Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I support the principle of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in rather the same way as my noble friend Lord Fowler does. It would not be particularly suitable to ask a Lord Justice to do this sort of work. The sort of inquiries that Lord Justices and other judges are asked to do are usually into some specific matter in which their talent and fact-finding is thought to be of particular importance. It has been said that the results of their recommendations are often not quite as influential as the findings that they make on facts. Anyhow, post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, as with other Bills, would be extremely valuable. It has been said more than once that marriage is the building block of our society. If you change the building blocks, that is quite likely to produce some change in the building, whether for good or bad. It would be right to have this as a subject of post-legislative scrutiny. So far as my marriage is concerned, a very significant change occurred within the first year.

[Baroness Northover]

I think that I recognise the sort of change that happens in the first year and from the other little ones who come along after that.

I begin by agreeing with noble Lords that the Bill, if enacted, should be reviewed, as is standard practice for any significant legislation. Whether they are for or against the Bill, noble Lords are pushing at an open door. Let me address quickly the slightly different point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear—the argument that there have been few changes to the Bill during its passage. I point him to the comprehensive answer that my noble friend Lady Stowell gave to counter that point when the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made it earlier.

In terms of a review of how this legislation works, we agree with the principle. I welcome the support that has come from my noble friends Lord Fowler, Lord Cormack and Lady Cumberlege, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. We would envisage post-legislative scrutiny covering issues such as an assessment of how the Act has worked in practice, which would no doubt address the kind of concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has mentioned, should they arise. We also envisage it covering: when and how different provisions have been brought into operation; any provisions that have not been brought into force, or enabling powers not used; details of the associated delegated legislation, guidance documents or other relevant material prepared or issued in connection with the Act; and any specific legal or drafting difficulties that had been matters of public concern. That was perhaps the kind of issue that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, was talking about—for example, where litigation has resulted, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned on the last grouping.

However, the timing of such a review needs to be carefully considered, with some flexibility built into the process, which is why arrangements for review are typically not set out within a Bill. In line with established Cabinet Office procedures, a memorandum will be produced containing a preliminary assessment of how the Act has turned out in reality, measured by the objectives set out during the passage of the Bill—including, for example, the protections mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. That would be part of the way in which the Act would be reviewed. It will then be a matter for a Select Committee to determine whether it wants to go on to hold a wider post-legislative inquiry into the Act. I thank my noble friends for the support they have given on the process. The convention is that a review is undertaken three to five years after Royal Assent—perhaps earlier than the noble Baroness indicated—in order to provide sufficient time for the new law to bed in and operate as intended. The scrutiny would be done at an appropriate time.

While I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, what is proposed instead by the amendment is something more complicated, as noble Lords have indicated, and not proportionate to what needs to be done, involving as it does two separate reviews and a potentially lengthy process, which would delay the answers that I am sure we would all be keen to hear. So, in essence, we are in agreement on the need for a review but not on the mechanics. That is why I ask the noble Lord to accept my reassurances and to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

55: Schedule 7, page 55, line 11, at end insert—
“32A For paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 27 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 substitute—
“( ) In subsection (1), for the words from “solemnized” to “shall”, substitute “a man and any other of the persons mentioned in the first column of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, or between a woman and any other of the persons mentioned in the second column of the said Part II,”.””

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, this is the last amendment that we shall consider at any length in this Committee. However, it is rather an important amendment and it is in the nature of a probing amendment, as I will make clear as I proceed.

When the Marriage Act 1949 was passed, Section 1 set out the prohibited degrees in a way that said, “A man shall not marry,” and then a column of positions of a woman whom he could not marry, and “A woman shall not marry,” and another column of men of different positions that she could not marry. If Section 1 had stayed as it was then it would not apply to same-sex couples.

In the Civil Partnership Act 2004, as I said in my speech at Second Reading, the intention was to produce for people who were in same-sex relationships a legal position as like marriage as possible. In order to do that, Section 1 of the Marriage Act had to be amended so that instead of expressing it in these columns it did it by way of relationships. That was done in the Civil Partnership Act. Section 1 of the 1949 Act was also amended so that the Act no longer proceeded on the columns but went on relationships as the Civil Partnership Act did.

When the 1949 Act was passed, as I said, there was no question of it applying to same-sex marriage. I strongly believe that the same-sex couples marriage which this Bill introduces is different in important respects from opposite-sex marriage. In particular, opposite-sex marriage includes as one of its purposes—not its only purpose—the natural procreation of children. That is not a purpose of the same-sex couples marriage for reasons that are obvious.

The second point I want to make is that I have heard same-sex couples marriage described as gay marriage. That is not correct. The correct description is same-sex couples marriage and I can see nothing in the Bill that suggests anything to do with sexual relationships. Therefore it is perfectly open for people in same-sex marriages to have a completely platonic relationship. That raises the question of the applicability of the prohibited degrees to same-sex marriage. I want to raise the question of whether prohibition requires reconsideration in relation to same-sex marriage. It is one thing to have it for opposite-sex marriage but does it require reconsideration in respect of same-sex marriage?

In introducing the Bill, my noble friend said:

“So much do we believe in marriage and its importance to our society, we want all couples, whether gay or straight, who are prepared to affirm publicly their commitment to each other and all the responsibility and joy that comes with it, to be free to marry”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 938.]

That means all. Obviously if someone is married already there is no possibility or freedom to remarry, but subject to that kind of consideration the general assertion is that all couples should be free to marry. Therefore we have to look at the prohibited degrees which are prohibitions on couples who may wish to marry. One such couple—to take an example—is brothers. I know of no love which is more widely commended than brotherly love. There is nothing to suggest that brothers cannot love each other perfectly properly and in such a way as to be willing to commit to each other in the full sense with which my noble friend used the expression in introducing this Bill, unless of course it has some relationship to what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was talking about later—earlier—today. Yes, I am getting confused. At 11.40 pm it is not surprising.

Earlier today she raised the question in relation to civil partnerships but I raise the question more fundamentally in relation to marriage and same-sex marriage in particular. At present I do not understand why it should be closed to all of the present prohibited degrees. I would like to know to what extent the Government have previously analysed this position and have reached a conclusion on it because as yet I have seen no discussion of this particular aspect in any detail. It is an important aspect to my mind, and I think it has a bearing on how some people in our society view the provision for same-sex couples marriage. A lot of people—we have heard it today once or twice—refer to it as gay marriage. That is restricting the scope of this Bill in a way that is not justified by the terms of the Bill itself.

The importance of the fact that ordinary marriage—what I will call opposite-sex marriage—has as one of its purposes the natural procreation of children is that the institution is there to offer protection and safeguards to children. When it works properly it is a very effective safeguard for children. As I said the other day, the state has not shown the ability to protect children to anything like the same extent as a well functioning marriage.

I received in connection with this Committee stage a request to make it clear that I am against homophobic bullying in any way. I certainly want to make that abundantly clear. The function of ordinary marriage—the marriage of opposite sexes—includes protecting the children against any form of bullying and any form of homophobic bullying, and preventing them taking part in such bullying. We all know that children are quite quick to notice differences between their circumstances and those of other children, perhaps in the same class. That is often a source of improper bullying of one kind or another. I make it clear that I regard one of the functions of opposite-sex marriage as protecting against all forms of damage to the children.

The noble Baroness on the opposition Front Bench referred, in the context of another amendment, to the presumption that when a child is born to a married woman the other party to the marriage is parent of the child. That presumption is set aside in this Bill—an important fact that must be taken into account. In opposite-sex marriage the three ways in which children of the marriage can be produced are by natural procreation, IVF or adoption. In same-sex marriage it will be by IVF or possibly full sexual relations, which according to the Bill may constitute adultery—which is slightly unfortunate from the point of view of the child being produced. According to the Bill, that child will have no relationship with the marriage at all. Of course, the other method is by adoption.

Same-sex marriage, as the Bill makes plain, does not embrace children in the same way as the natural child is embraced by the marriage of opposite-sex couples. All of this has a bearing on the relationships that are prohibited—the prohibited degrees. At the moment I can see no reason why brothers and sisters should not be able to have a same-sex marriage if they felt that they wanted to. A noble Lord pointed out earlier that of course you can end a relationship only with a divorce. That is absolutely true. The marriage relationship would be over and above the relationship between sisters or brothers. If they decided to end the marriage relationship that would be sad, but it can happen with same-sex and opposite-sex couples and it is sad whenever it happens. However, it could happen. One would not wish to contemplate that as happening very often, but of course it is certainly a possibility.

Against the background that all couples who love one another are able to marry—that is what we want—I find it difficult to see why brothers or sisters who are willing to marry should not be able to do so. The Bill needs to consider a little more carefully than it has done this provision raised by the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench in their amendment for no presumption in favour of a child born to a woman in a same-sex marriage. That child is left without any marriage connection at all as far as I can see. That seems to me highly unfortunate. Although it is important to consider the rights of adults in relation to same-sex marriage—that is what the Bill is primarily about—it is extremely important to think about future generations and the relationship with children as well as the prohibited degrees matters that I mentioned. I believe that the prohibited degrees were first inserted into the marriage institution for the primary reason of protecting against inbreeding with normal procreation. These reasons, of course, do not have any place in same-sex marriage, and therefore I think we need to look at the justification, if any, for the prohibited degrees, at least in their present form. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[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.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- 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.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, in withdrawing this amendment, I also express my appreciation to the Front Bench for the way in which they have conducted the debate. I reserve the right to bring this matter back, not in multiple amendments, but in an amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.