Outcome of the EU Referendum

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is one of the issues that will have to be decided in the next months.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on Friday morning I woke not only with a song in my heart but with the words of the “Magnificat”—

“He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble and the meek”—

in my heart, as we had won the referendum? Can she tell me whether the British Commissioner, whoever may be appointed, is allowed by the terms of his oath of office to pursue the British interest as opposed to the interest of the EU? I thought that the oath was very clear on that matter. Am I wrong about that?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am afraid I am not familiar with the terms of the oath that commissioners take when they are appointed. My noble friend, as always, makes an interesting remark.

Hinkley Point

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not actually a Cross-Bencher, although he does sit among them, which throws a little complication into whose turn it is next. However, I suggest that we hear from the Labour Front Bench and then go back to my noble friends behind me.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches and then we need to move on.

Young People: Mentoring

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am going to make an executive decision: we will move on to the next Question.

Student Loans: Muslim Students

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, on this occasion I think it is the turn of the Lib Dems.

European Union: United Kingdom Renegotiation

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for offering his support to the Prime Minister, although I do not agree with how he described the Prime Minister’s approach to this. The Prime Minister has put forward a series of changes that address real concerns of the British people—British people who see real value in being a member of the European Union, but, quite frankly, are a bit fed up with it and the way it operates. The Prime Minister set out to renegotiate some of the terms that address those matters, whether it is around welfare or powers taken away from us. If he gets an agreement that he is satisfied is a good deal for the British people, then in the course of the next few months he will want to talk to those who are uncertain, a bit unsure and a bit undecided. Being successful in trying to persuade people requires any of us who seek to influence the views of others to be respectful of those who are currently unsure which way they might want to vote. We very much hope, whatever it is that the Prime Minister is battling for, that they vote with him.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend two precise and related questions? Yesterday the Prime Minister said in the other place that the emergency brake would be applied “shortly after the referendum”. First, does that mean that no combination of other member states can stop us applying that emergency brake in any circumstances? Secondly, he said that where benefits are paid in respect of beneficiaries not in the United Kingdom, they will be paid,

“at the local rate, not at the generous British rate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/16; col. 926.]

Will the computer at the department of pensions be up to doing that job?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am happy to reassure my noble friend about two things on the emergency brake. First, the Commission has made it clear that in its view the emergency brake would apply immediately, assuming that the British people decide that they want to remain in Europe. It is worth reminding ourselves that not only has the Commission said that but President Juncker also said yesterday that this was a good deal in response to the failure of the previous Labour Government to protect the UK from an increase in immigration from the accession countries when they had opportunity to do so. This has been signalled as a ready-to-apply and will apply immediately if this is what the British people vote for.

Secondly, as far as benefits at local rate are concerned, the Prime Minister outlined our response and reaction to what is in the Tusk proposal. Clearly, we are confident that if that is what is in the deal and package we would be able to administer that arrangement.

Airports: Expansion

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House is calling for my noble friend Lord Tebbit.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, should we not recollect that major international airlines cannot be compelled to fly into airports they do not wish to go to? Should we not all agree now that the alternatives to Heathrow are not Birmingham or Stansted, but Schiphol, Paris and Frankfurt? Either we can have the business in this country, in London, or it will go to the continent.

G20 and the Paris Attacks

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend take as much encouragement as I do from the extent of the support all around the House for the guts of the Government’s policy on this? Will she advise the Prime Minister, if he needs it, to listen to that advice and not to the leader of the Opposition?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is right in saying that there is widespread support for the measures that we have already committed to taking, and I am very grateful for that. The Prime Minister said very clearly today that he knows that he and the Government have a responsibility to come forward and make their case for the additional steps that we believe are right, and that is what he is going to do. He hopes very much that by doing that in a very clear way, he will attract strong support for the additional action that is necessary to keep this country and its people safe.

Burma

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it is actually the turn of the Conservative Party.

Parliament: Conventions

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am the Leader of this House, and therefore I do not speak for the other House. I am not sure that I would necessarily agree with the comments of the noble Baroness about the other House, but I am pleased that in this House—in my experience—there is no demonstration of sexism.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, if any Members of this House think that they want to rebuff the other place in any way, there is one very effective way in which it might be done. We might send back to them some of the Bills that they failed to discuss, because they keep part-time hours, in exactly the same state as they sent them to us.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is always full of creative ideas.

Soil Quality

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, everybody is frisky today. Having heard from the Back-Bencher from the government side first, we have had a Cross-Bencher, and it is now time to go to the main Opposition—rather, the only Opposition—on the Labour Benches.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Perhaps we can hear from my noble friend Lord Tebbit first.

[Lord Tebbit]

Is it not the case that violence begets violence? The Parades Commission gave in to the violence of the republican community against these parades. Now, of course, they are faced with the violence of the unionist community against the surrender to the republicans’ violence. How do you break out of that?

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her support. We have had a comprehensive debate that has shown how this House takes its role seriously and is able to deal with controversial and sensitive issues in a measured way that respects differing views. What has come across strongly is that those who support the Bill and those who oppose it essentially agree on one crucial matter: the importance of marriage. We all agree that marriage is a cornerstone of our society that provides stability and brings families and communities together.

It will not be possible for me to refer to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, or to respond to all the points raised. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for that. However, some key themes have emerged, and I will deal with those. A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dear, questioned whether the process that had been followed for the Bill was right. My party was clear about its wish to consider the case of same-sex marriage in A Contract for Equalities, published alongside our election manifesto. The coalition agreement set out the Government’s commitment to push for,

“unequivocal support for gay rights”.

We have conducted the process of developing our proposals in a completely transparent way. We carried out the country’s largest ever public consultation, and every response and petition was accounted for and considered with the utmost care. I say to noble Lords who raised questions about petitions that these were not ignored. They were all treated equally, commented on and flagged in the Government’s response to the consultation.

Some noble Lords questioned whether the Bill had had proper scrutiny in the other place. Convention tells us that it is not for this House to comment on how the other House conducts its business. However, it is worth noting that the Committee stage there was completed with half a day to spare. The Bill had two days of debate on Report on the Floor of the House, and was passed by a majority of two to one at Second and Third Readings. As many noble Lords argued, it is now for this House to scrutinise the Bill in detail.

Moving on from process, some noble Lords queried the robustness of the religious protections, including the quadruple lock, whereby no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to conduct a same-sex marriage; all will be free to refuse to do so. I say, first, that I am very grateful to the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for their acknowledgement of the work that the Government have done to ensure that the religious protections in the Bill are effective. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, were very clear in their contributions about their view of the robustness of these religious protections. However, it is only right, because in my opening remarks I did not address some of the specific points that were raised by noble Lords in debate, that I should now do so.

The concern was raised that the European Court of Human Rights might order the Government to require religious organisations to marry same-sex couples according to their rites, in opposition to their religious doctrines. To suggest that this could happen is to rely on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions. First, the court would need to go against its own clear precedent that states are not required by the European Convention on Human Rights to provide marriage for same-sex couples, and that they have a wide discretion in this area. Secondly, the court would need to decide that the interests of a same-sex couple who wanted a particular religious organisation to marry them according to their rites outweighed the rights and beliefs of an entire faith and its members as a whole. Thirdly, the court would need to discount the importance of Article 9 of its own convention, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It would be rewriting the rules not just for one religious organisation in England and Wales but for all religious organisations in all 47 states of the Council of Europe.

Some noble Lords raised concerns that the Bill does not deliver equality. Indeed, they suggested that it creates new inequalities and argued that it redefines marriage because same-sex couples cannot procreate. I will return to the definition of marriage after dealing with some of the specific examples that were raised in this part of our discussion. The current definition of adultery has been developed in case law and does not cover relations between members of the same sex. At present, a married man who has a sexual relationship with another man is not committing adultery. That would be the case only if he had sexual intercourse outside marriage with a woman. The Bill retains this definition. Like existing marriages, a same-sex marriage can be ended by divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour in such circumstances.

As for consummation, that is not necessary for any marriage to be lawful and indeed not possible in some, which is why we allow for death-bed marriages. As consummation is a historical definition associated with procreation, it would not make sense to extend this concept to same-sex marriages and there is no need to do so. If for no other reason, the opportunity for noble Lords to debate these sorts of things in greater detail is a good reason for this Bill to get more scrutiny. I am sure that they will not be able to resist debating all this in great detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked about the law of succession and its interaction with the Bill, and in particular whether a monarch in a same-sex marriage could succeed to the throne and whether his or her child, or the child of his or her partner, could succeed. The answer is that the Bill does not change anything in relation to the law of succession. Only the natural-born child of a husband and wife is entitled to succeed to the throne—not adopted children, children born as a result of artificial insemination or children born to only one party to a relationship. That is the position now and it will remain the case.

[Lord Tebbit]

Is that not discriminatory?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is discriminatory now and we are not changing anything.

Some noble Lords expressed concern about the Bill’s impact on freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Particular reference was made to whether teachers would be forced to promote same-sex marriage and be dismissed if they criticise it, whether employees will be barred from criticising same-sex marriage and whether registrars will have any choice but to conduct such marriages.

The position of teachers has been the subject of a lot of debate and scrutiny already in the other House. My right honourable friend Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, who would like to think that he has the word “standards” stamped through him like a stick of rock, was clear in the evidence that he gave to the Public Bill Committee that there is a significant difference between a teacher explaining an issue and promoting or endorsing it. No teacher will be forced to promote or endorse same-sex marriage. Any teacher will continue to be able to state their own belief or that of their faith about same-sex marriage. However, teachers and schools will be expected to make clear as a matter of fact in teaching about marriage that the law in England and Wales enables same-sex couples to marry.

We do not consider that the Bill changes anything in this area and we are clear that the existing protections for teachers are sound. As I said yesterday, though, we are continuing to listen to, and discuss these concerns with, religious groups and others to ensure that we have done all we can to make those protections clear.

As for changing the Bill to ensure that employees cannot be dismissed or disciplined for criticising same-sex marriage, we do not consider that there is any need to do so. Indeed, there could be harm in making such an amendment by raising doubt in other areas, such as criticising homosexuality or civil partnerships. It is lawful to express a belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and it is lawful to do that whether at work or outside work. That is a belief that is protected under the religion or belief provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and penalising someone because of such a belief would be unlawful discrimination under that Act. This will still be the position once the Bill is enacted.

None the less, we have been considering what steps we can take to ensure that employers, and particularly public bodies, are completely clear about their responsibilities to respect the rights of people who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. With that in mind, the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be reviewing relevant guidance and statutory codes of practice to ensure that the position is completely clear.

On registrars, the Government remain of the view that public servants with statutory duties should not be able to exempt themselves from providing their services for same-sex couples.

Regarding the Government’s position on this important issue of same-sex marriage, at the moment those of us who love someone of the opposite sex can get married, and those of us who love someone of the same sex can be civilly partnered. In legal terms, there is little difference except in the way they are formed and the way they can be dissolved if that sadly becomes necessary. Yesterday I explained why marriage is important to us as a society. Others referred to it as a social good. We all agreed that the institution, the enterprise, the endeavour or whichever word we think best to describe it is a good thing, and that it is important. Some noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops’ Bench, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and others, have suggested that gay couples should have their own institution separate from marriage. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern repeated that today, and made clear that he believes so on the grounds of procreation.

On the question of a separate institution, gay men and women already have their own institution called civil partnership. Like the Bill, the arrival of civil partnerships was a huge change. Unlike the Bill, which has 19 clauses, the Civil Partnership Act had 200 clauses and was contested strongly in debate in your Lordships’ House. After it was finally passed, same-sex couples had access to equal legal rights but they remained different. Marriage remained the preserve of couples made up of one man and one woman. It is the success of civil partnerships that has driven greater acceptance of same-sex couples. In an amazingly short space of time we hear people, including those who used to oppose them, say, “We can’t believe we were all so concerned at the time”. Civil partnerships have led many people—indeed, the majority—to say, “Do you know what? If civil partnership is marriage in all but name, why can’t gay men and lesbian women get married, if that’s what they want to do?”.

Another institution just for gay couples, as suggested by several noble Lords, is not going to make the demand for them to be able to get married go away. Another institution just for gay couples will not address the fundamental purposes at the heart of this Bill: the acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people for who they are, and the preservation of marriage itself as a vital institution to our society.

In his powerful contribution, my noble friend Lord Black said that legislation drives social change, and up to now the Civil Partnership Act has been the best example of that. As some noble Lords pointed out during the debate, positive social change, when it favours minority groups, is not by definition about numbers. In 2010 the Government made a commitment to push forward unequivocally for gay rights in the coalition agreement. The fact that three years later we are legislating for same-sex marriage reflects the accelerating acceptance of same-sex couples and the possibility that change is possible.

The Bill does not change the religious doctrine or beliefs of any religious organisation that does not want to change them. The Bill protects and promotes religious freedom. Outside of religion, though, gay couples want to marry and many straight couples want them to be able to. The majority of people are ready to open the door to marriage and to welcome those who want to commit publicly to their partner, because they see that they want to do so for all the same reasons as them.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester asked yesterday,

“Do the gains of meeting the need of many LGBT people for the dignity and equality that identifying their partnerships as marriage gives outweigh the loss entailed as society moves away from a clear understanding of marriage as a desirable setting within which children are conceived and raised?”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 962.]

That may be a legitimate question for the church to ask itself when or if it ever considers whether to allow same-sex couples to marry. However, I would argue that, outside the church, people already understand that two gay men or two lesbian women marrying each other is the same as a man marrying a woman. They have accepted that it is okay for same-sex couples to marry and that them doing so will not redefine their own marriage, because they understand that gay men and women decide to enter a civil partnership for the same reason that a straight couple decide to marry. Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are different physically, but that which leads them to want the same is not different.

I urge this House to ensure that the protections that allow the church and other faiths to maintain their very legitimate belief in marriage being only between a man and a woman work properly. This House should also debate and scrutinise whether the Bill protects freedom of speech and freedom of expression; that is what we really need to ensure is the case. We need religious belief in marriage to sit comfortably alongside what the state allows in law, just as we already do for divorce, contraception and abortion. It is possible for us to allow something in law that not everyone agrees with and to respect our differences of view. The Bill, which allows same sex couples to marry, is, as I said at the very start of the debate yesterday, also about protecting and promoting religious freedom. I say again that, if further changes are necessary to make those protections clearer, the Government will consider doing so.

There have been many powerful speeches but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, and that my noble friend Lord Jenkin will not be embarrassed, if I say that I thought that his was one of the best. He said better than I ever could that this Bill will not redefine marriage because it will not redefine his own of 60 years, which has provided mutual comfort and support.

Over the past two days, we have heard lots of views about what marriage means and we have all expressed ourselves differently, but we all unite on three points of principle: marriage is a serious commitment between two people; we think that the institution itself is vital to our society; and we respect and must protect religious freedom and freedom of speech. The Bill supports all three principles. I hope that your Lordships’ House, building on its tradition of supporting social change, will wish to affirm that the Bill should have its Second Reading here. I urge noble Lords who support the Bill, and those who remain unsure and so want it to be scrutinised in detail before they decide, not to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. If the noble Lord calls a Division, I urge all noble Lords to vote not content.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Debate between Lord Tebbit and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit]

My noble friend Lord Forsyth is exactly right. If we were to appoint people to the House in proportion to the votes cast at the last general election, on my calculations we should have about 24 UKIP Members and also, interestingly, about 14 Members of the BNP and a few Greens. I am not sure that that would be greeted with universal acclaim. However, it is clear that something has to be done.

I am beginning to think that we need a market solution. Perhaps whoever is working out these matters—somebody must be working them out, after all—should arrive at a conclusion as to how many Members they would like to leave this House. Let us say that the number is 100 in the first tranche. They could the issue a notice to tender for redundancy; the tenders would be issued in reverse order so the lowest tender would be able to achieve redundancy with some small amount of money. It would have the added attraction that we could look at each other’s estimates of how much we valued ourselves. I think this would add greatly to the mirth and hilarity not only of this House, but of the nation.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I welcome the report and its limited recommendation. I see it as a positive step forward. I understand the decision to make only changes that do not require primary legislation at this time, but I hope that, as part of the scrutiny of House of Lords reform, or via some other mechanism, further and more far-reaching changes can be made.

I am concerned, especially if we are to remain an unelected Chamber that we respond adequately to the modern expectations people have of us as public servants. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, about redundancy payments and that access to the Library and other facilities is a huge privilege. Because of that, I am disappointed that all Members granted leave of absence and permanent retirement will be treated equally and will continue to benefit from access rights. Attendance and participation in the legislative process is a privilege but it is what we as Peers are appointed to do. To people outside the Chamber, that is our job. Where else can someone decide not to do their job any more but retain the perks associated with it? On access to the Palace and its facilities, it seems wrong to me that those who have not bothered to fulfil their responsibilities to the House will be treated in the same way as those who have served the House well for a long time and have decided to retire for honourable reasons. Will the matter be reviewed again in another forum?

On a separate matter, Paragraph 63 of the Leader’s Group report recommended that,

“in future the honour of a life peerage should not automatically entail appointment to membership of the House, which should be reserved to those who are willing to make a significant commitment to public service in Parliament”.

I wholeheartedly support that recommendation, believing that if we are to remain unelected, there must be a clear set of expectations for Peers both in terms of attendance and active engagement, with penalties if a Peer fails to meet those expectations. Will my noble friend say whether the Joint Committee on reform of the House of Lords will consider options such as this?