Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Minister in just a moment.

Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010 provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I should love to hear from the Secretary of State.

[Maria Miller]

I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.

[Kate Green]

I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Stephen Williams]

I suppose I did tempt the hon. Gentleman to intervene, although I did also say “since the Reformation”. As a genealogist in my spare time, I am also very familiar with the Hardwicke Act of 1753.

So, to return to my point, if not now, when? The Government have not addressed that question to our satisfaction. Instead, we are left with a suspicion that there is no good will and no intention to allow a clear pathway towards humanist weddings being given legal status.

The new clause has been very carefully drafted and redrafted since the Committee stage to take account of the objections, of which we were aware at that time. It clearly says that this right will only be granted to an organisation that is a

“registered charity…advancing…the non-religious belief known as humanism”.

It also says the registered charity must have existed for five years and the Registrar-General must be satisfied it is “of good repute.” We have heard of many other locks in the course of our discussions of this Bill, but this is surely a triple-lock that ought to satisfy everyone.

When we were considering whether opposite-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships, it was asked where the evidence was that people would want to do that. In the context of this new clause, there is clear evidence that there is demand for humanist weddings north of the border, where they are now the third most popular means of getting married, and some of the people who are getting married in Scotland are from England and Wales, because they cannot legally do so in Bristol or anywhere else in England or Wales. This new clause certainly meets a need, therefore.

Our current law is completely out of step with society. Sometimes Parliament has to give a lead and bring the public with it. In this instance, however, we are in danger of being seen as behind the grain of public opinion and of public demand for humanist marriage to be legalised. I hope that at the last minute, when the Secretary of State speaks in a few moments, we will grasp victory out of the jaws of defeat.

What I do not want to hear from the Secretary of State is the same old situation from the Government of “Heads we win, tails you lose.” I hope we do not get into that situation. There is good will among parliamentarians of all parties to legalise humanist weddings, and I hope we will take a step towards achieving that today.

[Maria Miller]

We have had a robust and impassioned debate on a subject about which people feel very strongly. I must make it clear from the start that it is not, and continues not to be, the objective of this Bill to extend marriage to belief groups, which is, to all intents and purposes, what many of the amendments in this group would do. I do, however, join other Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is representing the Opposition on these proposals, because she spoke with passion and eloquence about the importance of humanist ceremonies in celebrating marriage.

The hon. Lady is right to say that for many people who undertake such ceremonies, they can be an important way of marking and celebrating such an event, but it is important to make the point that neither is this the time nor is the Bill the place to make the sorts of changes she is advocating, unless she wants to risk the objective of the Bill, which is to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Humanists can already marry, but same-sex couples cannot, and that is the unfairness that the Bill is designed to remove.

--- 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.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do not follow the right hon. Lady’s logic. She says that the Jews and the Quakers have a particular position, which has been accommodated. Why cannot we have a particular position, which is accommodated too?

[Maria Miller]

Because the existing arrangement pre-dates the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is the anomaly. Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict—

[Mr Blunt]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Miller]

May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?

Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would be vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[Kate Green]

May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.

[Maria Miller]

I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.

[Mr Blunt]

My right hon. Friend has advanced the rather preposterous proposition that the United Kingdom’s accession to the European convention on human rights is now acting to limit the rights of members of our population—humanists—to conduct marriages. That goes to the central point. I will be happy if she can give the House the assurance that the Government are in principle in favour of humanists conducting marriage, and that they will use the resources at their disposal to find a way of getting that on to the statute book. If it is not going to happen in the course of the Bill—I do not want the Bill delayed, any more than anyone else—at least the Government can make that statement of policy intent.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend may not have fully understood the argument being put forward by the Attorney-General. The issue is that the amendments discriminate in favour of one group over another. Humanists are being singled out for particular treatment. I am very happy to set out the argument fully. This is a different situation from—

[Mr Blunt]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr. Huppert, it is not necessary to restate at length a previous question. I remind you that interventions should be brief, not a series of questions. It would help enormously if we stuck to those conventions.

[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.

[Simon Hughes]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that there are many people who believe that the civil status of coming together in marriage should be open to straight and gay couples alike, but that people of faith and faith groups should be free to define what they understand as marriage? Some of them would permit same-sex marriage, but some of them take a different view and would not.

[Maria Miller]

I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.

I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.

[Kate Green]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.

Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.

The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.

I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.

Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.

A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.

The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking the Front Bench speakers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as those from other parties located in their area of the House, who are too numerous to mention, for the good natured way in which the Bill has been discussed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill has excited many different views, but we have always conducted ourselves in the best ways of this House.

While I am giving thanks, I also thank the officials who have worked very long hours to ensure that the proceedings of the House took place in a seamless manner, that questions were answered, and that papers were made available. My heartfelt thanks go out to them all for the hard work they have put into the Bill.

I have spent some time thinking about how I would address the House on Third Reading. As I have said, for many reasons, the subject draws strong opinion from Members on both sides of the House. Just as the Civil Partnership 2004 Act was discussed in pubs, homes, church halls and communities throughout the country, so has the Bill. Over the past few months, I have listened carefully to many different voices within and outside Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had passionate but fair debates. In the best traditions of the House, we have maintained respect for one another’s views, and had open and constructive discussions with all involved.

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point on discussions with constituents. It might be wrong to generalise, but does she agree that there is a generational aspect to approaches to the Bill—the younger generation very much supports it, but the older generation is concerned about the society in which they have grown up?

[Maria Miller]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am not sure whether he puts me into the older generation —I hope not. There are differences in views across the generations, and differences in views in different parts of the country and different communities. We must accept that people have different views for whatever reason. The most important thing is that we maintain respect for people’s different views. Such an open approach, which we have taken throughout proceedings on the Bill, has meant that the Government have been able to take action to improve the Bill, and to reassure hon. Members on some of the issues they have raised.

The Government have throughout remained committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from marriage simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society. Over the years, as society has evolved, so has marriage. As such, it has remained our bedrock. The values of love, commitment and stability underpin marriage—they are the values on which our society is built. Despite our differences in opinion, no hon. Member would dispute that those are the values we should promote. If the values of marriage are the values on which we want to build our society, they must be available to all, and they must underpin an institution that is available to all couples. Our country is renowned the world over for its tolerance. We have a rich tapestry of faith, belief and culture. That is unique—it is part of what makes us British. Those strong traditions will enable same-sex couples to marry.

In no way will the measure undermine those who believe—for whatever reason, whether religious or philosophical—that marriage should be between a man and woman. They can continue to believe that. That is their right. No religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so, and nor will religious organisations or individual ministers be forced to have same-sex marriages conducted on their premises. The quadruple lock that the Government have designed provides robust and effective protections. The Government are also clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right. Teachers will still be able to express their personal beliefs about marriage as long as they do so sensitively and appropriately. Employers will be unable to dismiss or discipline a person simply because they say they do not believe in same-sex marriage.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. The right for people legitimately to express their beliefs is why we have committed to do all we can to clarify or strengthen the protections on freedom of expression. I understand the importance that right hon. and hon. Members place on that.

If, through the Bill, we can strengthen marriage and protect it as the bedrock of our society in these changing times for the decades to come, provide protection for those religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to marry same-sex couples, and reassure those who disagree with same-sex marriage that their right to express such a belief is protected, then we should do so confidently and assertively. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and we have made changes on the basis of those concerns.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State speaks of changes. Will she clarify how many Acts of Parliament will have to be amended as a result of the Bill?

[Maria Miller]

Many pieces of legislation will have to be amended, which is why we have provisions in the Bill, particularly on ecclesiastical law, to ensure that all required amendments are made. My hon. Friend is right that this is complex. That is why I have been at pains, particularly yesterday and today, to ensure that we do not introduce new concepts into the Bill. We want to keep clarity and focus, and ensure that we do the job. I believe that in the years ahead we will look back on the passage of the Bill, as we now look back on the introduction of civil partnerships: we will be in no doubt that equal marriage is right and we will be proud that we made it happen.

It is important that we debated in detail some difficult and challenging issues. Yesterday, we talked about civil partnership. Equal marriage will correct something that is fundamentally unfair, and remove a barrier that prevents a whole group of people from access to an institution that underpins society. Civil partnerships were created to give same-sex couples equivalent legal rights to marriage at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Although I am clear that taking a decision on the future of civil partnerships now would not be a responsible thing to do, I have listened to Members’ clear concerns, particularly in the comments expressed yesterday. As such, we have agreed to undertake an immediate review of civil partnerships. That will be an important way to ensure clarity on how that aspect of legal recognition of relationships is taken forward.

We have had further discussions today, with Members drawing on issues concerning humanist ceremonies. The system of marriage in England and Wales, as we discussed in great detail, is based on a system of premises, and not, as in Scotland, celebrants. A change of the nature proposed in today’s amendments would, as we heard from the Attorney-General, be a fundamental change to the current structure of marriage. As has happened in Scotland, it would also open to the door to a range of other belief organisations being able to conduct marriages. Such decisions are a matter for Scotland—this is a devolved matter—but if we are to discuss these matters it is only right that Members are aware that the amendments tabled could not preclude opening up the ability to conduct marriages to belief organisations other than humanists. The Attorney-General made an important contribution to the debate. New clause 15 would have given preferential treatment to one particular belief group and made the Bill incompatible with the convention on human rights, so I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for not pressing the new clause. I welcome that decision.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the provisions of the European convention on human rights will not be compromised by the fact that the Bill makes unequal provision for civil partnerships?

[Maria Miller]

Yes, I can. I am glad that I can make that clear for my hon. Friend, and may I apologise to him for not taking his intervention yesterday? I could not quite hear who it was. Had I known, I would definitely have accepted it. I sincerely apologise to him.

I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs are an insurmountable barrier to supporting the change, but to other colleagues I say, “Now is the time”. Let us not be sidetracked or distracted; let us not expand the remit of the Bill beyond its original intention; let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do; and then let us move on. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.