Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In conclusion, I want to put it on the record that I strongly support new clause 15 and very much hope that it will eventually lead to humanists being allowed to marry in the way they wish and not to be required to get married in any other way.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I want first to speak to new clause 15 and to express my full support for it. After doing so, I will link that with new clause 14, which stands in my name, and the comments I made yesterday on amendment 10 and why it could and should have been dealt with separately.

In expressing my support for new clause 15, I remind the House of my early-day motion 667, tabled in September 2010, which called for humanist marriages to be allowed in England and Wales in exactly the same way as in Scotland. That is something I believe as a liberal, and also because I was extremely fortunate in having the honour of being best man at the wedding of two humanist friends, Derek and Louise, in September 2007. It was an honour to play a role in that ceremony. I was moved by what an appropriate, fitting and solemn ceremony it was. They were married exactly the way they wanted to be, according to their beliefs. They were equally happy to participate in my Catholic wedding a few years before.

As a liberal, I believe that each and every one of us has the right to marry according to our own beliefs. The problem with how the Bill is currently drafted is that we are allowing a situation to continue in which some religions—to be more precise, some sects of some religions—have access to a civil marriage ceremony while other religions, sects of religions and belief-based systems do not. To me, as a liberal, that is simply not justifiable. My opinion is simply that each and every citizen of this country, of all belief systems and religions and none, should have the same right to equal recognition of their relationship.

New clause 14 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), whose support and common-sense approach on this I appreciate. The simple reality is that if the Government had approached this matter in a more rational and common-sense way, the debate we are having now would be entirely unnecessary. Many Members on both sides of the House—interestingly, they include many who have concerns about the Bill and many who fully support it—believe that we should be making a proper separation of the belief-based recognition of a relationship, whether humanist or religious, from the state’s right to confer legal rights and legal recognition on individuals. The trouble is that the Bill, as drafted, conflates and confuses the two. Even worse, it enshrines the confusion we have heard about, such as the various marriage Acts replacing each other, and adds even more layers of complexity, which means legal confusion. At the same time, there is the absurd situation in which the Bill is having to specify in law that some Churches may not marry certain people and having to put in place protections for other Churches so that they do not have to do so. Of course, if we had a proper separation of civil and marriage, those things would simply not be necessary.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 14 and for advancing the argument that I hope to make later in relation to new clause 18, if you call me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the Bill’s real failings is that it does not address the need to separate, for the purposes of marriage, the secular and the religious. Had we gone down that road, there would have been a much better resolution and many more people would have found it far less difficult to deal with this legislation.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent contribution. I support his new clause 18 and the similar way in which he is trying to deal with this issue. It cannot be right that certain people of some religions and, in the case of humanism, belief systems, have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony according to their beliefs while others do not. The Bill, as drafted, will continue to allow that. I am afraid that, as with civil partnerships, it will enshrine the existing inequality in the law, and that cannot be right in something that is supposed to be about equality.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would the new clause, in essence, abolish marriage and civil partnerships and replace it with civil union? If so, what would be the status of someone who is currently married? Would they become unmarried and move into a civil union?

[Greg Mulholland]

Technically, in terms of the law, absolutely. As I said yesterday, the new clause cannot be seen in isolation; it has to be seen with amendment 10, which sought the repeal of the Marriage Act 1949. It must also be linked with the amendment that I tabled to remove clauses in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The point is that there would be one single definition of a legal recognition for relationships.

I am not necessarily dictating whether this should be called a union, a marriage, or, as Peter Tatchell suggests, a civil commitment pact. I am not particularly interested in the language. Some people feel very strongly that we should call it marriage; others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), do not like the word “marriage”. That is a debate to be had. The point is that what we need to do, and what the Bill should have sought to do, is give all citizens of this country the right to one single recognition by the state of their union. Of course, that would apply to everyone in an existing marriage or an existing civil partnership. Everyone would have the one single recognition through the state, and the legislation would have been drafted to achieve that. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question very simply, but we are now moving into technical legal questions. In reality, this change would require a separate Bill, but it is currently proposed as a new clause.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Would my hon. Friend’s proposals mean that Methodists, Catholics and others who fought for many years for the right to conduct a marriage ceremony that was valid in law would lose that right and have to go along to the town hall to get validation for the marriage that they had conducted?

[Greg Mulholland]

I believe that Methodists and Catholics should have exactly the same rights as humanists, Baptists, Jews and Quakers. That is my whole point. I do not accept that some religions should have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony but not others; as a liberal, I find that indefensible. My right hon. Friend has to accept, as do I and all right hon. and hon. Members, that marriage is being redefined; the state has chosen, through its Parliament, to do that. Therefore, now is the time to deal with the complex, multi-faceted and, indeed, confusing and discriminatory current marriage laws and to carry out the reform properly, which is not happening.

I suspect that there is also a practical dimension to my right hon. Friend’s question, and I am happy to address that. In order to have the necessary separation between civil and religious ceremonies, we would need to ensure that no religious minister was able to convey the rights of legal marriage. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, either through the presence of a registrar at a belief-based or religious marriage ceremony, or by another process, to have that conveyed at the same time. If my right hon. Friend is arguing against that separation, he is defending the situation that the Government are proposing, which will mean having to legislate on what certain Churches may or may not do and needing a complex system of law to ensure that other Churches, including the one he belongs to, are not then forced to do things they do not want to do. If we have a proper separation, none of those things is necessary, and surely that is the sensible way to proceed.

I have had support from all sorts of different sources, including ministers from Churches of various denominations and other religions who are saying that this is indeed a sensible way to proceed. On the Gay Leeds website there is an article by Colin Ross in which he says:

“This seems a very sensible approach to me, I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that—without any religion having their opinion on it—but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality—as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well.”

Similarly, in the release that he put out today under the headline, “Gay marriage bill is not full equality”, Peter Tatchell says:

“Instead of bringing same-sex couples fully within the ambit of existing marriage law, the bill leaves some aspects of marriage law different for gay and straight married couples. Although these are relatively minor, they violate the fundamental principle of marriage equality for all.”

He goes on to say:

“While this may be a progressive reform of marriage legislation, it makes the law unequal. If we want marriage equality, that’s what the bill should give.”

We should also have equality of religions and belief systems, and the Bill does not achieve that either.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome the debate on this subject; we had a shorter debate in the Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is clearly explaining that redefining marriage raises lots of complications. Perhaps if we had gone back to first base and had a longer, more considered consultation about the redefinition of marriage, although perhaps not quite as long as the one we are about to have on civil partnerships, we could have reached a more consensual view about the state’s involvement in unions. Has he made any representations to the Church of England? Would not his new clause have an impact on the relationship between Church and state, particularly with regard to the right of every parishioner to get married at their local church?

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend is touching on the elephant in the room, which is the establishment of the Church of England. That is another matter that is worthy of debate. There will be different views, and I hope that he is prepared to take part in that debate. I am trying to show that it is possible to separate civil marriage and religious and belief-based ceremonies without necessarily having the effect that he suggests. This involves the constitution as well as the Church of England. I suggest to him—I do not know if he would agree—that the Church of England is now in a most odd and uncomfortable position as a result of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Similarly, it is not a particularly happy situation for other Churches. That would not necessarily be the case if we had the separation that I propose.

I will continue to pursue this matter beyond the passage of the Bill, which will of course receive its Third Reading tonight. I share my hon. Friend’s view that had we had a proper and fuller consultation—this is not so much about the time period as about the intent and scope of the Bill—we could perhaps have looked seriously at sweeping away the current framework and coming up with one that is properly radical and fit for purpose, and gives all our citizens the same rights whether they are religious, humanist, or of no belief.

If we want true and exact legal recognition of all adult couples and to convey the same rights to them all, we will not achieve that as things stand this evening. If we want to have clear and proper respect for freedom of conscience, we will not achieve that this evening. Those things are still possible if amendments are made. I ask hon. Members to consider the amendments. I do not intend to press new clause 14 to a vote, but I hope that the views that I have expressed have been heard and that the Secretary of State and her colleagues will note the support that they receive from all parts of the spectrum on this issue.

[Geraint Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his interesting comments.

I rise primarily to support new clause 15, which would allow people to have humanist marriages if they so choose. Members will know that that is an established option in Scotland, chosen by about 2,500 couples a year. About 600 couples in Wales and England choose to have a humanist wedding without it becoming a legal marriage.

Religions do not have a moral monopoly on marriage. Different religions have different moral views linked to their faith, and the humanist tradition has its own secular but moral conception of what is right. The members of the humanist community want to be able to join in moral partnerships in which they may express and celebrate their personal ethics, and for those bonds to be recognised in law. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many Members, I have been lobbied by people in my constituency on this matter. Brian Cainen, who conducts various humanist ceremonies, including funerals, is very concerned and passionate about this, as are many people who approach him to ask about the options that are available.

I was drawn into this debate by my interest in the issue, but I was disappointed by the level of emotion expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who seemed to suggest that humanist ceremonies were some sort of pagan ritual, whereas we are talking about moral, ethical people who want to pursue their own ethics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for that intervention. It elaborates the point that we should not spend too much time talking about tiddlywinks. However, it was brought up by the Attorney-General and I thought that I had better deal with the matter because he said that his best criticism of new clause 15 was that it would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights. That seems very unlikely, to put it mildly. It is scraping the barrel and was a bizarre thing for the Attorney-General to say.

I realise that the intention behind new clause 14 was to start a discussion, but it would abolish marriage and civil partnership and replace them with civil union. People who had been married in good faith would wake up one day and find that they were no longer married. That is not something that we should seriously consider. In the cut and thrust of political dialogue, it was famously said that people who went to bed with Nick Clegg might wake up with David Cameron. This proposal is akin to that idea. One day people would be married and suddenly, after a change in the legislation, they would no longer be married.

[Greg Mulholland]

After a reasonably intelligent start, it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is making silly, petty party political comments. I say again that there should be and would be one way of recognising all adult couples, including those who are already married or civil partnered. He is being slightly mischievous in another way, because those who believe themselves to be married in the eyes of one religion, Church or belief system would continue to do so, as happens now, regardless of whether the state regards them as married or not.

[Geraint Davies]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is slightly lacking in a sense of humour. My point about waking up with David Cameron was not meant as a sharp political point. I am sure a lot of his colleagues would be very happy to wake up with David Cameron.

On the serious point—there is a serious point—I realise that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine point about the need for absolute equality in marriage and civil partnership and asking why, if that is not happening, we do not have civil union. I see the logic of that, but I was simply making the case that in practice, if that came in now and we essentially abolished marriage, people would wake up in a slightly different relationship from the one they anticipated when they made their vows. In parallel, I was making a perhaps not very funny joke about people voting Liberal and ending up with a coalition Government.

This Friday is the 25th anniversary of section 28, which gives us a stark reminder that time has moved forward but we still have not made all that much progress. Gay people are still abused at school, for instance—where my children go to school, the word “gay” is used in an abusive way. We need to move forward and provide equality before the law. I appreciate that we are going to end up with equality for same-sex marriage and that there will still be work to do on civil partnerships, but in the meantime we need to move forward on the humanist agenda, whose delivery is already established in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Earlier in my political life I was Minister of Finance and Personnel in the Northern Ireland Executive, and in that capacity, bizarrely, I had responsibility for the Office of Law Reform and for registration. I worked to bring forward measures that were about changing how civil registration and civil law on marriage related to the different religions in Northern Ireland, because it related very differently. Unlike what the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his description of the law on marriage in England, which was that it is entirely related to premises or property, the situation in Northern Ireland meant that for Catholics, as long as a marriage was conducted by an episcopally-ordained priest—it did not matter where—the state recognised it. For the Church of Ireland, only the premises mattered.

Under powers that came from the old position of Lord Lieutenant General in Ireland from the 17th century, I had to sign if a new Church of Ireland church was created. There was a wonderful vellum scroll and illuminated manuscript—so much so that I was able to tell my wife that I felt like a lay bishop in the Church of Ireland. For Presbyterians it was different again: the persons were recognised, for the conduct of marriage, within the geography of a given presbytery, and marriage was not confined to a particular building or anything else.

We brought forward measures to try to equalise things, and in many ways we borrowed from changes made in Scotland. Some of the Churches were shaky on it at the time, but the smaller Protestant Churches were glad of our changes, because many that could conduct marriages on their premises only if a civil registrar was also present to verify it, were then able to conduct them under their own auspices and integrity of their rites and rituals.

At that time I made it clear to my officials that if demand emerged in relation to humanists or another belief system, we would have to address that. It did not emerge during the debates at the time, but I support the principle of it. I have said about other aspects of the Bill that all equality should be equal; the problem that some of us have with this Bill is that it is not equal in all cases in its central thrust of extending equality to same-sex couples. I supported the Bill on Second Reading and continue to support it, but I appeal to colleagues to stop jumping and hopping about here and there on the issue of when they want equality, and when they support and respect belief systems.

I have no problem with this Bill or any other measure respecting the belief system of humanism, and ensuring that people can achieve that. That is happening with legislation in the south of Ireland. I represent a border constituency. I am a Catholic who is part of a cross-border diocese. As a result of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill which passed the Oireachtas, later this year and certainly next year humanist marriages will be conducted in Ireland just over the border from my constituency. Just as many people who are married in church go over the border for those weddings, so too will people from my city for humanist weddings. I therefore have no principled opposition to new clause 15.

The legislation in Ireland gives the registrar general the capacity to recognise a secular body, which can in turn appoint people who would be registered to solemnise marriages. Like new clause 15, the Irish measure defines a secular body as one that must exist for at least five years and as a charity. The body cannot have profit making as one of its purposes. The legislation also describes such a body as

“an organised group of people who have secular, ethical and humanist beliefs in common.”

The Irish Attorney-General felt that that term would cover against any allegation that the provision was so specific that it related to one existing organisation only—the Humanist Association of Ireland. The Irish Attorney-General therefore found a way around—there is a specific and clear definition, but it is not open to the challenge that it is exclusively defined, which seems to be what the UK Attorney-General was saying. Those who support the principle of new clause 15 might want to look at the Irish wording as things progress.

It is right that hon. Members should be accommodating of a belief system that is not properly recognised in our marriage system and that they want such a belief system to be recognised in the Bill, but they should think about the speed with which they rejected emblematic, conscience amendments yesterday. People with other distinct belief systems feel a wee bit under threat and are concerned about slippery slopes. There was an attempt yesterday to make a concession and offer comfort by recognising such belief systems, but hon. Members decided they would not do so. Today, there is an opportunity to accommodate another belief system. Many hon. Members who rejected the accommodation of people’s belief systems yesterday back today’s proposal. I wish they would have supported both measures.

[Greg Mulholland]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman brings an interesting perspective from his experience. Regardless of the many different views—it is important to say that there are not just two views—it is incredibly disappointing that the Government, despite saying they would engage and listen, have accepted not a single amendment in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I am afraid that that is not an appropriate way in which to make a big change of this nature. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern?

[Mark Durkan]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. That will be one of the difficulties. The fewer amendments that are accepted in the House, the bigger the excuse for the other place to take longer, and to go more deeply and more wide ranging with amendments. People should be able to see that the House has given the Bill due consideration and added to it in a number of respects. If people wanted belt-and-braces protections in the Bill, and apps and widgets, to make them feel more secure and comfortable, why not give them? We should want people to feel more comfortable with the passage of the Bill, no matter what their reservations about its provenance. That is why I support amendments that make more people, such as humanists, feel included in the equality that the Bill extends.

Hon. Members should remember that we had a choice yesterday on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. The issue was ducked. We were told that the matter could be complicated and that there could be a review. I would like the people who supported that measure to feel included in the effort to extend equality in the Bill. I hope that that happens if the matter is raised in the other place. I do not believe that this will be the last the House sees of the Bill. The Bill will come back to us, because people are saying that we are being selective in adding to the Bill and widening its scope.

Some hon. Members argued against the civil partnerships amendments yesterday even though they support the principle of equality in civil partnerships. They argued that such a measure was not germane to the Bill, and that it took us beyond the Bill’s scope. However, the same people want an extension for humanist marriage—I agree with them—even though other hon. Members say that there is a risk and that it could raise far more complicated issues. The Attorney-General and the Government are not the only ones who must answer questions as to the inconsistency or strength of their argument. I have noted a lot of inconsistency in the House on how far we go to respect belief systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I can be very clear. It is not coalition policy to undertake the actions that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I have already dealt with the comments made about the work of my officials. Most individuals who have been dealing with my officials have found their work incredibly diligent and helpful. I am sorry that he does not feel that that has been the case in this instance.

New clause 14 would create a new status of civil union and repeal the Marriage Act 1949. That would prevent the creation of any new marriages: put simply, England and Wales would no longer recognise marriage within the law. It seems that the intention here is that civil unions would replace marriages—a change that would affect everyone who wants to marry in England and Wales in the future. That is simply not a position that the Government can support.

Conversely, the Bill is about strengthening marriage, and the Government strongly oppose any measure that would undermine marriage. New clause 14 would damage the important institution of marriage beyond repair. It would to all intents and purposes abolish it. I therefore note and welcome the intention of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) not to press the new clause to a vote. It is not something that we could support if he were to do so.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that kind acknowledgment. The new clause was very much an attempt to show that we should be separating the state recognition of marriage from the religious. That is the point, not what it is called in the end. We are changing the institution of marriage through the Bill anyway, so to do so properly and more succinctly is something that should be explored in the other place.

[Maria Miller]

I do not believe that we are changing marriage. Marriage is one state, which we are enabling a new set of individuals to access, so I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not about changing marriage; it is about ensuring that more people can get into it.

[Greg Mulholland]

Will my right hon. Friend give way, briefly?

[Maria Miller]

I will make some progress, because we have another string of amendments to get through.

The effect of new clause 18 and amendments 58 and 59 would be to require all marriages not conducted through a religious ceremony to be called civil marriages. The intention seems to be to separate marriage conducted through civil and religious ceremonies into two distinct institutions. Let me be clear that there is one legal institution of marriage in England and Wales that couples —all couples, we hope, as a result of the Bill—can join through either a religious or a civil ceremony. The new clause would create a separate type of marriage without any consideration of the legal impact. The legal consequences of such a new distinction are completely unclear.

New clause 18 contains no reference to same-sex couples, so it does not seem to require that such couples should be limited to access to civil marriage only, which might be thought to have been the purpose of distinguishing between religious and civil marriage for legal purposes. That is simply not something the Government can support. We all want couples to be able to access the important and single institution of marriage, and that is what the Bill is about. The Bill has one clear and straightforward purpose: opening up the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples. It is not designed for the sort of fundamental changes proposed in the new clause.