hylton]

I shall speak to Amendment 17. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for adding her name to it. I hope that I can be fairly brief. Despite assurances and the amendments made by the Minister in Committee and on Report in the other place, I believe that there is still uncertainty about the meaning of compulsion and the word “compelled”. The amendment is designed to remove that uncertainty. It aims to make things clear, and thus protect religious organisations and their members from all legal penalties. It would prevent public authorities treating such organisations less favourably if they decide not to opt in. For example, in some sphere completely unconnected and separate from marriage—such as the provision of a youth club or a night shelter—public authorities would be acting ultra vires if they penalised religious bodies for not opting in, and thus co-operating with the Bill when it becomes law.

It is important that such assurances should be plain in the Bill. My amendment tends to consolidate and reinforce the Government’s quadruple lock. I urge the Minister to take away all three amendments in this group to see whether they can result in improved amendments on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Frankly, if I personally were in charge of marketing in any of our principal churches, I would be a little worried. However, that is, of course, a matter for them. The worrying thing for me is the way in which they have been able, with the greatest courtesy, to mobilise objections and amendments to this particular piece of legislation, which I strongly support.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

On the question of religions falling out of step with civil society, religions are there to give values to society, lasting and ethical values, on which society should be based for its own good so that responsibility and consideration of others is there. I see dangers in civil society falling out of step with that guidance.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

With the greatest respect, I agree except that I would put it the other way around. The danger that I see for religions, particularly the one to which I feel sentimentally attached, the Church of England, is that they will fall out of step with civil society. For example, the progress that has been made over the past 100 years in rights for women is widely supported in civil society. Therefore, as I said earlier, it seems a little odd to see the Church of England debating whether women should be bishops. It is, of course, a matter for them and for their religious beliefs.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I apologise, but the noble Lord refers to religions—he has clarified the issue now—and gives the example of women. Women were given full equality in the Sikh religion from day one.

It is not a question of marketing. Religions and value-based systems should not go for marketing. They are offering something, and that must not go with the tide. That is absurd.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

As I say, I am not the best person to be advising churches on how to handle the like. However, religions evolve and have, over the centuries, evolved along with society. I would suggest that they might be wise to do so.

In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I very much hope that she will be able to give consideration to this matter. I recognise that we are attempting to slipstream behind the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which I strongly support, and which has been strongly supported both in this House and in the other place. We also know—I think we all know this—that even with a piece of legislation of this kind, which is non-party and free vote, officials look to their Ministers for guidance. I have no doubt that if my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place were to suggest to their officials that they would like to find a way of accommodating humanist marriage within the Bill, they could and would do just that. I very much hope that the Government will move such an amendment on Report.

In the mean time, if I may paraphrase a lyric from Hymns Ancient and Modern, I can assure the House that we in the humanist movement,

“will not cease from mental fight”,

until we have achieved full recognition in the law for humanist marriage.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I am deeply concerned about the potentially divisive nature of this Bill. Mention was made a number of times at Second Reading and has been made again in the two days when we have been considering amendments of the serious potential for unintended consequences. We need to consider this very carefully indeed. There is a huge risk that faith communities and church congregations find themselves in dispute as a consequence of this Bill where no dispute existed previously.

Given the strong differences of views on same-sex marriage, there is enormous scope for minority elements within congregations to seek to register premises for same-sex weddings against the wishes of their denomination or majority. The vague drafting of this clause leaves too much to chance. Under the Bill as drafted, it is not clear what “recognised” actually means. What does it mean for members of a religious organisation to recognise an authority that is competent to give consent on this issue? Who are the members of a religious organisation? It is impossible to catalogue the variety of ways in which churches and religious bodies identify their membership. What mechanisms are local authorities and courts to use in attempting to address this question?

The governance arrangements that exist within different churches can be quite complex and sometimes unclear. Some churches may require a member to have fulfilled a formal process. Some will use written lists. Others will use an electoral roll. Even these lists might not reflect the number of people in attendance at any meeting. Some churches are structured in such a way that it is considered best not to have a formal system of membership. Church structures are very complicated. It is possible for the situation to become confusing, with claim and counterclaim being made about who possesses authority to speak for the organisation in binding its membership to conducting same-sex marriages.

There will be huge pressure on churches which do not want to opt in. Local authorities may be strong advocates of same-sex marriage and may happily take the consent of a liberal faction as being binding on the whole organisation. It is necessary to set out clear statutory principles to handle inevitable disputes. Local authorities must hold the tools to assess or reject applications to register a building for same-sex marriages, but the local registry office that receives the application has no legal basis on which to determine an application.

It could be very easy to register the church for same-sex marriages, just by the proprietor making an application accompanied by something that seems to show consent. Consent may be given by a wing, a faction, a sub-committee of a denomination, but that does not mean they are representative or legally and morally competent to give consent. It is not clear what constitutes evidence of consent? Under the Bill, a letter is sufficient, but given the internal complexities involved, have the Government considered any additional requirements to verify the issue of consent? Is there any guidance on the consequences of the local authority wrongly approving an application?

It is unrealistic to expect that all local authorities will have a grasp of the internal politics and structures of every religious body. Without a clear framework they will not have the ability to ascertain who exercises the proper legal responsibility for such decisions within each of a wide range of churches with their innumerable variations of governance, locations, interests, hierarchies and systems.

The purpose of Amendment 20 is to define “recognised” and “members” and the consent that would apply to issues on registering buildings, filling gaps in the Bill and reducing the potential for problems down the line. It promotes consistency across the boundaries of different local authorities. It provides mechanisms for achieving clarity when there are opposing claims about who is legally able to speak on behalf of a particular church or faith organisation.

The amendment makes it clearer whether applications are in line with the respective church’s typical decision-making methods. Because of the sensitivities involved, in the event of an unresolved dispute, Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to become involved and therefore establish a uniform approach across central and local government. The Government have created the problem by their drafting, so they should take ultimate responsibility for solving individual problems that may arise.

If it is evident that proper processes have been ignored or deliberately manipulated, the Secretary of State should have the power to order a ballot of church members, as set out under the amendment. In such a ballot, a majority vote of two-thirds would be required to authorise the religious body to either opt in or opt out of the same-sex marriage registration system. This, of course, may come with its own complications, which is why it is so crucial to attempt to define in statute what constitutes membership.

Two words have been repeated again and again in debate on the Bill: “divisive” and “discriminatory”. It is possible that, despite reassurances, if the Bill is introduced, it will create more discrimination than it seeks to solve and cause divisions where none existed before. The amendment proposed by the Minister—Amendment 21—is helpful but it needs to go further. I hope the Minister will give this amendment very serious consideration.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 22, which is in my name. Very detailed consideration has been given to the impact of this legislation on the Christian and Jewish religions. However, no consideration whatever has been given to the difficulties that may arise for other faiths. Can the Minister enlighten the Committee as to why members of other faiths, each more numerous than the Jews, are being treated as if they did not exist? Was this omission inadvertent or was it thought that newer faiths in this country were less important? Either way, the less than favourable treatment of other faiths, including my own, appears to contravene both the Equality Act and human rights legislation. It seems that some minorities are more equal than others.

The substance of my amendment is best understood through a little story, which is true. An opinion pollster knocked on the door of a house in Birmingham and asked, “Do you belong to an organised religion?”. A man in a turban responded, “No, I’m a Sikh”. Sikhs do not easily submit to authority. The day-to-day management of each gurdwara is by democratically elected committees. There is no hierarchy of authority in the Sikh community other than the democratically elected Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee in Amritsar, which, after years of deliberation in the middle of the last century, produced what we call the Rehat Maryada—the Sikh code of conduct, which gives definitive and universally accepted guidance on Sikh marriage, defined as the union of a man with a woman.

I head the Network of Sikh Organisations UK—the NSO—which is the largest umbrella body of Sikhs in the UK, with over 130 affiliated members. Its purpose is to facilitate co-operation between gurdwaras in promoting Sikh values and living true to Sikh teachings. However, neither it nor any other organisation in the UK has any authority to vary the Sikh Rehat Maryada. Amendment 22 is necessary to make this position absolutely clear to the relevant authorities.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I have been listening with great care to many of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Singh, has made during this debate, not least because his is a voice that has not been heard for very long in this House. I will take away and contemplate at greater length his statement in one of our earlier debates that it is not the job of religious organisations to adapt to modern society.

I listened very carefully during our deliberations on Monday, and the noble Lord, Lord Singh, indicated that he spoke for all Sikhs. I asked some other people what they thought about that. They said that in many ways, the organisation is as he described in that different gurdwaras do have some autonomy, although there are common principles around which members of the Sikh faith coalesce.

However, there is one group, called Sarbat, which is a lesbian and gay Sikh group. It takes a very different view of this legislation from the one that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Singh. It is not my job, or the job of this House, to determine who is right and who is wrong. However, I do think it is for this House to note that there are different opinions within his religion, which is not surprising as there is a great variety of opinions within the religions to which many of us belong. I wanted to put that on record, and this seemed like an appropriate point to do so.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I did not say that it was not the job of religions to go along with society. Religions are formulated and their purpose is to give a sense of moral direction to society that, being human, we sometimes lose. It is to remind us of basic values, such as concern for others before concern for yourself. That should not be subject to public opinion, which today is becoming very much about “me and my rights”. Looking to others is very much a part of religion.

As to the other aspect of fringe groups within the Sikh religion, there are such groups. I am talking about the tenets of the Sikh religion as enunciated in the Guru Granth Sahib, the teachings of the gurus, and the code of conduct derived from that. That is the code which 99.9% of Sikhs follow.

[Baroness Barker]

I do not wish to enter into what I think is something of a distraction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Singh, about the role of religion. I merely make the point that the rest of us do not live in a moral vacuum. The rest of us also subscribe to values, some of which are very strong and which he would be familiar with and would share. I simply wish to point out that within his faith, as with all faiths, there are different shades of opinion, and I think the House should be cognisant of that.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

Again, I have not for a moment said that the rest live in a moral vacuum. I simply stated what religion is all about, because that seems to have been lost in this debate. Very often the debate is religion against society, and it is not that.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle and Lord Singh of Wimbledon, in a moment, but I start by speaking to government Amendments 21 and 51. Government Amendment 21 specifies the relevant governing authorities for giving consent to same-sex marriages according to the rights and usages of the Jewish religion. It replaces the provisions currently in the Bill with a definition that reflects the current arrangement for the Jewish community.

During the Committee evidence sessions in the other place, Sarah Anticoni of the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ Family Law Group referred to drafting issues which it had brought to the Government’s attention. This amendment is the result of discussions with the Board of Deputies of British Jews about those drafting issues, and the Government are very grateful to the board for its helpful and constructive contribution to the completion of this amendment, despite representing a wide range of views on same-sex marriage.

The Marriage Act 1949 already provides a definition of “secretary of a synagogue” in respect of the registration of Jewish marriages. This is because the Jewish religion already has specific provisions for its marriages in the Marriage Act which date back to 1753. This amendment ensures that the new provision in respect of the relevant governing authority reflects the modern structure of the Jewish community.

Government Amendment 51 provides that, where a governing authority has given consent to marriages of same-sex couples, that consent will not be affected purely by a change in the person or persons constituting that governing authority. Where a governing authority provides consent and thereby opts into conducting marriages for same-sex couples, a change in the person or persons who make up the authority will not render the consent void, negate it or remove it. The consent will still stand. However, this does not prevent the new governing authority from revoking the consent and deregistering the building, but this amendment makes clear that that would not happen automatically.

Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Singh, provides a specific reference to the governing authority of the Sikh religion in relation to opting into same-sex marriage. I assure the noble Lord that no disrespect is intended towards the Sikh religion, or towards any other denomination or faith that is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, and that this amendment is not needed.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

It may be that no disrespect is intended, but disrespect has been taken and many people are extremely upset about it. I still do not know why the omission occurred. Was it inadvertent or was it deliberate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise if any disrespect has been taken; it was certainly not the intention. A general reference to the governing authorities of religious organisations other than the Church of England, the Jewish religion and the Quakers is already included in the Bill—not by specific reference, but it is covered. The governing authority for the Sikh religion would be covered by this and would enable the members of the Sikh religion to determine who would be their relevant governing authority for the purpose of consenting to same-sex marriage.

The Government do not think it desirable to specify in legislation the governing authority for any particular religious organisation. That is properly a matter for the members of the religious organisation themselves. For the Government to seek to prescribe this would be an inappropriate interference in the internal governance and autonomy of religious organisations, which should be free to decide, and indeed change, their decision-making arrangements for themselves.

I think it was reflected in what the noble Lord said that he is trying to replicate the specific reference that the governing authorities of the Jewish religion and the Society of Friends—the Quakers—have within the Bill. However, as has already been indicated, they are both in a different position, given their particular treatment under the Marriage Act 1949, which arises from arrangements put in place hundreds of years ago to reflect their particular circumstances at the time. They have long had different arrangements under marriage law and therefore their governing authorities are already specifically referred to in the Marriage Act. In line with that treatment, specific reference must be made to their governing authorities in this Bill. This is not required for other religious organisations, where the relevant governing authority should be determined by the members of each organisation. Indeed, my own religious denomination, the Church of Scotland, which has places of worship in England, is not referred to in this Bill—for the very good reason that there is no historical reason why it should be.

Amendment 20 is similar to an amendment debated in Committee in the other place. It inserts provisions regarding the definition of the relevant governing authority, whose written consent is required to opt into the registration of a religious organisation’s place of worship for marriages of same-sex couples. The amendment provides that where there is a dispute over the recognition of the governing authority, the Secretary of State is required to consult members of the religious organisation and if necessary hold a ballot in which at least 66% of members cast their votes. Members are defined as people who have been on a formal membership roll for 12 months or who have attended the majority of services held over a 12-month period.

As I have already indicated, the Government do not believe that it is right for the state to restrict the independence of religious organisations and interfere with their internal governance in this way. Quite properly, that is a matter for each religious body to determine for itself, and we believe that the Bill as it stands gives adequate clarity about what is required regarding the consent of the governing authority of a religious group to marriages of same-sex couples, since the question of who the governing body is will be a matter of fact in each case. If there is a dispute over the identity of the relevant governing authority, that is a matter for the religious organisation to deal with internally, and we do not wish to create additional burdens for religious organisations. Nor indeed do we wish the Secretary of State and the state itself to become involved in internal disputes within a religious organisation.

The noble Lord, Lord Singh, gave us a very helpful explanation as to why he had moved this amendment with reference to the authority in his Sikh religion. It is helpful to have that information about the structure of the Sikh religion, because it illustrates exactly why it would not be proper for the Government to intervene in a religious organisation and its internal workings. It would be quite wrong for the Government to determine which part of the Sikh community should prevail, and it would be a near impossibility for the Government even to identify every religious organisation in the country and make the kind of provision that he would make. Undoubtedly someone would be left off, and that has its own implications. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Singh, that the references to the Jewish faith and to Quakers are for long-standing historical reasons, and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Curry, to reflect on the fact that it is not appropriate for the state and the Secretary of State to intervene in such a way with the internal workings of a religious organisation. On the basis of that, I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I am grateful for what has been said, but it does not really explain the concerns at all. If there had been any sort of research into the Sikh religion, the Government would have had precise answers as to the state of play in that religion and what and who is the authority. No research whatever has been done. It has been considered unimportant and that is what really upsets. The concern is very similar to that of my noble friend Lord Curry: that any fringe group can say that it is in charge of this or that. If the Government do not wish to take note of someone speaking on behalf of the largest and only relevant authority in India, that is up to them, but this is aiding a “divide and rule” culture that is unhelpful, and that will not be welcome in the community.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, this echoes precisely what I was saying at Second Reading. It is a very good example of what is wrong with this whole process. We started off with one unhappy minority and we are going to finish up with 15 or 20 who have not been consulted in the process to the extent that the others have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

Having heard that, I will not move my amendment, with the proviso that what I have suggested should be taken as a strong advisory note in any further development of this legislation. The reason given for the Government’s position is that this is too complex, but that is not really a reason. If you embark on this sort of contentious legislation, you should be prepared for the consequences. It is there, through and through; this is unhelpful legislation that is set to divide not only the country, as it is divided, but communities between themselves.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

Thank you, but I will not move my amendment.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I reinforce that. The Bill itself, as I said in my comments and has been said numerous times, is divisive. Some churches with no clearly defined governing body—and I know many that fall into that category—will find it exceedingly difficult if a minority decides to pursue this. It has the potential to divide church congregations and communities, and that is deeply regrettable. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would like the Minister to reflect on this. Faith communities need some way of appealing if they believe that a position is being taken against their best interests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, normally I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Higgins says. I am in profound disagreement with him today. He has emphasised that he believes that marriages between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are different. There are all kinds of marriages that are different: marriages between divorced people; marriages with and without children; death-bed marriages. However, we do not find different terms for those. Noble Lords need to ask themselves serious questions about why they wish to continue to emphasise sexual orientation in the names that they give certain statuses. By perpetuating giving a different name to marriage in the context of gay and lesbian people, we are wishing to continue to regard them as different from us. Inclusion is what this Bill is about, and what we should be about in society generally, because that is what will make us a stronger society.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the legislation itself refers to two different types of marriage. It is there in how it is written. I am concerned that the attempt to find some common ground between deep divisions is being interpreted as some sort of wrecking amendment. The idea of union is fine; it says everything. I cannot see any difference. The English language is very rich in giving precision to meaning, but sometimes it is not precise enough. We do not want to make it less precise. For example, the Indian languages Hindi and Punjabi have different words for “uncle” and “aunt” depending on which side of the couple they come from, the mother’s or the father’s. These words give precision so that you know what you are talking about. Here, if you use the words “union” and “marriage”, that is fine; we know what we are talking about. There is nothing to suggest that one is less equal than the other, which would be totally wrong.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, without wishing to prolong this debate, perhaps I may try to say a brief word on behalf of children. Many gay relationships—civil partnerships—have children within them. If anybody believes that within a gay relationship it is simple to create a family, they should think again and talk to some of those families. For both gay women and, perhaps more particularly, for gay men, having children by adoption is a most formidable task and one that is scrutinised with great care. What we are talking about here is not just the equality of the married couple or the partners to that relationship, but of their children as well. I would urge upon your Lordships that we should enable those parents to say to their children, “We are married”, and above all we should enable those children, when they are asked about the relationship of their parents, to say, “My parents are married”, not “My parents are espoused” or “My parents are unionised”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I will make a very brief response to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who I think had possibly not finished speaking, to just elucidate what was meant by a minority. Once the Bill is law, I have no doubt that the majority will accept it. However, there will be a minority who will not accept it, and it is that minority that needs protection.

I have to say that I slightly resent that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, talked about a minority being a majority and the majority a minority. Within majorities, there are minorities, even of the same group. Some will accept it and others will not. It is the ones who will not accept it who actually need protection; much as the gay community has needed protection in the past but has not received it.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 19, which is in my name and is part of this group of amendments. In many ways, what I will say will mirror some of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The Equality Act 2010 is meant to protect against discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief. However, anyone who has read about the cases that have come to court will know that it has not always, to date, protected people with strong religious beliefs about marriage.

It is not easy to stand up for your beliefs against the might of arrogant and sometimes ignorant authority. It is not easy to risk your career prospects and your family’s livelihood. I know—I have been there. Lack of clarity in the law adds to the difficulty. Those with traditional views bringing discrimination claims under the religion or belief strand, usually after being mistreated for a long time, have found that their beliefs on sexual ethics were not covered. Amendment 19 would put beyond doubt that belief in traditional marriage falls under the religion or belief strand. It would not guarantee that every claim brought to court would succeed but would simply confirm that the belief is capable of being protected under the Equality Act.

Millions of people in this country passionately believe that marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman and cannot be anything else. Some believe this for religious reasons and others for non-religious reasons. Thankfully, we live in a democracy, where people are not forced to behave as if they believe something just because the law asserts it. We should all obey the laws of the land but we should also have the freedom to express our views about the fairness of those laws, particularly where they refer to dramatic social change.

When it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, there is a real risk that people will be coerced to go along with the redefinition of marriage because there is a lack of respect and tolerance for diverse views on the matter. Other noble Lords have referred to the rather unfortunate moment in January when a draft speech issued by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister referred to people who disagreed with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill as “bigots”. He sought to make amends for the statement by saying:

“My views on this issue are no secret, but I respect the fact that some people feel differently to me about marriage”.

That was quite generous of him but it does not alter the fact that he refers to those who differed from him as bigots. The Deputy Prime Minister is not the only one to use such trenchant terms about those who oppose this legislation. Many of us have received similar abuse for defending traditional marriage.

The Government say in their fact sheet on the Bill that they are committed to freedom of speech and that they,

“have always been absolutely clear that being able to follow your faith openly is a vital freedom that we”—

the Government—

“will protect. Everyone is entitled to express their view about same-sex marriage, at work or elsewhere”.

That is a noble and good sentiment and one that we want carried into law and protected. Everyone should be entitled to hold and express their views about this important and sensitive issue without fear of punishment. We find strong support for traditional marriage among politicians of all stripes, lawyers, academics and workers from all walks of life in the private and public sectors. We find it among atheists and people of all religions, among heterosexuals and gay people. It would be sad if such opinions were muffled or silenced by a lack of clarity in the law. Not to respect and protect their ability to hold and express their beliefs about marriage would result in a tyrannical situation where there was only one acceptable view, with those with other views pushed out or mistreated. Public space must be left for those millions of people. There have already been many occasions when people who try to speak out publicly in support of traditional marriage suffer for it, even while the current law is still in place. We can be sure that unless measures are taken it will get worse if this Bill becomes law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

Would the noble Lord care to tell the House what he thinks is a reasonable limit to the view that that gentleman should express? For example, if one substituted the word “black”, would that view then be reasonable? The policeman is publicly expressing his feelings about something. What does the noble Lord think is a reasonable way to do that? What would he think if, for example, he had used “black” instead of “same-sex marriage”? It seems to me that there must be a limit to what our public servants can express and cannot express. I would be interested to know from the noble Lord where he thinks that limit sits.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I am happy to answer that point. Any freedom of speech should be open. It should be there, but it should not be the freedom to denigrate anyone. That is the boundary. You can express an opinion, but if you denigrate other people that is wrong.

[Lord Cormack]

Surely the noble Lord will agree that all the clergyman in question sought to do was enunciate orthodox Christian beliefs. That is not in any way analogous to making racist comments.

[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 Alli]

Perhaps the noble Lord can help me understand. The Government’s amendment tries to address this issue. Does the noble Lord find the amendment deficient? I am trying to understand which part of the Government’s amendment does not deal with the issues he raises.

[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.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Does the noble Lord know that under the Human Rights Act 1998 every part of this Bill must be construed, read and given effect in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights? The convention fully protects freedom of religion, conscience, belief and expression. Does he also know that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, had a great victory in this House in writing in free speech guarantees when we debated incitement to religious hatred? Therefore, so far as the law is concerned, there is no lack of clarity. It is not a question of majorities or minorities, and nor is it a question of opinion polls. Every individual is fully entitled to free speech, including the expression of views that I would deplore. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I gather that Mr Clegg did not himself put out that highly obnoxious statement. It was put out by others and was withdrawn as soon as he saw it.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I will not go too far into the Deputy Prime Minister’s views, because he then went on to say that everyone knows his views. That was a little ambiguous, and did not clarify things. It is true that many of the laws of the land in theory protect us all. In reality, those laws are not very clear. The more clarification that can be brought, the better, because many ordinary people suffer. Many ignorant people abuse those laws, or are ignorant of those laws and harass people. The more clarity we can have, the better.

To give another example, when housing associations and publicly owned venues such as the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre deal with people with traditional beliefs about marriage, they should treat them with respect. Yet they were excluded. If they do not treat such people with respect, they should be open to legal challenge for discrimination. When police, schools and hospitals are dealing with staff and service users, their approach to equality should include respecting those with mainstream views.

We should amend this Bill to ensure that people who, in good conscience and without a trace of malice, believe that marriage can be only between two people of opposite sexes are not disadvantaged for those beliefs, which may become minority beliefs, as has been said. They should still be allowed to have those beliefs. Amendment 19 is necessary to safeguard freedom of both belief and speech.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, to amplify briefly what I said before, Amendment 19 is completely unnecessary because the part of the Equality Act that it is seeking to amend defines protected characteristics in order to deal with discrimination, harassment and victimisation. In relation to those protected characteristics, it is clear beyond argument that if A is treated worse than B because of his or her opinions about sexuality, sex, marriage, communism, Sikhism, Judaism or anything under the sun, they are fully protected by the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made to the criminal law, and by the Human Rights Act and Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that a Bill designed to prevent people becoming victims of unfair treatment is creating victims of unfair treatment. 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. With respect, the state of the law is plain and obvious. It does not require this amendment. Were this amendment to be accepted, it would muddle up the entire concept of the Equality Act, which we took so long to get right.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

If I may briefly respond to that, it is true that the law covers a lot of things. It does not combat ignorance. The law provides equality for Sikhs, Muslims and everyone else. When an outrage by an Islamic fundamentalist takes place, very often the target is a Sikh gurdwara or a Sikh individual. You cannot combat ignorance in that way. The more clarity we put into the law and the more determination we put into upholding the law, the better it will be for everyone.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 8 in particular. At Second Reading, I said that my early life was spent in a place where religious discrimination was the norm. It is something that I managed to grow out of—after a very long time—and which I find absolutely abhorrent. I also explained at Second Reading why, like the noble Lord, Lord Alli, I know what it is like to suffer abuse because of one’s sexuality. It is never so dispiriting as when those two things are combined. Some of the most homophobic material that is sent to me is in the name of churches. I find that more depressing than anything else.

I was raised in a religious household and I will defend the rights of people to hold religious points of view and minority points of view. I will defend their right to preach things that I find unacceptable and disheartening. I cannot tell your Lordships how dispiriting it is to listen to some preachers and to understand from their preaching how little they think of their fellow human beings, but it is absolutely their right to do that. But it is not their right to do that and to inflame hatred and violence at the same time.

I suspect that not many of your Lordships go to Gay Pride marches but I do, occasionally. Every time I go to Brighton and have a wonderful time, there is a point when we walk up the street and there is a particular religious organisation there; its members have picked that day to come and make known their opposition to gay people. The police are there protecting them because they are exercising their right to do so.

The point at which I absolutely and fundamentally part company with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is in his Amendment 8. He is a citizen and I am a citizen. We pay our taxes. When it comes to the exercise of public services, we should have exactly the same rights provided that we are both living within the law. I simply cannot accept the statement in the amendment that the private views of public servants should enable them to treat people differently.

Finally, something that I started to do many years ago, and still do as a private discipline, is that when I listen to or am asked to advance an argument on behalf of one minority, I run through the same argument in the name of another, completely different minority. I find it a very helpful way of getting to a universal understanding of what it means to be a human being and to treat other people with dignity. It is a discipline that I recommend to all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Absolutely. I am grateful to my noble friend for making that clear and glad to confirm that he is right.

I cannot accept Amendment 54 because the drafting could give the impression that the law is not to be applied even-handedly, which I know is not what my noble friend intended. It also goes further than we believe is necessary. I hope she will agree with me that our own amendment meets the need.

I therefore ask my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

Earlier the noble Baroness mentioned that if a chauffeur turns up at a wedding and will not take part any more because he finds that the people involved are gay, then the employer has some legitimate grounds for disciplining them. Suppose that same person had expressed a view, within the confines of his employment, that he thought gay marriage was wrong and was then asked to go on this particular trip, what would be the view then?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The chauffeur would be entirely legitimate in expressing the view, whether at work or outside work, that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in the context of the example of a housing officer, it would not be legitimate for the chauffeur to withhold or withdraw from his employment, in terms of what he is paid to do, on the basis of that belief. His employer should be able to pursue that in a way he felt appropriate because he had employed that person to chauffeur people in accordance with the way in which such services are offered commercially.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I am sorry but the point I am making is: if the employer had deliberately asked that person to do something, knowing it was against his conscience, what would be the view?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

He may have only one driver. It may be a very small firm and the only driver available is that driver. It is not possible for us to legislate. The employer might turn around and say that he has a team of people and that he is quite happy with that arrangement. Outside a public authority, I cannot give the noble Lord a definitive response to the kind of scenario that he is painting. It is absolutely clear that it would be legitimate for that person to express their view, but not for them to say that, because they hold that view, they therefore do not have to do what they are employed to do. I hope that is clear for the noble Lord.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment not because I disagree with its principle or disapprove of it, but because I believe that it is trying to go about achieving it in the wrong way.

The basic premise is that there is still a small amount of the practice of untouchability in Indian society in Britain and that it must be countered. I agree entirely. However, by using caste as a general category, you are going to catch too much at one end and too little at the other. The fact that there is untouchability is not only corroborated by some of the reports that have recently come out, but I myself discovered it in 1986 when I was deputy chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. I received a letter, sent from Birmingham, written by an Indian gentleman who said that his doctor had refused to examine him physically when he came to his home because he was an untouchable. In those days we used to have domiciliary visits, which sadly have stopped now. We wrote to the doctor and it turned out to be true. The doctor was reprimanded and I would like to hope that the practice had stopped. Of course, it does not stop just like that but a warning had gone out to the medical fraternity. This was in 1985 or 1986, and even after that there have been many cases of untouchability and therefore discrimination does occur. It needs to stop.

However, untouchability is only the egregious, extreme form of the caste system, because the system covers everybody. Although caste does not mean anything to me personally, you cannot be a Hindu without belonging to a particular caste, full stop. Talking about abolishing the caste system is extremely problematic because it could mean getting rid of the category, getting rid of the hierarchy among the categories or getting rid of the principle of heredity which determines the caste. Where do you start? I suggest that caste as a category of discrimination is therefore not in the same league as race, religion or any of the other protected categories. If we were to introduce this, there would be four major difficulties and I want to alert the House to them.

First, there will be frivolous complaints based on caste. I do not know how many of your Lordships are students of sociology or have Indian friends. However, let us say that I belong to a caste—whatever that may mean, since I have married outside my caste and my children have married outside their caste, race and religion. Nevertheless, technically I was born in the caste of goldsmiths because my father used to make gold and silver ornaments, so I am a goldsmith. Supposing that someone were to apply for a job in the university where I am a professor who happens to be a blacksmith, a shoe smith, a Brahmin or God knows what, and I do not appoint him because he is not terribly good. Supposing that he were go to the court and say, because I would be doing this not as a Lord but as a Professor, “Professor Parekh refused to appoint me on the grounds that I belong to a different caste”. We would belong to different castes, although he is not an untouchable. Since every Indian who is Hindu carries the caste mark with him, every action that he does with respect to another can be subsumed under one or another form of caste discrimination, so the first difficulty is that you will have an enormous range of frivolous complaints with no way of arguing for or against.

Secondly, once you take away the untouchability bit, there is no evidence of any kind to show that caste discrimination takes place. With respect to the untouchables, they do not have horns or carry any distinct mark of being untouchables. Sometimes, their surnames are a giveaway if you know Indian society but a large number of them—I have worked with them and I greatly admire them—have changed their surname so that it is not a giveaway. When somebody applies for a job, how would you therefore recognise that he is an ex-untouchable? That would be the second problem.

The third difficulty that one would have is that, as the Minister rightly said, we will be introducing the category of caste in our domestic legislation and once you do that, problems begin to arise. How do you define caste? Sociologists have tried for 200 years, ever since the Portuguese invented the word caste. It is not an English but a Portuguese word; when they came to India, they found that we were classified in a certain way and called it caste. In India, caste is very much in flux thanks to globalisation, urbanisation and so on, and in Britain it is even more so. Castes are therefore difficult not only to define but to distinguish. Once one introduces this kind of indeterminate, inherently nebulous category in law, one invites difficulties. One could easily pave the way so that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time there might even be a pressure of the exact kind we have now, where people might be saying, “Let’s have a question on caste in the census”.

If my grandchild were to ask me today or 10 years from now, “Grandpa, what caste do I belong to?”, I would not know what to say. A category as indeterminate as that does not deserve to be enshrined in domestic legislation. For these and other reasons I would be opposed to the amendment, while making it absolutely clear—so that I am understood outside this House—that untouchability exists. It is an abominable practice; people are sometimes discriminated against and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, at a meeting he organised, produced people who were able to give evidence.

Take for instance a bus driver who happens to be a Brahmin or whatever, and there is a person who works on the buses who he would not want to team up with because the guy is supposed to have a surname that indicates he may be an untouchable. It exists in small pockets in those places where people are recognisable. It is not a pervasive phenomenon, but even if it is not pervasive, it is still not acceptable. The point is that it is only one extreme form of caste. By introducing caste as a general category in this way one is trying to catch too much and will end up catching too little.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I speak in favour of this amendment. I am particularly concerned about the level of misinformation and ignorance used in the other place to argue against legislation. The Minister in the other place made a statement, which was repeated today, that caste is a problem in the Sikh community as well as among Hindus. It is not only inaccurate, but frankly insulting to the Sikh faith. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, totally condemned the whole system of caste. Opposition to discrimination based on caste, birth, gender, race or religion or social status is an essential pillar of Sikh teachings. Sikhism emphasised equality of respect and opportunity for all members of our one human family centuries before these concepts were accepted in the West.

The Sikh gurus repeatedly taught the absurdity of caste, in which the shadow of a person of lower caste was said to pollute the food of a higher caste. Guru Nanak urged them to forsake all notions of caste and ritual purity and look to the inner worth of individuals. That tireless campaigner for human rights, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, from whom we have just heard, commenting on the egalitarian teachings of Sikhism at the time of my maiden speech, rightly emphasised Sikh opposition to caste, quoting Guru Nanak’s observation that in his mother’s womb no man knows of caste. Let us get it right. The concept of caste is a hierarchical division of Hindu society into the Brahmins, the top or priestly caste, with Khatris or warriors below, followed by those in commerce and then at the bottom Sudras, cleaners or scavengers. Caste has two essential components: a hierarchy of importance and a notion of ritual purity. Both are rejected in Sikh teachings. When a person converts to Sikhism he or she is required to renounce any former allegiance to caste. By definition one cannot be a Sikh and have a caste.

Guru Nanak warned us about the negative cultural practices that over the years attach themselves to our different religions and distort underlying ethical teachings. It is true for all faiths and it is certainly applies to caste which has little to do with the ethical imperatives of Hinduism. As far back as the 1930s many leading Hindus condemned the iniquity of caste. While Gandhi felt education was the answer, Dr Ambedkar felt education was not enough and legislative action was also necessary. Later, as author of the Indian constitution, Dr Ambedkar successfully included prohibiting discrimination on grounds of caste.

Coming back to this country, we too find ourselves in a debate over combating the evil of caste by education or by legislation. In this debate we have had some widely improbable figures on the number of Dalits in the UK. No such playing with figures is necessary. Whatever the numbers, that which is evil remains evil and Dalits are fully entitled to protection against discrimination, whatever their number.

Many—most—Hindus reject caste discrimination, but without firm action its negative influence could continue for years. It has no place in our more enlightened 21st century, and those who suffer its worse effects should, like those who suffer racial discrimination, be protected by law. Here it is necessary to add that, contrary to misinformation being circulated, legislation will not require people to associate themselves with a particular caste, just as protection against religious discrimination does not require anyone to affiliate themselves to a particular religion.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasise my comment made when we previously discussed this issue. I firmly believe that without the debilitating influence of caste the uplifting ethical teachings of Hinduism will be much more to the fore. It is for these reasons that I support the retention of our amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words as the only person here to belong to a caste. As far as I know, there is no other Hindu in the Chamber.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

Yes, there is. There is the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

[Baroness Flather]

I apologise to the noble Lord. We know very well what a terrible and shameful thing the caste system is for us Indians. Two issues are the most shameful in Hindu culture—caste and dowry. Both have significant effects on people. Dowry leads to the aborting of girl foetuses and the killing of girl children. Caste puts people down; a whole group of people are there to do the worst jobs that no one else will do. That can never be right.

The problem is that Hindus are discriminating against other Hindus. Very few British people understand the caste system or even know what caste means, other than that there are higher and lower castes. Hindus in this country discriminate against lower-caste Hindus. That is so appalling and unacceptable that I cannot understand how it can be allowed to go on. In India, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the caste system is getting worse, not better. When India became independent in 1947 and Gandhi started a campaign to allow lower-caste people to do all different levels of work, we all thought that by now there would be no caste system in that country. There was a great hope that the caste system would die out. It has not done so but has got worse. People have killed their own children because they have married a person in a different caste. There are organisations in Delhi that find and bring back young people who run away from their villages to escape the wrath of their parents. They pick them up and bring them to their parents, who have them killed. It is not a joke in India. It is horrible.

We have heard that there are laws in India, Bengal, Bangladesh and Nepal. Those laws are not enforced. No one cares about them, and a few rupees will buy you the willingness of anyone from a different caste to help out, so there is no question of the laws being effective. That also applies to the laws against dowry and aborting girl babies. None of those laws is enforced. A law that is not enforced is of no use whatever.

If we were to pass the amendment, we would be making the clearest statement that society can make that such behaviour is unacceptable in this country. We also need to state to our own people, the Hindus: “You cannot come here and behave as if you are in India because there are laws here that will be enforced and will not be overlooked”. I know how some children were treated in schools when I was teaching. That was some years ago, and things have got worse, not better. Unfortunately, there are Hindu organisations that are against the amendment and feel that it is targeting them and saying that high-caste Hindus are the ones to blame. Well, they are to blame if this discrimination happens, because they start it. I hope that today noble Lords will accept this amendment. It is a very small thing, but it will mean a lot to 400,000 people.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, speaking from a Sikh perspective, I give my full support to the amendment. Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, taught, “Ask not a person’s caste but look to the inner light within”. At a time when even the shadow of a lower caste person was said to pollute the food of a higher caste, he instituted the system of langar, where people of all religions and social backgrounds were, and are, welcomed to share a gurdwara meal. The historic Golden Temple in Amritsar, recently visited by the Prime Minister, has, as he will have noticed, four doors at its sides, signifying a welcome to all people regardless of religion or supposed social difference.

Emphasis on the equal dignity of all human beings is central to Sikh teachings. I was slightly bemused by the readiness of some, including ministerial advisors I have met—and we see the same misinformation in the ministerial statement—to display their ignorance of basic Sikh teachings and, in a near-colonial way, to conflate caste, class and all undesirable social discrimination and religions on the subcontinent in the word “caste”. Attitudes of superiority and inferiority are found in all societies. We should remember the media headline “Prince William marries a commoner”.

Caste has a very precise meaning attached to practices associated with the Hindu faith. It has its origin in the desire of the Aryan conquerors of the subcontinent in pre-Vedic times to establish a hierarchy of importance, with priests at the top followed by warriors, those engaged in commerce and then those engaged in more menial tasks. The conquered indigenous people were considered lower than the lowest caste. Accident of birth alone determined a person’s caste. Sadly, thousands of years latter, and despite legislation by the Indian Government, which has been referred to, this hierarchy of importance still lingers on.

I have gone into detail because it is important to understand what we are talking about when we discuss discrimination on grounds of caste. It is discrimination arising from supposed Hindu religious belief, but what passes for religion is not always all it seems. Caste in no way relates to underlying and uplifting ethical Hindu teachings. It is simply questionable culture that has, over the years, managed to attach itself to Hinduism in much the same way as discrimination against women—

[Baroness Flather]

The caste system was established very early in Hinduism. The Sanskrit for caste is “varna”, which is also the word for colour. The noble Lord mentioned the Aryan conquerors, who were supposed to be lighter skinned. They wanted a division not only on the basis of who would do what but on the basis of colour.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I repeat: caste in no way relates to underlying and uplifting ethical Hindu teachings. It is simply questionable culture that has, over the years, managed to attach itself to Hinduism in much the same way as discrimination against women is seen by some as part of their faith.

The Sikh gurus were acutely aware of such negative cultural practices, and they openly discussed and criticised the prevalence of rituals, superstitions and cultural practices contrary to underlying ethical teachings. At a time when all religions all around the world were emphasising difference and exclusivity, the Sikh gurus stressed the importance of showing respect for sister faiths. The fifth guru, Guru Arjan, showed his respect for Islam by asking a Muslim saint, Mian Mir, to lay the foundation stone of the Golden Temple. The ninth guru, Guru Tegh Bahadhur, gave his life defending the right of Hindus to freedom of worship at a time of forced conversion by the Mogul rulers. At the same time, the gurus taught that people of all faiths must respect fundamental human rights and the equality of all people, including full gender equality.

While I have the greatest respect for a sister faith, I also believe that Hinduism without the old-fashioned concept of caste will be infinitely stronger. Similar negative cultural clutter exists in all our different faiths. Its removal would help religions work together for a fairer society, and it is in that spirit that I support this amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I fully support this amendment because it deals with a problem which ought not to disfigure our national life. My only point is somewhat technical. I notice that in one of his quotations, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned race, of which he said caste is a subgroup. I believe it is quite reasonable to suppose that the definition of race in the Equality Act, including ethnic considerations, will include caste. The fact that an additional power was taken to make orders in relation to caste puts that, in the context of the Equality Act, in a certain amount of doubt. However, it is quite important that we recognise that “ethnic” is a broad consideration and idea. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which I suppose has a special authority in some parts of the House, “ethnic” means,

“relating to national and cultural origins … denoting origin by birth or descent, rather than by present nationality”.

It also has the definition of pertaining to or designating a,

“population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition”.

In effect, that is what caste is. In the context of the 2010 Act, the fact that a separate order-making power was introduced may have been unnecessary. However, it is worth recognising, as the quotation used by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, shows, that caste can be regarded as a subgroup of race which, of course, is a characteristic that is at present the subject of antidiscrimination provision.

It looks to me as though we have here the necessary push behind this, but I would like the Government to consider it. It may be a reason for reconsideration at Third Reading, separate from other things that have been said, but it is important for a view to be taken about this matter.