Draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014
Draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014
Draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Gary Streeter 

† Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) 

† Baldwin, Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con) 

† Benyon, Richard (Newbury) (Con) 

† Chapman, Jenny (Darlington) (Lab) 

† Grant, Mrs Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities)  

† Hodgson, Mrs Sharon (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) 

† Hughes, Simon (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice)  

† Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con) 

† Leech, Mr John (Manchester, Withington) (LD) 

† Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) 

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab) 

† Loughton, Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) 

† Macleod, Mary (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con) 

† McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) 

† Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP) 

† Tomlinson, Justin (North Swindon) (Con) 

† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab) 

† Wright, David (Telford) (Lab) 

Anna Dickson, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Leigh, Sir Edward (Gainsborough) (Con) 

Howarth, Sir Gerald (Aldershot) (Con) 

Second Delegated Legislation Committee 

Tuesday 25 February 2014  

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair] 

Draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 

9.25 am 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant):  I beg to move, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014. 

The Chair:  With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014 and the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014. 

Mrs Grant:  Good morning, Mr Streeter, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate these statutory instruments, which, following the successful passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, will remove the unfairness that prevents same sex couples from being able to marry. The instruments, together with a number of negative instruments also laid before Parliament on 23 January, will make marriage of same sex couples a reality in England and Wales. 

Altogether, the Government have laid six affirmative instruments, along with six negative instruments, to implement the main provisions of the Act. For the convenience of the Committee, we are proposing to consider the six affirmative statutory instruments in two groups of three: first, this morning, what could be called a domestic group, and secondly, this afternoon, a military and overseas group. 

The three instruments that we are considering this morning deal with: amendments that need to be made to a range of primary and secondary legislation as a consequence of the Act; new arrangements for the registration of shared religious premises, and technical rules on the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of matters relating to marriage of same sex couples. 

I shall briefly explain each in turn. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 has three main elements. First, schedule 1 to the order contains amendments to primary legislation that are consequential on the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. 

Those amendments ensure that married same sex couples are treated in law in the same way as married opposite sex couples, while avoiding unwanted effects. For example, paragraph 3 substitutes for a reference to a widow in section 2 of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act 1916 a reference to a surviving spouse. That will ensure that any spouse can receive benefits

under that section. Failing to make that textual amendment would have resulted, because of the operation of the gloss in the Act, to which I will turn shortly, in equal treatment for all married people except for a man whose wife had died. That would not have been the right result because the Government’s policy is that all married people should receive equal benefits, and so the amendment in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the order ensures that that will be the case. 

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con):  The Minister is right that there is a lot of technical stuff in the orders. The explanatory notes, which are equally turgid, say it is the Government’s policy that married same sex couples are 

“generally treated in the same way” 

as civil partners. Will the Minister elaborate on some of the ways in which married same sex partners will not be treated in the same way as civil partners currently are? That phrase, which occurs several times, appears slightly curious to me. 

Mrs Grant:  If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I intend to come to issues of that nature when I talk about the contrary provisions and the nature of the gloss. I assure him that I will come back to that either in this speech or in my summing up, but he has made a perfectly good and reasonable intervention. 

Schedule 1 also corrects minor omissions made when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was brought into force: for example, by inserting a reference to a civil partner alongside a reference to a spouse in section 6(9) of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. Paragraphs 14 and 15 will ensure equal treatment between married same sex and opposite sex couples under legislation about parenthood and the legitimacy of children. For example, currently a child of a woman in a void marriage with a man can be treated as legitimate, subject to certain requirements about domicile. Paragraph 15 ensures that, in a similar way, where a child is born to a woman who is in a void marriage to another woman, that child is legitimate if the woman is treated as the female parent of the child by virtue of sections 42 or 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. 

Tim Loughton:  Will the Minister elaborate on what she means by “a void marriage”? That term appears a lot and it is not as straightforward as she may think. 

Mrs Grant:  If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will certainly come back to him with the fairly technical, specific details that he wants. A void marriage, as opposed to a voidable marriage, still enables a marriage to come to an end, but the requirements and criteria for a void marriage are different from those of a voidable marriage. I am very happy to set out those specific differences for him as we progress, but, again, it is a very fair and reasonable intervention. 

Tim Loughton:  Will the Minister give way? 

Mrs Grant:  I want to make a little headway, because there is a fair amount to get through, but I am very happy to come back to my hon. Friend either at the end of this speech or when I am summing up. 

Secondly, schedule 2 to the order ensures that, in particular cases in existing legislation, married same sex couples are not treated in the same way as married opposite sex couples. It does this by disapplying or modifying the effect of the gloss in section 11(1) and (2) of, and paragraphs 1 to 3 of schedule 3 to the Act. The gloss states that marriage of same sex couples has the same effect in law as marriage of opposite sex couples, and that the law should be interpreted accordingly. Schedule 2 makes provision which is contrary to the gloss. It ensures that the effect of the gloss does not apply in cases where the Government’s policy is that married same sex couples should be treated in the same way as civil partners, rather than as married opposite sex couples, and where differences in treatment relating to gender are to be maintained. This is the case for some pensions matters—for example, some survivor benefits—and a range of other legislation, such as the defence of marital coercion in section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which is available only to a woman married to a man. This defence is not to be extended to married same sex couples because it is a historical gender-specific provision, which will shortly be repealed by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. 

Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con):  The Minister talks about a historical gender-specific provision. Does she agree that the word “widow” is also a historical gender-specific word? 

Mrs Grant:  We refer to the gloss, and to the disapplication of the gloss. Like “widow”, the words “husband”, “wife”, “mother” and “father” also remain, but sometimes that gloss has to be disapplied while still retaining those words, which we all understand, for the purposes of fairness and equality. 

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con):  So, as far as the Government are concerned, traditional terms such as husband, wife and widow are mere gloss? 

Mrs Grant:  They are not at all and that would never be the case. What I am saying is that we all know exactly what we mean by husband, which is a man who is married to a wife, we know exactly what we mean by wife, which is a woman who is married to a husband, and we know what we mean by mother and father. All those particular words still appear in the legislation, but, of course, we have to make provision for same sex couples, which is exactly what we have done. 

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con):  How does the Minister explain the terminology used by a noble Lord in the other place who referred to his partner as his husband? Does that mean that she agrees that the historical terms husband and wife should be extended?

Mrs Grant:  No, I think I have been very clear in how I answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. Terms such as husband, wife, mother and father still appear in law. They will continue to be used in the English language and we all know exactly what we mean by them. It is a common-sense application to ensure that we can create fairness for same sex couples in relation to their rights and responsibilities. 

Sir Edward Leigh:  Will the Minister give way? 

Mrs Grant:  I would like to make a little more progress, but I will try to come back to my hon. Friends towards the end or in my summing up. 

Schedule 3 of the order makes specific textual amendments, which are necessary to ensure that, following the provision contrary to the gloss made by schedule 2, the law is clear about how married same sex couples are to be treated. 

Finally, article 5 of the order provides for marriages of same sex couples under the law of England and Wales to be treated as civil partnerships in Scotland. This ensures that same sex couples married under the law of England and Wales will have legal recognition of their relationships in Scotland, pending the extension of marriage to same sex couples under Scottish law. Scottish Ministers have given their consent to this provision. If, as expected, marriage of same sex couples becomes lawful in Scotland, same sex couples married in England and Wales will also be recognised as married in Scotland. 

I turn now to the Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014. These regulations set out the detailed procedures for registering and cancelling the registration of religious buildings which are shared by more than one religious organisation for marriages of same sex couples. This subject was a matter of some debate when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act went through the House. All along, the Government’s approach has been to try to strike a fair balance between the freedom of religious organisations to opt in to solemnising marriages of same sex couples, and the freedom of others to act in line with their belief that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. 

The Ministry of Justice carried out a full public consultation on this issue. The draft regulations reflect the outcome as set out in the Government’s response to the consultation, published on 23 January. Primarily, the regulations deal with the processes for the registration and cancelling of the registration of informally shared buildings. The process for formally shared buildings—that is, those with agreements under the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969—is largely set out in schedule 1 to the Act. The regulations will enable marriages of same sex couples to take place in shared places of worship according to religious rites other than those of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. However, registration will be possible only if all the governing authorities of the sharing religious organisations have given consent to the building’s being registered to conduct marriages of same sex couples. 

It is also important to note that if a religious organisation gives its consent to the building being used to conduct marriages of same sex couples by another sharing organisation, this consent will not enable it to solemnise marriages of same sex couples. Any sharing organisation wishing to conduct such marriages will need to provide separate explicit consent from their own governing authority. If a sharing organisation does not want same sex couples to be married by another religious organisation in the shared building, it will be protected through its ability to withhold its consent to the registration of the premises for that purpose. If the building is not registered for the purpose, no marriages of same sex couples can take place within it. 

However, the regulations ensure that only a “qualifying sharing church” has the ability to withhold its consent in this way. A qualifying sharing church is defined as a religious organisation, which has a representative who is a trustee of the shared premises, or which has used the premises for public worship lasting at least half an hour in each of the past six months or in nine of the past 12 months. This is to ensure that an objection to a building being used for marriages of same sex couples cannot be validly raised by a religious organisation which makes only limited use of that building. The criteria for what constitutes a qualifying sharing church were part of the public consultation in preparing the regulations. The Government received useful representations on them and believe that the regulations strike an appropriate and workable balance. 

The regulations also deal with the process to be followed where a religious building that is registered for marriage of same sex couples becomes shared, or where a shared religious building ceases to be shared. 

I turn now to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014. These regulations do two things: first, they set out when a court in England and Wales will have jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce, judicial separation and annulment for same sex married couples and, secondly, they set out when a court in England and Wales will recognise a judgment of a court of another EU member state in respect of such proceedings. These regulations correspond as closely as possible with the Council EU regulation, known as Brussels IIa, which deals with similar issues in respect of proceedings for divorce, judicial separation and annulment of marriages for EU member states. Brussels IIa is not currently considered to extend to marriages of same sex couples. These regulations are therefore necessary to ensure that the rules for determining jurisdiction of the England and Wales courts and the recognition of judgments of other EU member states’ courts are the same for all marriages. A similar approach was taken to civil partnerships in the Civil Partnership (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2005. 

I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee. 

Sir Edward Leigh:  The Minister has rushed through this, obviously intending that as few people as possible listen to the effects of this absurd bit of nonsense. Can we now take it that the Government finally accept what we have said all along: that we cannot airbrush out of history words like widow and husband, and that same sex marriage is not traditional marriage and it is not equal marriage? 

Mrs Grant:  My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I completely disagree with what he has said. The Act and these statutory instruments are about extending marriage to a group of people who have hitherto been excluded. The Government believe that marriage is a good thing for society. There is nothing in any of the statutory instruments that I have spoken about this morning or in the Act that takes away or changes the nature of marriage for opposite sex couples. There is no airbrushing of terminology at all. As I have made clear

to hon. Members, expressions such as husband, wife, mother and father are all very well understood and will continue to be used. 

9.42 am 

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to play some small part in helping to implement a historic piece of legislation. A lot of fine and moving words were said about the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 when it was before Parliament last year, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and I do not seek to add unnecessarily to them this morning. 

It is rare as a parliamentarian to be able to see through a measure that will have the direct effect of making so many people so happy for so many years, not because we have given them just under £4 a week, but because we have removed the barriers to their expressing their love for one another in a way that many of us already take for granted. The Minister will no doubt be pleased that I do not intend to divide the Committee on the statutory instruments today although, given that there are one or two members of the Committee who did not support the legislation, I feel that she might also appreciate an assurance that we will support her if a Division is called. Colleagues will also no doubt be pleased to hear that I do not intend to detain them for very long in discussing the provisions. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions of the Minister. 

First, it is a matter of some regret that it has taken this long for the necessary secondary legislation to come before Parliament, especially given that it is just a little over five weeks until the first happy couples will be taking their vows. Will the Minister enlighten us as to why this has been the case and, particularly, what the hold-ups have been? The Act also provides for same sex couples to convert civil partnerships into marriages, as well as for an opposite sex married couple in which one of the partners wishes to change gender to remain married—provisions that the most recent update from the Department that I have seen states will come into force before the end of the year. Although I realise that these are complex areas of law, and the Government have to be sure that the secondary legislation is thorough, I do think we could reasonably have expected to discuss all the provisions together; after all, it has been more than seven months since the Act was granted Royal Assent, and these matters must have been under consideration even as the primary legislation was being drafted. I will therefore be grateful if the Minister can tell us the cause of the delay, when further necessary secondary legislation will be introduced, and when the provisions will come into force. 

The glaring omission from the equal treatment of same sex marriage relates to pension rights. A modicum of progress on survivor benefit was made in the House of Lords: section 16 of the Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for a review of occupational pensions, to gauge both the extent of the inequalities in survivor benefits for same sex couples and the cost of remedying that inequality. Subsection (5) requires that that piece of work be completed and published by

1 July this year, giving the Government precisely 18 weeks in which to complete their deliberations and publish the report. As the Minister will know, subsection (4) places a duty on the Secretary of State to run a consultation as part of that process. As far as I am aware, no public consultation has been issued yet by the Department for Work and Pensions, which I understand is leading this work, and 18 weeks leaves little leeway for one to be conducted. I therefore have several questions for the Minister. 

Has the review begun yet? If not, why not? If it has begun, when does the Minister expect it to report? Will there be a public consultation, and if not, why not? If there is to be no public consultation, has a behind-closed-doors consultation been under way? Will we be able to see who or which organisations are being consulted as part of that and the evidence they have provided to the Government? Can the Minister assure us that the Government will not listen simply to the occupational pensions industry, which will clearly have strong and shared financial interests in the report saying one thing; and that if there is to be no public consultation, the Government will consult and listen to independent experts? If the Secretary of State decides that the law on survivor benefits should be changed to fit the spirit of the Act, will the Minister ensure swift introduction of the orders necessary to redress the inequality as soon as possible? 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes):  I can help the hon. Lady with one matter, because two of the orders are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, whereas my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities will lead on the others. The hon. Lady asked about the timetable and the delay. One of the reasons is that the Ministry of Justice believed it was right to consult on the shared buildings regulations. That short consultation—it lasted a month, ending in November—was not compulsory or a requirement, but it is one of the reasons why it has taken a little longer from the legislation being enacted to the statutory instruments coming before the Committee today. 

Mrs Hodgson:  That is very helpful. Has that consultation been made public? 

Simon Hughes:  Yes, the results were published on 23 January and are in the public domain—both the summary of the responses and the Government’s response. The bulk of the responses from the main Church organisations were supportive of the regulations before the Committee today. 

Mrs Hodgson:  I thank the Minister of State for that information. I am sure that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State are both aware that the matter has been in the news in the past week, following the conclusion of a case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which found that it was legal, under European Law, for employers and pension scheme trustees to discriminate against same sex couples. It is clear that companies are not going to offer equality in pension rights voluntarily, so the sooner the Government complete their deliberations and make up their mind, the better

for all the couples concerned—if only so they know where they will stand financially in later life and can plan accordingly. 

The Committee will be aware that a corresponding Bill has recently completed its passage through the Scottish Parliament. It would be useful to have an assurance from the Minister that she has examined that Bill and that there are no inconsistencies between the two pieces of legislation that would give rise to claims of more equal treatment on one side of the border or the other, or, if there are inconsistencies, to know in which areas. One inconsistency has already been raised: the continuation of marriages after one party has been granted a gender recognition certificate, and specifically the spousal veto. 

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 includes no spousal veto for trans people who are in marriages that were registered in Scotland, regardless of where in the UK they now live. A trans person who receives an interim gender recognition certificate while still in a marriage that was registered in Scotland can apply to the sheriff court to get their interim GRC changed into a full GRC though an administrative process, without the spouse being able to block it. From the commencement of the Scottish Act, if a trans person living in England or Wales wishes to get married and wants to ensure that they cannot later be subjected to a spousal veto when applying for a GRC while in the marriage, they could well be able to circumvent the process by opting to get married in Scotland, but why on earth should they? Will the Minister explain whether partners in a couple whose marriage was registered in Scotland but who have subsequently lived in England will be able to apply to the sheriff court for their interim GRC, or will the Government review and revise the law in this entire area so that they do not need to do so? 

At present, of the 11 jurisdictions in Europe that have same sex marriage, only trans people in existing marriages registered in the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales are subject to a spousal veto on their access to gender recognition while married. The other 10 legal jurisdictions, including Scotland, allow gender recognition without requiring the consent of the trans person’s spouse. Does the Minister at least accept that that does not show the Government in a good light? Will she therefore continue to work to make the changes trans people want? 

There is further inconsistency in relation to conversion of foreign civil partnerships. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 makes no provision for civil partnerships entered into according to foreign laws to be converted into a same sex marriage in England and Wales, but the Scottish Government have committed to allowing foreign civil partners to convert their civil partnerships to marriages in Scotland. If the UK Government do not allow conversion, those couples who have a civil union from another country but live in England or Wales will have to get their civil partnership dissolved before being able to marry. That could be highly inconvenient for couples, who may have to jump through hoops to dissolve their civil union before they can apply to have a legally recognised marriage. Do the Government intend to allow foreign civil partners to convert their civil partnerships or civil unions to marriage in England and Wales in the future; and if not, why not? Where civil partnerships and civil unions established in a foreign country are converted to marriage in Scotland, will they be recognised as marriages in England and Wales? 

The explanatory notes for both sets of regulations state that no specific guidance will be published for those who are expected to implement the regulations. Was that position reached after consultation with the relevant organisations and agencies, and have the Government received assurances that they fully understand the regulations; or was that position arrived at in isolation by the Under-Secretary of State’s officials? The explanatory notes on the consequential and contrary provisions and Scotland order state that the General Register Office has issued guidance to registration service staff. Will the Under-Secretary say whether her officials have any input to that guidance, or are at least happy that it is comprehensive and accurate? 

The explanatory notes also mention that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will produce more overarching guidance on the Act itself. Will the Minister tell us when that guidance will be published; at whom it will be aimed; what input her Department will have into its drafting and verification; and whether, particularly given the EHRC’s severely reduced resources in recent years, the guidance will be distributed or simply published online? I am sure the Minister appreciates that it is all very well and good publishing guidance, but that to ensure that it is adhered to may in many cases require formal training. Has her Department commissioned, or does it intend to commission or produce itself, any new training material for people in positions where they are required to implement the provisions of these statutory instruments or the Act more widely? 

My final questions to the Minister are as follows: does she know yet who will be the first happy couple to benefit from the legislation— 

Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con):  Perhaps I might mention Andrew Wale and Neil Allard, who, at one minute past midnight on 29 March, will become the first same sex couple to be married in the beautiful music room in Brighton pavilion. 

Tim Loughton:  Declare an interest: you’re going, aren’t you? 

Simon Kirby:  I am. 

Mrs Hodgson:  Indeed, that may be the answer to my question. If the Minister knows of a couple who are getting married sooner than that, perhaps she will tell us and say whether she is invited. It is fantastic news that the hon. Gentleman is going to that wedding; I hope he takes some pictures and shares them with us. On that note, I will end my remarks. I look forward to the Minister’s response. 

9.56 am 

Sir Gerald Howarth:  Mr Streeter, I am not a member of this Committee, but I am entitled to speak, so let me say at the outset that if I do not vote on this delegated legislation, it is not because I am content with it. I am completely opposed to it, as I was to the original Bill, and I intend to make my views known on behalf of millions of people who feel that it is a measure too far. 

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West did a very good job of helping us by illustrating what a minefield of complexity the Government have thrown up. It will be extremely difficult for anyone charged with responsibility for implementation in officialdom to fathom, such is the unintelligibility of and mumbo-jumbo in not only the legislation but the explanatory notes. I am not sure how much consultation has taken place, but from speaking to my padre at the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, where I am a churchwarden, I know that he has not been consulted. 

This is an example of the theatre of the absurd. It is a sad day for our country. If the Minister believes that she has not abolished the traditional titles of husband and wife, widow and widower, she has none the less done a good job of devaluing them, for the legislation is littered with references to the removal and replacement of such terms. Widow is to be replaced by a phrase such as “that person’s surviving spouse”—I suppose the company Scottish Widows will have to change its name to “Scottish Persons’ Surviving Spouses”—husband is to replaced with “male spouse” and widow’s pension with a phrase that trips off the tongue: 

“pension payable to a woman in respect of the services of her deceased male spouse.” 

You could not make up this absurdity, Mr Streeter. It is absolutely ridiculous. It defies both common sense and centuries of tradition in our country. I suppose the next replacement will be “The Merry Spouses of Windsor”—one can think of a raft of examples. Some hon. Members who support this absurd legislation may well be of the view that this is all fanciful and extreme and will not happen, but there is an agenda out there and we could well find that it does. 

Jeremy Lefroy :   Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be some inconsistency? While the delegated legislation messes around with some traditional words with widely accepted meanings, others are not to be messed around with because, as page 8 of the explanatory notes states: 

“In some cases the gloss which applies to all England and Wales legislation would create inappropriate results.” 

Does my hon. Friend agree that that goes fundamentally against the principle of equality, which is supposed to be behind all this legislation? 

Sir Gerald Howarth:  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—I had the privilege of representing a constituency south of his wonderful constituency for nine years—speaks utterly good sense. The raft of measures before us illustrates that the Government’s central thesis—that this is equal marriage—is absolutely destroyed. I regret that the Secretary of State persists in writing to me letters headed “Equal Marriage”. Whether that has been put in by a civil servant and she has not noticed, I do not know, but if there was any doubt before, it has now been proved beyond all doubt that this is a divisive measure and not one that will implement equal marriage. 

My hon. Friend quoted paragraph 7.20 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft order. The next paragraph states: 

“Part 1 of Schedule 2 ensures that the Act does not change common law relating to the acquisition of titles of royalty or nobility by marriage. In particular, a person married to a reigning King has the right to be called “the Queen”, and a person married

to the Prince of Wales has the right to the title “Princess of Wales”. This Part of the Schedule ensures that these rights, and similar rights of women married to peers, are not extended to same sex couples or to the husbands of female peers. The Government does not think it would be appropriate to extend these ancient gender-specific rights in this way.” 

The good news that a man cannot be a queen will be warmly welcomed in most parts of the kingdom. The decision to exempt the aristocracy is an excellent one and will, no doubt, be warmly greeted in Chipping Norton, but mister and missus apparently have no ancient gender-specific rights; those are the preserve of the aristocracy. That wholly undermines my hon. Friend the Minister’s absurd belief that the legislation establishes equal marriage; it does not—not when raft after raft of provision to exempt is made. 

Jeremy Lefroy:  My hon. Friend makes an important point about the lack of equality in some parts of the legislation. Does he wonder whether the Government have consulted all parts of Her Majesty’s dominions, where she is Head of State, to learn their views, and whether all of them have responded? Surely the provisions apply not only to England and Wales, but to all territories where Her Majesty is Head of State? 

Sir Gerald Howarth:  My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It has been suggested to those of us who oppose this legislation that the Government will see it through and that that will be the end of it. I do not think that that will be the end of it in terms of the next general election; I think the legislation has deeply offended a large number of people, particularly Conservatives. I now hear that the Government are intent on lecturing other countries about how they should apply this sort of legislation. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee, the House and the country that the Government have no intention of interfering in other countries’ affairs by telling them to translate this unintelligible and complex legislative gobbledegook into their statute. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is absolutely right: 36 laws are to be amended by the draft order, but how do we know that it is comprehensive? We know that there are provisions to remedy some of the omissions relating to civil partnerships, but is the Minister satisfied that all the boxes have been ticked? 

Simon Hughes:  I can help on two matters for which I have specific responsibility. First, there is no implication that legislation for England and Wales requires or suggests legislation in other Commonwealth countries, or countries where the Queen is Head of State. Secondly, although the Government have a policy, which they are proud of, of seeking to persuade other countries to treat gay and lesbian people equally, they have no policy of seeking to persuade other countries to legislate in the way that we have. 

Sir Gerald Howarth:  As my right hon. Friend knows, being a good Christian, one is grateful for small mercies, so I thank him for that intervention, which I hope will be widely noted. 

To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, no fewer than 67 Acts have been exempted from this legislation, and that goes back to

1285 and the Statute of Westminster the Second—one of two Statutes of Westminster that year. Specifically, the Estates Tail Act 1285 stated that the 

“Donors Will shall be observed”,

which is chapter 1 of that Statute of Westminster the Second, and that is to be retained. 

We heard about the complexity from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. For example, paragraph 35 of schedule 1 to the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014—I will not read it all out—is utterly unintelligible. It amends the Equality Act 2010, which is a recent Act of Parliament, to state: 

“If the effect of a relevant matter on a person (A) differs according to the effect it has on a person of the same sex as A, according to whether A is married, in a civil partnership, or for some other reason due to A’s family status, a comparison for the purposes of this section of the effect of that matter on persons of the opposite sex must be with a person of the opposite sex to A who is in the same position as A and in particular…(a) where A is married to someone of the opposite sex, A is to be compared to a person of the opposite sex to A (“B”) where B is married to someone of the opposite sex to B”. 

I will not go on, but it is utterly ludicrous. We are supposed to be legislating for the country. What are the people of Britain supposed to expect from this nonsense—this unintelligible rubbish—that my hon. Friend the Minister has the discourtesy to bring to Parliament today? 

I have to tell my hon. Friend that this is an affront to millions of people. There have been 60,454 civil partnerships. We are legislating for a tiny minority. We are overturning centuries of tradition and messing about with the English language in a manner that most people will feel simply does not live up to what the Minister said about applying common sense. I remind her that 12.2 million married couples live in this country, so this convoluted, unintelligible, absurd legislation is being brought before Parliament and put on to the statute book in the interests of a very small minority, for the overwhelming majority of whom civil partnerships provided the appropriate solution to their situation. I very much regret that I will not have the opportunity of dividing the Committee today. 

10.8 am 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP):  It is a pleasure to follow the comments of everyone here. Obviously I have an opinion, which I stated during the proceedings of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee. Members who served on that Committee, or are considering such legislation for the first time, may have very different opinions to those that I hold, but I have to come to this Committee to express my views. I want to speak on behalf of those to whom the hon. Member for Aldershot referred: the millions of people in the United Kingdom who opposed this change and continue to do so. It is not that we are disrespecting anyone; it is that we have heartfelt opinions, based on not only our own lives and beliefs, but the Churches and our religious conviction. Those are the facts of life in relation to where we stand. 

The Coalition for Marriage predicted throughout the process there would be yet further mangling of language and the rewriting of centuries-old laws in pursuit of a short-term political project. If there is still an annual award for gobbledegook, this legislation would probably

qualify to be in its higher echelons. Words such as “widow” are being airbrushed out of the law and replaced with such phrases as 

“woman whose deceased spouse was a man”. 

The way in which words are being changed and conditioned to fit in with the legislative proposal is ludicrous, to say the least. Many of the people whom I represent feel particularly hurt by the changes coming through, and we cannot ignore those people’s heartfelt opinions. 

The legislation declares that a man cannot become a queen, the Princess of Wales or a duchess. The necessity to legislate against such absurdities, which run contrary to the mechanical concept of equality enforced through most of the 2013 Act, serves as a reminder that same-sex marriage is a legal fiction. Schedule 1 to the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 makes consequential amendments to 36 Acts dating back to 1869. Paragraphs 1 to 3, 6, 9 and 13 of schedule 3 to the order abolish the word “widow” and replace it with phrases such as “that person’s surviving spouse”. Paragraph 36 of schedule 1 abolishes the term “husband and wife” and substitutes it with “married”. Schedule 2 makes exclusions from the effects of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act for a further 67 pieces of legislation, dating back some 729 years. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 replaces the word “husband” with “male spouse”. Paragraphs 2 and 3 replace “widow’s pension” with 

“pension payable to a woman in respect of the services of her deceased male spouse” 

and delete the word “wife” in favour of “spouse”. Paragraphs 4 and 6 delete the word “widow” and replace it with 

“woman whose deceased spouse was a man”, 

and the word “widower” is replaced with an equally cumbersome opposite. Page 4 of the explanatory memorandum says: 

“For example, a reference to a ‘widow’ in existing legislation now extends to a woman who was married to a man but also a woman who was married to a woman and a man who was married to a man, but not a man who was married to a woman.” 

My goodness me, Mr Streeter; I am not sure that I have the ability to follow all those words, and the same will be true for many people out there. Will that wonderful TV advert for Scottish Widows have to be rewritten so that it repeats those two or three lines of gobbledegook—“Scottish woman who was married to a man, and also a woman who was married to a woman and a man who was married to a man, but not a man who was married to a woman”? Saying that would take up most of the advertisement’s time on TV, never mind anything else—it is ridiculous. That might be absurd as an example—if it is, I apologise—but it illustrates clearly the concerns that many of us have.

I turn to legislating for absurdity. Part 3 of schedule 2 to the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 makes sweeping changes to legislation dating back to 1285 to try to make it compatible with same-sex marriage. Some of the changes are clearly ridiculous consequences of redefining marriage. Same-sex marriage might be law, but it contradicts reality and so, at certain points, the law is wording to reflect reality. The Minister

knows that I have the greatest respect for her, but I feel that we have legislative wording and terminology that are completely wrong. There are two types of marriage—one for same-sex couples and one for opposite-sex couples. That emerged during the passage of the 2013 Act, when it became clear that the laws of adultery and consummation would apply only to heterosexual relationships.

Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the order ensures that a man cannot be a queen, and that only a woman can be Princess of Wales, but section 11 of the 2013 Act asserts that marriage and same-sex marriage are deemed to be exactly the same. However, that does not apply to the rights of anyone

“who marries, or is married to, the King”. 

The paragraph also makes clear that while a future Prince of Wales may marry a man, his husband could not be called the Princess of Wales. Again, that might be absurd, but this is how the terminology can open the doors to legislative change and condition things for the future. A Government spokesperson has confirmed that the exemptions apply to the Treason Act 1351, which makes it high treason to “violate the King’s companion”— to have an adulterous affair with the husband or wife of the monarch. Apparently it would still be considered high treason to commit adultery with a king’s wife, but not his husband. Presumably those provisions were introduced to avoid a future constitutional crisis, but that is another example of the absurdity of the measures we are considering. This broth that the Government have put forward is not potable for me. Many people will not be happy to agree to it including, I hope, members of the Committee. 

Schedule 2 also tries to stop same-sex marriage from impacting on hereditary dukedoms and earldoms. For example, a man cannot be a duchess or a countess, and a man who marries a peer cannot call himself a lady. The explanatory memorandum states: 

“This Part of the Schedule ensures that these rights, and similar rights of women married to peers, are not extended to same sex couples or to the husbands of female peers. The Government does not think it would be appropriate to extend these ancient gender-specific rights in this way.” 

The explanatory memorandum also states that the order 

“makes provision modifying and disapplying the effect of the provision contained in section 11(1) and (2) of, and paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 3 to, the Act (‘the gloss’),”. 

Hon. Members have referred to paragraph 7.20 of the memorandum regarding schedule 2 provision contrary to the gloss. The first sentence of the paragraph is the important one: 

“In some cases the gloss which applies to all England and Wales legislation would create inappropriate results.” 

The legislation is very grey; it is not black and white in its decision making. It will certainly create questions in the future. Julian Lipson, head of the family law practice at Withers LLP observed: 

“The route the Government has chosen seems to be to admit that the equalness of same-sex marriage has its limits...They presumably don't want to end up with the situation of, for example, there being two duchesses or a man with the title of duchess.” 

That might, again, be facetious, but it illustrates the problem with the legislation, which the Committee will decide in a few moments to support or not. 

A few of us took a very strong stand when the 2013 Act was considered in Committee, and I am equally committed to opposing this aspect of same-sex marriage legislation. We repeatedly stated that the Government’s plans were ill thought-out and complicated, and they would have a damaging effect on those who, like me, support traditional marriage. Those warnings were dismissed, yet just a few months later, Ministers are engaged in an unprecedented and systematic drive to airbrush out of law words such as “husband”, “wife” and “widow” to make the legislation work. 

The Government are clearly in a complete mess—I say that respectfully—that could have been prevented had they engaged in an open and meaningful debate instead of ramming their proposal through Parliament. The changes cover legislation going back nearly 800 years that affects inheritance, taxation, social security and children. Surely Government should have tried to get that right before approving the Bill. 

Simon Hughes:  The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the legislation in general, as he is entitled to do, but just for the record—for those who read our proceedings and know of his esteemed record—may I confirm that marriage in Northern Ireland, as he knows, is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly? No change made in England and Wales changes the fact that someone from England and Wales who is a civil partner or is in a same-sex marriage will be recognised as a civil partner in Northern Ireland. There is no change in status or a creation of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. 

Jim Shannon:  I thank the Minister for his contribution. We tabled an amendment to the Bill to give the Northern Ireland Assembly the authority to make the decision on same-sex marriage. As a Member of the House of Commons who is here to legislate on behalf of all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I will make my comments on behalf of the people who put me here to do that, and I am happy to do so. 

This legislation is yet another attack on those who oppose the redefinition of marriage and believe that equality is not about destroying institutions that have helped to bind us together for centuries for the sake of political correctness. I am sure that some hon. Members will wish to divide the Committee, but if they do not, I will. 

10.20 am 

Tim Loughton:  It was my intention not to give a speech today, but to ask a series of questions. However, the longer the Committee has gone on, the more confused I have become, so I want to ask some questions. 

I have a sense of déjà vu because I contributed at least my three pennies’ worth in the Bill Committee. You nobly chaired that long Committee, Mr Streeter, so you will recall how difficult it was to intervene on the Ministers for clarification. I am not trying to oppose the legislation that has already been passed. The Act is law; that is a matter of fact, and it would be inappropriate for the Committee to rake over the original arguments. However, much of the detail was missed out during those Committee proceedings, not least because the Bill was pushed through Parliament with unseemly haste. It was enacted without the majority of Members of

Parliament of my party, and uniquely, the majority of the Government Members of Parliament, voting for it. Nevertheless, it became law. 

It is therefore all the more important that the regulations and guidance that flow from the Act are scrutinised and are clear and understandable to the people who will benefit from the legislation or be responsible for enacting it. Yet, as my hon. Friends the Members for Strangford and for Aldershot and others said, the regulations are far from clear. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West made some good points about the lack of guidance available, and the short time between the scrutiny and introduction of the regulations and the first same sex marriage taking place, which may be held at the pavilion in Brighton—my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown did not quite declare an interest by saying that he will be a guest and give a wedding present to the first beneficiaries of the new status. We have had very little time. 

It was all the more important, given the haste with which the Bill passed through this place and the controversy over the consultation, which left a lot to be desired, that the fine details were properly sorted out and presented to us today in a way in which we could understand so that we could debate them properly. However, as I have already pointed out, the explanatory notes are very difficult indeed to follow. 

I intervened on the Minister twice, and I desisted from doing so further because she wanted to make progress and she promised to come back to my specific points about when “generally” the Government will not treat same sex marriage in the same way as a civil partnership. However, she did not address that point. I also asked her to define a void marriage. She promised to do so later in her speech, but again she failed to do that and was disinclined to take my intervention at the end to clarify that point. She confused the Committee further by referring not only to a void marriage, but to a voidable marriage, and then—I think—erroneously to an avoidable marriage, which is something completely and utterly different. That needs to be clarified. I ask her in her summary to come back to some of the questions she was asked earlier. 

There is a serious question mark about the consultation exercise that was carried out from when the Bill was enacted to today. In the explanatory memorandum to the Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014, paragraph 8.2 on the consultation outcome states: 

“A total of 99 responses to the consultation were received.” 

That does not sound like an awful lot. It goes on to say: 

“Many respondents indicated opposition to the underlying principles of the 2013 Act. As a result a large number of respondents rejected any policy which sought to make regulations allowing shared places of worship to be registered”. 

Those views were all dismissed. It goes on to say: 

“Those respondents that did comment on the regulations can be divided into two broad categories”. 

I get the distinct impression that perhaps a handful of people’s responses to the consultation were taken into account, because they did not reject the legislation. [Interruption.] I see that one Minister is eager to leap to his feet. In explaining how the regulations were devised, it would be useful to know how many people responded to the consultation and how many of those responses

were rejected out of hand because they were against the legislation and did not technically apply themselves to the wording of the proposed regulations. The Minister seems to want to answer. 

Simon Hughes:  The answer is that, of the 99 responses, 54 were from individual members of the public, 24 were from religious groups, three were from what are called “stakeholders”, 16 were from individuals with experience of sharing religious buildings, and two did not specify their interest. The division was between those whose comments were about the principle of the legislation that has been enacted, as the hon. Gentleman said, and those who commented on the specific proposals on shared use. Of those who commented on the proposals in the regulations, the majority, and all the Churches, were in favour of the regulations as a way of implementing the shared-use provisions. 

Tim Loughton:  I am grateful to the Minister, but that answer tells me absolutely nothing other than the “who” about the people who responded. It does not tell me how many people, who qualified because they commented on what they were supposed to comment on—the regulations—rather than making generalist comments on the legislation, were regarded in the consultation. The point is that because this consultation was handled as badly as the consultation on the legislation itself, very few people have had the opportunity to make the serious comment on the regulations that is permitted under the Government’s consultation terms. 

There were 99 responses on the registration of shared buildings regulations. Were there more or fewer for the other regulations this morning and those later today? That is missing information to which there was no reference in the Minister’s opening speech, which gives rise to further scepticism from those concerned that the legislation will be steamrollered through without proper regard to all the people who need to be taken along with it. 

Simon Hughes  rose—  

Tim Loughton:  If the Minister of State will forgive me—the Under-Secretary did not take many interventions —I have a series of questions and I want to give enough time for him or his colleague to respond. 

I mentioned consultation. The explanatory notes to the lead regulation on the consequential and contrary provisions mention widows. I am now completely confused about the term “widow”. A lot of paragraphs refer to the transfer of a hackney carriage licence on the death of a licence holder. I may have missed something, because the Under-Secretary rather whizzed through her speech at a rate of knots, but I do not think there was any reference to that in her remarks. I have many cab drivers in my constituency, not least the leader of my local council, so I would like to know the mechanics of that, exactly what it means and how it might affect people now. Will a Minister elaborate? We graciously did not suggest that we should all be here for four and a half hours, which debating the three regulations separately would have allowed us to be, so in the time left to the

Committee, I think the Ministers owe us a full explanation orally and in more detail in a subsequent letter on the points that I and other hon. Members have made. 

Paragraph 7.11 of the explanatory notes covers section 28 of the Marriage Act 1949, which deals with parental consent, and makes clear that 

“parental consent is not required under that Act where a child gives notice of marriage, having previously been in a civil partnership which ended with the death of their partner, just as such consent would not be required for a widow or widower.” 

I am confused about what that means. We are talking about persons under the age of 18. I am confused about when parental consent is required. I thought that parental consent was still required between the ages of 16, at which it is legal to get married in this country with parental consent, and 18, when that child becomes an adult. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation regarding parental consent and how the regulations will change it. I do not recall any reference to that, and it is an important issue, not least when it comes to safeguards for vulnerable children and young people.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West quite rightly touched on the whole problem of pension rights. We were promised more information on that part of the consultation, and I am not aware that we have had any. I do not recall being given any further information since the end of the Bill Committee. Paragraph 7.18 of the explanatory notes states: 

“This amendment provides that a person who is married to someone of the same sex, or is in a civil partnership, should be compared for the purposes of an equal pay claim to a person of the opposite sex who is also either married to someone of the same sex or who is in a civil partnership.” 

Setting aside the new forms of marriage that the legislation introduced, what implications does that have for equal pay between men and women? That is significant for employers. If I cannot answer such questions, and if the Minister singularly avoids even referencing those issues in her explanation of why we should introduce the regulations, employers have little chance of understanding whether the legislation has implications for them. We need far more explanation of what that actually means. 

The Minister did not mention the situation of transgender people in her opening comments. Whether or not we agree with the legislation, we must make it fit for purpose. We must ensure that it works, that it is understood and that people of whatever sexual orientation or background are treated fairly and equally. During consideration of the Bill, many Members raised the situation of transgender people, and a lot of questions remain. 

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned that the one class of society that appears to have been given a special dispensation to be exempted from the legislation is the aristocracy. I offer a “What if?” scenario that might help the Minister to explain how the situation would work. If a transgender person married a male duke, what would the transgender person be titled, or how should they be referred to? What if a transgender person married a duke who is also a transgender person? How would the transgender duke and the transgender duke’s legally recognised transgender married partner be referred to? That may sound like a facetious question, but why should the aristocracy be exempted when our constituents apparently are not? When we are unpicking

statute that goes back to 1285, of which 67 Acts have for some reason been exempted, I think we are entitled to ask such questions. 

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked the perfectly valid question of why we are treating transgender people in a different—and unfair—way from the 10 other nations of Europe that have recognised homosexual marriage and do not allow a spousal veto before a transgender union can go ahead. I have not heard an explanation as to why we should treat transgender people in this country differently from those in those other European nations. It is not a question of our telling other nations how to behave but of why we are out synch with them on this issue as well.

I had intended to talk about the Treason Act and what we might fall foul of if we were to have an affair with someone in the sovereign’s family, but there is a lot of confusion about the regulations. The explanatory notes are supposed to make things clearer to aid us in seeing how we should vote on the regulations but they do little to add clarity. The Minister owes us a far better explanation of what we are doing here today. 

Several hon. Members  rose —  

The Chair:  Order. I want to see the Minister on her feet by 10.45 to give her a good 10 minutes. Two colleagues have caught my eye, so they have five minutes each. 

10.35 am 

Jeremy Lefroy:  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I will not take up my allocated five minutes because I know the Minister will have much wisdom to impart to us. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, this is not a debate about the merits of the legislation, which has been enacted and is going through. We wish everybody who gets married under the Act happiness in the future. However, I share his concerns about the lack of clarity in the regulations and the pick-and-mix attitude to tradition. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said, on the one hand, we are to be obliged to use the word “widow” for a woman who was married to a man, for a woman who was married to a woman or for a man who was married to a man but not for a man who was married to a woman. That is nonsense––something from Alice in Wonderland. On the other hand, with descriptions of the spouses of the aristocracy or royalty, we are expected to conform to tradition. I simply do not understand. If we are talking about equality, about something that is supposed to put people on an equal footing, why this discrimination, this lack of equality, this mixed attitude that takes some things because they are perhaps more acceptable or less noticeable than others? For that reason, I find the measures before us slightly disrespectful to this House. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, I cannot understand why the Government have concentrated so much on what I consider as going against tradition in these matters while at the same time not addressing pension rights, which will be more important to many people. Those are vital and will have a real effect on the daily lives of

those who come under the legislation and I am disappointed that the Government have not sorted that out before it comes into effect. 

All the points that I wished to make have already been made by my colleagues, so I shall not go on except to say that this legislation should have come much earlier, with much more of a breathing space between now and when the Act comes into force. I am disappointed at the way in which this has been brought about and at the lack of consultation, and that is why I shall not support the measures. 

10.38 am 

Sir Edward Leigh:  I am not a member of the Committee, so I cannot vote against the order, but I can make a few points. We have had a very full debate and I do not want to repeat all the points that have already been made. Like me, Mr Streeter, you are on the Chairmen’s Panel and you chair many of these bits of delegated legislation. Normally, they deal with unbelievably boring things like leasehold reform and the Minister delivers the explanation, which nobody understands, in a monotonous drone. But this is something much more important. It is much more important than the bit of merriment we have had today. It is easy to view this debate as something out of a sketch by Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail, because there is much in this that is completely absurd. 

I will not repeat the points already made, except to say that it is ridiculous, fatuous and absurd that a Conservative Government, when there are so many problems besetting our nation and so many people struggling with debt and many other issues, are having to bring in legislation to set out that a man cannot become Queen or that the Princess of Wales must be a woman or that the Treason Act applies only to a king with a wife. It is completely ridiculous, but there is something much more serious about this that goes far beyond the merriment we have had. 

We were constantly assured by the Government during the passage of the legislation that nothing that they proposed would affect traditional marriage. What we have here is something sinister. It is a mangling of the language. We are now seeing the truth come out. We already know that, by common sense, in reality, same sex marriage cannot be the same as traditional marriage. That is why the laws of consummation and adultery do not apply and why we have all these ridiculous proposals concerning the royal family and the aristocracy. We know that, but there is something much more sinister happening here. It is in these sorts of phrases: apparently, “widow” is now to be abolished as far as the law of this land is concerned. She is simply to become a woman whose deceased husband was a man. Widow’s pension is to be abolished and we are to talk about pension payable in respect of services of a deceased male spouse. 

We are redefining traditional marriage. Very few people know about this delegated legislation and there are not many Members present, but we are talking about something very important indeed. I predict that, increasingly, local councils and registrar’s offices will start deliberately avoiding the traditional phrases that make up the reality of traditional marriage, like “husband”, “wife”, “widower” and “widow”. Why? This is political correctness gone mad. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said that there are 12 million traditional marriages in this

country. I am not going to go over all this, but the number of people who want a gay marriage is infinitesimal. As far all the rest of us are concerned––millions upon millions of people––their marriages are being redefined. The Government cannot deny it. 

Simon Kirby:  May I put on record that, even if only one couple got married, I still think that this is good legislation and we should support it? 

Sir Edward Leigh:  One cannot redefine the rights and understanding of many millions of people to suit a tiny minority. What will be the proportion of gay marriages? Will it be 0.5% or 0.25%? It is tiny. But now the Government have finally admitted––today, this morning––that our traditional understanding of marriage is to be changed. Why can I not be called a widower if my wife dies? Why cannot my wife be referred to as a widow in the legislation? What are a Conservative Government doing this morning? Do the Government realise that this is why millions of Conservative voters are disillusioned? They do not view this Government as a Conservative Government. This is deeply serious. 

Sir Gerald Howarth:  Is it not the case that there is absolutely no mandate from the people for this fast and significant change? 

Sir Edward Leigh:  There is no mandate at all. It was rushed through Parliament. We could have had a careful debate and considered these matters in time. No doubt some future Labour Government might have proposed it. But no, we were told that this had to happen. There was nothing in the manifesto, and now all the traditional phrases that go back centuries in 67 pieces of legislation are going. This is not to be viewed as a laughing matter, a bit of fun about the Princess of Wales having to be a woman. This is much more serious and the Minister must deal with it carefully and slowly, and reply to our deeply felt points. 

10.45 am 

Mrs Grant:  I am conscious that I have very little time but I shall do my best to give full and comprehensive answers to the many contributions to today’s debate. 

The debate has been vigorous and stimulating and I am grateful to all who have contributed. I will start by addressing some of the many issues raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. She asked about the delay to the secondary legislation. The Act received Royal Assent in July 2013. There are complex provisions and 12 statutory instruments, plus commencement orders, dealing with issues across many Government Departments. 

We have worked extremely hard to get to this stage and are pleased and proud that same sex couples will be able to get married on 29 March. We believe that that is an achievement. I know that the hon. Lady is a reasonable woman, and it is worth noting that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 took a year to come into force. These things have to be done properly and carefully. 

The hon. Lady also referred to delays in the civil partnership conversions and the gender recognition changes that we have brought in. We have been clear from the

start that civil partnership conversions would always come later, because of the details and the need to get practices and procedures spot-on. Notwithstanding that, we are optimistic that that will happen by the end of this year, but again, we have to get this right. We were clear from the start that gender recognition would come later. We have to be careful, and the gender recognition changes require the marriage arrangements and the conversion arrangements to be in place. We have to be careful and sensitive in our work, so as not to “out” trans couples unnecessarily if that is not what they want. However, we are confident that we can bring those changes forward by the end of this year, which will be an achievement. 

The hon. Lady also rightly asked why overseas civil unions cannot be converted into marriages in England and Wales, as Scotland is now considering. There would be potential difficulties in converting one relationship into another in a jurisdiction that lacks the power to end the original relationship. That could leave people in two legal relationships with different rights and responsibilities attached to them in different jurisdictions, and two relationships to sort out should an issue arise between them. As the shadow Minister knows, marriage and civil partnerships are devolved matters, so the approach taken in Scotland is a matter for them, and I will look carefully at their consultation. 

The hon. Lady also rightly asked what we were doing about publishing guidance and continuing training for those who implement and administer the law. I hope she will be reassured to hear that the General Register Office has provided guidance and training for registrars. Guidance for authorised persons is also available and operational guidance is being provided to staff dealing with pensions and benefits. 

The hon. Lady pointed out that the Scottish Parliament has removed the spousal veto, and asked why we do not do the same. As I have said, gender recognition is a devolved matter and accordingly, the Scottish Parliament has determined the way it wishes to proceed. That issue was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. We of course recognise the concerns expressed by some members of the trans community in the various debates on the Act. Let me make it clear that I do not believe there is any such thing as a spousal veto. There can be delays, but if an application is made for gender recognition, an interim gender recognition certificate will be issued, which will be sufficient to allow the partner wanting to end the relationship to petition for nullity or for divorce. Ultimately, it will be for a court to make the application dissolving the union, at which point a full gender recognition certificate will be issued. 

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a number of important interventions, and I will do my best to deal with them in the time remaining. He wanted me to provide some examples of same sex married couples who will not be treated like civil partners. There are some minor differences in the way the legal relationship is formed. Marriage is by statutory declaration and contracting words, as opposed to a civil partnership, which is by signing civil partnership documentation. Also, a marriage can be ended by a divorce, whereas a civil partnership can be ended by dissolution. 

My hon. Friend also asked me what a void marriage is. I am afraid that I did not then have the legal dictionary definition to hand, but I can now clarify that it is a marriage which is not lawfully formed and does not meet the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949— for example, by not meeting the age requirement or the prohibited degrees of relationship, or by not meeting the required formalities for the formation of the marriage. I am sorry if my reference to “voidable marriages” confused the Committee or my hon. Friend. I merely mentioned them to distinguish them from void marriages, as some people sometimes confuse the two. 

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of parental consent. For all couples, the minimum age for marriage is 16. For persons under 18, parental consent is required unless the person under 18 has already been married and widowed. This provision simply ensures that the same situation applies to a person who has been in a civil partnership and whose civil partner has died. It is merely a matter of fairness. He also asked about the hackney licence provision and its meaning. It ensures equal treatment of, say, an opposite-sex married or civil partner couple in relation to the transfer of a taxi cab licence to a spouse or civil partner on the death of the holder. It results in equal treatment where such a transfer is allowed, which we think is the right approach. 

There were questions about the comprehensive nature of the consultation for shared buildings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark provided some specific details, and he has assured me that he is happy to provide as much information as possible, subject of course to confidentiality. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spoke about the meaning of “widow”. Under schedule 3 to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, “widow” will mean a woman whose spouse, whether male or female, has died; “husband” will mean a married man; and “wife” will mean a married woman. In other words, those terms will mean just the same as they mean now. 

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about inconsistencies between the Scottish Act and our legislation, and whether difficulties will arise. We are working as hard as we can to make sure that no inconsistencies occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred to peerages and titles, about which there has been some debate today. The Government recognise that peerages and courtesy titles involve gender-based differences. The approach we have taken with marriage and same sex couples is to mirror the position with civil partnerships, which we feel is fair. We have some sympathy with the desire to take this opportunity to deal with these matters, but today’s debate on these statutory instruments is not the time or place. 

My hon. Friend also asked how we know that the changes are comprehensive. There has been an extensive and thorough trawl through the legislation across Government, and while one can never rule out entirely the possibility that we have missed something, I am confident that the matter was dealt with very well. 

The hon. Member for Strangford expressed his concern that the Government may be airbrushing terms such as “husband and wife” out of the law. I assure him that we are certainly not seeking to do that. 

Jeremy Lefroy:  On a point of order, Mr Streeter. I would like to ask your advice. The Minister has just said that the definition of “widow” is not being changed, yet paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory states that 

“a reference to a ‘widow’ … now extends to a woman who was married to a man but also a woman who was married to a woman and a man who was married to a man”. 

I do not believe that that is the traditional definition of “widow”—referring to a man. I would like your guidance on that. 

The Chair:  The hon. Gentleman has successfully put his point on the record. Perhaps the Minister would be inclined to write to the Committee on this, to put our minds at rest. 

Mrs Grant:  I am happy to do that. 

The Chair:  Thank you, Minister. 

We will now vote individually on each of the three orders before us. Obviously, only members of the Committee can vote. I counsel those who are looking to divide the Committee that they may not want to do so on each of these orders, but that is entirely a matter for them. 

Question put.  

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 3. 

Division No. 1 ]  

AYES

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.  

Resolved,  

That the Committee has considered the Draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014. 

DRAFT MARRIAGE OF SAME SEX COUPLES (REGISTRATION OF SHARED BUILDINGS) REGULATIONS 2014 

Motion made, and Question put,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014.—(Mrs Grant.) 

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 3. 

Division No. 2 ]  

AYES

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.  

DRAFT MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) (JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION OF JUDGMENTS) REGULATIONS 2014 

Motion made, and Question put,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014.—(Mrs Grant.) 

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 3. 

Division No. 3 ]  

AYES

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.  

11.1 am 

Committee rose.