PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL Ninth Sitting Tuesday 5 March 2013 (Morning) CONTENTS Written evidence reported to the House. CLAUSE 2 agreed to. CLAUSE 3 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Two o’clock. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £6·00 PBC (Bill 126) 2012 - 2013 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office. No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Saturday 9 March 2013 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 315 Public Bill Committee5 MARCH 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 316 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: MR JIM HOOD,†MR GARY STREETER † Andrew, Stuart (Pudsey) (Con) McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab) † McGovern, Alison (Wirral South) (Lab) † Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab) † Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/ † Burrowes, Mr David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con) Co-op) † Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) † Robertson, Hugh (Minister of State, Department for (Lab/Co-op) Culture, Media and Sport) † Ellison, Jane (Battersea) (Con) † Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP) † Gilbert, Stephen (St Austell and Newquay) (LD) † Swayne, Mr Desmond (Lord Commissioner of Her † Grant, Mrs Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary Majesty’s Treasury) of State for Women and Equalities) † Williams, Stephen (Bristol West) (LD) † Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) † Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con) Kate Emms, Alison Groves, Committee Clerks Kwarteng, Kwasi (Spelthorne) (Con) † Loughton, Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) † attended the Committee 317 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 318 Mr Burrowes: Good morning, Mr Streeter. Welcome Public Bill Committee to day three, although I note that the Committee has not yet gained its full attendance of members—they Tuesday 5 March 2013 must be rushing to our exciting deliberations. As I was padding up for Team marriage, the words of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Morning) were again ringing in my ears: “I would never introduce a Bill that encroaches or threatens [MR GARY STREETER in the Chair] religious freedoms.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2012; Vol. 555, c.157.] Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill I therefore hope that the Government will welcome the opportunity to support the intentions behind amendment 26 and new clause 6. The Government’s proposal to insert Written evidence to be reported to the new paragraph 25A into schedule 3 to the Equality Act House 2010 is properly intended to safeguard religious leaders MB 80 Chris Rogers and organisations that do not wish to be involved or associated in any way with same-sex wedding ceremonies. MB 81 TUC That welcome provision has support throughout the MB 82 Dr Clara Greed Committee. MB 83 Peter Scott We want to move the Government away from that MB 84 National Aids Trust particular focus. The Minister is very much playing a MB 85 Geoffrey R. Larcombe straight bat on protecting the area around churches and MB 86 Nigel Whitaker the ceremony, but we want him to play more expansive strokes with his liberty bat and move further into an MB 87 Daniel Moody area that obviously encompasses the whole issue of MB 88 David Shepherd marriages and institutions. It goes beyond the ceremony, MB 89 Michael Hobbis as the means by which a couple enters marriage, into MB 90 Godfrey Harverson the whole area of recognising properly, as we all do, that marriage is a lifelong relationship, as well as the work of MB 91 Family Education Trust agencies that are active in supporting couples both MB 92 Christians for Equal Marriage before and after the marriage ceremony. MB 93 Peter Heywood The purpose behind amendment 26 and new clause 6 MB 94 Society for the Protection of Unborn is to allow the Minister to provide assurances to those Children agencies that are involved in the preparatory work for MB 95 Daniel Hill marriage as well as counselling. They might well have a specific faith base, although they may not. They might MB 96 Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association or might not have a principled objection to providing MB 97 Sam Webster support and guidance to same-sex couples. We want to explore the proposition that if we are willing to grant 8.55 am protection to those who are unable, in good conscience, to be involved in a ceremony, it would be consistent to The Chair: Before we begin, I wish to notify colleagues provide similar protection for those who are unable, in that copies of the amendment paper are on their way. I good conscience, to provide a marriage counselling apologise for the delay, but they will be here any moment. service to same-sex couples either before or after the Clause 2 wedding ceremony. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government’s policy intention through the Bill is to MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS RITES: NO require individuals who offer pre-marital advice and COMPULSION TO SOLEMNIZE ETC. preparation, or marriage counselling and support, to extend their services to same-sex couples, when providing Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I beg such a service would go against their conscience? to move amendment 26, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert— The amendment also applies to those providing marriage “Marriage counselling etc. introduction services, of which there are a number, not 25B (1) A person does not contravene section 29 only because least those with a Christian base. We want to explore the person conducts— whether protection is needed to allow for conscientious (a) a marriage preparation course, objection for those agencies that would want to maintain (b) a marriage counselling or guidance service, or an introductory service only for opposite-sex couples. (c) an agency to help people find a spouse, The source of the amendment comes from an and does not extend those services to marriages of same-sex intervention that was made on Second Reading by my couples.’. right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss (Mr Donaldson), who referred to advice received from new clause 6—Existing charitable trust deeds— the Government Equalities Office that marriage courses ‘A charitable trust deed which includes in its objects, directly run by churches for the community would be affected or indirectly, the promotion of marriage or the provision of by the Bill. In response, the Minister stated that the marriage counselling is not extended by this Act to marriages of Equality Act 2010 contains provisions that protect non- same-sex couples.’. commercial religious organisations from any requirements 319 Public Bill Committee5 MARCH 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 320 to offer marriage courses to same-sex couples on the Members of the Committee will be aware that the same basis that they offer them to opposite-sex couples. Charity Commission, following the enactment of the In view of that particular response, there seems to be Charities Act 2006, is active in considering what constitutes some confusion between what the GEO and the Minister a benefit to the public. Case law is moving forward, and are saying, so the amendment gives him an opportunity the Charity Commission is now adopting a new view of to clear that up. what constitutes public benefit, and that may well change Will the Minister set out the distinguishing characteristics over time. If the commission was to make a declaration, of a non-commercial religious organisation? Are the I would ask the Minister to give us a clear view, even if Government trying to distinguish between not-for-profit this is not in the Bill, of the impact on a marriage and for-profit organisations, between those that operate preparation service. It is important that Parliament’s from church premises and those that do not, and indeed intention is clear, although the Charity Commission is, between religious organisations and those that have no of course, wholly independent. If the commission tried religious basis at all—secular organisations that want to to remove charitable status from an organisation that offer marriage courses to couples? provided marriage preparation only to heterosexual couples, or refused to grant charitable status on the There are four aspects to the amendment. First, I grounds that such an organisation’s services were want the Minister to assure us that the amendment will discriminatory, will the Minister make it clear that that not be necessary because organisations that provide is not what he intends from the Bill? We need to be clear marriage preparations will not have their public funding about whether the Charity Commission, or any other withdrawn if they decide to continue providing classes organisation, would be acting ultra vires if it tried to only to heterosexual couples. The Bill does not provide remove charitable status from such an organisation, or such protection explicitly. It provides protection for refused to grant it. persons involved in religious marriages—or, to quote the clause, “relevant”marriages—but even that protection Amendment 26 also enables us to explore whether a is limited as it appears to apply only to the original charitable organisation would fall foul of section 193 of marriage ceremony, so it does not address the provision the 2010 Act if it decided to continue to provide marriage of services that may be necessary before or after that preparation classes only to heterosexual couples.