Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, and say two things. One is that when you are losing the political argument, it seems to me that you always go for the methodology or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for Europe. The second thing is that I agree with everything said about this by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The majority supported it in the free votes. I really think that there is nothing else to add, and the referendum the amendment proposes is a very bad idea indeed.

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

My Lords, I wish I could be so brief, because the noble Baroness has just summed up the position very well indeed. As has been made very clear, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would prevent the Bill being enacted before the next general election by adding a new provision calling for a referendum in England and Wales on proposals to make the marriage of same-sex couples lawful. Indeed, the next general election would be the earliest date which is provided for by the amendment, which also provides reasons to extend it until 2016.

The Government do not believe that this is a sensible course of action, and nor is it required. The Government’s position is that referendums should be used only in issues of substantial constitutional significance. Noble Lords may recall that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House published a report in 2010 on referendums in the United Kingdom. I was a member of the Constitution Committee at that time. The report was clear that matters of substantial constitutional significance would fall within the following proposals:

“To abolish the Monarchy … To leave the European Union … For any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union … To abolish either House of Parliament … To change the electoral system for the House of Commons … To adopt a written constitution … To change the UK’s system of currency”.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, listed the kind of referendums that we have had, and I think they all fall within these definitions, these issues of constitutional significance. We do not believe that the amendments are appropriate or necessary. This is because while I acknowledge that extending the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples is of huge significance and importance to those couples who are currently being prevented from marrying, and quite clearly from our debates this evening is the subject of strong feelings among those who oppose it, we do not believe that these are matters of substantial constitutional significance along the lines of those which the Constitution Committee identified.

Turning to technical matters, my noble friend Lord Dobbs pointed out that Members of your Lordships’ House would be denied a vote in any such referendum. I also note that there was an interesting point about the question, because the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes provision for how a question should be dealt with if it is present on the introduction of the Bill, or indeed if the wording is to be done subsequently by way of order. It does not make any provision for what would happen if a question was introduced at a later stage. Quite clearly, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, see no role for the Electoral Commission in judging the merits of the question and reporting to Parliament, as now seems to be an accepted part in other circumstances of our arrangements on referendums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

I referred specifically to the intricacies and differences within faiths. Just to say that all faiths are protected is not really sufficient. We are different in our different religions. There are different concerns. They have been ignored.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I of course recognise that there are differences. The Government fully recognise that that there are different concerns within different religions, but I do not believe for one moment that they have been ignored. No religion will be obliged to conduct a same-sex marriage against the views and wishes of that religion. We have tried to build in as many safeguards as possible to do that. It is something to which we are acutely sensitive and we wish to ensure that adequate protection is given.

It is important to remember that civil partnerships were introduced to give same- sex couples equivalent rights and responsibilities at a time when marriage was not available to them. Despite the opposition at the time, their introduction led to greater acceptance and inclusiveness for same-sex couples in wider society.

History shows that undertaking important social change to extend fundamental rights to minority groups who experience inequality and social injustice is not always easy. Not all is necessarily favoured by the majority, but certainly the opinion polls that I have seen from more recent times show that there probably is a majority. I believe that providing for a referendum on same-sex marriage in this Bill would delay progress in removing a current and manifest unfairness. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

If there is a majority, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, what fear does he have about testing the real opinion of the people of this country? If he is concerned about delay, why not bring it forward, even before the date of the election? The election date was mentioned only because it would ensure a good turnout, which perhaps an earlier referendum would not. The noble and learned Lord suggested, for example, that in the past we have had referendums only on constitutional issues. Yet he supported a proposal that ensures that even trivial transfers of powers to Brussels will trigger a referendum. That is hardly consistent with what he suggests.

I know that we could go on debating this, but I will end by first thanking all those who contributed to this short debate, particularly my co-sponsors, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Singh. To the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I say that even if noble Lords do not have a vote on this, they do not have a vote in general elections at the moment. It is hardly illogical that noble Lords do not have a vote in a referendum on this matter. It is consistent, but if the noble Lord wishes to move an amendment and it is accepted, so be it.

It was highly simplistic of the noble Lord to suggest that gay equality is the same as black and white equality. I was a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in Europe over a number of years, because I could see no difference at all between blacks and whites, as there was in the Group Areas Act in South Africa and so on. However, in my judgment, there are serious differences between a traditional marriage and a gay marriage and it is wrong to equate them. It is naive and simplistic to suggest otherwise.

To the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I say this: if he thinks that there will be delay, again he might suggest that the date of the referendum be brought forward. Even he cannot suggest that the Government now have a mandate for this change. No one has answered what is perhaps a key question: why the hurry? Why, after all these years when there has been no change, are the Government in such a rush? There must be some plausible reason. I cannot see any serious reason for it, but equally why are the Government so afraid of giving people a voice?

Finally, I remind the Minister that many noble Lords chose not to vote against the Bill at Second Reading—I can attest this from my own knowledge—either because of their view that the House should show restraint when there has been a majority in the other place, or because of the view that we are principally a revising Chamber. It would have been inconsistent to prevent scrutiny, but they would look again at the matter when it came to the vote on Third Reading. I am not convinced that the Government have made any serious concessions—certainly in respect of the conscience matters, although I am ready to look again at the list that the Minister gave me during an earlier debate.

If the Government have failed to make other serious concessions relating to existing and future registrars, teachers, the public sector duty and so on, then Amendment 48 will inevitably become more attractive. In the mean time I shall not press it at this stage. I shall again ask the Government to give a simple answer to the question: why the hurry? I shall reflect further on the position, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. My entire hypothesis seems to be wrong, so I will merely say that I do not believe that this amendment should be accepted because, in any event, we should not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is an entirely unlikely happening because the Bill as it stands does not offend against any element of human rights, freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which gives us a further opportunity to set out yet again how we believe that the European Convention on Human Rights supports rather than threatens the religious protections in the Bill. The noble Lord indicated in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that he is not opposed in principle to the European Convention on Human Rights, but I know that he has expressed some concerns about the development of the jurisprudence of the court. I am not sure whether he took part in the debate last Thursday when the House had an opportunity, during a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Lester, to consider these human rights issues.

The Government have made it clear why we do not believe that there would be a reduction in the protection available to religious organisations and individuals as a result of the Bill. I am happy to repeat those assurances. Indeed, I have sought to do so in the previous debate in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has said it again. There is unanimity in this House on the wish to secure the protection of religious organisations and individuals.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Any attempt to compel religious organisations to solemnise marriages that they consider to be doctrinally impermissible would quite clearly be an interference with their right—and indeed the right of their members to religious freedom. I believe that the religious freedoms contained in this Bill reinforce that protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggests that if Strasbourg finds that there is a right to same-sex marriage, religious organisations would be forced to conduct such ceremonies. We do not believe that to be the case. Under this Bill, we will be providing same-sex civil marriage ceremonies, but the protection of Article 9 would mean that a couple could not force a religious organisation to marry them according to its right purely because they want a religious ceremony.

It is also worth noting that after many years since the introduction of civil unions for same-sex couples in a number of countries that are members of the Council of Europe, including the United Kingdom, there has been no decision of the Strasbourg court holding that there is right to a civil union, in other words to any legal relationship at all for same-sex couples.

Clause 2 of this Bill provides clear protection for individuals and religious organisations who do not wish to conduct or participate in a religious marriage ceremony on the grounds that it is the marriage of a same-sex couple. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is equally clear that the question of whether, and if so how, to allow same-sex marriage must be left to individual states to decide for themselves. I simply believe that it is inconceivable that the court would require a religious organisation to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines. We believe the position is clear—and indeed has been strongly supported by a number of our most respected legal minds. In his written submission to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said:

“For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea for the Children of Israel to cross from Egypt. The Court unanimously decided in Schalk and Kopf v Austriain 2010”—

the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also referred to this case—

“that there is no right to same sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is in the realms of legal fantasy to suggest that the Court would impose an obligation on a religious body to conduct such a ceremony, especially when civil marriage will be available in this country for a same sex couple and when Article 9 of the Convention protects religious beliefs and practices”.

Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, followed that up and confirmed his position in the oral evidence which he gave to that committee.

I briefly note the practical effects of the amendment. It would be extraordinary for a Secretary of State to be required, as this amendment would envisage, to act unilaterally to withdraw the United Kingdom from the convention without further reference to Parliament—although I accept that the noble Lord said it was a probing amendment. Furthermore, to make such a decision contingent upon the outcome of a court case dealing with unknown and unspecified issues would be equally extraordinary, particularly if the successful challenge related to a technical matter which could be readily remedied by legislation passed in Parliament.

Before I conclude, I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in a previous amendment, when he read a newspaper article which suggested that there had been some secret conference involving my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Theresa May, my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone and the Council of Europe. I understand that this secret conference was an event attended by 300 people, invited by the Government of the United Kingdom, when the United Kingdom held the presidency of the Council of Ministers. Nicolas Bratza, who was then president of the European Court of Human Rights, spoke for five minutes. I am informed that the text of his speech is on the court’s website. He made it clear that the court’s case law had left the issue of gay marriage to be decided by national authorities.

Not just in this debate but in a number of debates during Committee we have sought to give reassurances that the protections for individuals and religious organisations are very real. I would hope that having had the opportunity to have this debate, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for his reply—both to the assertions of Mr Booker and to my own amendment. In relation to his reply, of course I accept his assurances. The problem is that throughout my life—it has been quite a long one—I have seen government assurances come and government assurances go. The European Court of Human Rights now has powers, translated into British law, which are very wide indeed. Some of its decisions in private and other cases have not been very friendly towards the Government and this country, if I might say that. We really do not know what will happen once the Bill is passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, in all the time that I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have enjoyed and loved the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has often weaved a sticky web of legal mischievousness around issues that we have had before us, and so he has done this evening. I look forward to the conversation that the two learned Scots before me are about to have on this issue.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I welcome the interesting debate that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has generated. He is right to challenge us to consider it and I can indicate at the outset, although I will say more, that the Government do not feel able to support his amendment. It would permit siblings of the same sex to marry, and I assume that that could include uncles and nephews, grandfathers and grandsons and mothers and daughters. The Government do not feel able to accept the extension of marriage to close relatives. Clearly, as my noble and learned friend indicated, the origins of this go back to concerns about the need to prevent incest and potential inbreeding.

However, it is also fair to point out that, in terms of procreation, not all marriages, even heterosexual ones, are contracted for the purposes of procreation. It would almost be a logical extension of the argument that when an opposite-sex couple are past a certain age, or the woman passes a certain age and is incapable any longer of having children, perhaps the degrees of affinity regulations and prohibitions should fly off. Even just saying that indicates the real sensitivity around this and how it is difficult to readily accede the point being made by my noble and learned friend.

Before returning to some of the substance of his argument, I note that my noble and learned friend indicated in his opening remarks that he seeks by this amendment to restore Section 1 of the Marriage Act 1949 to what it was before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 amended it. It is important to point out that the 2004 Act created one gender-neutral list setting out the prohibited degrees of relationship. The amended Marriage Act makes it clear that no person can marry any relative listed in Schedule 1.

I am not founding my argument on this point because it is a technical matter which no doubt could be addressed. But in reverting back to the original Section 1 of the Marriage Act 1949, the amendment does not lead to any change in the relevant schedules, so that certainly could lead to confusion, although no doubt my noble and learned friend could do something about that if he wished to persist with this and bring forward amendments to the schedules as well. Paragraph 17 of Schedule 27 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 replaced the two separate lists. Under the amendment, that single gender-neutral list would still stand and would need to be repealed and the original wording restored.

I have sought to indicate that the Government do not accept the principle of what my noble and learned friend is trying to achieve. He referred to platonic relationships. If this Bill is passed, it will be open to individual couples, whether of opposite sex or of the same sex, to determine whether to engage in sexual activity and to consummate their marriage. Couples are not required to consummate their marriage; there is only an option for opposite-sex couples to apply for an annulment if one party applies to have the marriage annulled on that basis.

On the point about two brothers being able to marry, as I indicated, the Marriage Act sets out the relationships of people who cannot marry each other. The Government want to ensure that same-sex couples are able to marry under the same provisions as opposite-sex couples. The provisions in the Marriage Act on prohibited degrees of relations are already capable of applying to same-sex couples and therefore no change from what was put in place for civil partnerships is required.

My noble and learned friend referred to the debate we had earlier on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. In my response to that I referred to tax issues. To be fair to my noble and learned friend, he did not use that argument. His argument was based more on grounds of principle. Nevertheless, the proposal would have consequences in terms of tax. However, I also think—I made this argument during that debate—that there are power relationships within families. Who is to say that pressure could not be brought to bear on a brother to marry another brother if it was thought that that would best serve his inheritance interests? You cannot tell what goes on in families. That is why my noble and learned friend is absolutely right to talk about the need to protect children. We are not necessarily talking about infant children or children under the age of 16, but within families lots of power can still be exerted when children are young adults or even older. While concerns about incest and inbreeding clearly lie at the heart of the prohibited degrees of marriage, there is also a recognition that within families powerful relationships can often be at play.

As I indicated, this amendment would allow father and son, mother and daughter, uncle and nephew, aunt and niece to marry. We think that the pressure is more relevant at an intergenerational level than at a sibling level, although that is not to say that it could not occur at a sibling level. Therefore, we should be very cautious about going down that road. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to civil partnerships in this connection. We believe that the nature of marriage is one which people recognise as being different from the relationship that exists between two close members of the same sex of a family. For these reasons, I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, if I had an answer, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. The point I am making relates, for example, to brothers. The idea that this is something to do with pressure is ridiculous because, as we know, pressure is exerted in families far beyond same-sex relationships, and that has to be dealt with somehow. There are plenty of laws relating to undue pressure being put on people to get married or otherwise. What I am talking about is the marriage that was described by my noble friend at the beginning, where people love one another and wish to undertake the responsibilities of marriage.

I can understand that there are different considerations for different parts of the prohibited degrees, and that is why this needs to be considered. However, I have a feeling, and I may be entirely wrong—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. Does he accept that if a man at, say, the age of 60 wished to marry his sister who was aged 60, where procreation and therefore inbreeding was not possible, the rules on the prohibition of close relationships should be set aside after a given age, if they love each other and want to make that commitment? Is that his argument?

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

This is a justification for same-sex marriage that has been put forward. That is what I am talking about. I said in my speech at Second Reading—I invited correction but so far that has not come—that the reason for the prohibited degrees applying across marriage generally is because the natural procreation of children was a central purpose. I quite understand that people far beyond the age of childbearing are subject to the rules, and if George Clooney does not hurry up, you never know what might happen. The rules are there because a central purpose of opposite-sex marriage is the normal procreation of children, and therefore the rules are put generally to the whole lot. That does not apply to same-sex marriage at all.

The idea of pressure is just as likely to occur in relation to people who are not directly related. Parents, particularly in some situations, try to persuade their daughter to marry X for reasons of their own rather than hers. That kind of pressure is something that has to be looked at. However, I do not see why such pressure should be particularly rife between brothers at full age and thus perfectly entitled to consider what they want to do. I cannot see that it is a reason for cutting brothers out. So far, I have not heard any reason that contradicts the general statement of principle which was made when introducing same-sex marriage into our law.

At midnight it is not suitable to press my amendment, but I think that this needs to be considered, and I would like to hear more about it before Report. On the technical point, what we have done is amend the statute and the schedule that works in accordance with the statutory provision. It does not matter because I can easily alter it, but the amendment was tabled with assistance, as noble Lords will understand. I do not say that they necessarily got it right, but I think it is right. Anyway, if it is wrong, I can easily put it right; it is a very technical point and my noble and learned friend has accepted that. However, the essential point needs to be considered carefully and I would like to hear more about it by Report. In the mean time, at one minute to midnight, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her further amendment regarding the public sector equality duty. It is similar, although not identical, to Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness and that of the noble Lord, Lord Singh, which the Committee discussed at length last Wednesday. I certainly do not intend to rehearse all the points that were made then. I undertook, following that debate, to write to the noble Baroness on a number of points that were made in that debate—I think that that suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben—and to circulate the letter to all those who took part. I also indicated that if the recipients of that letter wished to follow it up with a meeting, I would more than happy to do so. Certainly, if there are any further points arising out of the contributions to the debate that have been made this evening which require to be covered by that, I shall do so.

The amendment is couched in different terms from Amendment 13 and would have a slightly different effect but, again, the Government believe that it is unnecessary and potentially harmful. As we discussed last week, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination because of, among other matters, religion or belief. Where this is relevant to the exercise of their functions, public authorities are already required to have due regard to the possible impact of their policies on people who believe that marriage should be between only a man and a woman. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

However, the amendment is also potentially harmful—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was right to say that this is our domestic legislation. The amendment would mean that public authorities would be required to consider this particular belief about marriage, giving precedence to it over all the other beliefs to which they are required to have due regard whenever they take a decision, regardless of the context and the relevance to the decision.

Moreover, the public sector equality duty is a duty to have due regard. It is a duty to think; it is not a duty to act or to achieve a particular outcome. The amendment goes far beyond the duty to have due regard. It places a duty on a public authority to ensure that the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is respected, and to ensure that no one expressing such a belief will suffer any detriment. That is of course a desirable outcome, but it is not clear to me how any single public authority, or indeed all public authorities working together, could ensure that that would happen. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn. It was in one of our first debates that my noble friend Lord Lester made the point—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, then quoted it back—that you cannot legislate against some public authorities or some individual doing a daft thing; “idiotic” may have been the word that he used. Mention has been made of the case of the housing officer who lost his job for something that was put on a public website, when in fact the law actually protected him. When the case went for judicial review, the judge put it on the record that, had he taken the matter to an employment tribunal, he would have had more substantial damages than he was able to get under a judicial review. The law has worked. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that I think that we all get very frustrated sometimes when daft things are done, but we believe that the Bill ensures that those protections are in place. I do not believe that the way to deal with those occasions where public authorities have not applied the current laws properly is to start trying to meddle with the equality protections and to risk unintended consequences. Rather, we should address them by doing what we can to ensure that public authorities understand the nature of the requirements on them and what they mean in practice.

That is why, as I explained on Wednesday and as my noble friend Lady Stowell has also explained, the Government will work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that its guidance for public authorities is as clear as possible, in particular by making it clear that the equality duty cannot be used to penalise an organisation or individual for opposing same-sex marriage and indeed that to do so would be unlawful. I also remind the Committee of my commitment given last Wednesday that we will address issues relating to the equality duty when we respond to the Joint Committee on Human Rights before Report.

On behalf of my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lady Northover, I thank noble Lords for the kind words that have been said. I thank all Members of the Committee, because we have had some very important and worthwhile debates. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has received the further reassurance on this issue that she has sought. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I would like to associate myself from this side of the House with her comments about the Front Benches on both sides.