Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Julian Huppert and Maria Miller

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 118, 126 and 142 will make posting revenge porn a criminal offence, and I rise to support them. I have been campaigning on behalf of women who have contacted me to get a change in the law to make posting revenge pornography a crime, and today we have a chance to make a change that will literally transform the future for many people in our country. Nude or sexually explicit images taken as part of a private relationship and always intended to be private should stay private. People should expect better treatment under the law, and the amendments would ensure that that is the case in future.

The seemingly growing industry of revenge pornography, where images are posted for all to see, is completely unacceptable in our country and the law must reflect that. The current mishmash of legislation does not provide adequate protection. The posting of such images is often a one-off and therefore not subject to harassment legislation, or an image could be deemed not to be grossly offensive and therefore not subject to the Communications Act 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act 1988. There is therefore a need for a new law, and the Bill provides that opportunity.

I pay tribute to the Crown Prosecution Service which has attempted to provide better guidance in this area. However, as the police made clear in evidence sessions on revenge pornography with the Lords Bill Committee held during the summer, it is not necessarily against the law to post such pictures online. The amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will close that loophole and provide comfort to hundreds or perhaps even thousands of men and women in this country who have had nude or sexually explicit images of them posted without their permission.

The law must keep up to date with the ever-evolving changes and challenges thrown down to us by the internet and digital technology. What is illegal offline is illegal online, but the impact of having a nude or sexually explicit image posted on the internet for thousands or even millions of people to see is entirely different from the impact of a similar image being distributed offline, and I believe that the law should reflect that. We need the law to keep pace with the internet, and I commend the Minister for listening to the arguments and being prepared to take action.

There are those who have said that a new law is not needed. Some have gone so far as to say to me that if a woman has a nude or sexually explicit photo taken in private, she has no right to expect protection under the law if that image is made public without her permission; that in some ways it is as if she was “asking for it”. I completely reject that argument as, I hope, will every Member of the House. The law needs to protect men and women and to send a clear message to the perpetrators of these heinous acts that their actions are not tolerated by this society or in criminal law.

I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Trish Morris and Elizabeth Berridge in the other place for working with me, and for making the case so powerfully and so successfully to enable us to debate these amendments today. I also pay tribute to Women’s Aid, the Safer Internet Centre, Ban Revenge Porn, and many others who have written to me in support of the amendments over the past six months. I thank the ministerial team and their officials for listening to the arguments and for acting, and I urge Members across the House to support the amendments.



If images are posted online, victims want them to be taken down quickly. Protocols put in place by internet service providers and social media in relation to child abuse images prove beyond doubt that the industry can, through its own actions, come together to remove illegal images effectively and swiftly. Good progress on child abuse has been made by the industry, working with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and other law enforcement agencies. The Minister perhaps needs to look at that work as a template for the sort of action the industry needs to take on the issue of revenge pornography. We need an industry-wide code of practice for removing revenge pornography to ensure that people have certainty that action will be taken.

The incidence of sexting among under-18s is now put as high as 20%, so the volume of potential revenge porn images in the future is alarming. Indeed, one in five reports from industry received by CEOP relates to self-generated indecent images of people under the age of 18. What will the Government do to put a stop to the already illegal practice of sending nude images of under-18s through mobile phones and then uploading them on to websites? This seems to be becoming increasingly accepted as part of society today, but it should not be. It is illegal and the Government need to act to stop this ticking time bomb of images that could haunt the next generation of people into adulthood.

Victims want help. They want an industry-wide reporting regime. They want help to be available. The Safer Internet Centre, which was established to support professionals who work with children, is now receiving calls from adults affected by revenge pornography, as they have nowhere else to turn to. In September, I met the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, the industry board that looks at these issues. I set out my concerns and asked the industry to take action. I asked for there to be an industry-standard reporting mechanism, an industry-standard response time for taking down illegal images of adults and support for victims through a helpline. This sort of industry-wide approach is what we should all expect from a mature multinational sector of our economy. We should not expect the burden of removing illegal images from commercial websites to be solely the responsibility of the police—the industry has an obligation to act too. If websites are hosted in more obscure countries, splash pages should be used to block illegal pornography images from being viewed in the UK in exactly the same way as they have been used to block child abuse images. It is a tried and tested methodology that can address this problem. I look forward to the Minister confirming today how he can handle the logistics in the future, working of course with other ministerial colleagues in other Departments.

I applaud the Government for acting when some were resistant. The Ministers have shown foresight and their actions will be warmly welcomed by those who have had to endure the appalling consequences of revenge pornography being posted online without their consent. On behalf of all those women—and the men affected, too—who have contacted me, I thank the Ministers for their work. I hope that in their response today they are able to provide some reassurance on the questions I have posed.

[Dr Huppert]

I, too, would like to speak to amendment 70. I will not detain the House for too long, as some of the points have already been raised. I called for this amendment when the Bill was going through this House and in the Queen’s Speech. It was very helpful after that to get the support of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) in her Westminster Hall debate.

There is a gap in the law that we are closing. It is surprising that, while there are many laws that touch on the issue of revenge porn, none of them quite tackles the essential issue. People were being harmed and a clear wrong was being done, but nothing could be done because there was a hole in the law. I am therefore delighted that the Government accepted the case. There has been substantial debate in the other place and I pay particular tribute to my colleagues Baroness Grender, Baroness Brinton, Baroness Barker and Lord Marks who tabled amendments in the other place. Between us, we have managed to get the Government to work out the amendments.

I pay tribute to the victims. I have spoken to many of them, but in particular I pay tribute to Hannah Thompson who has played a very key role in speaking out publicly. That was a very brave thing to do about something that feels very shaming. We should remember her work and pay tribute to her. She will protect many people in the future. The psychological trauma can be huge, as the right hon. Lady has already said. We have seen people face the shame—the sense they did something wrong—when it was someone else who behaved badly. People have lost confidence, they have lost their jobs and, in some cases around the world, they have committed suicide. I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to make this a new offence. It is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a message that revenge porn should not be tolerated and people should not be able to share these intimate images, entrusted to them, and expect their actions to be completely unpunishable.

That will not be enough, however. Although the right hon. Lady spoke about automatic processes to filter these things out, there will be challenges. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its champions—on child abuse images is fantastic, but it cannot be directly mapped on to images of revenge porn, because the images themselves are not the issue; it is about intent and consent. It is hard to distinguish automatically between an image shared voluntarily, which we should not be criminalising if the person is over 18, and an image shared involuntarily, which is the issue that the amendment would tackle. It is not as easy as in the case of child abuse images—not that that is trivial or easy either.

[Maria Miller]

For clarification, I was clearly pointing out that once an image had been identified as illegal, the same technology could be used to remove it from the internet. Obviously, this is about data-matching the images.

[Dr Huppert]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about there being scope for data-matching images, and there is some nice work being done on technologies for hashing an image so that it can be identified, but it will be harder than in the case of child abuse images.

As I said in an intervention on the Minister, we need a substantial improvement in education not just around this offence—ideally we want a situation where no one is ever prosecuted under the offence because the message has been sent so clearly that people simply do not share intimate images of former partners or whomever—but on the much broader issue of sex and relationships education. For me, this is fundamentally an issue not about revenge or pornography—the term “revenge porn” is not ideal—but about consent. We need a system where, particularly through education, we get people to understand what consent is about: what can be agreed to and what cannot be agreed. Whether it is sexual assault and physical violence, emotional assault or the taking and spreading of such images, it should be about whether consent has been given. That is the education I would like to see. The Government should have compulsory sex and relationships education for everybody at school to tackle these issues of consent, and they should do what they can to ensure society changes so that we have that focus on consent. I welcome the amendments very much, and I am grateful the Government have agreed to them.

Very quickly, amendment 73 was led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who did a fantastic job. I had the privilege of co-sponsoring the amendments, but she did the work, and I am not in any sense trying to claim credit. The amendment will make a big difference to grooming. Her approach to the amendments—working constructively with Ministers, discussing the issues, not trying to play party politics, but making the case sensibly and pragmatically—has delivered her success, and she should be very proud of getting the law changed to protect young people. Perhaps there is a lesson there for other right hon. and hon. Members about how to get the law changed.

Cycling

Debate between Julian Huppert and Maria Miller

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman needs to study the Minister’s report a little more closely. A consultation paper will shortly be published on the £976 million a year highways maintenance fund, to ensure that a fair share goes to cycling and walking, which is exactly what he is talking about. I appreciate that he has not had much time to read the report, but I urge him to look at the detail, because he will be pleased with the content.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are words in the report about the maintenance budget, and we certainly welcome that, but that is not the same as a new infrastructure, which is desperately needed.

[Maria Miller]

I agree that cycling infrastructure is important. It is an important way of communicating to people that cycling is a safe option. I will address that later in my comments.

I can think of no better way to spend a Sunday afternoon than on my bike with my son on the lanes and off-road cycle routes around Basingstoke. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and I both know, Hampshire is blessed with 750 miles of off-road cycle routes and urban cycle paths. Cyclists are getting everywhere. This year, for the first time, St John Ambulance is using cycle responders at festivals across Hampshire. In Basingstoke, our local police effectively use mountain bikes for town centre patrols and to help police work around parks and other public areas.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Julian Huppert and Maria Miller

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I should declare that I am a member of the British Humanist Association and an officer of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and I have spoken to a number of people who have confirmed that there is a demand for this to happen. People wish to do humanist marriage and there does not have to be a majority before we think that it is the right thing to do.

What are the problems? This takes us to the process of how to get there. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury, and others have asserted that this would unpick the lock. What I never heard—perhaps we will hear it from the Minister—is exactly why the locks that protect faith groups would be unpicked by allowing humanists to act as registrars for a wedding. It is really not clear. I have heard it implied that it is because this would involve celebrants and it would not happen at a registered place. We have heard that Jews and Quakers are already exempt from the requirement to have a registered place. If the lock has already been unpicked by that, why should it be a problem? We have simply not heard any detailed analysis; it seems that people are saying things because they have been told that they are true. That is not really good enough.

I am concerned about the process that has brought us here. The Second Church Estates Commissioner—sadly, he is not in his place—suggested that the proposal was put through at the last minute and there was not enough time to deal with it adequately. I tabled my amendment initially on 5 February, immediately after Second Reading. I vividly remember it because I was slightly annoyed that somebody else had tabled another amendment before I had even got to the Table for mine. I was delighted that it received support from across the House and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) led on it in Committee with the support of the Labour Front-Bench team.

There was time from 5 February to make comments, and comments were made. There was detailed discussion, for example, between the British Humanist Association and Government officials. A couple of comments were made about how the provision would fit in with the locks and, interestingly, about its breadth. My original amendment would have allowed all approved organisations to participate, with a few safeguards, and did not specify humanism. The Government advice from the meetings with officials was that that should be changed. I know that the Minister disagrees, but it is entirely consistent with the letter and I was very specifically told by the BHA that it was given the advice to limit the provision to humanism.

I am happy to read out again the relevant section from the Minister’s letter:

“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”

The letter went on to say that

“we remain of the view that”

humanist ceremonies

“cannot be dealt with in isolation”.

That is simply not consistent with the idea that the Government had no role in this.

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry, but I must complete what the letter sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said. It went on to state clearly that

“the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is the wrong mechanism to effect the changes to marriage law that you desire. Therefore the Government is unable to support your amendments.”

I am quoting directly from the letter. That clearly shows no opaqueness in the situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s previous comments were not entirely consistent with what is written in the letter.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Lady for reading out the rest of the letter, and I am happy for anybody to see it; I see that her Parliamentary Private Secretary has copies of it. She is right that it did not say that the Government supported the amendment or that they had another way of delivering it; it does not say, “Here are amendments that could make it work.” It says that the Government do not support the change because it is the wrong mechanism; it does not say, “We see you have now reduced the scope and we are very worried about this because we think you should broaden it back out again to be ECHR-compliant.” It is quite clear that the strong impression formed by the BHA from the meetings—I am sure there will be minutes—is that it was given strong advice to tighten the amendment. If that is not the case, it is hard to understand why it would choose to change the original version, which is obviously available for anyone to read. There has been ample time for the Attorney-General to consider the new clause, to be consulted on it and to be asked for his ruling on whether it would accord with the European convention on human rights. Strangely, however, that did not happen until the very last moment.

There have been other meetings. For instance, we had a detailed discussion with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and I thank him for his time. As he will no doubt recall, the objections that were expressed did not centre on the fact that the new clause would make the whole Bill non-compliant with the convention, but there was talk of the cost of updating the computer system to allow an extra field for humanist weddings. He is nodding. A number of other issues were raised: for example, concern was expressed about the possibility that the measure would allow humanists to conduct weddings out of doors, which members of other faiths are not allowed to do under our marriage law unless they are Jews or Quakers.

I find it truly bizarre that if there is concern about challenges with regard to the proposals before us, there is not fundamental concern about challenges to legislation under which the rules governing Jews and Quakers differ from those governing any other group. We have plenty of legislation that singles out the Church of England and the Church of Wales, because they are, or were, connected to the state. I would be grateful if the Minister, or anyone else, could tell me how many times the fact that Jews and Quakers are listed, but not Hindus, Sikhs or any other group, has been subject to a legal challenge. In fact, that simply has not happened.

I respect the Attorney-General’s position, but I do not understand how he can have formed his opinions. I hope that we will be able to see a detailed analysis, from him or from the Minister via him, explaining exactly what the objections are. Above all, however, I believe passionately that the law could be constructive. The Government do not have to agree with humanist weddings, and they do not have to agree that this is the best way to legislate, but if they are acting in good faith in relation to the concerns that are being raised, I hope that they will say not just what the problems are but how they could be fixed, because many of us want them to be fixed.

I do not mind whether this wording is retained or other wording is introduced. I do not mind if an amendment is tabled that merely adds an extra line specifying humanists beneath the words

“professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.

I do not mind if the Government present, or find time for, another Bill to deal with the issue. I simply want humanist weddings to take place. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will not just erect barriers, but will help this Parliament to do what it clearly wants to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

There are many points on which I would love to tackle the Secretary of State, including the idea that the amendments are allowing everybody in one version, and not enough people in another, and that either way they fail the Goldilocks test. She makes the case, as I understand it, that if we allowed a route that was not premises-based, it would mean completely redoing marriage law. Does she accept that marriage law already has routes for Jews and for Quakers that are not premises-based, and that to have a route that is not premises-based simply cannot fundamentally weaken marriage law, as it would have done so since 1949 and before then?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend reads my mind, because I was about to go on to that very point. He is right: it is important that we recognise that those of the Jewish faith and Quakers have a particular position, and we have been accommodating their needs since marriage was first regulated in this country back in 1753, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That is a long-standing historical arrangement designed to respect and accommodate ancient and religious traditions. My hon. Friend will understand that because it has been established in time, it cannot be changed retrospectively and it is therefore entirely consistent with the position set out by the Attorney-General.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to respond to his intervention before he intervenes on me again?

This is a particularly difficult area. Marriage law and the principles behind it have evolved over many centuries, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out. Yes, there are anomalies in some areas, but we are talking about a particular set of amendments relating to humanists and the problem that would be faced if they were incorporated in the Bill. It is not the Government’s policy to extend marriage in the way that my hon. Friend is talking about. Humanists can already get married. The Bill is all about ensuring that people who cannot currently get married—same-sex couples—are able to do so. That should be the focus of our discussions.

I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the confusing and contradictory nature of the amendments. Is humanism non-religious, as suggested in the definition of approved organisations in new clause 15? If so, would the protections in the Bill for religious organisations apply? There was some confusion about that, particularly as to whether this would allow the marriage of same-sex couples. Or is humanism religious, as suggested in amendments 20 and 21, which add reference to approved organisations to the definition of a “relevant religious organisation”? Are we clear what humanism means in legislative terms, and who the definition would catch? The amendments simply highlight some of the problems that would arise from trying to shoehorn a new category of marriage into the current legal framework.

[Dr Huppert]

I do not think that the Secretary of State quite addressed the question put by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), which was whether in principle—if there was a way that did not involve the Bill, did not have ECHR problems and did not cause any other problems—she and the Government would support the concept of humanist weddings.

I am really rising because I am so shocked at the concerns about the extra amendments, which again were inserted at the suggestion of Government officials. The BHA has changed this to suit the Government, and the Government then complain about the changes.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Julian Huppert and Maria Miller

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I really do thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has made my point for me. At this point in time, there is of course no independent impact assessment because the issues have not been looked at in the kind of detail that hon. Members would expect before legislation is enacted. I hope that I will be able to change my hon. Friend’s mind about pressing his new clause to a vote. I hope that he will see that we need to get more evidence on this issue.

[Dr Huppert]

My right hon. Friend is arguing that there is a cost to the state whenever people get married or enter into a civil partnership. Is this part of a new austerity drive in which she will try to persuade people not to get married or have a civil partnership so that we can save on the pensions bill? That does not seem to be a very sensible approach.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend seems to be driving at the same issue—namely, that we do not have the necessary information to hand. I think that hon. Members expect us to legislate based on fact, not on supposition or hypothesis. Much of what has been said on this matter has not really been based on facts. He is right to suggest that we want to encourage people to get married, but at the moment we do not know the exact implications of the proposal to extend civil partnerships. I think we would need to amend other legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which show that it is not just in the area of pensions where we would need to look at making significant progress in our understanding of the impact, as it would apply across a number of different pieces of legislation. It would be wrong for us to take decisions today without first having done that work.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Julian Huppert and Maria Miller

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

As always, my right hon. Friend cuts to the quick with a question that is important to many of us. If he examines the detail of our provisions and exemptions, and the Leveson report, he will see that the intention behind everything that we are doing is to focus self-regulation on those who publish news. I do not believe that any political party or MP intends primarily to publish news. That will be secondary, so it is not our intention that such websites should be the primary focus of the provisions. Obviously, there will be areas in the margins that need further clarification, and the courts will be able to provide that over time.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am pleased that we are able to examine these details, because there has been much concern. I would be grateful for guidance on a few specific issues about how the provisions should be interpreted. For example, a lot of multi-author blogs involve people who are self-employed or who work on a voluntary basis. How should the number of employees be dealt with? Will the Secretary of State provide guidance on that, and on what the definition of a blog is?

[Maria Miller]

It will be full-time employees who are included in the employment measure, which is why it is important that not just employment but turnover is considered. Many organisations utilise a number of self-employed people, hence the twin-track approach.

We have set out what we anticipate being considered a blog, which is about individual opinion being set forth through electronic media. That is relatively straightforward, although as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), there will always be more difficult matters to consider at the margins and the courts will be able to provide further information. We will also provide guidance in the usual way.

The amendments address concerns raised by small-scale bloggers and other small businesses and will ensure that the definition of “relevant publisher” captures the news publishers that were the focus of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry. They have the full support of all three major parties in the House, and on that basis I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I do not wish to detain the House long but I am pleased that we have finally reached this point and that important details of Leveson are agreed. If I had been asked when I first looked at the Crime and Courts Bill which part I thought would keep us in ping-pong, it would not have been this provision or anything to do with blogs. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was referring to me as a middle-aged man. I am the proud holder of a Liberal Democrat Voice “blogger of the year” award, but even I would have struggled desperately to write this provision or make all the definitions. I hope that the Secretary of State has been able to be clear. There will be people who try to game this, but that is true of all legislation. I hope that the Bill has been made as game-proof as possible, while preserving the pleasure of the games that people play on blogs. I am delighted that we are at this point and I will not take up any more of the House’s time. I look forward to the Bill being enacted and I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify those few remaining points.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for her helpful support as we try to resolve the final details of the Bill. Hon. Members have raised a number of issues in the short period that we have to debate the Bill, and hopefully I can resolve them to everybody’s satisfaction.

I think that by “gaming” the hon. Lady meant the ability of companies to try to buck the system we have set up. It is always difficult to give a categorical assurance on that, but I think our approach minimises the risk of organisations taking such an approach. We have minimised the risk by using the definition of a micro-business, which does not just consider one element—staff—but staff and turnover. Therefore, if an organisation decided to ensure that all its staff were freelancers, it could not then play with its turnover in a way that would make it a micro-business. Equally, individual businesses will find it difficult to disaggregate their businesses in a way that would leave them registered as micro-businesses, and then duck the system without compromising the way in which they operate on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, a court will be capable of looking at the facts of a case to see whether an organisation has attempted to get around the rules, and that would be a material consideration. If an organisation was trying to circumvent the rules in the way it structured itself, the usual sanctions would be available.

We are interested in many different organisations, but particularly campaigning groups. A number of other exemptions already exist in the definition of “relevant publisher” that deal with campaigning newsletters—a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I have discussed on a number of occasions. A public body or charity that publishes news-related material in connection with carrying out its functions, or a person who publishes a newsletter, circular or other document relating to their business that contains news-related material only incidentally, will not be caught by the self-regulatory approach. Such things will be exempt from these measures, which is important. News, and the delivery and publication of news, is not central to a company’s business, and I underline that point for all questions raised by hon. Members. Hopefully, that will provide some certainty on campaigning groups.

The fourth point raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was access to arbitration for those that may not be termed as “relevant publishers”, other than those that are micro-businesses—excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for getting into the weeds with this, but it is necessary to answer the hon. Lady’s questions. Our consideration of micro-businesses in connection with blogging was to ensure that we did not unintentionally capture those businesses within the self-regulatory system, and also to ensure that those businesses were able—should they choose—to opt in to the self-regulatory part of the framework if they felt that was beneficial. It was never our intention more broadly to allow people to become a “relevant publisher”, not least because that would be outside the scope of today’s discussions. It is not our intention to allow people who are not relevant publishers in that way to have access to that status over and above the exemption we have outlined. Anything to do with the running of the self-regulatory regime is for the press to consider in more detail. We did not intend to cover that in our proposals today—the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has raised that matter with me.

Equal Marriage Consultation

Debate between Julian Huppert and Maria Miller

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend represents the people of South Dorset extremely well. He rightly vigorously puts forward his own views, and I respect that. However, the state has had a stake in the institution of marriage for more than 170 years, and I therefore believe it is right that the state asks itself whether it is right to exclude people from the institution of marriage simply because they are gay. I do not believe that is right, which is why these changes have been proposed and the Government are presenting our response to the consultation.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister on her comments. The state should not bar a couple who want to marry just because of their gender, and the state should not bar a religious body that wishes to do so from conducting same-sex marriages. Will she also look, however, at providing in England legally binding humanist weddings, which work so successfully in Scotland?

[Maria Miller]

That is a detail I am happy to look at. It is not part of our proposals today, but, in the spirit of collaboration, I will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about it.