Marriage Registration Certificates

Debate between Tulip Siddiq and Wayne David

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Brady.

The arguments for changing marriage certificates have already been well articulated by several Members today and I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), for securing such an important debate. She joins other Members who have gone before us in trying to make changes, in this place and in their own way, for gender equality.

For many of us, the reason for wanting to rectify the situation is deeply personal. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a home with two loving parents, who had different impacts on me in different ways. Although my politics has been formed by my life in England, a lot of my cultural background and history has been shaped by my mother’s experience of being a political asylum seeker who came to this country in the 1970s and settled in the constituency that I now represent here in Westminster.

Strangely enough, I actually got married here in Parliament, with my mother next to me, and yet I could not put her name on my marriage certificate. That was a great shame: in the most democratic institution in the world, I still could not put my mother’s name on the marriage certificate.

Putting the gender issue aside, families such as mine—families with complex histories or histories that we want to be reflected on what is the most important day of our lives, other than being elected of course—want to put the mother’s name on the marriage certificate. We want to account, in official documents, for the way we travelled to this country.

[Wayne David]

This issue has a long history, but there can be absolutely no doubt about where public opinion is on it. I simply cite the example from back in 2002, when the then Labour Government issued a White Paper and there was a consultation. One of the things that came across clearly back then was the overwhelming support among ordinary members of the public for the change that we are discussing. Does my hon. Friend agree that what was true then is even truer now?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree.

I have also found that men and women who are interested in family history often find it very difficult to trace it through a family line and official documentation. It is about time that situation changed.

However, my main reason for raising this issue in Prime Minister’s questions is the sheer number of my constituents from Hampstead and Kilburn who have written to me about it. In particular, I will highlight the case of a single mother who wrote to me recently. She was brought up by her mother and has had no contact whatever with her father. She told me that she was devastated to learn that the outdated practice that we are discussing is still a requirement of marriage. She said:

“When I get married, I will be expected to put my absent father’s name and profession on my marriage certificate whilst my mother who brought me up will not be included.”

It puts a dampener on this important day in someone’s life—when they are getting married—if they cannot acknowledge the person who raised them.

We must remember that our discussions today reflect the deeply held anxieties of the people we represent in our various constituencies.

Court Charges (Access to Justice)

Debate between Tulip Siddiq and Wayne David

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

To pick up where I left off, the Government are attacking the principles of Magna Carta. I am relatively new to the House, but other Members will have been concerned about previous legal reforms by this Government. The focus of the debate is criminal court charges, which have attracted widespread criticism from all parts of the legal world, from magistrates to the Lord Chief Justice.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned magistrates; does she share my concern about the fact that at least 50 magistrates have resigned since the implementation of the charges?

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend has anticipated a point I will come on to. As he said, 50 magistrates have resigned, and in one case highlighted by the Howard League, a magistrate felt inclined to pay the court fee from his own pocket because of his sense of injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will touch on that later, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, as I have said. The Howard League and other organisations have highlighted that people on benefits or people who rely on social security are being expected to pay fines that we know they will not be able to pay. It is unrealistic to expect those people to pay these charges, and administratively, it probably costs taxpayers more.

[Wayne David]

The figures I have seen underline the point my hon. Friend just made. My understanding is that some £5 million in court charges has been issued, but less than £300,000 has been collected. Does that huge gap not show how ridiculous this policy is?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Absolutely. If we look at the money we have managed to claw back, it shows why this policy should be scrapped. It should not take three years to review it, because we have the evidence, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said.

I rarely agree with Conservative Members of the House, but I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said on Radio 4 that the charge

“does seem to be distorting the way in which people behave in court…defendants might plead guilty to save the cost of the charge when otherwise they would not have done”.

That is from a member of the Conservative party. I could not agree more with him.

In 21st-century Britain, we should be appalled by the miscarriage of justice, especially when defendants are foregoing their freedom due to financial constraints. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, in some magistrates courts about 80% of defendants are dependent on state support to meet basic living costs, which makes this issue even more pressing. The charge means that poorer defendants are likely to make a different decision from the one they would have ordinarily made. That means we risk their voice being at best constrained, and at worst shut out from our justice system.