PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

DRAFT MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) ACT 2013 (CONSEQUENTIAL AND CONTRARY PROVISIONS AND SCOTLAND) ORDER 2014

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

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

Tuesday 25 February 2014

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 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 1 March 2014

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 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: MR GARY STREETER

† Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) (Lab) † Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab) † Baldwin, Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con) † Loughton, Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) † Benyon, Richard (Newbury) (Con) (Con) † Chapman, Jenny (Darlington) (Lab) † Macleod, Mary (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con) † Grant, Mrs Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of † McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) State for Women and Equalities) † Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP) (North Swindon) † Hodgson, Mrs Sharon (Washington and Sunderland † Tomlinson, Justin (Con) † Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab) West) (Lab) † Wright, David (Telford) (Lab) † Hughes, Simon (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice) Anna Dickson, Committee Clerk † Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con) † Leech, Mr John (Manchester, Withington) (LD) † attended the Committee

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

Leigh, Sir Edward (Gainsborough) (Con) Howarth, Sir Gerald (Aldershot) (Con) 3 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 4

under that section. Failing to make that textual amendment Second Delegated Legislation would have resulted, because of the operation of the Committee gloss in the Act, to which I will turn shortly, in equal treatment for all married people except for a man whose wife had died. That would not have been the right result Tuesday 25 February 2014 because the Government’s policy is that all married people should receive equal benefits, and so the amendment [MR GARY STREETER in the Chair] in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the order ensures that that will be the case. Draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 The Minister is right that there is a lot of technical stuff in the orders. The explanatory notes, which are equally 9.25 am turgid, say it is the Government’s policy that married same sex couples are The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant): I beg to move, “generally treated in the same way” That the Committee has considered the draft Marriage (Same as civil partners. Will the Minister elaborate on some of Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions the ways in which married same sex partners will not be and Scotland) Order 2014. treated in the same way as civil partners currently are? That phrase, which occurs several times, appears slightly The Chair: With this it will be convenient to consider curious to me. the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014 and the draft Mrs Grant: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition intend to come to issues of that nature when I talk of Judgments) Regulations 2014. about the contrary provisions and the nature of the gloss. I assure him that I will come back to that either in Mrs Grant: Good morning, Mr Streeter, it is a pleasure this speech or in my summing up, but he has made a to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to have perfectly good and reasonable intervention. the opportunity to debate these statutory instruments, Schedule 1 also corrects minor omissions made when which, following the successful passage of the Marriage the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was brought into force: (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, will remove the unfairness for example, by inserting a reference to a civil partner that prevents same sex couples from being able to alongside a reference to a spouse in section 6(9) of the marry. The instruments, together with a number of Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. Paragraphs 14 negative instruments also laid before Parliament on and 15 will ensure equal treatment between married 23 January, will make marriage of same sex couples a same sex and opposite sex couples under legislation reality in England and Wales. about parenthood and the legitimacy of children. For Altogether, the Government have laid six affirmative example, currently a child of a woman in a void marriage instruments, along with six negative instruments, to with a man can be treated as legitimate, subject to implement the main provisions of the Act. For the certain requirements about domicile. Paragraph 15 ensures convenience of the Committee, we are proposing to that, in a similar way, where a child is born to a woman consider the six affirmative statutory instruments in who is in a void marriage to another woman, that child two groups of three: first, this morning, what could be is legitimate if the woman is treated as the female parent called a domestic group, and secondly, this afternoon, a of the child by virtue of sections 42 or 43 of the Human military and overseas group. Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The three instruments that we are considering this morning deal with: amendments that need to be made Tim Loughton: Will the Minister elaborate on what to a range of primary and secondary legislation as a she means by “a void marriage”? That term appears a consequence of the Act; new arrangements for the lot and it is not as straightforward as she may think. registration of shared religious premises, and technical rules on the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of matters relating to marriage of same sex couples. Mrs Grant: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will certainly come back to him with the fairly technical, I shall briefly explain each in turn. The Marriage specific details that he wants. A void marriage, as opposed (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary to a voidable marriage, still enables a marriage to come Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 has three main to an end, but the requirements and criteria for a void elements. First, schedule 1 to the order contains marriage are different from those of a voidable marriage. amendments to primary legislation that are consequential I am very happy to set out those specific differences for on the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the Civil him as we progress, but, again, it is a very fair and Partnership Act 2004 and the Human Fertilisation and reasonable intervention. Embryology Act 2008. Those amendments ensure that married same sex couples are treated in law in the same way as married Tim Loughton: Will the Minister give way? opposite sex couples, while avoiding unwanted effects. For example, paragraph 3 substitutes for a reference to Mrs Grant: I want to make a little headway, because a widow in section 2 of the Local Government (Emergency there is a fair amount to get through, but I am very Provisions) Act 1916 a reference to a surviving spouse. happy to come back to my hon. Friend either at the end That will ensure that any spouse can receive benefits of this speech or when I am summing up. 5 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 6

Secondly, schedule 2 to the order ensures that, in Sir Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way? particular cases in existing legislation, married same sex couples are not treated in the same way as married Mrs Grant: I would like to make a little more progress, opposite sex couples. It does this by disapplying or but I will try to come back to my hon. Friends towards modifying the effect of the gloss in section 11(1) and (2) the end or in my summing up. of, and paragraphs 1 to 3 of schedule 3 to the Act. The Schedule 3 of the order makes specific textual gloss states that marriage of same sex couples has the amendments, which are necessary to ensure that, following same effect in law as marriage of opposite sex couples, the provision contrary to the gloss made by schedule 2, and that the law should be interpreted accordingly. the law is clear about how married same sex couples are Schedule 2 makes provision which is contrary to the to be treated. gloss. It ensures that the effect of the gloss does not apply in cases where the Government’s policy is that Finally, article 5 of the order provides for marriages married same sex couples should be treated in the same of same sex couples under the law of England and way as civil partners, rather than as married opposite Wales to be treated as civil partnerships in Scotland. sex couples, and where differences in treatment relating This ensures that same sex couples married under the to gender are to be maintained. This is the case for some law of England and Wales will have legal recognition of pensions matters—for example, some survivor benefits— their relationships in Scotland, pending the extension of and a range of other legislation, such as the defence of marriage to same sex couples under Scottish law. Scottish marital coercion in section 47 of the Criminal Justice Ministers have given their consent to this provision. If, Act 1925, which is available only to a woman married to as expected, marriage of same sex couples becomes a man. This defence is not to be extended to married lawful in Scotland, same sex couples married in England same sex couples because it is a historical gender-specific and Wales will also be recognised as married in Scotland. provision, which will shortly be repealed by the Anti-Social I turn now to the Marriage of Same Sex Couples Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014. These regulations set out the detailed procedures for Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): The Minister talks registering and cancelling the registration of religious about a historical gender-specific provision. Does she buildings which are shared by more than one religious agree that the word “widow” is also a historical gender- organisation for marriages of same sex couples. This specific word? subject was a matter of some debate when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act went through the House. All along, the Government’s approach has been to try to Mrs Grant: We refer to the gloss, and to the disapplication strike a fair balance between the freedom of religious of the gloss. Like “widow”, the words “husband”, “wife”, organisations to opt in to solemnising marriages of “mother” and “father” also remain, but sometimes that same sex couples, and the freedom of others to act in gloss has to be disapplied while still retaining those line with their belief that marriage can be only between words, which we all understand, for the purposes of a man and a woman. fairness and equality. The Ministry of Justice carried out a full public consultation on this issue. The draft regulations reflect Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): So, as far as the outcome as set out in the Government’s response the Government are concerned, traditional terms such to the consultation, published on 23 January. Primarily, as husband, wife and widow are mere gloss? the regulations deal with the processes for the registration and cancelling of the registration of informally shared Mrs Grant: They are not at all and that would never buildings. The process for formally shared buildings—that be the case. What I am saying is that we all know exactly is, those with agreements under the Sharing of Church what we mean by husband, which is a man who is Buildings Act 1969—is largely set out in schedule 1 to married to a wife, we know exactly what we mean by the Act. The regulations will enable marriages of same wife, which is a woman who is married to a husband, sex couples to take place in shared places of worship and we know what we mean by mother and father. All according to religious rites other than those of the those particular words still appear in the legislation, Church of England and the Church in Wales. However, but, of course, we have to make provision for same sex registration will be possible only if all the governing couples, which is exactly what we have done. authorities of the sharing religious organisations have given consent to the building’s being registered to conduct marriages of same sex couples. Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): How does the It is also important to note that if a religious organisation Minister explain the terminology used by a noble Lord gives its consent to the building being used to conduct in the other place who referred to his partner as his marriages of same sex couples by another sharing husband? Does that mean that she agrees that the organisation, this consent will not enable it to solemnise historical terms husband and wife should be extended? marriages of same sex couples. Any sharing organisation wishing to conduct such marriages will need to provide Mrs Grant: No, I think I have been very clear in how I separate explicit consent from their own governing authority. answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member If a sharing organisation does not want same sex couples for Stafford. Terms such as husband, wife, mother and to be married by another religious organisation in the father still appear in law. They will continue to be used shared building, it will be protected through its ability in the English language and we all know exactly what to withhold its consent to the registration of the premises we mean by them. It is a common-sense application to for that purpose. If the building is not registered for the ensure that we can create fairness for same sex couples purpose, no marriages of same sex couples can take in relation to their rights and responsibilities. place within it. 7 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 8

[Mrs Grant] to hon. Members, expressions such as husband, wife, mother and father are all very well understood and will However, the regulations ensure that only a “qualifying continue to be used. sharing church” has the ability to withhold its consent in this way. A qualifying sharing church is defined as a 9.42 am religious organisation, which has a representative who is a trustee of the shared premises, or which has used Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland the premises for public worship lasting at least half an West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your hour in each of the past six months or in nine of the chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to play some small part past 12 months. This is to ensure that an objection to a in helping to implement a historic piece of legislation. building being used for marriages of same sex couples A lot of fine and moving words were said about the cannot be validly raised by a religious organisation Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 when it was which makes only limited use of that building. The before Parliament last year, including by my right hon. criteria for what constitutes a qualifying sharing church Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and were part of the public consultation in preparing the Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the regulations. The Government received useful representations Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and on them and believe that the regulations strike an I do not seek to add unnecessarily to them this morning. appropriate and workable balance. It is rare as a parliamentarian to be able to see The regulations also deal with the process to be through a measure that will have the direct effect of followed where a religious building that is registered for making so many people so happy for so many years, not marriage of same sex couples becomes shared, or where because we have given them just under £4 a week, but a shared religious building ceases to be shared. because we have removed the barriers to their expressing their love for one another in a way that many of us I turn now to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) already take for granted. The Minister will no doubt be (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations pleased that I do not intend to divide the Committee on 2014. These regulations do two things: first, they set out the statutory instruments today although, given that when a court in England and Wales will have jurisdiction there are one or two members of the Committee who in proceedings for divorce, judicial separation and did not support the legislation, I feel that she might also annulment for same sex married couples and, secondly, appreciate an assurance that we will support her if a they set out when a court in England and Wales will Division is called. Colleagues will also no doubt be recognise a judgment of a court of another EU member pleased to hear that I do not intend to detain them for state in respect of such proceedings. These regulations very long in discussing the provisions. I would, however, correspond as closely as possible with the Council EU like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions of regulation, known as Brussels IIa, which deals with the Minister. similar issues in respect of proceedings for divorce, judicial separation and annulment of marriages for EU First, it is a matter of some regret that it has taken member states. Brussels IIa is not currently considered this long for the necessary secondary legislation to to extend to marriages of same sex couples. These come before Parliament, especially given that it is just a regulations are therefore necessary to ensure that the little over five weeks until the first happy couples will be rules for determining jurisdiction of the England and taking their vows. Will the Minister enlighten us as to Wales courts and the recognition of judgments of other why this has been the case and, particularly, what the EU member states’ courts are the same for all marriages. hold-ups have been? The Act also provides for same sex A similar approach was taken to civil partnerships in couples to convert civil partnerships into marriages, as the Civil Partnership (Jurisdiction and Recognition of well as for an opposite sex married couple in which one Judgments) Regulations 2005. of the partners wishes to change gender to remain married—provisions that the most recent update from I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee. the Department that I have seen states will come into force before the end of the year. Although I realise that Sir Edward Leigh: The Minister has rushed through these are complex areas of law, and the Government this, obviously intending that as few people as possible have to be sure that the secondary legislation is thorough, listen to the effects of this absurd bit of nonsense. Can I do think we could reasonably have expected to discuss we now take it that the Government finally accept what all the provisions together; after all, it has been more we have said all along: that we cannot airbrush out of than seven months since the Act was granted Royal history words like widow and husband, and that same Assent, and these matters must have been under sex marriage is not traditional marriage and it is not consideration even as the primary legislation was being equal marriage? drafted. I will therefore be grateful if the Minister can tell us the cause of the delay, when further necessary secondary legislation will be introduced, and when the Mrs Grant: My hon. Friend will not be surprised that provisions will come into force. I completely disagree with what he has said. The Act The glaring omission from the equal treatment of and these statutory instruments are about extending same sex marriage relates to pension rights. A modicum marriage to a group of people who have hitherto been of progress on survivor benefit was made in the House excluded. The Government believe that marriage is a of Lords: section 16 of the Act places a duty on the good thing for society. There is nothing in any of the Secretary of State to arrange for a review of occupational statutory instruments that I have spoken about this pensions, to gauge both the extent of the inequalities morning or in the Act that takes away or changes the in survivor benefits for same sex couples and the cost nature of marriage for opposite sex couples. There is no of remedying that inequality. Subsection (5) requires airbrushing of terminology at all. As I have made clear that that piece of work be completed and published by 9 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 10

1 July this year, giving the Government precisely 18 weeks for all the couples concerned—if only so they know in which to complete their deliberations and publish the where they will stand financially in later life and can report. As the Minister will know, subsection (4) places plan accordingly. a duty on the Secretary of State to run a consultation as The Committee will be aware that a corresponding part of that process. As far as I am aware, no public Bill has recently completed its passage through the consultation has been issued yet by the Department for Scottish Parliament. It would be useful to have an Work and Pensions, which I understand is leading this assurance from the Minister that she has examined that work, and 18 weeks leaves little leeway for one to be Bill and that there are no inconsistencies between the conducted. I therefore have several questions for the two pieces of legislation that would give rise to claims Minister. of more equal treatment on one side of the border or Has the review begun yet? If not, why not? If it has the other, or, if there are inconsistencies, to know in begun, when does the Minister expect it to report? Will which areas. One inconsistency has already been raised: there be a public consultation, and if not, why not? If the continuation of marriages after one party has been there is to be no public consultation, has a behind-closed- granted a gender recognition certificate, and specifically doors consultation been under way? Will we be able to the spousal veto. see who or which organisations are being consulted as The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act part of that and the evidence they have provided to the 2014 includes no spousal veto for trans people who are Government? Can the Minister assure us that the in marriages that were registered in Scotland, regardless Government will not listen simply to the occupational of where in the UK they now live. A trans person who pensions industry, which will clearly have strong and receives an interim gender recognition certificate while shared financial interests in the report saying one thing; still in a marriage that was registered in Scotland can and that if there is to be no public consultation, the apply to the sheriff court to get their interim GRC Government will consult and listen to independent changed into a full GRC though an administrative experts? If the Secretary of State decides that the law on process, without the spouse being able to block it. From survivor benefits should be changed to fit the spirit of the commencement of the Scottish Act, if a trans the Act, will the Minister ensure swift introduction of person living in England or Wales wishes to get married the orders necessary to redress the inequality as soon as and wants to ensure that they cannot later be subjected possible? to a spousal veto when applying for a GRC while in the marriage, they could well be able to circumvent the process by opting to get married in Scotland, but why The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon on earth should they? Will the Minister explain whether Hughes): I can help the hon. Lady with one matter, partners in a couple whose marriage was registered in because two of the orders are the responsibility of the Scotland but who have subsequently lived in England Ministry of Justice, whereas my hon. Friend the Under- will be able to apply to the sheriff court for their interim Secretary of State for Women and Equalities will lead GRC, or will the Government review and revise the law on the others. The hon. Lady asked about the timetable in this entire area so that they do not need to do so? and the delay. One of the reasons is that the Ministry of Justice believed it was right to consult on the shared At present, of the 11 jurisdictions in Europe that have buildings regulations. That short consultation—it lasted same sex marriage, only trans people in existing marriages a month, ending in November—was not compulsory or registered in the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales a requirement, but it is one of the reasons why it has are subject to a spousal veto on their access to gender taken a little longer from the legislation being enacted recognition while married. The other 10 legal jurisdictions, to the statutory instruments coming before the Committee including Scotland, allow gender recognition without today. requiring the consent of the trans person’s spouse. Does the Minister at least accept that that does not show the Government in a good light? Will she therefore continue Mrs Hodgson: That is very helpful. Has that consultation to work to make the changes trans people want? been made public? There is further inconsistency in relation to conversion of foreign civil partnerships. The Marriage (Same Sex Simon Hughes: Yes, the results were published on Couples) Act 2013 makes no provision for civil partnerships 23 January and are in the public domain—both the entered into according to foreign laws to be converted summary of the responses and the Government’s response. into a same sex marriage in England and Wales, but the The bulk of the responses from the main Church Scottish Government have committed to allowing foreign organisations were supportive of the regulations before civil partners to convert their civil partnerships to marriages the Committee today. in Scotland. If the UK Government do not allow conversion, those couples who have a civil union from another country but live in England or Wales will have Mrs Hodgson: I thank the Minister of State for that to get their civil partnership dissolved before being able information. I am sure that he and his hon. Friend the to marry. That could be highly inconvenient for couples, Under-Secretary of State are both aware that the matter who may have to jump through hoops to dissolve their has been in the news in the past week, following the civil union before they can apply to have a legally conclusion of a case before the Employment Appeal recognised marriage. Do the Government intend to Tribunal, which found that it was legal, under European allow foreign civil partners to convert their civil partnerships Law, for employers and pension scheme trustees to or civil unions to marriage in England and Wales in the discriminate against same sex couples. It is clear that future; and if not, why not? Where civil partnerships companies are not going to offer equality in pension and civil unions established in a foreign country are rights voluntarily, so the sooner the Government complete converted to marriage in Scotland, will they be recognised their deliberations and make up their mind, the better as marriages in England and Wales? 11 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 12

[Mrs Hodgson] The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West did a very good job of helping us by illustrating The explanatory notes for both sets of regulations what a minefield of complexity the Government have state that no specific guidance will be published for thrown up. It will be extremely difficult for anyone those who are expected to implement the regulations. charged with responsibility for implementation in Was that position reached after consultation with the officialdom to fathom, such is the unintelligibility of relevant organisations and agencies, and have the and mumbo-jumbo in not only the legislation but the Government received assurances that they fully understand explanatory notes. I am not sure how much consultation the regulations; or was that position arrived at in isolation has taken place, but from speaking to my padre at the by the Under-Secretary of State’s officials? The explanatory Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, where I am a notes on the consequential and contrary provisions and churchwarden, I know that he has not been consulted. Scotland order state that the General Register Office This is an example of the theatre of the absurd. It is a has issued guidance to registration service staff. Will the sad day for our country. If the Minister believes that she Under-Secretary say whether her officials have any input has not abolished the traditional titles of husband and to that guidance, or are at least happy that it is wife, widow and widower, she has none the less done a comprehensive and accurate? good job of devaluing them, for the legislation is littered The explanatory notes also mention that the Equality with references to the removal and replacement of such and Human Rights Commission will produce more terms. Widow is to be replaced by a phrase such as “that overarching guidance on the Act itself. Will the Minister person’s surviving spouse”—I suppose the company tell us when that guidance will be published; at whom it Scottish Widows will have to change its name to “Scottish will be aimed; what input her Department will have into Persons’ Surviving Spouses”—husband is to replaced its drafting and verification; and whether, particularly with “male spouse” and widow’s pension with a phrase given the EHRC’s severely reduced resources in recent that trips off the tongue: years, the guidance will be distributed or simply published “pension payable to a woman in respect of the services of her online? I am sure the Minister appreciates that it is all deceased male spouse.” very well and good publishing guidance, but that to You could not make up this absurdity, Mr Streeter. It ensure that it is adhered to may in many cases require is absolutely ridiculous. It defies both common sense formal training. Has her Department commissioned, or and centuries of tradition in our country. I suppose the does it intend to commission or produce itself, any new next replacement will be “The Merry Spouses of training material for people in positions where they are Windsor”—one can think of a raft of examples. Some required to implement the provisions of these statutory hon. Members who support this absurd legislation may instruments or the Act more widely? well be of the view that this is all fanciful and extreme My final questions to the Minister are as follows: and will not happen, but there is an agenda out there does she know yet who will be the first happy couple to and we could well find that it does. benefit from the legislation— Jeremy Lefroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that there Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con): Perhaps I seems to be some inconsistency? While the delegated might mention Andrew Wale and Neil Allard, who, at legislation messes around with some traditional words one minute past midnight on 29 March, will become the with widely accepted meanings, others are not to be first same sex couple to be married in the beautiful messed around with because, as page 8 of the explanatory music room in Brighton pavilion. notes states: “In some cases the gloss which applies to all England and Wales legislation would create inappropriate results.” Tim Loughton: Declare an interest: you’re going, aren’t you? Does my hon. Friend agree that that goes fundamentally against the principle of equality, which is supposed to be behind all this legislation? Simon Kirby: I am. Sir Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Mrs Hodgson: Indeed, that may be the answer to my Stafford—I had the privilege of representing a constituency question. If the Minister knows of a couple who are south of his wonderful constituency for nine years—speaks getting married sooner than that, perhaps she will tell utterly good sense. The raft of measures before us us and say whether she is invited. It is fantastic news illustrates that the Government’s central thesis—that that the hon. Gentleman is going to that wedding; I this is equal marriage—is absolutely destroyed. I regret hope he takes some pictures and shares them with us. that the Secretary of State persists in writing to me On that note, I will end my remarks. I look forward to letters headed “Equal Marriage”. Whether that has the Minister’s response. been put in by a civil servant and she has not noticed, I do not know, but if there was any doubt before, it has now been proved beyond all doubt that this is a divisive 9.56 am measure and not one that will implement equal marriage. Sir Gerald Howarth: Mr Streeter, I am not a member My hon. Friend quoted paragraph 7.20 of the of this Committee, but I am entitled to speak, so let me explanatory memorandum to the draft order. The next say at the outset that if I do not vote on this delegated paragraph states: legislation, it is not because I am content with it. I am “Part 1 of Schedule 2 ensures that the Act does not change completely opposed to it, as I was to the original Bill, common law relating to the acquisition of titles of royalty or and I intend to make my views known on behalf of nobility by marriage. In particular, a person married to a reigning millions of people who feel that it is a measure too far. King has the right to be called “the Queen”, and a person married 13 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 14 to the Prince of Wales has the right to the title “Princess of 1285 and the Statute of Westminster the Second—one Wales”. This Part of the Schedule ensures that these rights, and of two Statutes of Westminster that year. Specifically, similar rights of women married to peers, are not extended to the Estates Tail Act 1285 stated that the same sex couples or to the husbands of female peers. The Government does not think it would be appropriate to extend these ancient “Donors Will shall be observed”, gender-specific rights in this way.” which is chapter 1 of that Statute of Westminster the The good news that a man cannot be a queen will be Second, and that is to be retained. warmly welcomed in most parts of the kingdom. The We heard about the complexity from the hon. Member decision to exempt the aristocracy is an excellent one for Washington and Sunderland West. For example, and will, no doubt, be warmly greeted in Chipping paragraph 35 of schedule 1 to the draft Marriage (Same Norton, but mister and missus apparently have no Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary ancient gender-specific rights; those are the preserve of Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014—I will not read it the aristocracy. That wholly undermines my hon. Friend all out—is utterly unintelligible. It amends the Equality the Minister’s absurd belief that the legislation establishes Act 2010, which is a recent Act of Parliament, to state: equal marriage; it does not—not when raft after raft of “If the effect of a relevant matter on a person (A) differs provision to exempt is made. according to the effect it has on a person of the same sex as A, according to whether A is married, in a civil partnership, or for Jeremy Lefroy: My hon. Friend makes an important some other reason due to A’s family status, a comparison for the point about the lack of equality in some parts of the purposes of this section of the effect of that matter on persons of the opposite sex must be with a person of the opposite sex to A legislation. Does he wonder whether the Government who is in the same position as A and in particular…(a) where A is have consulted all parts of Her Majesty’s dominions, married to someone of the opposite sex, A is to be compared to a where she is Head of State, to learn their views, and person of the opposite sex to A (“B”) where B is married to whether all of them have responded? Surely the provisions someone of the opposite sex to B”. apply not only to England and Wales, but to all territories I will not go on, but it is utterly ludicrous. We are where Her Majesty is Head of State? supposed to be legislating for the country. What are the people of Britain supposed to expect from this nonsense— Sir Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an interesting this unintelligible rubbish—that my hon. Friend the point. It has been suggested to those of us who oppose Minister has the discourtesy to bring to Parliament this legislation that the Government will see it through today? and that that will be the end of it. I do not think that I have to tell my hon. Friend that this is an affront to that will be the end of it in terms of the next general millions of people. There have been 60,454 civil partnerships. election; I think the legislation has deeply offended a We are legislating for a tiny minority. We are overturning large number of people, particularly Conservatives. I centuries of tradition and messing about with the English now hear that the Government are intent on lecturing language in a manner that most people will feel simply other countries about how they should apply this sort does not live up to what the Minister said about applying of legislation. I hope that the Minister will be able to common sense. I remind her that 12.2 million married assure the Committee, the House and the country that couples live in this country, so this convoluted, unintelligible, the Government have no intention of interfering in absurd legislation is being brought before Parliament other countries’ affairs by telling them to translate this and put on to the statute book in the interests of a very unintelligible and complex legislative gobbledegook into small minority, for the overwhelming majority of whom their statute. civil partnerships provided the appropriate solution to My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is absolutely their situation. I very much regret that I will not have right: 36 laws are to be amended by the draft order, but the opportunity of dividing the Committee today. how do we know that it is comprehensive? We know that there are provisions to remedy some of the omissions relating to civil partnerships, but is the Minister satisfied 10.8 am that all the boxes have been ticked? Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): It is a pleasure to follow the comments of everyone here. Obviously I have Simon Hughes: I can help on two matters for which I an opinion, which I stated during the proceedings of the have specific responsibility. First, there is no implication Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee. that legislation for England and Wales requires or suggests Members who served on that Committee, or are considering legislation in other Commonwealth countries, or countries such legislation for the first time, may have very different where the Queen is Head of State. Secondly, although opinions to those that I hold, but I have to come to this the Government have a policy, which they are proud of, Committee to express my views. I want to speak on of seeking to persuade other countries to treat gay and behalf of those to whom the hon. Member for Aldershot lesbian people equally, they have no policy of seeking to referred: the millions of people in the United Kingdom persuade other countries to legislate in the way that we who opposed this change and continue to do so. It is have. not that we are disrespecting anyone; it is that we have heartfelt opinions, based on not only our own lives and Sir Gerald Howarth: As my right hon. Friend knows, beliefs, but the Churches and our religious conviction. being a good Christian, one is grateful for small mercies, Those are the facts of life in relation to where we stand. so I thank him for that intervention, which I hope will The Coalition for Marriage predicted throughout the be widely noted. process there would be yet further mangling of language To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the and the rewriting of centuries-old laws in pursuit of a Member for Stafford, no fewer than 67 Acts have been short-term political project. If there is still an annual exempted from this legislation, and that goes back to award for gobbledegook, this legislation would probably 15 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 16

[Jim Shannon] knows that I have the greatest respect for her, but I feel that we have legislative wording and terminology that qualify to be in its higher echelons. Words such as are completely wrong. There are two types of marriage— “widow”are being airbrushed out of the law and replaced one for same-sex couples and one for opposite-sex with such phrases as couples. That emerged during the passage of the 2013 “woman whose deceased spouse was a man”. Act, when it became clear that the laws of adultery and consummation would apply only to heterosexual The way in which words are being changed and conditioned relationships. to fit in with the legislative proposal is ludicrous, to say the least. Many of the people whom I represent feel Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the order ensures that a particularly hurt by the changes coming through, and man cannot be a queen, and that only a woman can be we cannot ignore those people’s heartfelt opinions. Princess of Wales, but section 11 of the 2013 Act asserts that marriage and same-sex marriage are deemed to be The legislation declares that a man cannot become a exactly the same. However, that does not apply to the queen, the Princess of Wales or a duchess. The necessity rights of anyone to legislate against such absurdities, which run contrary to the mechanical concept of equality enforced through “who marries, or is married to, the King”. most of the 2013 Act, serves as a reminder that same-sex The paragraph also makes clear that while a future marriage is a legal fiction. Schedule 1 to the draft Prince of Wales may marry a man, his husband could Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential not be called the Princess of Wales. Again, that might and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 be absurd, but this is how the terminology can open the makes consequential amendments to 36 Acts dating doors to legislative change and condition things for the back to 1869. Paragraphs 1 to 3, 6, 9 and 13 of schedule 3 future. A Government spokesperson has confirmed that to the order abolish the word “widow” and replace it the exemptions apply to the Treason Act 1351, which with phrases such as “that person’s surviving spouse”. makes it high treason to “violate the King’s companion”— Paragraph 36 of schedule 1 abolishes the term “husband to have an adulterous affair with the husband or wife of and wife” and substitutes it with “married”. Schedule 2 the monarch. Apparently it would still be considered makes exclusions from the effects of the Marriage (Same high treason to commit adultery with a king’s wife, but Sex Couples) Act for a further 67 pieces of legislation, not his husband. Presumably those provisions were dating back some 729 years. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 introduced to avoid a future constitutional crisis, but replaces the word “husband” with “male spouse”. that is another example of the absurdity of the measures Paragraphs 2 and 3 replace “widow’s pension” with we are considering. This broth that the Government have put forward is not potable for me. Many people “pension payable to a woman in respect of the services of her deceased male spouse” will not be happy to agree to it including, I hope, members of the Committee. and delete the word “wife” in favour of “spouse”. Paragraphs 4 and 6 delete the word “widow” and replace Schedule 2 also tries to stop same-sex marriage from it with impacting on hereditary dukedoms and earldoms. For example, a man cannot be a duchess or a countess, and “woman whose deceased spouse was a man”, a man who marries a peer cannot call himself a lady. and the word “widower” is replaced with an equally The explanatory memorandum states: cumbersome opposite. Page 4 of the explanatory “This Part of the Schedule ensures that these rights, and memorandum says: similar rights of women married to peers, are not extended to “For example, a reference to a ‘widow’ in existing legislation same sex couples or to the husbands of female peers. The Government now extends to a woman who was married to a man but also a does not think it would be appropriate to extend these ancient woman who was married to a woman and a man who was gender-specific rights in this way.” married to a man, but not a man who was married to a woman.” The explanatory memorandum also states that the My goodness me, Mr Streeter; I am not sure that I order have the ability to follow all those words, and the same “makes provision modifying and disapplying the effect of the will be true for many people out there. Will that wonderful provision contained in section 11(1) and (2) of, and paragraphs 1 TV advert for Scottish Widows have to be rewritten so to 3 of Schedule 3 to, the Act (‘the gloss’),”. that it repeats those two or three lines of gobbledegook— Hon. Members have referred to paragraph 7.20 of the “Scottish woman who was married to a man, and also a memorandum regarding schedule 2 provision contrary woman who was married to a woman and a man who to the gloss. The first sentence of the paragraph is the was married to a man, but not a man who was married important one: to a woman”? Saying that would take up most of the “In some cases the gloss which applies to all England and advertisement’s time on TV,never mind anything else—it Wales legislation would create inappropriate results.” is ridiculous. That might be absurd as an example—if it The legislation is very grey; it is not black and white in is, I apologise—but it illustrates clearly the concerns its decision making. It will certainly create questions in that many of us have. the future. Julian Lipson, head of the family law practice I turn to legislating for absurdity. Part 3 of schedule 2 at Withers LLP observed: to the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 “The route the Government has chosen seems to be to admit (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) that the equalness of same-sex marriage has its limits...They Order 2014 makes sweeping changes to legislation dating presumably don’t want to end up with the situation of, for back to 1285 to try to make it compatible with same-sex example, there being two duchesses or a man with the title of marriage. Some of the changes are clearly ridiculous duchess.” consequences of redefining marriage. Same-sex marriage That might, again, be facetious, but it illustrates the might be law, but it contradicts reality and so, at certain problem with the legislation, which the Committee will points, the law is wording to reflect reality. The Minister decide in a few moments to support or not. 17 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 18

A few of us took a very strong stand when the 2013 Parliament of my party, and uniquely, the majority of Act was considered in Committee, and I am equally the Government Members of Parliament, voting for it. committed to opposing this aspect of same-sex marriage Nevertheless, it became law. legislation. We repeatedly stated that the Government’s It is therefore all the more important that the regulations plans were ill thought-out and complicated, and they and guidance that flow from the Act are scrutinised and would have a damaging effect on those who, like me, are clear and understandable to the people who will support traditional marriage. Those warnings were benefit from the legislation or be responsible for enacting dismissed, yet just a few months later, Ministers are it. Yet, as my hon. Friends the Members for Strangford engaged in an unprecedented and systematic drive to and for Aldershot and others said, the regulations are airbrush out of law words such as “husband”, “wife” far from clear. The hon. Member for Washington and and “widow” to make the legislation work. Sunderland West made some good points about the The Government are clearly in a complete mess—I lack of guidance available, and the short time between say that respectfully—that could have been prevented the scrutiny and introduction of the regulations and the had they engaged in an open and meaningful debate first same sex marriage taking place, which may be held instead of ramming their proposal through Parliament. at the pavilion in Brighton—my hon. Friend the Member The changes cover legislation going back nearly 800 years for Brighton, Kemptown did not quite declare an interest that affects inheritance, taxation, social security and by saying that he will be a guest and give a wedding children. Surely Government should have tried to get present to the first beneficiaries of the new status. We that right before approving the Bill. have had very little time. It was all the more important, given the haste with Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about which the Bill passed through this place and the controversy the legislation in general, as he is entitled to do, but just over the consultation, which left a lot to be desired, that for the record—for those who read our proceedings and the fine details were properly sorted out and presented know of his esteemed record—may I confirm that marriage to us today in a way in which we could understand so in Northern Ireland, as he knows, is a matter for the that we could debate them properly. However, as I have Northern Ireland Assembly? No change made in England already pointed out, the explanatory notes are very and Wales changes the fact that someone from England difficult indeed to follow. and Wales who is a civil partner or is in a same-sex I intervened on the Minister twice, and I desisted marriage will be recognised as a civil partner in Northern from doing so further because she wanted to make Ireland. There is no change in status or a creation of progress and she promised to come back to my specific same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. points about when “generally” the Government will not treat same sex marriage in the same way as a civil Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his contribution. partnership. However, she did not address that point. I We tabled an amendment to the Bill to give the Northern also asked her to define a void marriage. She promised Ireland Assembly the authority to make the decision on to do so later in her speech, but again she failed to do same-sex marriage. As a Member of the House of that and was disinclined to take my intervention at the Commons who is here to legislate on behalf of all the end to clarify that point. She confused the Committee United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, further by referring not only to a void marriage, but to a I will make my comments on behalf of the people who voidable marriage, and then—I think—erroneously to put me here to do that, and I am happy to do so. an avoidable marriage, which is something completely and utterly different. That needs to be clarified. I ask This legislation is yet another attack on those who her in her summary to come back to some of the oppose the redefinition of marriage and believe that questions she was asked earlier. equality is not about destroying institutions that have helped to bind us together for centuries for the sake of There is a serious question mark about the consultation political correctness. I am sure that some hon. Members exercise that was carried out from when the Bill was will wish to divide the Committee, but if they do not, enacted to today. In the explanatory memorandum to I will. the Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014, paragraph 8.2 on the consultation outcome states: 10.20 am “A total of 99 responses to the consultation were received.” Tim Loughton: It was my intention not to give a speech today, but to ask a series of questions. However, That does not sound like an awful lot. It goes on to say: the longer the Committee has gone on, the more confused “Many respondents indicated opposition to the underlying I have become, so I want to ask some questions. principles of the 2013 Act. As a result a large number of respondents rejected any policy which sought to make regulations allowing I have a sense of déjà vu because I contributed at shared places of worship to be registered”. least my three pennies’ worth in the Bill Committee. You nobly chaired that long Committee, Mr Streeter, so Those views were all dismissed. It goes on to say: you will recall how difficult it was to intervene on the “Those respondents that did comment on the regulations can Ministers for clarification. I am not trying to oppose be divided into two broad categories”. the legislation that has already been passed. The Act is I get the distinct impression that perhaps a handful of law; that is a matter of fact, and it would be inappropriate people’s responses to the consultation were taken into for the Committee to rake over the original arguments. account, because they did not reject the legislation. However, much of the detail was missed out during [Interruption.] I see that one Minister is eager to leap to those Committee proceedings, not least because the Bill his feet. In explaining how the regulations were devised, was pushed through Parliament with unseemly haste. It it would be useful to know how many people responded was enacted without the majority of Members of to the consultation and how many of those responses 19 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 20

[Tim Loughton] Committee, I think the Ministers owe us a full explanation orally and in more detail in a subsequent letter on the were rejected out of hand because they were against the points that I and other hon. Members have made. legislation and did not technically apply themselves to Paragraph 7.11 of the explanatory notes covers section 28 the wording of the proposed regulations. The Minister of the Marriage Act 1949, which deals with parental seems to want to answer. consent, and makes clear that “parental consent is not required under that Act where a child Simon Hughes: The answer is that, of the 99 responses, gives notice of marriage, having previously been in a civil partnership 54 were from individual members of the public, 24 were which ended with the death of their partner, just as such consent from religious groups, three were from what are called would not be required for a widow or widower.” “stakeholders”, 16 were from individuals with experience I am confused about what that means. We are talking of sharing religious buildings, and two did not specify about persons under the age of 18. I am confused about their interest. The division was between those whose when parental consent is required. I thought that parental comments were about the principle of the legislation consent was still required between the ages of 16, at that has been enacted, as the hon. Gentleman said, and which it is legal to get married in this country with those who commented on the specific proposals on parental consent, and 18, when that child becomes an shared use. Of those who commented on the proposals adult. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation in the regulations, the majority, and all the Churches, regarding parental consent and how the regulations will were in favour of the regulations as a way of implementing change it. I do not recall any reference to that, and it is the shared-use provisions. an important issue, not least when it comes to safeguards for vulnerable children and young people. Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister, but that The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland answer tells me absolutely nothing other than the “who” West quite rightly touched on the whole problem of pension about the people who responded. It does not tell me rights. We were promised more information on that part how many people, who qualified because they commented of the consultation, and I am not aware that we have on what they were supposed to comment on—the had any.I do not recall being given any further information regulations—rather than making generalist comments since the end of the Bill Committee. Paragraph 7.18 of on the legislation, were regarded in the consultation. the explanatory notes states: The point is that because this consultation was handled as badly as the consultation on the legislation itself, “This amendment provides that a person who is married to very few people have had the opportunity to make the someone of the same sex, or is in a civil partnership, should be compared for the purposes of an equal pay claim to a person of serious comment on the regulations that is permitted the opposite sex who is also either married to someone of the under the Government’s consultation terms. same sex or who is in a civil partnership.” There were 99 responses on the registration of shared Setting aside the new forms of marriage that the legislation buildings regulations. Were there more or fewer for the introduced, what implications does that have for equal other regulations this morning and those later today? pay between men and women? That is significant for That is missing information to which there was no employers. If I cannot answer such questions, and if the reference in the Minister’s opening speech, which gives Minister singularly avoids even referencing those issues rise to further scepticism from those concerned that the in her explanation of why we should introduce the legislation will be steamrollered through without proper regulations, employers have little chance of understanding regard to all the people who need to be taken along whether the legislation has implications for them. We with it. need far more explanation of what that actually means. The Minister did not mention the situation of Simon Hughes rose— transgender people in her opening comments. Whether or not we agree with the legislation, we must make it fit Tim Loughton: If the Minister of State will forgive for purpose. We must ensure that it works, that it is me—the Under-Secretary did not take many interventions understood and that people of whatever sexual orientation —I have a series of questions and I want to give enough or background are treated fairly and equally. During time for him or his colleague to respond. consideration of the Bill, many Members raised the I mentioned consultation. The explanatory notes to situation of transgender people, and a lot of questions the lead regulation on the consequential and contrary remain. provisions mention widows. I am now completely confused The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned that the about the term “widow”. A lot of paragraphs refer to one class of society that appears to have been given a the transfer of a hackney carriage licence on the death special dispensation to be exempted from the legislation of a licence holder. I may have missed something, is the aristocracy. I offer a “What if?” scenario that because the Under-Secretary rather whizzed through might help the Minister to explain how the situation her speech at a rate of knots, but I do not think there would work. If a transgender person married a male was any reference to that in her remarks. I have many duke, what would the transgender person be titled, or cab drivers in my constituency, not least the leader of how should they be referred to? What if a transgender my local council, so I would like to know the mechanics person married a duke who is also a transgender person? of that, exactly what it means and how it might affect How would the transgender duke and the transgender people now. Will a Minister elaborate? We graciously duke’s legally recognised transgender married partner did not suggest that we should all be here for four and a be referred to? That may sound like a facetious question, half hours, which debating the three regulations separately but why should the aristocracy be exempted when our would have allowed us to be, so in the time left to the constituents apparently are not? When we are unpicking 21 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 22 statute that goes back to 1285, of which 67 Acts have those who come under the legislation and I am disappointed for some reason been exempted, I think we are entitled that the Government have not sorted that out before it to ask such questions. comes into effect. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland All the points that I wished to make have already West asked the perfectly valid question of why we are been made by my colleagues, so I shall not go on except treating transgender people in a different—and unfair—way to say that this legislation should have come much from the 10 other nations of Europe that have recognised earlier, with much more of a breathing space between homosexual marriage and do not allow a spousal veto now and when the Act comes into force. I am disappointed before a transgender union can go ahead. I have not at the way in which this has been brought about and at heard an explanation as to why we should treat transgender the lack of consultation, and that is why I shall not people in this country differently from those in those support the measures. other European nations. It is not a question of our telling other nations how to behave but of why we are out synch with them on this issue as well. 10.38 am I had intended to talk about the Treason Act and Sir Edward Leigh: I am not a member of the Committee, what we might fall foul of if we were to have an affair so I cannot vote against the order, but I can make a few with someone in the sovereign’s family, but there is a lot points. We have had a very full debate and I do not want of confusion about the regulations. The explanatory to repeat all the points that have already been made. notes are supposed to make things clearer to aid us in Like me, Mr Streeter, you are on the Chairmen’s Panel seeing how we should vote on the regulations but they and you chair many of these bits of delegated legislation. do little to add clarity. The Minister owes us a far better Normally, they deal with unbelievably boring things explanation of what we are doing here today. like leasehold reform and the Minister delivers the explanation, which nobody understands, in a monotonous Several hon. Members rose— drone. But this is something much more important. It is much more important than the bit of merriment we have had today. It is easy to view this debate as something The Chair: Order. I want to see the Minister on out of a sketch by Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail, her feet by 10.45 to give her a good 10 minutes. Two because there is much in this that is completely absurd. colleagues have caught my eye, so they have five minutes I will not repeat the points already made, except to each. say that it is ridiculous, fatuous and absurd that a Conservative Government, when there are so many 10.35 am problems besetting our nation and so many people Jeremy Lefroy: It is a pleasure to serve under your struggling with debt and many other issues, are having chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I will not take up my allocated to bring in legislation to set out that a man cannot five minutes because I know the Minister will have become Queen or that the Princess of Wales must be a much wisdom to impart to us. As my hon. Friend the woman or that the Treason Act applies only to a king Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, this is with a wife. It is completely ridiculous, but there is not a debate about the merits of the legislation, which something much more serious about this that goes far has been enacted and is going through. We wish everybody beyond the merriment we have had. who gets married under the Act happiness in the future. We were constantly assured by the Government during However, I share his concerns about the lack of clarity the passage of the legislation that nothing that they in the regulations and the pick-and-mix attitude to proposed would affect traditional marriage. What we tradition. have here is something sinister. It is a mangling of the As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said, language. We are now seeing the truth come out. We on the one hand, we are to be obliged to use the word already know that, by common sense, in reality, same “widow” for a woman who was married to a man, for a sex marriage cannot be the same as traditional marriage. woman who was married to a woman or for a man who That is why the laws of consummation and adultery do was married to a man but not for a man who was not apply and why we have all these ridiculous proposals married to a woman. That is nonsense––something concerning the royal family and the aristocracy. We from Alice in Wonderland. On the other hand, with know that, but there is something much more sinister descriptions of the spouses of the aristocracy or royalty, happening here. It is in these sorts of phrases: apparently, we are expected to conform to tradition. I simply do not “widow” is now to be abolished as far as the law of this understand. If we are talking about equality, about land is concerned. She is simply to become a woman something that is supposed to put people on an equal whose deceased husband was a man. Widow’s pension footing, why this discrimination, this lack of equality, is to be abolished and we are to talk about pension this mixed attitude that takes some things because they payable in respect of services of a deceased male spouse. are perhaps more acceptable or less noticeable than We are redefining traditional marriage. Very few people others? For that reason, I find the measures before us know about this delegated legislation and there are not slightly disrespectful to this House. many Members present, but we are talking about something As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing very important indeed. I predict that, increasingly, local and Shoreham said, I cannot understand why the councils and registrar’s offices will start deliberately Government have concentrated so much on what I avoiding the traditional phrases that make up the reality consider as going against tradition in these matters of traditional marriage, like “husband”, “wife”, “widower” while at the same time not addressing pension rights, and “widow”. Why? This is political correctness gone which will be more important to many people. Those mad. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said are vital and will have a real effect on the daily lives of that there are 12 million traditional marriages in this 23 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 24

[Sir Edward Leigh] start that civil partnership conversions would always come later, because of the details and the need to get country. I am not going to go over all this, but the practices and procedures spot-on. Notwithstanding that, number of people who want a gay marriage is infinitesimal. we are optimistic that that will happen by the end of As far all the rest of us are concerned––millions upon this year, but again, we have to get this right. We were millions of people––their marriages are being redefined. clear from the start that gender recognition would come The Government cannot deny it. later. We have to be careful, and the gender recognition changes require the marriage arrangements and the Simon Kirby: May I put on record that, even if only conversion arrangements to be in place. We have to be one couple got married, I still think that this is good careful and sensitive in our work, so as not to “out” legislation and we should support it? trans couples unnecessarily if that is not what they want. However, we are confident that we can bring Sir Edward Leigh: One cannot redefine the rights and those changes forward by the end of this year, which understanding of many millions of people to suit a tiny will be an achievement. minority. What will be the proportion of gay marriages? The hon. Lady also rightly asked why overseas civil Will it be 0.5% or 0.25%? It is tiny. But now the unions cannot be converted into marriages in England Government have finally admitted––today, this morning–– and Wales, as Scotland is now considering. There would that our traditional understanding of marriage is to be be potential difficulties in converting one relationship changed. Why can I not be called a widower if my wife into another in a jurisdiction that lacks the power to dies? Why cannot my wife be referred to as a widow in end the original relationship. That could leave people in the legislation? What are a Conservative Government two legal relationships with different rights and doing this morning? Do the Government realise that responsibilities attached to them in different jurisdictions, this is why millions of Conservative voters are disillusioned? and two relationships to sort out should an issue arise They do not view this Government as a Conservative between them. As the shadow Minister knows, marriage Government. This is deeply serious. and civil partnerships are devolved matters, so the approach taken in Scotland is a matter for them, and I will look Sir Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that there is carefully at their consultation. absolutely no mandate from the people for this fast and significant change? The hon. Lady also rightly asked what we were doing about publishing guidance and continuing training for Sir Edward Leigh: There is no mandate at all. It was those who implement and administer the law. I hope she rushed through Parliament. We could have had a careful will be reassured to hear that the General Register debate and considered these matters in time. No doubt Office has provided guidance and training for registrars. some future Labour Government might have proposed Guidance for authorised persons is also available and it. But no, we were told that this had to happen. There operational guidance is being provided to staff dealing was nothing in the manifesto, and now all the traditional with pensions and benefits. phrases that go back centuries in 67 pieces of legislation The hon. Lady pointed out that the Scottish Parliament are going. This is not to be viewed as a laughing matter, has removed the spousal veto, and asked why we do not a bit of fun about the Princess of Wales having to be a do the same. As I have said, gender recognition is a woman. This is much more serious and the Minister devolved matter and accordingly, the Scottish Parliament must deal with it carefully and slowly, and reply to our has determined the way it wishes to proceed. That issue deeply felt points. was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. We of course recognise the 10.45 am concerns expressed by some members of the trans Mrs Grant: I am conscious that I have very little time community in the various debates on the Act. Let me but I shall do my best to give full and comprehensive make it clear that I do not believe there is any such thing answers to the many contributions to today’s debate. as a spousal veto. There can be delays, but if an application The debate has been vigorous and stimulating and I is made for gender recognition, an interim gender am grateful to all who have contributed. I will start by recognition certificate will be issued, which will be addressing some of the many issues raised by the hon. sufficient to allow the partner wanting to end the Member for Washington and Sunderland West. She relationship to petition for nullity or for divorce. Ultimately, asked about the delay to the secondary legislation. The it will be for a court to make the application dissolving Act received Royal Assent in July 2013. There are the union, at which point a full gender recognition complex provisions and 12 statutory instruments, plus certificate will be issued. commencement orders, dealing with issues across many My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Government Departments. Shoreham made a number of important interventions, We have worked extremely hard to get to this stage and I will do my best to deal with them in the time and are pleased and proud that same sex couples will be remaining. He wanted me to provide some examples of able to get married on 29 March. We believe that that is same sex married couples who will not be treated like an achievement. I know that the hon. Lady is a reasonable civil partners. There are some minor differences in the woman, and it is worth noting that the Civil Partnership way the legal relationship is formed. Marriage is by Act 2004 took a year to come into force. These things statutory declaration and contracting words, as opposed have to be done properly and carefully. to a civil partnership, which is by signing civil partnership The hon. Lady also referred to delays in the civil documentation. Also, a marriage can be ended by a partnership conversions and the gender recognition changes divorce, whereas a civil partnership can be ended by that we have brought in. We have been clear from the dissolution. 25 Second Delegated25 FEBRUARY 2014 Legislation Committee 26

My hon. Friend also asked me what a void marriage Jeremy Lefroy: On a point of order, Mr Streeter. I is. I am afraid that I did not then have the legal dictionary would like to ask your advice. The Minister has just said definition to hand, but I can now clarify that it is a that the definition of “widow” is not being changed, yet marriage which is not lawfully formed and does not paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory states that meet the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949— for “a reference to a ‘widow’ … now extends to a woman who was example, by not meeting the age requirement or the married to a man but also a woman who was married to a woman prohibited degrees of relationship, or by not meeting and a man who was married to a man”. the required formalities for the formation of the marriage. I do not believe that that is the traditional definition of I am sorry if my reference to “voidable marriages” “widow”—referring to a man. I would like your guidance confused the Committee or my hon. Friend. I merely on that. mentioned them to distinguish them from void marriages, as some people sometimes confuse the two. The Chair: The hon. Gentleman has successfully put his point on the record. Perhaps the Minister would be My hon. Friend also raised the issue of parental inclined to write to the Committee on this, to put our consent. For all couples, the minimum age for marriage minds at rest. is 16. For persons under 18, parental consent is required unless the person under 18 has already been married Mrs Grant: I am happy to do that. and widowed. This provision simply ensures that the same situation applies to a person who has been in a civil partnership and whose civil partner has died. It is The Chair: Thank you, Minister. merely a matter of fairness. He also asked about the We will now vote individually on each of the three hackney licence provision and its meaning. It ensures orders before us. Obviously, only members of the equal treatment of, say, an opposite-sex married or civil Committee can vote. I counsel those who are looking to partner couple in relation to the transfer of a taxi cab divide the Committee that they may not want to do so licence to a spouse or civil partner on the death of the on each of these orders, but that is entirely a matter for holder. It results in equal treatment where such a transfer them. is allowed, which we think is the right approach. Question put. There were questions about the comprehensive nature The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 3. of the consultation for shared buildings. My right hon. Division No. 1] Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark provided some specific details, and he has assured me AYES that he is happy to provide as much information as Abrahams, Debbie Leech, Mr John possible, subject of course to confidentiality. My hon. Baldwin, Harriett Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Friend the Member for Stafford spoke about the meaning Benyon, Richard Macleod, Mary of “widow”. Under schedule 3 to the Marriage (Same Chapman, Jenny McDonagh, Siobhain Sex Couples) Act, “widow” will mean a woman whose Grant, Mrs Helen spouse, whether male or female, has died; “husband” Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Tomlinson, Justin will mean a married man; and “wife” will mean a Hughes, rh Simon Wilson, Phil married woman. In other words, those terms will mean Kirby, Simon Wright, David just the same as they mean now. NOES The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about inconsistencies between the Scottish Lefroy, Jeremy Shannon, Jim Loughton, Tim Act and our legislation, and whether difficulties will arise. We are working as hard as we can to make sure that no inconsistencies occur. My hon. Friend the Member Question accordingly agreed to. for Aldershot referred to peerages and titles, about Resolved, which there has been some debate today. The Government That the Committee has considered the Draft Marriage (Same recognise that peerages and courtesy titles involve gender- Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions based differences. The approach we have taken with and Scotland) Order 2014. marriage and same sex couples is to mirror the position with civil partnerships, which we feel is fair. We have DRAFT MARRIAGE OF SAME SEX some sympathy with the desire to take this opportunity COUPLES (REGISTRATION OF SHARED to deal with these matters, but today’s debate on these BUILDINGS) REGULATIONS 2014 statutory instruments is not the time or place. Motion made, and Question put, My hon. Friend also asked how we know that the That the Committee has considered the draft Marriage of changes are comprehensive. There has been an extensive Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations and thorough trawl through the legislation across 2014.—(Mrs Grant.) Government, and while one can never rule out entirely The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 3. the possibility that we have missed something, I am confident that the matter was dealt with very well. Division No. 2] The hon. Member for Strangford expressed his concern AYES that the Government may be airbrushing terms such as Abrahams, Debbie Chapman, Jenny “husband and wife” out of the law. I assure him that we Baldwin, Harriett Grant, Mrs Helen are certainly not seeking to do that. Benyon, Richard Hodgson, Mrs Sharon 27 Second DelegatedHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation Committee 28

Hughes, rh Simon McDonagh, Siobhain Division No. 3] Kirby, Simon Tomlinson, Justin Leech, Mr John AYES Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Wilson, Phil Abrahams, Debbie Leech, Mr John Macleod, Mary Wright, David Baldwin, Harriett Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Benyon, Richard Macleod, Mary NOES Chapman, Jenny McDonagh, Siobhain Lefroy, Jeremy Shannon, Jim Grant, Mrs Helen Tomlinson, Justin Loughton, Tim Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hughes, rh Simon Wilson, Phil Kirby, Simon Wright, David Question accordingly agreed to. NOES DRAFT MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) Lefroy, Jeremy Shannon, Jim (JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION OF Loughton, Tim JUDGMENTS) REGULATIONS 2014 Motion made, and Question put, Question accordingly agreed to. That the Committee has considered the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 11.1 am 2014.—(Mrs Grant.) Committee rose. The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 3.