The question is this: should there be space in public life for people who hold to the current definition of marriage? That is not a theoretical question. The case of Adrian Smith has already been discussed. I will not go through it again, because time is short, but I remind hon. Members that he was a dedicated local authority housing officer who then worked for a housing association
20 May 2013 : Column 960
and was very well thought of. He served everyone, regardless of their situation, but he lost his job because of private remarks on his private Facebook page, and he is now doing charitable work in Africa because his job was taken away from him. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said in her excellent contribution that she hoped that people will be dealt with in an inclusive and tolerant way. I say to her, with great respect, that I hope she would want such inclusiveness and tolerance to be given to people such as Adrian Smith, who did not receive it.
I say to colleagues on the Government Benches that unless we get the legislation right, this issue will run and run until 2015 and will keep coming back. I gently remind colleagues on the Opposition Benches that no less a campaigner for homosexual rights than Peter Tatchell supported Adrian Smith. He did not agree with his views, but believed passionately in his ability to state them and thought it wrong that his job was taken away, as was that of Rev. Willie Ross, the chaplain to Strathclyde police. It is such things that we must guard against.
Chris Bryant: I want to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Although I disagree with him passionately on every element of the Bill, I none the less enjoyed sitting on a panel with him at a school in his constituency to tackle the problem of homophobic bullying in the area. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on that issue.
I understand that many people of religion disagree fundamentally with every element of the Bill. I hope that one day they will be amazed that they ever held those views. Some have said that the Church used to support slavery and that it no longer does. A better analogy might be the Church’s attitude to the role of women and, for that matter, women in marriage 100 years ago, compared with its views today. For those who have a strong religious bent, I note that the Church of Scotland has voted today to allow homosexual clergy. I think that Churches will change and I do not want to lock them in so many ways that they are not able to do so.
I and my hon. Friends believe that equality under the law is a vital principle. The Equality Act 2010 is a subtle and intelligent piece of drafting which ensures that people’s religious belief is as protected as their sexual orientation. I worry about some of the new clauses and amendments before us, because they would upset that balance.
Hon. Members have referred to the chilling effect of what they call “political correctness” and of this kind of legislation. I say simply that if they look around the world and listen to the experiences of many gay and lesbian children in schools, they will see that hateful speech is alive and well. That is why a gay or lesbian child is six times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual child. We need to take seriously the fact that the language that people use merely because they oppose same-sex marriage adds to that sense of hatred and unpleasantness. To make the point, one has only to mention the names of Stuart Walker, who was burned to death only a few years ago for being gay, and Jody Dobrowski, who was murdered not far from this House.
I want to deal with the new clauses and amendments. New clause 1, to which many hon. Members have referred, is fundamentally ill-conceived. I do not doubt
20 May 2013 : Column 961
that some people are concerned about what teachers will be able to teach in schools. However, some of the understandings of teaching that I have heard this afternoon are completely misplaced. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), belted knight that he is, elided preaching and teaching. My fundamental point is that not much teaching should be preaching. That is the experience in every religious school in this country. Such schools want people to embrace the central understanding of every religion, which is that conscience trumps everything else. If that is the case, why would they want people to adhere to a line or to be indoctrinated? They would not. They want people to learn how to understand the facts and the world in which they live so that they can make good decisions for themselves.
The Education Act 1996 states very clearly:
“The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools…they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. Secondly—and this is vital to the point that some hon. Members have made—it states that pupils must be
“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.”
Therefore, the Act already embodies precisely what new clause 1 seeks to achieve.
Where new clause 1 fails is that it undermines the next bit of the Act, which states:
“In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance.”
The new clause would make the Secretary of State’s guidance completely and utterly irrelevant.
6.45 pm
The guidance is extremely balanced. It states:
“Within the context of talking about relationships, children should be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children. The Government recognises that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore, children should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society. Teaching in this area needs to be sensitive so as not to stigmatise children on the basis of their home circumstances.”
That applies equally to children who are gay or who have gay family members and to those who grow up in a religious background and do not want to be stigmatised on the basis of their religion.
I say to those who support new clauses 2 and 3 that everybody should be equal under the law. How can somebody who turns up at a register office be told that the registrar will not marry them just because of their sexuality?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Lady if she does not mind. I would normally be very generous, but there is not much time.
A registrar is there solely to register that which is lawful. They are paid by all taxpayers, not just by some taxpayers. If Parliament decides that same-sex marriages
20 May 2013 : Column 962
are lawful, how can it be right for somebody to be rejected? Why do we not introduce a clause that says that sextons, who are public employees, can refuse to bury suicides, or that a registrar can refuse to marry a divorcee? Of course we have never done that, because we believe that everybody should be treated equally under the law. How can we say that commercial enterprises, such as bed and breakfasts, cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services, but that the state can discriminate in the provision of marriage services? I hope that hon. Members will think twice about supporting those new clauses.
Likewise, hon. Members should think twice about supporting new clauses 4, 5 and 6, which would effectively drive a coach and horses through the Equality Act 2010. I say to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that there is a fundamental misconception about how the Act works. It does not protect the individual belief within religion; it protects the religion. It is not transubstantiation that is protected, but Catholicism. It is not a belief in the afterlife that is protected, but Christianity. It would be invidious to introduce any special provision that breached that.
Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant: I will not, I am afraid, because we are very short of time.
I gently suggest to hon. Members that the language that is used in some of the new clauses and amendments comes far too close for the liking of many people to a repeat of section 28. That did damage and we do not want to see it again.
I urge Members not to drive a coach and horses through the equality legislation, which treats everybody equally, regardless of their religion or sexuality.
Hugh Robertson: The Government have listened extremely carefully on Second Reading, in Committee and today to the concerns that have been expressed. We will do everything that we can to provide the safeguards that are necessary to meet colleagues’ concerns, where those concerns are justified.
Time is short because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) wants to speak at the end of the debate, so I will quickly go through a few of the issues that have been raised. I ought to start by speaking to Government amendment 23, which will provide further protection for chaplains, such as hospital and university chaplains, who are employed by secular organisations. We made a commitment in Committee to look at that matter again and we have accepted that something further can be done. If the possibility of a marriage conducted by a chaplain is a benefit to employees offered in the context of that employment, a refusal to conduct such a service by a chaplain for an employee could conceivably fall foul of provisions in part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. We have therefore tabled amendment 23, which I believe puts the issue beyond doubt.
Amendment 24 addresses a point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the Church in Wales and places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor. Once he or she is satisfied that the governing body of the Church in Wales has resolved that the law should be changed to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples according to its rites, he or she “must” by order
20 May 2013 : Column 963
make such a provision. That meets a commitment made in Committee and is a simple amendment that gives the Church in Wales the reassurance it sought.
Let me turn to education, faith schools and new clause 1. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for his speech, and hope to provide him with some reassurance. As he knows from Committee, no school or individual teacher is currently under a duty to promote or endorse a particular understanding of marriage, or would be as a result of the Bill or any revised future guidance. There are two clear reasons for that. First, the guidance is to secure that pupils
“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children,”
not to secure that teachers promote or endorse any particular view of marriage—in a sense it is the difference between explaining and promoting. Secondly, teaching in this area should always be balanced and sensitive to pupils’ backgrounds, which for many will be reflected in the school’s ethos. Guidance contrary to that ethos would not meet those criteria.
If Members want further reassurance, I draw their attention to Lord Pannick, who I think is universally recognised to be an expert in this area. He said that it is “inconceivable” that a teacher could be lawfully disciplined for explaining to a child of an appropriate age that the law allows for same-sex marriage but that many religions—or indeed the teacher—do not believe in it. Finally, I draw the House’s attention to evidence given to the Committee by the Secretary of State for Education.
However, it is clear from the number of hon. Members who have signed new clause 1 that many remain concerned about the level of protection for teachers. Although I am confident that the existing protections are sound, I am aware of concerns raised by the Church of England and mentioned by many hon. Members. With that in mind, I commit to the House that we will take the issue away and discuss it further with religious groups with whom we have been engaging throughout this process. We have been in close contact with all of them, and will consider all available means—including an amendment if necessary—to put the issue beyond any doubt in the other place.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for tabling amendment 50, which amends the Public Order Act 1986. We debated it at some length in Committee, and since then we have been thinking further to try and meet the concerns of many colleagues. Regrettably, the wording used in the amendment could—no doubt entirely unintentionally—give the impression that this aspect of criminal law is not to be applied even-handedly, and for that reason I cannot accept it as it stands. The provision is already there, however, and we fully understand the concerns and will work to table an amendment in the other place to try and satisfy them.
Let me turn briefly to marriage registrars, although the news is rather less promising. We debated the issue at length in Committee and I am afraid my views rather hardened as the debate went on. I do not believe it is appropriate or right to allow marriage registrars to opt out of conducting same-sex marriages either permanently or on a transitional basis. Like it or not, they are public
20 May 2013 : Column 964
servants who should carry out the will of Parliament, and allowing exemptions according to conscience in my view sets a difficult precedent. Furthermore and crucially—this is important—the consultation with the national panel for registrars revealed absolutely no concerns whatsoever about conscience, and it would be unusual for the House to pass a new clause if the national representative body did not ask for such an exemption.
On new clause 4, I know that some Members continue to have concerns that employees and organisations will risk action being taken against them under the Equality Act if they express the view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. However, discriminating against someone because they hold such a belief, whether for religious or philosophical reasons, is unlawful under that Act, and I am happy to place that on the record.
The case of Adrian Smith has been mentioned by a number of Members. He won his case in the end but his award was so small because he failed to bring the case within the time laid out in the employment tribunal. We looked into the case carefully in Committee, and the judge made it absolutely clear that had Adrian Smith applied in time, there was every reason to suggest that the tribunal would have been able to award him “substantial compensation”. The fact that the case was not brought in time led to that particular result.
Andrew Selous: I believe that Adrian Smith had to find £30,000—or it was found for him. What happens to poor people who suffer that type of discrimination and do not have that money?
Hugh Robertson: That example shows the danger of trying to make law on the basis of one individual case, particularly when—as in that case—the litigant failed to apply and follow the relevant legal processes, making it difficult to take further action on that basis.
On amendment 3 to new clause 5, the important thing about the public sector equality duty is that it is a duty to think, rather than to achieve, a particular outcome. It could not possibly be used to justify an act of discrimination because of a belief by a public authority. New clause 6 seeks to make it explicit that the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman may be a religious or philosophical belief, and that is indeed protected by the Equality Act 2010. Philosophical beliefs are protected if they are genuinely held, and we are entirely confident that the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman meets those criteria 100%.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate would like a few minutes to wind-up the debate, so I will finish where we started. We ran through all these issues in Committee at some length and we will take note of the will of the House tonight and listen to it carefully. Where we find a need to act, we will take action.
Mr Burrowes:
I appreciate there is limited time for a debate on serious issues, and what I believe is a consensus across the House—to ensure that religious liberty, and liberty in general, is properly protected. I welcome the recent good news: after weeks of toil in Committee we now have progress from the Government on new clause 1 and an undertaking given to the House that they will take away and seek to amend any guidance. That will
20 May 2013 : Column 965
ensure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) properly said, that the Bill is crystal clear and that we understand the balance, and further clarity is welcome. I recognise that as I am sure does the whole House.
New clause 1 is not objectionable in any way and I encourage all hon. Members to read it and see that we are trying to make it clear that no teacher should be obliged to promote or endorse a view of marriage that is contrary to their belief or, as in the new clause, to the ethos of the school. I welcome that undertaking from the Minister and do not wish to take up the House’s time by pressing new clause 1 to a vote. I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that he is concerned, as are a number of hon. Members, to ensure that we have freedom of speech not just for Members but for our constituents, and that he will work on amendment 50 and the Public Order Act 1986.
This has been called the live-and-let-live Bill, but we must ensure that it is not a live-and-let-live Bill only as long as someone agrees with the state’s redefinition of marriage.
On the basis of the assurances that have been given, I will not press new clause 1 to a Division. However, on new clause 3, on registrars, there is a tradition and a precedent for conscientious objections. I therefore wish to press new clause 3 to a Division, along with new clause 6, which was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). Equality legislation did not give justice to Adrian Smith, who had to rely on contract law. We need to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 is fit for purpose to protect belief in respect of marriage. Finally, I wish to press new clause 8 to a Division. It will ensure that the Catholic Church and others will not be compelled—we need a clear understanding of “compelled” so that they are not discriminated against for their decision to opt out of same-sex marriage.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
7 pm
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Conscientious objection: transitional arrangments
‘(1) No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct a marriage to which he has a conscientious objection if he is employed as a registrar of marriages on the date this Act comes in force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “conscientious objection” exists where the refusal to conduct a marriage is only that it concerns a same sex couple, and is based on the person’s sincerely held religious or other beliefs.
(3) This section is without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars in that area to carry out the required functions.
(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.— (Mr Burrowes.)
20 May 2013 : Column 966
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby and see if he can unblock it?
The House having divided:
Ayes 150, Noes 340.
Division No. 6]
[
7 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Anderson, Mr David
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benton, Mr Joe
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crausby, Mr David
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dobbin, Jim
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Drax, Richard
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Jonathan
Farron, Tim
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mark
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
George, Andrew
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Henderson, Gordon
Hermon, Lady
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCrea, Dr William
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Mills, Nigel
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mudie, Mr George
Neill, Robert
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Paice, rh Sir James
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rutley, David
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, David
Smith, Henry
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stride, Mel
Sturdy, Julian
Teather, Sarah
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vickers, Martin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Webb, Steve
Wheeler, Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Tellers for the Ayes:
Karl McCartney
and
Andrew Selous
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burnham, rh Andy
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, rh Greg
Clark, Katy
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodman, Helen
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Grant, Mrs Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Herbert, rh Nick
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Macleod, Mary
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, rh Maria
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mosley, Stephen
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walley, Joan
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Watson, Mr Tom
Weatherley, Mike
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Sir Bob Russell
and
Karen Bradley
Question accordingly negatived.
20 May 2013 : Column 967
20 May 2013 : Column 968
20 May 2013 : Column 969
Beliefs about marriage
‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 10(3), insert —
“(4) The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 148, Noes 339.
Division No. 7]
[
7.15 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benton, Mr Joe
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackwood, Nicola
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burrowes, Mr David
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clark, rh Greg
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Crausby, Mr David
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dobbin, Jim
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Drax, Richard
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Jonathan
Farron, Tim
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Freeman, George
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Gray, Mr James
Halfon, Robert
Harris, Rebecca
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hermon, Lady
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Holloway, Mr Adam
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Metcalfe, Stephen
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mudie, Mr George
Neill, Robert
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Paice, rh Sir James
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rutley, David
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, David
Smith, Henry
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Sturdy, Julian
Teather, Sarah
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Wheeler, Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Mr Mark
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Peter Bone
and
Mr Philip Hollobone
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodman, Helen
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Grant, Mrs Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, rh Damian
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hendry, Charles
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Herbert, rh Nick
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Macleod, Mary
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mosley, Stephen
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Perry, Claire
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Russell, Sir Bob
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walley, Joan
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Watson, Mr Tom
Weatherley, Mike
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Desmond Swayne
and
Karen Bradley
Question accordingly negatived.
20 May 2013 : Column 970
20 May 2013 : Column 971
20 May 2013 : Column 972
20 May 2013 : Column 973
Domestic protection for persons
‘(1) For the purposes of this Act “compelled” includes, but is not limited to—
(a) less favourable treatment of a person by a public authority,
(b) the imposition of any criminal or civil penalty, and
(c) any legal proceedings against a person as a result of a decision not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages.
(2) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as the expressions used in section 2 of this Act.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided:
Ayes 163, Noes 321.
Division No. 8]
[
7.29 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benton, Mr Joe
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackwood, Nicola
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Cooper, Rosie
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crausby, Mr David
Cruddas, Jon
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dobbin, Jim
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Drax, Richard
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Farron, Tim
Flello, Robert
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Freeman, George
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goggins, rh Paul
Gray, Mr James
Griffiths, Andrew
Gwynne, Andrew
Halfon, Robert
Harvey, Sir Nick
Hayes, rh Mr John
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hermon, Lady
Hillier, Meg
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCabe, Steve
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McKinnell, Catherine
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Mills, Nigel
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mulholland, Greg
Murphy, rh Paul
Neill, Robert
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Paice, rh Sir James
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Perry, Claire
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Roy, Mr Frank
Rutley, David
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, David
Smith, Henry
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stride, Mel
Sturdy, Julian
Teather, Sarah
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Wheeler, Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Philip Hollobone
and
Mr David Nuttall
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Baron, Mr John
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Colvile, Oliver
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, rh Caroline
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Grant, Mrs Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lloyd, Stephen
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Macleod, Mary
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, rh Maria
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Mosley, Stephen
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Newton, Sarah
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Stephen
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walley, Joan
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Watson, Mr Tom
Weatherley, Mike
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Desmond Swayne
and
Sir Bob Russell
Question accordingly negatived.
20 May 2013 : Column 974
20 May 2013 : Column 975
20 May 2013 : Column 976
20 May 2013 : Column 977
Marriage according to religious rites: no compulsion to solemnize etc
Amendment made: 23, page 3, line 43, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 (liability of employees and agents), after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) A does not contravene this section if A—
(a) does not conduct a relevant marriage,
(b) is not present at, does not carry out, or does not otherwise participate in, a relevant marriage, or
(c) does not consent to a relevant marriage being conducted,
for the reason that the marriage is the marriage of a same sex couple.
(5B) Subsection (5A) applies to A only if A is within the meaning of “person” for the purposes of section 2 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013; and other expressions used in subsection (5A) and section 2 of that Act have the same meanings in that subsection as in that section.”.’.—(Hugh Robertson.)
Power to allow for marriage of same sex couples in Church in Wales
Amendment made: 24, page 8, line 17, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.—(Hugh Robertson.)
Review of civil partnership
‘(1) The Secretary of State must arrange—
(a) for the operation and future of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in England and Wales to be reviewed, and
(b) for a report on the outcome of the review to be produced and published.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the review from also dealing with other matters relating to civil partnership.
(3) The arrangements made by the Secretary of State must provide for the review to begin as soon as practicable after the end of the five year post-commencement period.
(4) The Secretary of State is not required by this section to arrange a review if, within the five year post-commencement period, the Secretary of State has already arranged a review which, in the Secretary of State’s view, deals with the same matters as the review required by this section.
(5) Arrangements under this section may provide for the Secretary of State or one or more other persons to undertake the review, produce the report, or publish the report.
20 May 2013 : Column 978
(6) In this section “five year post-commencement period” means the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.—(Maria Miller.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 16, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of clause and insert—
‘and include a full public consultation.’
New clause 10—Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—
‘(1) Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, subsection (1), leave out “of the same sex”.’.
New clause 11—Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—
‘(1) Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3, subsection (1), after “if—”, leave out—
“(a) they are not of the same sex”.’.
New clause 13—Repeal of Civil Partnership Act 2004—
‘(1) The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is repealed.
(2) Secondary legislation made under that Act shall continue in force unless it is subsequently amended or repealed, and any such amendments or repeals may be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) This section shall have effect from the date that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act comes into force.’.
Amendment 10, in schedule 4, page 26, line 12, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
‘Divorce
3 (1) Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage) is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out subsection (2)(a).
Annulment of marriage
4 (1) Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (grounds on which marriage is voidable) is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).’.
Government amendments 53, 51, 52 and 54.
Maria Miller: The Bill has a single important and straightforward purpose: to extend marriage to same-sex couples. I am delighted that the major political parties’ Front Benchers are unanimous in the view that that is an essential objective, and I am grateful for their unwavering support. It has been reassuring to see the other parties sharing my determination to ensure that nothing derails or delays this important measure.
Marriage is the bedrock of our society, providing a stable foundation for families and communities. We want to ensure that people are not prevented from marrying, simply because they love someone of the same sex. But as a result of the Government’s determination to tackle this unfairness, other arguments have been put forward, including the idea of an extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I have listened carefully to the different views of hon. Members on that issue, and I respect the strength of feeling of some Members. However, our principal objective here today
20 May 2013 : Column 979
is to open up marriage to a group of people who have never had that opportunity before, and I do not want anything to delay, deflect or distract from achieving that objective. New clause 10, which would shoehorn in an extension of civil partnerships, would run the risk of doing precisely that.
Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain why she thinks that the proposal would cause such a delay? Many of the consequential amendments about including civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples were considered when civil partnerships were first introduced, so why are we suddenly being told that this would create a huge delay?
Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is getting to the core of the issue in her own style. If she will bear with me, I will come to those matters later in my speech.
Hon. Members will be aware that a large number of questions emerged when we looked in more depth at the issue of extending civil partnerships. After all, the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 contained more than 250 sections and 30 schedules and took more than two years to pass into law. It is an enormously complex area and the legislation cannot simply be transposed to opposite-sex couples.
7.45 pm
The hon. Lady asked for particular examples of the proposal causing delay. I can say to her directly that the Civil Partnership Act was designed specifically for same-sex couples, and a number of policy areas would have different applications to opposite-sex couples, especially areas such as adultery and consummation. If opposite-sex civil partnerships were to emerge, it is not clear whether pension rights would be in line with same-sex civil partnerships or with opposite-sex marriages. So if we were to go down this path now, a lot of fundamental policy questions would need to be answered. There would be questions of policy, of implementation and of financial implication.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): I am listening carefully to the Minister, as always. She says that it is not clear what the implication of such an extension would be for pension rights, so please will she explain where the figure of £4 billion has come from? We all understand that these are times of great austerity, and we do not want to vote for something that would cost the taxpayer £4 billion that we do not have.
Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), attended the Joint Committee on Human Rights with me last week, and he has gone into a great deal of detail on this matter. He and his Department have estimated that the potential liability could be some £4 billion. It might be less, but at the moment we simply do not know. The cost of the equalisation of survivor rights in contracted-in and contracted-out schemes could account for about £90 million. We would also need to look at the equalisation of the rights of widowers with the rights of widows, at which point the bill would start to rack up. It would not be right for Parliament to legislate when so many issues are outstanding.
20 May 2013 : Column 980
Tim Loughton: Of course, it would also not be right to be putting out spurious figures. The figure of £4 billion is not the result of an official cost impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is an entirely hypothetical figure based on every cohabiting opposite-sex couple choosing to convert to a new civil partnership, with maximum pension liabilities. Is not that actually where the figure has come from?
Maria Miller: I really do thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has made my point for me. At this point in time, there is of course no independent impact assessment because the issues have not been looked at in the kind of detail that hon. Members would expect before legislation is enacted. I hope that I will be able to change my hon. Friend’s mind about pressing his new clause to a vote. I hope that he will see that we need to get more evidence on this issue.
Dr Huppert: My right hon. Friend is arguing that there is a cost to the state whenever people get married or enter into a civil partnership. Is this part of a new austerity drive in which she will try to persuade people not to get married or have a civil partnership so that we can save on the pensions bill? That does not seem to be a very sensible approach.
Maria Miller: My hon. Friend seems to be driving at the same issue—namely, that we do not have the necessary information to hand. I think that hon. Members expect us to legislate based on fact, not on supposition or hypothesis. Much of what has been said on this matter has not really been based on facts. He is right to suggest that we want to encourage people to get married, but at the moment we do not know the exact implications of the proposal to extend civil partnerships. I think we would need to amend other legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which show that it is not just in the area of pensions where we would need to look at making significant progress in our understanding of the impact, as it would apply across a number of different pieces of legislation. It would be wrong for us to take decisions today without first having done that work.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con): May I clarify that one issue preventing us from rushing into immediate implementation and explaining why there has to be a review is that of civil partner pension rights? In a heterosexual marriage, people accrue survivor spouse pensions from the date the pension scheme was joined, not from the date of the marriage. For a surviving civil partner, however, the partner might have been in the scheme since it was joined but the pension rights accrue only from the date the civil partnership became law. That is one of the basic problems that we need to review.
Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that there is an anomaly here, and these decisions were taken at the time of the Equality Act 2004. My point is a much broader one. Inasmuch as many assertions are being made that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples could impact on many different areas of policy, my simple point is that we do not have the evidence base at the moment, and a great deal of work needs to be done.
20 May 2013 : Column 981
Sir Tony Baldry: Do not all these exchanges simply highlight the fact that extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples was never consulted on and was never part of this Bill when it first came to the House? There has never been a proper opportunity for consulting on the matter. Let me make it clear that the test must surely be whether this is going to enhance the institution of marriage, and it is difficult to see how extending or setting up a rival competition to marriage will enhance the concept of marriage. Let me make it clear to my right hon. Friend, too, that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England strongly oppose extending civil partnership to heterosexual couples simply because it will further undermine marriage.
Maria Miller: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to put that on the record so that my hon. Friends know the position of important organisations such as the Church of England on this matter. I think my hon. Friend is right that the detail of the potential impact of these measures has not been looked at in the way I think Members would expect. An enormous amount of work would need to be done on the legal status of opposite-sex civil partners when they travel abroad or even respecting their legal status in the constituent parts of the UK. At the moment, we have not done that work. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, will know that it is important to have alignment both with Scotland and Northern Ireland on how to move forward; at the moment those issues have not been discussed. On each of those issues and more besides, it will take time to work out the detail and to get it right.
Mark Durkan: When the civil partnership issue came up on Second Reading and in previous stages, the Government’s argument was that it was not germane and that there was no real demand for it. The argument the Secretary of State is making now, however, implies that there could be too much demand for civil partnerships, with all sorts of costs and consequences. Which is it: either it is an issue or it is not; is there a demand or is there not a demand?
Maria Miller: That shows why we need a detailed look at the issue: we simply do not have the answer to the question about the potential liabilities around pensions. We may be able to say that there is a potentially significant liability, but we do not know whether this extension of civil partnerships would meet the needs of an important constituent group of heterosexual couples. We do not have that evidence base either. That is my answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
Maria Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), but then I must make some progress.
Sir Peter Bottomley:
We greatly appreciate how the Minister is allowing the debate to evolve. One consideration that would need to be taken into account in respect of civil partnerships—whether it be in five years’ time or straight away—is some of the tax implications. We should think of the elderly orphan who gives up their
20 May 2013 : Column 982
own home and work to care for an elderly parent, lives in the parent’s home and then suffers capital gains tax when the parent dies. Alternatively, what of elderly siblings who have cared for each other for 50 years and do not know how to save capital gains tax so that the one who survives can go on living in the home they have shared? Those are the issues where the potential unfairness needs attention, but I do not believe that we can solve such issues tonight.
Maria Miller: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, but it is not really the right place to discuss it in the context of this Bill. My message is that if we really want to make sure that we make progress on this Bill, in this place and in the other place, we need to focus on what it is trying to deliver, which is to make marriage available to people who have not had that opportunity before. The issues surrounding the extension of civil partnerships and the issue just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West have a great deal of importance and legitimacy, but now is not the time or here the place to discuss them.
Margot James: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend allow me an opportunity to make a tiny bit more progress?
As I said, now is not the time to legislate to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples and, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has said, this position is clearly supported by the Church of England and, indeed, by Stonewall. That is why I propose to undertake an immediate review of this area. I have moved new clause 16 to allow such a review to take place so that we can answer the many questions that my hon. Friends have raised this evening. The review will provide the answers on legal policy and implementation that are currently unanswered. Without those answers and without that evidence, it is not responsible for the House to legislate at this point.
Margot James: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I believe in principle that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples. However, I think that the nature of the debate over these short 20 minutes demonstrates that considerably more thought needs to be given to the proposal that the Minister outlines. May I ask her why this needs to take five years? Would she consider at least a slightly shorter time frame within which to consider these matters, which I readily accept require consideration outside this Bill?
Maria Miller: I know my hon. Friend will have studied the new clause in some detail, so she will see that there is an opportunity for us to conduct a review after five years. Equally, there are provisions within it for us to ensure that the review is immediate. That is what I would like to say today—that in bringing forward new clause 16, we would plan for an immediate review to take place. I was delighted to see the Labour party deciding to commit its support for this approach this afternoon, and the Government’s original amendment, which allows for an immediate review, could stand altered, but I am more than happy to accept the Opposition amendment to clarify the point if that will provide them with further comfort. I am very happy to do that.
20 May 2013 : Column 983
Mr Burrowes: Given that the issue of extending civil partnership was raised in Committee and an amendment was tabled and voted on some months ago, why did the Government not provide any assessment of the impact of its going through Committee? In the time between then and now, what assessment has there been to ensure that the Government are fully informed of the costs so that they can decide how much is too much when it comes to a price for equality?
Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that we have, of course, done some preliminary work on this issue. The Committee concluded at the end of February, and he will know that through March and April we looked in detail at many of the issues raised. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) showed evidence of that in the proposals he made in the earlier debate this evening. The evidence on pensions is another matter I would draw to my hon. Friend’s attention. Now is not the time, however, for full discussion with officials and other groups that have a clear interest in how this might move forward. I encourage the hon. Members concerned to withdraw new clauses 10 and 11.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Maria Miller: I would like to make a bit of progress before my hon. Friend intervenes. If new clause 10 is not withdrawn, I urge Members to vote against it.
I was pleased to learn that the Opposition would not support new clause 10. It would be a very odd state of affairs if the House supported an immediate review, and in the next breath prejudged the position and announced that it would vote in favour of an extension of civil partnerships. I am sure that that is not lost on the House, and that all Members want to proceed in a sensible fashion that has been thought through properly.
8 pm
New clause 13 takes a very different tack: it seeks to abolish the Civil Partnership Act. We believe that that would disadvantage those who are already in civil partnerships, not only in England in Wales but in other areas of the United Kingdom where this is a devolved matter. On that basis alone, I urge Members not to press the new clause to a vote.
Amendment 10 seeks to make a substantive change to the way in which adultery and non-consummation are treated. The Bill does not need to make such changes for the purpose of opposite-sex marriages, and I think that we ought to look carefully at the implications of their removal as key concepts in marriage law. I therefore urge Members not to press the amendment.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us—even on this side of the House—are firmly in favour of same-sex marriage, and voted and will vote for it on Second and Third Reading, but are none the less very concerned about the lack of equality that applies to civil partnerships? We want the Government to act on that with some urgency. However, we also want to make clear that those of us who would otherwise have supported
20 May 2013 : Column 984
some of the Government’s amendments are trying not to wreck the Bill but trying to make it better, and to ensure that the concept of equality applies to civil partnership as well as marriage.
Maria Miller: I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s intentions. I assure him that we intend to proceed swiftly with the review of civil partnerships, although we naturally want to take full account of discussions of the Bill in the other place. We would not want to pre-empt those discussions by embarking on a review before their conclusion, but we will certainly consider how we can proceed with a consultation speedily, given the strength of feeling.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab): I do not for a moment doubt the Minister’s commitment to marriage between same-sex partners, but let me point out that her Department conducted, for the Government, a massive consultation exercise, and at the end of last year found that a majority of the public supported the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. The Government, however, were not convinced. What will be different about this review? Will it be genuinely open, so that if a majority is again found to be in favour, the Government will introduce legislation to extend civil partnerships to everyone?
Maria Miller: I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the review would be genuine and open. I would not undertake a review on any other terms. I think that this review will provide the sort of policy detail that was not provided by the earlier consultation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be party to legislation that had not been subject to that degree of thought and detail. I can give him a strong undertaking that we will look carefully at the detail of policy implementation, and at how it would affect the various issues that we have already discussed. However, we simply cannot legislate on something for which we have no evidence base. It is important for us to understand what the demand is among individuals who might wish to embark on such an arrangement.
Simon Hughes: As one who supported civil partnership and voted for it, I want to be certain that the Minister understands that there are currently differences in law between civil partnership and marriage. It would be helpful if we could confirm that she and the Government understand that.
I also want to make it clear that there is a strong wish for the two issues to be dealt with at the same time, not just among people who do not necessarily support same-sex marriage but among members of the gay lobby, such as Peter Tatchell, who think that equality in respect of marriage requires equality in respect of civil partnership as well. Will the Minister explain why those issues are not being dealt with at the same time?
Maria Miller:
I agree with my right hon. Friend that there are differences between the concept of marriage and the concept of civil partnerships—by definition, given that they are set out in different pieces of legislation. However, I must take issue with what he says about equality. We are trying to create ways in which individuals who have never had access to marriage can have that
20 May 2013 : Column 985
access, at a time when those who are in heterosexual relationships already have it. There is no inequity, as such, in what we are trying to do. We are trying to right the inequity that prevents same-sex couples from having access to something which we know that society values very strongly.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): I support the Bill because I believe in equality, but a direct consequence of that equality is a new inequality for heterosexual couples. That is why I think that we need to think about whether the issues can be considered at the same time.
Maria Miller: Let me gently point out to my hon. Friend that what we are trying to do is provide access to marriage for a group of people who have not had that access to date. It is clear that there is an inequality affecting individuals who are in same-sex relationships and who have not had access to marriage.
We are not trying to create two tiers of marriage; we are trying to right a wrong of the past. It does not strike me as entirely logical to want to delay the Bill and give rise to more debate in the other place and more issues involving policy development in order to provide for something that straight couples would not necessarily want anyway. We do not have the evidence base that that would require, and the research that has been carried out so far suggests that we do not have a clear line of sight in terms of the end result.
Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con): My right hon. Friend is being very gracious in giving way. Does she not accept that there is an inequality in the fact that same-sex couples will have a choice between a civil partnership and a gay marriage, whereas heterosexual couples will not have that choice? Are not the Government creating that inequality?
Maria Miller: There is currently a glaring inequality, in that same-sex couples have no access to the civil marriage that those of us who are in heterosexual relationships take granted. That is the issue with which the Bill is designed to deal. What the review will do is examine the issue of civil partnerships in more detail to ensure that if there is a requirement for them, we can deal with it in a measured manner.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Maria Miller: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. We have only a short time for this debate, and I want to end my speech so that others have a chance to contribute to it fully.
Same-sex couples have waited for a very long time for the right to marry, and I think that they have waited long enough. Using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension—
Mr Chope: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Maria Miller: —as a vehicle for the extension of civil partnerships—
Mr Chope: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
20 May 2013 : Column 986
Mr Speaker: Order. I must gently say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has had three goes at it, that there is no evidence at this stage that the Minister will give way. If she does not, he must not hector from a sedentary position—or even from a standing position. Is the Minister going to give way? No.
Maria Miller: Only because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.
I think that using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension of civil partnerships risks its progress, and that supporting the review proposed in new clause 16 will give us an opportunity to find an informed way forward—something that those on all sides of the argument can support.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): We were grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for accepting our manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16 this morning.
Let me start by repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made very clear in Committee: the Labour equalities team supports the principle of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We recognise that it would provide equality before the law. It would also recognise the choice some opposite-sex couples want to make not to marry but none the less to formalise their relationship. As civil partnerships will rightly continue for gay and lesbian people under this legislation, it would ensure, too, that they are not perceived simply as some sort of residual arrangement pending everyone moving to same-sex marriage. We can expect that many existing civil partners will want their civil partnerships to continue; they will not want to regard the history of the past nine years as a history of second best.
Dr Huppert: Does the hon. Lady also agree that some people will still prefer to have a civil partnership now, even if marriage is available? This is not just about the history; there will be people who will still want a civil partnership in the future.
Kate Green: I entirely agree. There are many reasons why some couples may feel that the historical or religious connotations of marriage are not for them, but who none the less wish to make the public commitment to each other that gay and lesbian people already do through civil partnerships.
Sadly, Ministers have until now been reluctant to recognise that the position they have been taking—in effect, privileging marriage—has led to the situation we are in now. There are a number of concerns about moving forward to regularise opposite-sex civil partnerships, but there is a complete absence of analysis of, and evidence for, the concerns Ministers have raised. Yet we have been raising the issue of the genuine concerns about opposite-sex civil partnerships ever since the introduction of this Bill.
On the face of it, the anxieties highlighted by the Secretary of State today are not insignificant. On 14 May, her colleague the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), put a high potential price tag on the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples: the sum was between £3 billion and £4 billion. The Secretary of State has also suggested there may be international and devolution implications.
20 May 2013 : Column 987
The predicted costs involve some big and untested assumptions, however. We do not know how many opposite-sex civil partnerships will be formed. There is uncertainty about the number of public sector pension schemes that do not already allow a cohabiting partner to be a named recipient for survivor benefits. There is also uncertainty about the assertion that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples will reopen the whole question of widowers’ pension entitlements. Following the Cockburn case, we might feel somewhat sceptical about that.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): Given the hon. Lady’s principled support for the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, does she not have concerns that the proposal is a promise of jam tomorrow through a review, rather than a guarantee of the inclusion of heterosexual couples, which is what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said he wanted?
Kate Green: The hon. Lady is right about our concerns about unwarranted delay. That is why I tabled the manuscript amendment this morning. It enables us to move forward and reach a proper conclusion much more swiftly.
While we support the principle of opposite-sex civil partnerships, we agree with the Government that the issues should be properly reviewed before Parliament reaches a decision. Indeed, we say they should have been reviewed already.
Geraint Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. Does she agree that there is a large, and potentially massively increasing, constituency of people who may be interested in this, in particular couples with children, who have not chosen to make the jump into marriage but who might welcome a civil partnership? If we are to go along this path, we need to get things costed and get the detail right so that it fits their particular needs. We should therefore carry out the review and not delay equal-sex marriage.
8.15 pm
Kate Green: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we adhere to the principle and that we get the detail right so that we achieve the outcome we want, which is to offer the protections of civil partnership appropriately to opposite-sex couples and their families. That is why we have tabled manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16. We believe the Government proposal for a review that would not even start until five years after the legislation had been implemented introduces an unnecessary delay, and we are very pleased that it appears there is now agreement to move to a swifter review.
We also propose that the review must include full public consultation. There has been a degree of that in relation to the Bill. Although it was rather cursory, it did show support for the principle, but we want the public to have a full opportunity to express their views.
Caroline Lucas:
There is, indeed, strong support for the principle. I welcome the review to the extent that it speeds up the process, but it should only be about the
20 May 2013 : Column 988
details; it should not be about the principle. The principle is about equality, and that is what should be enshrined in the Bill tonight.
Kate Green: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope the Secretary of State will take on board her comments.
Mr Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is, typically, demonstrating courtesy. Does she agree that the review should be carried out in time to enable any consequent amendments to be brought forward in the other place? Is she not amazed that the Government think this needs to take an enormous amount of time to achieve, when in France there is equal access both to civil partnerships and now to marriage?
Kate Green: It is very good to hear the hon. Gentleman holding up the situation in France as an example of the practice to which we should aspire, and I could not agree with him more. We see no reason for this review to be excessively protracted. Indeed, we think it can be conducted very swiftly. It would be welcome if it could be completed well before we have completed the passage of the Bill, so that we can take account of the outcome of the review and we can swiftly—indeed, within the next few months—make both opposite-sex civil partnerships and same-sex marriages available .
This morning there were some who were concerned about the fate of this Bill if new clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to. We are anxious to ensure that same-sex marriages arrive on the statute book as swiftly as possible, and we know the Secretary of State is, too. We would not want anything to put that ambition and the Bill’s progress in jeopardy, but this morning it appeared that the failure of those on the Government Benches to reach a common position might do so. We are pleased that by this evening it had been recognised that the best way to deal with the concerns the Government have—late in the day—raised while also ensuring things are dealt with speedily is to introduce the most rapid review possible.
I therefore hope Members will support new clause 16 as amended by manuscript amendment (a). I hope that they will also recognise that new clauses 10 and 11 are, if not wrecking amendments, at best premature and should not be supported, and that they will follow the Secretary of State in relation to the other new clauses and amendments.
Tim Loughton: An awful lot of rubbish has been spoken and reported in the media over the last few days: not all of it has been attributed to me. There have been claims of wrecking amendments, of leadership bids, of Front-Bench mischief and of U-turns. Members will be forgiven for being in a state of some confusion as to where we have arrived at tonight, therefore.
Let me explain what I can make out from the late amendments put before us. We appear to have a last-minute amendment from the Government to kick the whole issue into the long grass. The Government have now put the frighteners on the Opposition, who have tabled a
20 May 2013 : Column 989
last-minute manuscript amendment to a last-minute new clause on the basis of spurious figures and non-existent delay, aimed at kicking the new clauses into the slightly less long grass. We have now just heard from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) that the Opposition would like the review to be done and dusted and to have reported before the Bill is passed, so that such a provision can be added through amendments to it. I do not think that that is the grubby deal that those on the Front Bench have negotiated and there is a degree of misunderstanding that must be clarified.
Today we have also heard the Deputy Prime Minister urging hon. Friends in his party to vote against a measure that is party policy for the Liberal Democrats— but we have been there before. We have also had the extraordinary scene of certain hon. Members, who have signed up to new clauses 10 and 11 and have spoken in favour of them in other places, to opinion pollsters and in Committee, now being apparently prepared to do a complete volte-face by voting this evening against something with which they apparently agree in principle. I am very confused.
Mark Field: I hope that I will not add to my hon. Friend’s confusion, but does he not accept that the amendment proposed by the Opposition—even though it is late in the day—at least means that there will be some urgency about the issue of equality in civil partnerships, which is close not just to his heart but to mine? With that, we can at least begin to make some progress.
Tim Loughton: I hope that we have achieved something, in that a provision that the Government thought was not necessary only days and weeks ago has become a matter that merits review, albeit at least five years away and with no guarantee that it will take place. Now it has apparently become a bit more urgent. We seem to be moving in the right direction, but the extraordinary thing is that everyone seems to agree that the change is right in principle. If it is right in principle, it should be right in practice and this is the Bill through which it can be achieved.
Mrs Main: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that tonight we will vote to enshrine an inequality in law with the hope that a review will redress it? Rather than voting for what people think is right in principle, we would be waiting for a review to see whether it is cost-effective.
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right. The trouble is that, given that there has been such fast movement in various people’s positions, goodness knows what the position will be after the vote has taken place.
I want to support new clauses 10 and 11, tabled in my name and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument, and in doing so I must oppose the last-minute Government new clause and the manuscript amendment from the Labour party. This is a Back-Bench debate—let us have a Back-Bench debate without Whips and party politics trying to put pressure on hon. Members to change their votes, which should be based on their free will.
Let me be clear once and for all that the new clauses are not wrecking amendments. They are supported by passionate supporters of the whole Bill. If the new
20 May 2013 : Column 990
clauses are passed, they will remove some of the anomalies and flaws in the Bill and make it more palatable. If that is wrecking, I am not doing a very good job of it.
Mr Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman understand why there are those who are briefing the media and accusing him of tabling wrecking amendments, given his full-throated opposition to the principle of the Bill in the first place? It is hard to believe that his motivation is anything other than to stop the progress of the Bill when it gets to the other place. If that is not the case, he has been ill-used and ill-spoken of, but does he at least understand why people are reading that into his motivation?
Tim Loughton: I can understand why people are trying to cause mischief on that basis. I approach the new clauses in the expectation that the Bill will probably become law, whether I and other hon. Members like it or not. We must therefore plan on that basis. I think it could become better law if it provided for equality in civil partnerships which we could give to opposite-sex couples, and I now want to explain why.
The idea was proposed in Committee three months ago by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Bizarrely, neither of them voted for it. In our witness sessions, it was strongly supported by experts such as Lord Pannick and Baroness Kennedy, who clearly said that they thought that the addition of the extension of civil partnerships would greatly improve the Bill. Supporters of the proposals have included those in favour of the Bill, those against it and those who have abstained. They have not just come out of nowhere. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Government’s consultation on the original Bill. Many people responded and 61% said that they were in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. This is not an idea that we have cooked up at the last minute to wreck the Bill; the Government’s research shows that the public—our constituents, our voters—are in favour of it. However, the Government went into the subsequent production of the Bill completely and utterly ignoring the clear wish of the people as shown by their own consultation.
There are two rationales, as far as I am concerned, for supporting the amendments. First, they will correct what is, I am sure, an unintended but glaring inequality that would result from the Bill in its current form. If the Bill goes through, as I expect, same-sex couples will be entitled to continue in a civil partnership, to take up a civil partnership or to take up the new form of marriage. Opposite-sex couples will have only the option of traditional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair. It gives rise to an inequality in what is intended to be a Bill about equalities. Secondly, a very positive reason for pushing forward with the amendments is family stability, and I will come to that in a minute. Highly divisive as the Bill has been, particularly on the Government Benches, surely that is one issue on which we can all agree and rally round.
I acknowledge that the quadruple lock that the Government have put in the Bill largely does the job that they intend it to do. That is why many of the Church institutions have been reassured by the safeguards that they have been given. Earlier, we also heard about amendments that tried to give safeguards to people in public service who might fall foul of the legislation.
20 May 2013 : Column 991
Let me return to why people seem to be in rather a difficult position. ComRes carried out an opinion poll among 159 Members of this House—quite a large sample—and some 2,012 members of the public. Interestingly, that recent opinion poll found that 73% of hon. Members in this House support the amendments. Among Conservative Members, there was 72% support; among Labour Members, 76%; and among Liberal Democrats, 67%. If the amendments do not get the full backing of 73% of hon. Members tonight, what has changed in the space of just a few days, since that opinion poll was carried out in private?
In 2010, an Office for National Statistics report said that there were almost 3 million—2,893,000, to be precise—cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country. That is almost double the figure reported some 15 years earlier. Some 53% of all birth registrations are to married parents, but 31% are to unmarried parents who are living together, and 40% of unmarried couples living together choose to have children. Indeed, cohabitation is the fastest-growing form of family in this country, and we need to recognise that our society is changing, whether or not we approve.
People choose not to get involved in the whole paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons: it is too much of an establishment thing to do; it is too much of a religious institution for some, and even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations; there is a patriarchal side to it; it is a form of social control—there are a whole load of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route. They are mostly still in committed, loving relationships, but they have no way of demonstrating that in the eyes of the public and the law, if they do not want to go down the traditional marriage route.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) made a very good point about the common misconception that there is such a thing as a common-law wife or husband, as a woman typically finds out abruptly on the death of a partner, when there is a tax bill on the estate, and potentially on the family home. Even a couple engaged to be married have more rights than a cohabiting couple. I have received many e-mails and letters in support of this proposal, and one summed up the position:
“I am 60 yrs and have been with my partner for over 20 years. We have two boys ages 16 and 18 yrs. Neither of us wish to get married but we would like to have the same rights as a married couple. We see the civil partnership as discriminatory towards us as a couple, especially as we have children. A great number of friends and acquaintances are in a similar position to ourselves and do not wish to be married although we are all in a lifelong family commitment. My other issue with this is that, as I am much older than my partner, I will probably die before her and she would not receive the same tax benefits as a married woman or those in a civil partnership, which in turn would be discriminatory towards our children.”
Why should those who have chosen not to go for a traditional marriage not have the opportunity to have the same rights, responsibilities and protections in the eyes of the law that we rightly, and not before time, extended to same-sex couples back in 2004?
8.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West referred to equalising same-sex and opposite-sex civil partnerships as achieving “parity of esteem”. I agree. I do not regard
20 May 2013 : Column 992
my conventional marriage of 20 and a half years’ standing to my wife as any more valid than a civil partnership, be it gay or, potentially, heterosexual; it is just different. However, there is a major plus to achieving equality of civil partnerships, and opening them up to opposite-sex couples: family stability, which the Government seem to have ignored completely, although it is something that we Conservative Members strongly support.
The Prime Minister and supporters of the Bill say that they are huge fans of marriage, partly because it helps to create sustainable families and, particularly, stability for the children brought up in them. I agree, so should we not do more to achieve that stability for families who choose not to get married, but who might cement their relationship through the civil partnership route, giving them public recognition and, importantly, rights and responsibilities under the law?
In 2012, the Relationships Foundation calculated the cost to this country of family breakdown at £44 billion—some £1,470 per year to every taxpayer, or 1.8% of gross domestic product. That is a big problem—a growing problem that is costly, financially and socially, in our society. Fewer than one in 10 married parents have split by the time a child reaches the age of five, compared with more than one in three of those who are cohabiting but not married, and 75% of family breakdowns involving children under five result from the separation of unmarried parents. The Centre for Social Justice has produced a raft of statistics showing that a child who is not in a two-parent family is 75% more likely to fall out of school and 70% more likely to be addicted to drugs, and is more likely to get in trouble with the law, be homeless, and not be in employment, education or training. We know that marriage works, but we also know that civil partnerships are beginning to show empirical evidence of greater stability for same-sex couples, including those who have children, be it through adoption, surrogacy or whatever. There is a strong case for believing that extending civil partnerships would improve that stability for many more families in different forms.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. In fact, I have not detected any resistance to the idea in any part of the House, so there seems to be agreement that it would be beneficial. The point of argument is when it can be achieved, for the many reasons that he touched on. Benefits, pensions, inheritance and tax are very complex; it will take time to cost the proposal properly, rather than introducing it before we know exactly its implications.
Tim Loughton: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes and it has been made before. I will come on to say that all that work was done in 2004. I am trying purely to mirror the sort of arrangements that were made back in 2004 when civil partnerships were introduced.
If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples were to enter a civil partnership, that would be some 300,000 or so couples and their children, giving them greater security, greater stability, less likelihood of family breakdown, better social outcome and better financial outcome. That surely is progress.
One interesting witness, who has been named already in our deliberations in the witness stage, was Alice Arnold, who is in a civil partnership with Clare Balding.
20 May 2013 : Column 993
She is very much in favour of the Bill. I entirely respect where she is coming from. One thing she said was that when she is asked, “Are you married?” she has to say, “No, but—” because she is in a civil partnership, not what she regards as a marriage. There is currently a problem with civil partnerships. If someone fills in a form, goes for an interview or responds to a question and says that they are in a civil partnership, they are automatically admitting their sexuality which, for some people, is uncomfortable. If civil partnerships were extended to everybody, people could be in a civil partnership and their sexuality would not be questioned or questionable.
There is a further application. Many people who have strong religious beliefs, particularly if they are Catholics, and have ended up getting divorced, which is in conflict with certain religious teachings, may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new partner, because supposedly their Church believes they should be married for life. They would, however, in many cases be able to square that position by entering into a new formal commitment through an opposite-sex civil partnership. So there are a number of practical applications where civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples will achieve something very positive—not wrecking, but achieving something for which people have a requirement.
Opposite-sex civil partnerships are not something cooked up in this country. Let us look at various overseas experiences. In South Africa the Civil Union Act 2006 gave the option for some same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register a civil union by way of a marriage or a civil partnership on the same basis. In France, as has been mentioned, the pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, as it is known, was introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of the same sex or the opposite sex, and now gay marriage has been added to that. Interestingly, 94% of PACS that took place in 2012 were between opposite-sex couples. Even more interestingly, in France one in 10 PACS has been dissolved, against one in three marriages ending in divorce. There is evidence to show that some of these civil partnerships have created greater stability, whether those are opposite-sex or same-sex partnerships.
Many people would not want to do such a trade-off for religious reasons. We need to recognise that society is changing. What does not change is the desire to create as much stability as possible for couples and children in those families. In the Netherlands in 1998 registered partnerships were created for same-sex and opposite-sex partners which provide the same rights and responsibilities as married partners, except in relation to children, to do with overseas adoptions and so on. This is not rocket science—it already happens.
I contend that a great deal of work was done at the time of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—complicated work, as the Secretary of State said, which took a while to bring into operation, but that work has been done. I want identical terms to apply, as applied back in 2004. The Government also say that the proposal would require big changes to lots of other legislation. Introducing same-sex marriage will require big changes to lots of other legislation; why cannot the two types of change be made in parallel?
Last year, as we said, the Government consulted on the whole issue, as the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) reminded us, and a clear majority said that they were in favour of it. Surely
20 May 2013 : Column 994
the Government, as a contingency at least, have done some preparatory work on what would be involved if there was a call to change the law, as all the opinion polls show and as I am now calling for.
It was reported in a newspaper this morning that one of the Ministers involved, in objecting to my amendment, had
“said such a radical change must not be introduced in a ‘rush’. She added that civil partnerships should be reviewed once gay marriages had been operating for five years.”
If we take it to 2019, civil partnerships will have been operating for almost 15 years, which seems more than enough time to gauge whether they are working and should be extended. I must say that there has been some pretty scurrilous and disingenuous last-minute scaremongering by certain parties on the Front Bench.
Mr Woodward: I accept in good faith the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He has obviously thought about the matter in some detail, so what is the maximum time frame in which he would instruct civil servants to conduct and complete such a review, and what process would he recommend by which the Government could bring forward the proposals to ensure that same-sex couples are not obliged to wait an undue time for the Bill to proceed?
Tim Loughton: There is a trade-off, because if the Bill goes through in its current form an inequality will be created and there will be a delay—we do not know for how long—for opposite-sex couples, who are unable to access civil partnerships, with no commitment that it will be addressed, while same-sex partners will be able to access marriages in fairly short order.
I have a few more remarks to make on how quickly I think that can happen. I think that the whole argument about delay is a complete red herring. The cost of £4 billion is completely and utterly spurious. I asked for a Library note on the cost impact assessments done at the time of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Part of it says that the cost to the Government was divided between total one-off fixed costs of £19.8 million for changes in administration and rising annual costs each year in both low and high take-up scenarios. The annual cost to the Government in 2010 was estimated at £1.5 million for the low take-up scenario and £3 million for the high-take up scenario, and that that would rise to £11.6 million and £22.2 million a year in each scenario by 2050. The components of the annual costs were state pensions for spouses and bereavement benefits for surviving civil partners, and public funding for civil partnership dissolutions. The note refers throughout to tens of millions of pounds, but nowhere near the figure in the billions that has been plucked out of the air with absolutely no empirical evidence and which was never intended as an official impact assessment from the DWP when the Pensions Minister made his statement to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week.
Mark Field:
Does my hon. Friend not see that the amendments proposed tonight, particularly from those on the Opposition Front Bench, would go a considerable way towards what he is trying to achieve? I share some of his concerns about the spurious figures in the billions that we all heard quoted on the radio this morning, which seem to have been plucked from the sky, and about the talk of a massive delay, but does he not realise
20 May 2013 : Column 995
that the urgency with which we are now looking at this, because of amendment (a), means that in the House of Lords there will be a rapid sense of trying to move ahead in the time frame he has in mind? I regret, as he probably does, that these things often happen in the other place, rather than here in the House of Commons, but does he not recognise that he has won most of the battle? Instead of making the strong case he is making, with which I think many of us agree, why does he not recognise that he has won much of the battle and can happily withdraw his new clause?
Tim Loughton: If what my hon. Friend has just said were true, I would be delighted, but I think that what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said might have raised a few eyebrows on the Government Front Bench. If she is saying that part of the deal is that the review, which would be an added consultation on the back of the one we had before the Bill was introduced, will take place and result in concrete proposals coming forward that can be added to the Bill before it completes its passage through both Houses, I would be perfectly happy, but I do not think that will happen. I do not see how it can happen given the complexities that the Secretary of State has claimed still need to be addressed as regards all the legislative changes, costs, and so on.
8.45 pm
Perhaps the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) would like to repeat his question to the Minister in the wind-ups. If he gets the answer, “Yes, we think this can be done during the progress of this Bill”, I will be delighted to withdraw my amendment, because that is what I am trying to achieve. I do not care whether it happens tonight in this House or in a few months’ time in another place or when the Bill comes back here; I just want it to happen, because we all seem to agree that it should and that it is right and fair in principle.
When we raised this subject with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, he gave five reasons explaining why, supposedly, it was not necessary to act and that we were talking about an irrelevance. His first reason was that the aim of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was not to provide an alternative to marriage but to give same-sex couples broadly equivalent rights. Yet now opposite-sex couples will be denied those broadly equivalent rights if they are not inclined to marry and are unable to get such civil partnerships. His second reason was that to get the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings, people should just marry. The Secretary of State has described marriage as the gold standard, but the Government are choosing to limit people’s choices.
The third contention by the Minister, whom I like greatly, was that the Government were not convinced that there is a group of people campaigning for opposite-sex civil partnerships. Well, I have quoted the opinion poll. The Government cannot have it both ways. They are scaremongering about the excessive cost of this measure and, at the same time, saying that there is no real demand for it, in which case it would not cost anything. They cannot have their cake and eat it.
20 May 2013 : Column 996
The fourth reason that the Minister came up with was that in the Government’s consultation 61% of those who answered an online response form said that opposite-sex couples should be able to register a civil partnership. I like and respect my right hon. Friend, who is not in his place at the moment, and I recognise that he has been dealt a pretty bum hand in having to steer this Bill through the House. However, I think he will regret adding the rider that more than half the people who answered the question identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. So there we have it: in a skewed voting system that would put Eurovision to shame, the vote of someone who is gay sometimes does not count as much if the Government say so. This needs investigating.
Another example of inconsistency that came out in Committee concerned the hierarchy of people who should be given exemptions if, on an issue of conscience, they cannot carry out various public functions. However, I do not wish to digress and will move swiftly on to the Minister’s fifth reason: that we would need a raft of changes to other legislative provisions that would involve other parts of the United Kingdom. However, this is already being addressed in the Bill and those provisions could be addressed in parallel. I am afraid that this sort of mess and confusion is what happens when we rush through a Bill with far-reaching consequences that have not been properly thought through.
There is no excuse not to do this now, or very urgently. The Government were warned by 61% of people in the consultation but rushed ahead. They should have looked at the wider issues. They could have said that they wanted to abolish civil partnerships and just have marriage, but then what would happen to the people in an existing civil partnership—would they just be sidelined and wither away? It would not be fair on them. That has not been thought through. Where are the impact assessments and cost calculations on the numbers who are supposedly going to convert from a civil partnership to a same-sex marriage? In fact, the number of opposite-sex couples taking up a new civil partnership could produce a saving if less money were spent on family breakdown. We have no details about how the figures have been worked out, about a start date when civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples might be introduced, or about what level of retrospective financial entitlements they may qualify for.
I want to be helpful to the Government because I recognise that this has become a bit of a pickle. As I said, I will be perfectly happy if the Bill continues its progress on the timetable that the Government have set. If the Government agree to my proposed new clause in principle, they will have time, during the later stages of the Bill, to announce specific details about the start date, the commencement of entitlements and so on. I for one would be perfectly favourable to delaying the implementation date of opposite-sex civil partnerships if the Government agree to the principle. If they needed two, three or four years to sort out the detail before the measure would be able to commence, I would be happy with that if the Bill addressed this inequality and we recognised that opposite-sex civil partners have a place— I think it is a growing place—in our society.
The Government would have to acknowledge that, in the meantime, they were creating an inequality, albeit a temporary one. They certainly cannot delay this until 2019. A reviewing amendment represents the worst of
20 May 2013 : Column 997
all worlds if the issue is kicked into such long grass. Have the Government learned nothing from recent experiences with Europe about promising votes in the next Parliament? Apparently it is acceptable to defer a decision on an equality issue for at least six years unless it was not promised in a manifesto and has all of a sudden become urgent.
There are no complications involved in my proposal. I want opposite-sex civil partnerships to be offered on exactly the same basis as same-sex civil partnerships. It would not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close family member or if they are already in a union, and the partnership needs to be subject to the same termination criteria. It is simple. Surely the case is overwhelming.
I do not do wrecking. I have never voted against my party or my Government in my 16 years in this House, and I do not want to start now. I have been entirely open, transparent and consistent in my opposition to the Bill. I am happy for it to progress on the Government’s time scale, if that is the will of the House. However, the House must respect the right of all Members to act according to their conscience, and my objections to the Bill have not been on primarily religious grounds. I have spent most of my time, like other Back Benchers, scrutinising the Bill’s safeguards on the likely basis that it will become law. The job of Back Benchers is to scrutinise legislation, hold the Executive to account and draw attention to anomalies, inconsistencies, injustices or, as in this case, inequalities, and urge practical action, which is what new clauses 10 and 11 do. A clear inequality is being created and I am sure that all fair-minded Members will want to address it as a matter of urgency. My new clauses would clearly achieve that.
We are in danger of being party to a last-minute stitch-up between those on the Front Benches, but this is a free vote, not on a conscience issue, but on a simple matter of equality that Members can support—indeed, from what has been said so far, many Members do support it—whether they are whipped to support the Bill or whether they defy the Whip to oppose it, and it has the added bonus of improving family stability. The only chance to bring that about is through these new clauses. A delay until 2019 or similar will not hold water. A review without detail and the potential dragging on of headlines until the election certainly will not do Government Members any favours.
If hon. Members believe that this principle is right, now is the time to vote for it. Let us vote on principle. Let us not vote for fudge. Surely we can all earn respect from our constituents for voting for what we believe in and for what we have told pollsters in private that we believe in. We should not be pressured by Whips or by parties. Let’s just do it.
Mr Woodward:
The amendments deal with some extremely important principles, such as equality, but we are also dealing with the absolutely essential need to correct a gross injustice that has lived for far too long and prevented gay men and women from enjoying the same rights as everybody else. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke extremely eloquently and this House would be wise to take him at his word when he says that his proposed new clause 10 is in no way a wrecking amendment. At the same time, we must understand that many people out
20 May 2013 : Column 998
there have waited far too long to enjoy a principle that many hon. Members take for granted. I therefore hope that tonight he will join us in voting for the manuscript amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
The hon. Gentleman must understand that fear continues to play an important part in this country. Although I take at face value everything that he has said, he will know that, for some, this is an opportunity for a wrecking amendment. He will know that some people paid close attention to the Government’s consultation last year, which found that a majority of people were in favour of extending the principle of civil partnerships to everyone in this country. He will know that the Government’s response was to say simply, “We are not convinced.” For some, there is a genuine worry that the Government will launch into another review, take months if not years to conduct it and, even if they find that the cost is not that great, conclude that civil partnerships cannot be extended to everyone in this country. Alternatively, they might give the old excuse that there is no time in the legislative timetable.
Mrs Main: The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Has he not presented a greater argument to vote for new clauses 10 and 11, because otherwise he will be voting for a review that he has said he has no confidence in? Tonight is the time to say that if there is to be equality, there must be equality for heterosexual couples as well.
Mr Woodward: The Secretary of State made it clear that the new review will be very different from the last review, which reached conclusions that were dismissed by the Government. I can only take at face value what the Secretary of State has said. I believe that the compromise that has been found by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is the best way forward.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that to rectify what he calls one blatant unfairness, he will create another obvious unfairness?
Mr Woodward: I understand the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. I understand that some will see the delay to the extension of civil partnerships as unfair. However, let me be very clear that same-sex couples have no justice at all. It is not about fairness; there is no justice, because they cannot be married. It would be grossly unfair to perpetuate that injustice, especially if the spirit of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston were accepted tonight.
I fear that some—I say again that I do not believe that this is the sentiment of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—want to use the principle of extending civil partnerships to delay indefinitely or wreck this House’s enactment of same-sex marriages.
Tim Loughton:
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. No doubt there are some Machiavellian Members of the House who have such motives. He knows, because of the clear votes that we have had on Second Reading and this evening, that there is every likelihood that the Bill will pass through this House and the other. I will
20 May 2013 : Column 999
undertake to do everything in my power to stick to the Government’s timetable if my proposal is part of it. That is not wrecking the Bill.
Mr Woodward: Again, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s word. I simply ask the Secretary of State to hear what her colleagues are saying about the spirit and speed with which they wish the review to be conducted. She is far more qualified than I am to give the hon. Gentleman and the House comfort by saying how quickly it would be possible to conduct such a review and when the Government would intend to implement it. She could give an assurance that if a majority were again found to be in favour of the proposal, instead of remaining unconvinced of its need, she would introduce it.
None the less, in passing this Bill it is important that the Government find time to introduce legislation for civil partnerships for everyone. It is also important to look in the review at a glaring injustice of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—the second-class pension provision for same-sex men and women. That is clearly iniquitous and should be addressed, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will make an undertaking that, should this Government not do it, a future Labour Government will seek to put right that injustice.
9 pm
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham concluded his remarks by talking about a stitch-up. I say simply that if this review is used to cause undue and untimely delay to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, that would be the stitch-up. The moment has finally come for those who have waited far too long for this moment of fairness and equality to arise, and I hope that honourable colleagues will support the amendment tabled by the Opposition.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this subject, but I have been working with others to deal with some of the obvious flaws in this albeit well-intentioned Bill. I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues for the way in which they have engaged and listened without question. As a result of that, however, I find it disappointing that they have failed to make some of the obvious—and in my opinion necessary—amendments to deal with the Bill’s flaws.
I have been called anti-gay rights and anti-Christian; I have been called homophobic and at the same time accused of not being a proper Catholic. I have been accused of being worryingly conservative, yet at the same time dangerously libertarian. I am none of those things. What I am, very proudly, is a liberal, and I want to support a sensible, liberal way of dealing with the inequities that we undoubtedly have in our current system with regard to the recognition of adult couples in a relationship. We have not gone about this Bill the right way, and many of its flaws are because it has been pursued from a very conservative perspective, rather than a radical liberal one.
For the avoidance of doubt, the role of the state, very simply, is to decide how to recognise relationships between adult couples, and which adult couple relationships to recognise in that way. That should be entirely separate from any consideration of how religions and belief-based
20 May 2013 : Column 1000
organisations recognise relationships in accordance with their own beliefs. Instead of dealing with that point, however, the Bill has sought to build on the confusion and conflate the two issues even further. The result, I am afraid, is something of a mess.
I want to vote on, and will always support, the state giving equal right to equal recognition of adult relationships, which then conveys equal rights as a result of that equal legal recognition. However, not only does the Bill not do that, it makes a complicated and unequal situation worse. Let me be clear about what the Bill will produce if it is passed, as it inevitably will be tomorrow. There will be two different definitions of civil marriage for same-sex couples, and another definition for opposite-sex couples. There will not be an equal definition. The Bill will allow two different legal recognitions of a relationship for some couples but not for others. It will fail to equalise pension rights for some couples, which is one reason we are having this debate and why legislation is needed. The Bill will continue to allow ministers of some faiths to conduct a marriage in the eyes of the law, and yet people of other religions and faith-based systems will not be allowed to do so. The Bill is unequal on four counts. As I have made clear, there is a better way. Any liberal would suggest finally properly separating the civil and the religious rather than building on what we have. I will speak about that more when we debate another group of amendments.
My new clause 13 must be seen in the context of the amendment I have tabled for debate tomorrow—both are part of dealing with the situation properly. The measures are radical. They would repeal—this might not make me popular with anyone—the Marriage Act 1994 and the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 so that we end up with a single definition for all couples. We are not at that point, which I accept, but we cannot institutionalise a new inequality during the passage of a Bill that is supposed to be about equalising marriage. Hon. Members should remember that civil partnerships were introduced to give same-sex couples another form of relationship. In many people’s eyes, it is a lesser form of relationship. We must not institutionalise that. If civil partnerships are worth having, we must allow them to be a different form of legal recognition for all, or do what I suggest in new clause 13 and abolish them altogether. Either way, we would end up with proper equality.
Ministers and shadow Ministers and others have suggested that the Bill is not the measure with which to deal with that inequality. I am afraid that that argument is simply absurd. Some say that we should not introduce that equality because of the cost—the figure of £4 billion has been mentioned. That is entirely to fall into the trap of those who oppose any change to traditional civil marriage. They argue that we should not introduce any measure because of the cost. As a liberal, let me be clear that we change civil rights and introduce genuine equal legal recognition because it is the right thing to do, not because it costs the state money. The argument that we should not do something because it costs the state money is a slippery slope. I should tell the Minister that whoever introduced that argument to the debate made a huge mistake.
My amendment 10 would be the genuine, liberal way of dealing with the situation—properly redefining how the state recognises adult relationships. The amendment would get rid of clearly Christian concepts that come
20 May 2013 : Column 1001
directly from Church of England canon law and are shared by certain other Christian faiths. It would mean that we would not count on the statute book adult couples’ sexual practices with each other. Currently, adultery is a reason to allow some couples but not others to dissolve their civil marriage. Most absurdly of all, lawyers dictate that certain couples and not others must consummate their marriage in a certain way.
It is embarrassing and ludicrous, when we are rightly dealing with the inequities of the current civil partnership regime that does not bestow the same rights, status or recognition on same-sex couples, that the Bill will continue to enshrine ancient Christian concepts in the statute book and apply them to some couples only. If there had been more listening and more acting on that listening, new clause 10, which has been discussed at some length, would not be necessary. It should not be necessary. A clear part of any redefinition of how the state defines and recognises adult relationships should have always been either to keep civil partnerships and make them open to all adult citizens, or wipe them away and have a single, equal definition for all.
For all the sophistry and arguments from those on the Front Benches, in their heart of hearts they know this to be true. That is why I urge everyone in this House who regards themselves in any way as a liberal and who wants to see equal rights and recognition to vote for new clause 10. That is the only way people can have confidence that the real motivation—I believe it is the real motivation, even though it has been expressed badly—is to deal with the inequities currently in the Bill. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to listen, disregard the cost of human rights and, either through changing marriage or changing civil partnerships, ensure that all adults can have their relationships recognised in one equal or two equal ways.
Mr Speaker: Order. Several colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them. The House will appreciate that it is only right that the Minister should have a reasonable opportunity to wind up on her own lead new clause in the group, at approximately 9.50 pm. I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them to help each other.
Caroline Lucas: I will be brief.
I put my name to new clauses 10 and 11 in good faith. Opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is something that I have campaigned on for years, so I am hugely disappointed to see such political games being played.