MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL

Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2013.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Before we begin, it may be useful to those Members new to Public Bill Committees if I explain how the proceedings work. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows the amendments selected for debate and those that have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. The Member who tabled the lead amendment makes an opening speech and moves the amendment. Any other Member is then able to speak on the amendments in the group. Once all Members—including the Minister, if appropriate —have replied, I will call the Member who moved the amendment again. It will be useful if that Member will indicate if he wishes to withdraw the amendment before the Committee or to seek a decision on it. The same applies to any other amendments in the group. Amendments are voted upon in the order that they come in the Bill, although they may have been debated in an earlier group. I hope that provides some clarity for proceedings.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

On a point of order, Mr Streeter. I welcome you to the formal proceedings of the Bill Committee, as we get down to business. I also welcome all other Members present, and, indeed, the Minister, whom I know from many occasions on which we have shared innings for the parliamentary cricket team and have gone in to bat together. I look forward to opening the innings on behalf of the dissenters to the Bill.

I have two points to make. First, I am not sure whether we are hacking down forests or not—the paper may be from sustainable sources—but nevertheless we have received a large number of written submissions. Unfortunately, with regard to the later submissions that have come in, colleagues received an e-mail yesterday afternoon with over 40 written submissions as attachments, and I am not sure whether Committee members have had the opportunity to go through every one line by line. I know from speaking to one member of the Committee that the submission from Liberty alone was over 40 pages long. That gives some indication of the criticism expressed throughout the passage of the Bill that the measure is being rushed and we are not allowed to give due weight to the concerns that have been raised. I would ask that when we receive written submissions they are put on the letter board, as is the normal way. I was in the House until 10 o’clock last night, and looked in vain on the letter board for a hard copy of the submissions. I would hope that the order will be that, if we receive submissions so close to the next sitting of the Committee, they are put on the letter board.

It is also important that we ensure that we are able to deal with all manner of opinion that is coming forward, and are able to consider submissions. The Bill is unique and is being dealt with in a unique way. In many ways we are breaking with precedent by dealing with a Bill on a conscience issue, which is subject to a free vote, away from the Floor of the House. Such a Bill would normally be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. It is important that we recognise that we have dealt with this differently so that we could hold proper evidence sessions, which we have done. The Minister said on the Floor of the House when discussing the programme motion that a key purpose of dealing with the Bill in Committee was to allow evidence to be heard, not least from religious groups. It was good that we heard from some of those marginal religious groups. Liberal Judaism, Unitarians and Quakers were represented alongside the Church of England, Catholics and others.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt a point of order, but some of these points are points of debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can make his point of order, so we can deal with it and move on.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I will do so, Mr Streeter. We did not hear from any representatives of the black and minority ethnic community, for example—Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, the millions of evangelicals and others—so the sessions were partial. The point I was making is that we are very much relying on written evidence, so it is important that we receive submissions as early as possible so that we can give due weight to them.

My other point is on the issue of the free vote. I want to clarify that we are in free vote territory in this Committee. Two Whips are present, but I anticipate their taking very little action in the proceedings. I just want to make a further point—

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Very quickly.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

We have four dissenters in Committee who have voted against the Bill. If one looks at the batting order, one can see that the majority of the amendments, the scrutiny and the opposition is coming from the dissenters. I am not sure if it is in the Standing Orders that we should sit on the Government side. Given the fact that the Opposition do not necessarily offer the main opposition to this Bill or the main scrutiny, perhaps we could reconfigure and allow the dissenters to move to the Opposition Benches, not least to allow the hon. Member for Strangford not to be lonely.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Two points of order have been raised. On the second point, it is not a matter for the Chair to decide whether or not it is free vote territory in Committee. Colleagues are free to sit wherever they wish and I invite them to do so.

On the more substantive point about evidence being presented to the Committee in good time, a good point has been made and we will make sure, of course, that all those who are responsible for producing evidence have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s very important point.

Clause 1 - Extension of marriage to same sex couples

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Marriage of same sex couples is deemed to be legitimate.’.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Where a same sex couple solemnize a marriage between each other in accordance with the provisions set out in subsection (2) below they shall be deemed to be married to each other.’.

Amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Marriage of same sex couples is legally equivalent to marriage between the couples of the opposite sex.’.

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Marriage of same sex couples is legally equivalent and is deemed to be morally equivalent to marriage between couples of the opposite sex.’.

Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert ‘and is deemed to be equivalent to the marriage of different sex couples.’.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ‘The’, insert ‘civil’.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

To continue the batting terminology, I am opening the innings and looking forward to doing so. I want to enable the Minister to have some full tosses, to be able to proceed with a straight bat, as he always does, and to be helpful and to begin a conversation. It may start slowly; when one opens the innings one is pushing the singles out and not getting too many boundaries.

We shall begin the process of scrutiny in a gentle manner, and I hope that I am in accord with most members of the Committee in saying that we should have a conversation with the Minister and the Government so that we can understand what we mean to do in the Bill. I and the other three dissenters voted against the principle of the Bill, and we appreciate we are not here primarily to debate that principle. We had a good debate on Second Reading and I would not wish to repeat that. It is important to try and help the Government to be as transparent and open as possible. The Government champion openness and transparency, and it is important that this Bill is no exception to that fine principle.

I would also like to look at the meaning and consequences arising from a redefinition of marriage. All the amendments are intended to probe the foundational assumptions behind the Bill to enable the Government to explain in more detail what they want to achieve and whether the drafting of clause 1 succeeds in meeting the Government’s policy goals. The Bill is unusual in many ways. It is usual to begin a Bill by setting out its main propositions, but I do not believe that we fully achieve that in clause 1, so I want to be helpful in suggesting changes.

I suggest that the drafting of subsection (1) is confusing, with great respect to parliamentary counsel and those who have been involved in drafting the Bill. I would not want anyone to suggest that I am simply putting forward my own view. We have already said that we represent dissenters and the millions of people who vote and have made submissions against the whole principle of the Bill. We are speaking on behalf of them and on behalf of those parliamentary draftsmen who may no longer be in post but have contacted me. One is Mike Ovey, who expressed the hope that his old office was not involved in drafting this particular Bill. He said:

“The degree of conceptual confusion compressed into seven words is, professionally speaking, appalling.”

In one sense, one could look at the words,

“Marriage of same-sex couples is lawful”,

and say, “Well, is it really unlawful?” Is the marriage service for same-sex couples unlawful, would legal sanctions apply if same-sex couples said that they were married? It could be argued that a same-sex couple can quite lawfully go through a service of marriage. We have received a submission—I am not sure if members of the Committee have had a chance to see it in the forest of submissions—from the British Humanist Association, which makes the point very passionately and clearly that, as far as it is concerned, it already carries out same-sex marriages. That does not have legal force, but the association is not acting unlawfully as it carries out services for same-sex couples. It would quite rightly say that it is not committing a criminal or civil offence, and it has not been hauled up before the courts. No penalties have been imposed on any of those couples because of those services. At this early stage, we are trying to clarify exactly what the Government say the measure is about. That is why it is important to look at the definitions. Certainly as far as dissenters and many people across the country are concerned, this is not just an issue about access to ceremonies and a legal tidying-up but an issue profoundly about the redefinition of marriage.

In the evidence sessions, it was very helpful to be able to ask questions of the Secretary of State and to hear her answers. For example, I asked her quite directly how she defined the meaning and purpose of marriage in the Bill. Her answer is revealing to the extent of its limitations:

“I see marriage very simply as an ability for two people to come together and stay together … for life.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2013; c. 5, Q6.]

Who would argue with that? However, if one then adds the words “is lawful”—“Marriage as an ability for two people to come together and stay together for life is lawful”—it is hard to understand the meaning of the clause.

Amendment 15 seeks to widen the meaning of clause 1(1) by changing the word “lawful” to “legitimate”. The amendment says:

“Marriage of same sex couples is deemed to be legitimate.”

Parliament can deem many things that may not be wholly a reality. It may deem that marriage means marriage of same-sex couples. It can deem that, however far it would be from reality out there. However, more importantly, we have heard in evidence from many people that this is not just an issue of lawfulness in relation to the ceremony. It is an issue not just of legality but of legitimacy.

The institute of marriage has been around for the long time and there has been clarity about its being an exclusively heterosexual institution, but the Bill says that we now have a different situation. We have heard evidence from Stonewall and others. We have heard passionate speeches and moving accounts in the House, and we have also read submissions and heard in Committee about the importance of endorsing and recognising the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, particularly in relation to marriage. We heard during our evidence sessions about people being able to say that they are not just partnered but married.

The amendment raises the question of whether the main proposition of the Bill is to enable the marriage of same-sex couples not just to be lawful as such—whatever that means exactly—but to be legitimate. The Bill’s advocates have been saying loud and clear that it is very much about acceptance. Indeed, to use the words of the Secretary of State, one could say that it is a “gold standard” acceptance. Is this the journey that those who advocate the Bill would want us to be on? Is the proposition behind the Bill that it is a mark of a tolerant, liberal society to say, “Yes it is legitimate for same-sex couples to be married”?

If that is the case, and that point is being made quite openly, we must raise the question—it will be raised throughout the Bill’s passage—of what we think of those who disagree? What of those—like me and many millions of others—who say that there needs to be freedom to dissent and to say, “No, we recognise the validity of marriage as a heterosexual institution; we do not recognise the validity of marriage between same-sex couples.” Where do we fit in under the Bill and how do we deal with that?

Many of us have been called different things because of our views; we are able to take that and carry on. However, there is an implication in some of the evidence that we have heard—this is certainly the case in things that are written to us, and especially in tweets—that we should not have the freedom to dissent, and that we are bigots and the rest of it. Part of the debate is the marginalisation of those who disagree. I will welcome throughout our proceedings the Government’s good intentions of providing religious protection and freedoms in the Bill, but I am concerned about the freedom of not only those with religious conscience, but people of good conscience who disagree with the Bill’s fundamental principle. How are they going to be accommodated? Amendment 15 is about the legitimacy of the marriage of same-sex couples, but how will we accommodate those who do not consider that to be legitimate? How will we avoid the situation that happened in Canada following the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2005, where there is the suggestion that those who cannot in good conscience accept the new law are deemed to be lawbreakers and threatened with legal action? How can we ensure that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech for those who do not believe that same-sex marriage is legitimate are not curtailed?

A senior Canadian Government Minister recently announced in a speech in Ontario that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of same-sex marriage, it would have to change its teaching. We obviously do not want to go anywhere near that kind of suggestion, and I do not think that one of our Ministers would ever say anything near to that. Indeed, one cannot legislate for off-the-wall comments by Canadian Ministers. Nevertheless, there is already a chill wind. When I was campaigning in Eastleigh along with my colleagues, and looking forward to a good result for most of the Government side on Thursday, I met a student who did not agree with my views on marriage, but certainly respected my freedom to stand up and say what I thought. I was shocked to hear from him that, during a debate on same-sex marriage in the Portsmouth university politics union two weeks ago, when a student stood up and wanted to speak against it—in a similar way to how I will be speaking today, because I have the freedom to do so—she was refused the opportunity to speak. She was not allowed to speak because—irony of ironies—Portsmouth’s politics union has a zero-tolerance policy. In the spirit of zero tolerance, there was great intolerance to her simply speaking against same-sex marriage, because that was considered hate speech. We want to avoid that situation happening way beyond the hallowed walls of this Committee Room. In work places and throughout our communities, people should have the freedom to be able to say that they do not believe that the proposition of this Bill is legitimate.

Professor John Corvino, a leading advocate of same-sex marriage, has written an academic piece in which he admits that the introduction of same-sex marriage will necessarily involve opposing views being marginalised. For him, that is a price worth paying, but it is important that we do not allow that to happen. There is a genuine opportunity for the Bill to make it clear that it does not limit people’s opportunity to dissent, which I know is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the argument.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am listening intently to my hon. Friend. He might wish to note that when I had a very respectful debate last week with students at a sixth-form college near to my constituency, it was interesting that a number of students not only wanted to see this change in the law, but did not believe that any Churches should have the right to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages. They believed that the law should be changed further to impel the Churches to do so, so this is by no means the end of the story given what some people want ultimately to achieve.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

We have to consider that point. The Government say that they do not want to revisit such legislation and that they want to get the Bill right now so that it includes the proper protections, provisions and clarity. We therefore need to ensure that we do not allow dissent behind the scenes, in the corridors, and in student unions and other places to be marginalised and pilloried.

If the Bill is about deeming legitimacy, we can expect, as the Church of England said in a considered submission, “culture wars” developing between those who regard same-sex marriage as legitimate and those who do not. It is important that there is proper protection in the Bill to enable conscientious objections and to give people the freedom to say that this is not legitimate. It is important that the Government explain their proposition under the Bill clearly in that context. We will press the Government further on conscientious objections later in our proceedings.

Amendment 16 would help those who feel confused about the Government’s position by setting out a clear understanding of how marriage is being redefined. It says:

“Where a same sex couple solemnize a marriage between each other in accordance with the provisions set out in subsection (2) below they shall be deemed to be married to each other.”

There is, in a sense, a presupposition in clause 1 that marriage can already include a same-sex couple—indeed, we have heard examples of that during my previous comments. However, on an ordinary reading of the language of marriage, that is not the case. It is not clear from the “Oxford English Dictionary”. It is therefore important that we enable those reading and applying the Bill to understand how the Government have moved us to a position of redefinition.

If it is the case that this new type of marriage is to be all about the ceremony, amendment 16 would ensure that that was the focus. The hon. Member for Rhondda made a big thing about the importance of ceremony, not only in his questions to witnesses, but during the passage of the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004. We need to recognise that importance, and steps were taken to ensure that a public ceremony was very much a part of civil partnerships. There are those who see marriage as being very much about ceremony and the public affirmation of a couple’s commitment. If that is the particular purpose of the redefinition of marriage, the amendment makes the obvious point that it is the action of going through the process of a marriage ceremony by which a couple are deemed to be married as a same-sex couple.

The Bill is focused on the ceremony. There is a focus on religious institutions and their involvement—or not—in the ceremony. It is therefore important to know whether this is as far as the Government go with their understanding of the Bill’s implications. Is it all about the ceremony, or is this, as many of us believe, a redefinition of the institution of marriage that goes way beyond the issue of ceremony?

Amendment 17 is all about the question of whether the marriage of same-sex couples is legally equivalent to marriage between opposite-sex couples. That may well be the case, because clause 11 states:

“In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples.”

Such a statement will need particular scrutiny, given how the thousands of references to marriage in English law may be affected. I know that the Government want the Bill to deal with things openly and transparently, so it will be interesting to see the extent to which we will have to rely on future Bills and secondary legislation to tidy up references to “wife” and “husband”. I will draw the Committee’s attention to an example of that soon.

The question for the Government is: is it proposed through the Bill to make marriage between same-sex couples legally equivalent to marriage between couples of the opposite sex? We have already heard debate about non-consummation and adultery and whether there is an issue of legal equivalence in that respect, and we have heard much evidence regarding pension provisions and whether, if the Government want to be clear, the legal equivalence that is explicit in clause 11 should be explicit in clause 1. We need to understand whether that is the case. It is important that we understand whether this is about legal parity. In the consultation, which was originally called the “Equal civil marriage consultation”, it was about supporting equivalence; then, at a later date, in response to the consultation, it was described as “equal marriage”, so equivalence is still on Ministers’ lips and stated by them in writing. If that is the proposition in the Bill, we need to be clear about it.

Amendment 18 takes us a stage further by asking whether it is not simply a matter of same-sex marriage being legally equivalent, but whether it is deemed to be morally equivalent. It is important to understand whether that is what the Government intend, because if the Government are saying that same-sex marriage is legally and morally equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, that affects the millions of people who do not agree. Whatever Parliament does and whatever the state tells them, millions of people will not be convinced that same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposite-sex marriage. The Government can do all they can to make it legally equivalent, and many of us would say that civil partnerships have gone a long way in establishing legal rights for same-sex unions, but making it morally equivalent, if that is what the Government are doing, has a profound impact on the consciences of millions of people up and down the land and many of our constituents.

That is why many of us make a big thing about the teachers issue, and that is why it is important at this early stage that we discuss the question of equivalence. Later, we will debate amendments that go to the heart of the questions around teachers and others, but there are teachers who very much hold a traditional view of marriage. When they have to follow the guidance on teaching the importance of marriage, they will see that as a moral judgment that marriage is important—inevitably, there is a value judgment—and so they will be required to teach the equal importance of same-sex marriage. If the proposition in the Bill is that same-sex marriage is morally equivalent, that is what the Government will be telling them to do. The amendment is important because it allows for conscientious objection to the Government’s proposition. In good conscience, I believe, those who object would not say that there is a moral equivalence.

Amendment 19 is a variation on a theme and I do not propose to take up too much of the Committee’s time discussing it, but it would make the Bill clearer and say that it is not just about whether it is legal or moral equivalence. Perhaps one is dancing on a pin and it is all about equivalence in any event. The amendment says something not dissimilar to clause 11, but would enable the Government to have it in clause 1 where propositions are put forward. I have covered the first few amendments. The main point of tabling them is to enable the Government to allow us to understand exactly the purposes of the Bill.

Jonathan Reynolds (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. It seems that if we agreed with him, the original wording of the Bill would be more satisfactory to his arguments. If we are dealing with what is lawful, there is room for dissenting view; but if we are deciding what is moral and legitimate, surely that would label any dissent as immoral or illegitimate.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am trying to get to the heart of that very debate. The intention of Ministers is to allow for objection and freedom of expression, not just of religious bodies but of individual ministers. We need to know exactly where we are.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Is the hon. Gentleman going to support his own amendment if he pushes it to a vote, or is he going to oppose it? If he is going to oppose it, it is not in order.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman is too impatient. He is going to have to wait. He is seeking to end my innings too early. He needs to wait.

This is an important point; the issue of equivalence matters greatly. Let us start with legal equivalence. I will give one example: section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 abolished the common law presumption of coercion of a married woman by her husband and substituted a statutory provision that

“on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband”.

What would be the effect of the Bill, which seeks to provide equivalence? Paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the Bill applies only to new legislation and therefore technically does not apply here, but a husband is defined as including

“ a man who is married to another man”

and a wife as including

“a woman who is married to another woman”.

If that is the appropriate interpretation to apply to the 1925 Act, what is the effect? Does that mean that the defence provided in section 47 will apply to both parties in a marriage between two women but to neither party in a marriage between two men, or does it mean that the defence will not apply at all in a same-sex marriage? That is just one example relevant to the question of legal equivalence about which the Government need to be clear.

We have heard Ministers champion that there is a right for people to hold traditional views of marriage. We are told that teachers are free to explain their conscientious views; we are told that churchmen will continue to be able to uphold the traditional view of marriage within their own churches. We are told that no one who disagrees with same-sex marriage will get into difficulty if they are expressing in a reasonable manner their conscientious views, but we need to be clear about that and ensure that there is proper space for those who do not believe that marriage between same-sex couples is necessarily valid or legitimate. We need to enable difference of opinion.

It is also important that we are able to deal with the cases that affect people beyond the scope of the Bill. It is important to recognise that its scope extends further. Amendment 10 takes the matter further by enabling this Committee to have a debate that is already taking place around the House. Following Second Reading, many hon. Members on all sides of the argument expressed a desire to take a more active role in determining the principles of the Bill. This probing amendment was tabled to enable the Minister to explain the journey that the Government have been on and how their position has changed since they published their consultation paper, “Equal civil marriage”, which was issued before the Bill was drafted.

In that consultation paper, in many ways what the Government sought was crystal clear: to bring in civil marriage for same-sex couples. The rationale was that the provision of marriage would be equal to that of opposite-sex couples, but after that consultation, what we have ended up with is not specifically civil marriage, although many still refer to it as that—many of the submissions talk of civil marriage—and it is not particularly equal. I have already mentioned that consummation and adultery in terms of equality, as well as other areas, will be subject to further scrutiny and debate; we will also discuss equalising civil partnerships in a debate on a proposed new clause.

The Bill is not limited to civil marriage, so I want the Minister to help us to understand how we have got to that position, given that a particularly large number of respondents to the consultation were opposed to same-sex marriage in principle. Many of them made that point on the basis of the Government’s original premise in the consultation: equal civil marriage. Now, the Government have moved the goalposts to enable same-sex weddings in religious premises.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Good morning, Mr Streeter. Is that not because one of the responses to the consultation was from several religious denominations, such as Liberal Judaism, Unitarians and Quakers, who said that they wished to offer same-sex marriages, and the Government responded to that?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The consultation happened over a period of time, but many of us could argue that the time given to respond to the Government’s new changes was limited. Indeed, we heard from Unitarians, Liberal Jews and Quakers, who represent some thousands—[ Interruption. ]. Was it 38,000 or so members? We did not hear in the evidence sessions from the millions of evangelical Christians or the millions of Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus, but we did hear from the Church of England and Catholics who disagree with that view. My point is that the Government moved with haste to the point where they moved the goalposts and did not allow for scrutiny and debate of that change. It may be that they were responding to the legitimate calls from the Unitarians, Quakers and Liberal Jews.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The small churches who have given their viewpoints may have 38,000 members, but there are some 40,000 teachers who are opposed to this proposal. Are their opinions not equally important?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate resumes, of course his remarks will be restricted to amendment 10. I do not want to open this up for another Second Reading debate.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful, Mr Streeter. Many voices were raised and 500,000 people signed a petition against this principle, but that did not seem to get much regard in the response to the consultation.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Good morning, Mr Streeter. I point out to the hon. Gentleman the YouGov polling that suggests that a majority of people of faith support same-sex marriage, and same-sex religious marriage as well.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I want to avoid the temptation to go down the line of opinion polls; in many ways, if you ask the right question, you get the right answer. None the less, I will happily look at the opinion polls if that is what the Committee wants. One could look at opinion polls in relation to the gay community, which is mixed in its message.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I would prefer that we discussed the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Okay, yes. I want to know whether the change was made because of legal advice regarding the challenge to the European Court of Human Rights, which would overrule the complete absence of any opportunity for religious same-sex weddings. If that is the case, it will be important to hear the Minister say it so that we can understand why that happened.

We recognise that there is in many ways no such thing as civil marriage, to extent that there are civil weddings and religious weddings, which are two different doors leading to the same legal institution. The confusion that I have tried to highlight in the amendments is that there is a focus on the nature of the ceremony, civil or religious, as though that were what marriage is primarily about. However, we do not say that we go to civil or religious weddings and we do not talk about being married religiously or civilly. People get married. That is important.

My point is that we need not to sidestep the key issue for the millions of people who are dissenting and whom we represent, which is that the Bill is about redefining the institution of marriage. People may ask, “What’s this to you? How will loving, committed same-sex couples having the right to be married affect you? What effect would that have on your marriage?” but we have heard evidence from people saying that it will affect them. Amending the Marriage Act 1949, under which all existing marriages are solemnised, will mean that all married couples will retrospectively be deemed to have entered a gender-free institution. The Church of England said that, and it is important that we hear its words as it represents a significant interest.

The Church said that what will be left after the Bill is not marriage as we know it. Its response to the consultation stated:

“The effect of the proposals would be that everyone who wished to marry—irrespective of the form or ceremony by which their marriage was solemnized—would be required to enter into the same new, statutory institution of ‘marriage’. That institution would be one which was defined as the voluntary union for life of any two persons. English law would, as a result, cease to provide or recognise an institution that represented the traditional understanding of marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman…

The established institution of marriage, as currently defined and recognised in English law, would in effect, have been abolished and replaced by a new statutory concept which the Church—and many outside the Church—would struggle to recognise as amounting to marriage at all. A man and a woman who wished to enter into the traditional institution of marriage would no longer have the opportunity to do so. Only the new, statutory institution, which defined a ‘marriage’ as the voluntary union of any two persons, would be available.”

Those are serious words, and it is important that we do not just sidestep them and deal just with religious protections around ceremonies. We need to recognise that this is a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage. Should we call it civil marriage? Some have argued that we should go one stage further and not talk about “marriage” at all, but talk of civil union and allow people to opt in or out in a similar way to the French system. Some people say that same-sex couples cannot be given the right to marriage without taking away the right of opposite-sex couples to have their uniquely heterosexual relationships recognised in law.

Those are the reasons for my final amendment, which also allows other hon. Members to pursue the matter in other ways, as they will later. Some might suggest calling it “state marriage” or a more radical solution that recognises that there are deeply incompatible views of marriage in British culture that will not be reconciled. Perhaps the relationship between the Church and the state, which are currently married together in terms of a united concept of marriage, needs to be rethought as that concept is being divided. Perhaps we need to recognise that there is a complete departure of views about marriage, and that we need new terminology in law. That is what the amendment seeks to flag up.

Perhaps the way forward should be to separate the state’s legal registration of unions from their religious celebration and solemnisation to embrace more consistently the gender-blind understanding that is ushered into secular law by the Bill. We should follow the logic of equality by offering a single category of civil union; established legal rights and duties can follow from that.

Some hon. Members have argued that perhaps we could move away from the hotly contested language of marriage, and from the issue of who should prescribe and own that view, and end some of the political and legal discussion about a state definition. Religious communities and others can be allowed to adopt definitions as they choose. The amendment probes those issues. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

It is great pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I will be brief on the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. I profoundly disagree with him on their necessity or desirability. I am not a romantic woman, but if I were, the microscopic detail in which he has sought to define marriage would have removed all the romance from me. I am sure that was not his intention.

Amendments 15 to 19 over-prescribe the definition of marriage, and seek to protect the rights of some to dissent. I find that hard to get my head around, and some of my colleagues have struggled with the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position. It is perfectly possible to take the first line of the Bill—

“Marriage of same sex couples is lawful”—

at face value. Those who do not agree are free to dissent from that point of view to the extent that they can say, “It is the law, but I do not believe it should be, and I do not believe it is right.” There are plenty of examples of that happening in relation to moral issues. A good example is attitudes to abortion, which vary widely. Abortion is lawful in this country in prescribed circumstances, and people are perfectly free to dissent from that view, despite the law. I see no reason why we should regard the Bill in any other way.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Lady raises an interesting example. Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows for conscientious objection. Would she follow that analogy and fully allow the same conscientious objection in this Bill?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We will come to that issue. The hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments that would create opportunities for individuals, on conscience grounds, not to be required to effect certain provisions of the Bill. My view is we should tread down that path with great care. I look forward to discussing why we should be careful, in relation to certain offices and roles. However, even under the terms in which the Government introduced the Bill, those who do not wish to marry a same-sex couple in a religious institution on conscience grounds can receive protection. My understanding is that is what the Government seek to do in the Bill.

Jonathan Reynolds (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

My hon. Friend is right to mention abortion as an analogous case where freedom of conscience is crucial. However, in relation to these amendments—in particular, amendment 10—would the example of divorce not be more appropriate? We do not call second or third marriages illegitimate just because some people disagree with the concept of divorce. Many legislative changes in history have affected marriage, but we have not followed this line of logic in the past.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

My hon. Friend is right that we have seemed more broadly to accept that subsequent marriages can follow divorce, although that remains not the teaching of many Churches, and certainly there are people who would not accept that the subsequent marriages were actually marriages. None the less, we can accommodate that dissent quite comfortably, and without much social tension, in the context of the law of the land allowing such marriages.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to amendment 10, because when I looked at the group of amendments, I could see little reason or need for amendments 15 to 19, but I thought that we might have an interesting debate on amendment 10 and whether we want to move to a wholly secular and state-based understanding of marriage, with no statutory role for religious institutions. In fact, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate was not particularly exploring that idea. Indeed, we would expect that the Church of England, the Church in Wales and others to be reluctant if that were the intention of the amendment. However, it is certainly an argument that I would have been prepared to engage in, had the hon. Gentleman introduced it.

I am perplexed by what the hon. Gentleman said about people within religious institutions who feel strongly that they do not accept or want to carry out same-sex marriages and that they are not protected adequately under the Bill. Since the Government brought forward their proposals, we have gone far to provide that protection, so that those faiths that do not want to carry out same-sex marriages are able to say that they will not do so. The Bill is permissive; it is not prescriptive. It is not saying that religious institutions must marry same-sex couples. Indeed, my impression, from listening those religious institutions that gave evidence to us a couple of weeks ago and did not intend to marry same-sex couples, was that they were broadly happy with the way in which the Government have set up those protections.

There is little need to engage in the detail of the amendments. They would add no value to the purpose or substance of the Bill. I certainly do not intend to support them if the hon. Gentleman puts them to the vote. We are still a little unclear about his intentions, and I shall urge hon. Friends and other hon. Members not to support the amendments. They are uncalled for, and we should reject them.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I join others, Mr Streeter, in welcoming you to the Chair this morning. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, for his contribution to the debate, and for the opportunity to discuss the effect on the Bill of his amendments. Let me be absolutely clear at the outset: the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to extend the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, plain and simple—end of story.

The Government do not believe that it is right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise their commitment to each other should be prevented from marrying simply because they both happen to be of the same sex. I know that there is disagreement about that among members of the Committee, but that is the fundamental purpose of the Bill.

Clause 1(1) sets out the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to make the marriage of same-sex couples lawful in England and Wales. The Bill does one simple and important thing: it amends the law in that regard to enable same-sex couples to access the legal institution of marriage, an institution that symbolises many of the issues that we have debated this morning. In my personal view—this is not in the Government’s briefing notes—the Bill allows people to make that religious commitment in a way that works for them. That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston made a moment ago. Every marriage is different, and the Bill will allow people to enter into marriage in a way that works for them.

Amendments 15 and 16 deem same-sex marriage to be “legitimate”, but that suggests that such marriages are not legitimate in some way, though the Government have decided to treat them as if they were. That is absolutely not our position. Same-sex marriages will be every bit as legitimate as marriages between a man and a woman. We are not creating a separate institution of marriage, or a purported marriage. We are opening up the existing important legal institution of marriage to same-sex couples, so that all couples can enjoy the rights and benefits of being married.

I have taken legal advice, and technically, amendments 15 and 16 would call into question whether marriage of same-sex couples had legal effect. It runs the risk of creating a new and slightly second-class category of marriage for same-sex couples. That would be contrary to the Government’s intention, and would risk leaving individuals in legal and moral uncertainty.

Amendments 17 and 18 draw a distinction between the legal status of marriage and its moral value. As we have just heard, it is not for the law to dictate the moral value that people place on marriage. Those who feel that marriage is an institution created for one man and one woman are free to continue to hold that view. The civil understanding of marriage has always been broader than that of many religious organisations. Nothing—absolutely nothing—in the Bill affects how religious organisations view marriage. They are free to continue defining marriage as they wish, in line with their beliefs. The fact that the law will allow some same-sex couples to marry does not affect anybody’s ability to hold that view. The Bill does not need to suggest distinctions, as implied in amendments 17 and 18, between what is legal and what is deemed to be morally equivalent to opposite-sex marriage.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I understand what the Minister is saying; he clearly sees this as an extension of equal opportunity to everybody, but surely there remains clear discrimination against devout Anglicans who want a same-sex marriage, because they are specifically forbidden, under the terms of the Bill, from having such a marriage in Church of England premises, conducted by a Church of England member of the clergy. How can he justify such discrimination specifically against Anglicans?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Very simply, this is a permissive Bill, and it allows the Church of England, quite properly, to make those decisions itself. That is a decision for the Church. It is as simple as that.

Amendment 10 would create a division between civil and religious marriage for same-sex couples, so that only civil marriage would be available to those couples. As such, the amendment is based on a fundamental misconception. Marriage is, in my view, a single institution that can be entered into either in a civil ceremony or in accordance with religious rites or usages.

Setting aside that fundamental issue for a moment and addressing the motivation behind the amendment, we do not think that a bar on the marriage of same-sex couples through religious ceremonies is the right approach. Our consultation showed that many people, including in some religious organisations, believe that religious organisations that want to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples should be able to do so, and the Government do not believe they should be prevented from doing that. By enabling religious organisations that want to marry same-sex couples to do so, while protecting those that do not, the Bill protects and promotes religious freedoms—exactly the point made a moment ago. This permissive Bill enables religious organisations to make their own choices. Amendment 10 would alter that balance.

The consultation responses and our continuing discussions with religious groups, which were aired in some detail during the evidence sessions, and particularly in the evidence given by Liberal Jews, Quakers and Unitarians, demonstrate clearly that some religious organisations that want to celebrate same-sex marriages, either now or in the future, should be able to do so in the same way that they celebrate marriage for opposite-sex couples now. They should not be denied that opportunity, and amendment 10, if accepted, would limit their freedom to do that.

Let me deal with various questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. On humanists and same-sex marriages, the Bill relates to the legal status of marriage. Marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples in England and Wales currently have no legal effect, and the Bill changes that. On the freedom-of-speech point, it is clear that my hon. Friend’s view is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is a lawful belief, and nothing in the Bill changes that; indeed, it is protected under the Equality Act 2010. He asked about the effect on section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, with which, of course, I am very familiar. We will deal with that when we discuss the equivalence provision in clause 11, so there will be time for a longer debate on that.

On the consultation document, which stated that the Government were not, at that stage, proposing to open up religious marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples, my hon. Friend asked why we changed our mind. We set out the proposals to get people’s views in the consultation, and then did that unusual thing in Government of listening to those views and acting on them. Many people, including those in religious organisations, thought that some religious organisations that want to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples should be able to do so. It was as simple as that.

In conclusion, clause 1 ensures that same-sex couples will have access to the existing institution of marriage, with all the rights and benefits that it brings, through civil and—on a permissive basis—religious ceremonies. It has been drafted carefully and precisely to strike a balance between the views of many people, and to achieve that effect. In short, it does what is needed, so I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I apologise to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for not being happy or romantic enough. Hopefully I will make up for it in debates on later clauses, when I want to get into a bit of Shakespeare and develop a bit of romance. I am just at the beginning of my innings, still pushing out the singles. I have not become too flamboyant, and the boundaries have not yet come. They will come.

The amendments have genuine purpose. They were tabled so that the Minister could tell us, at this early stage, about the Government’s intentions, which lie at the heart of the Bill, and tell us explicitly about the intention to allow those who share my view, as many do—the view that marriage should not include same-sex marriage—to hold that view in good conscience. We will test how far that should be made explicit in the Bill.

There is inevitably a difference, but I can only press it so far, because at the heart of clause 1, we have a fundamental disagreement on the principle of the Bill. It is a difference in understanding that should not be lost. It is not just about an extension of the legal status of marriage; it is about providing a new statute definition of marriage. The amendments probe the Government to ask them to acknowledge that. We will have to continue on that journey. I do not want to take up too much more of the Committee’s time on amendment 15, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end add—

‘( ) The purpose of marriage is—

(a) companionship (including its expression in sexual union);

(b) fidelity (including its expression in sexual fidelity) and stability;

(c) procreation and the nurture of children;

(d) mutual care and provision in sickness and in health;

(e) to benefit society.’.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end add—

‘( ) The purpose of marriage is—

(a) companionship (not including its expression in sexual union);

(b) fidelity (not including its expression in sexual fidelity) and stability;

(c) not procreation and the nurture of children;

(d) mutual care and provision in sickness and in health;

(e) to benefit society.’.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The amendments would put the purpose of marriage on the face of the Bill. Again, the thinking is that it is important to put down, early on in our deliberations, the propositions within the Bill. When one is dealing with marriage, it would be useful to know what its purposes are.

Amendment 20 puts down a traditional understanding of marriage, in paragraphs (a) to (e); amendment 21 would edit those paragraphs to accommodate a new understanding of the purposes of marriage. I asked the Secretary of State to help us to understand the meaning and purpose of marriage, but her response did not give a clear idea of that. That is a profound concern. These amendments would help the Government with that. I asked her a number of times what the purpose of marriage is in the Bill, and she said:

“Marriage will mean different things to different people…That is the premise on which we have put forward this Bill.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2013; c. 5, Q8.]

That is not good enough. We need to be able to establish the purposes of marriage in the Bill. The amendments seek to draw out a fuller answer and response from the Minister than the Secretary of State gave.

There are those—I would not suggest that they are members of the Committee—who are cynical about marriage and do not support it. I have not seen so many hon. Members in campaign groups for marriage over the years, and I have seen some, but not others, advocating the extension of marriage. There are many of us who have championed the cause of the institution of marriage over a number of years, and then there are those who are quite dismissive of it and see it as a dying institution. It is therefore important that we should be clear about our support for it.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Some of us have been campaigning for a long time for more people to be allowed to get married.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I agree; certainly there is a good track record on that. I am talking not so much about numbers as about the institution of marriage and how we support it. Many of us have wanted to support it through the tax system and in other ways.

Some, however, dismiss marriage as nothing much more than an arrangement of property rights—that is a view that has been around. We know that cannot be right. I will try to be a bit more romantic—I am sure that even among the literature in the House of Commons Library some romance on the subject of marriage can be found, such as love letters between spouses. How can those be put down just to a mere property arrangement? Did John Donne or Shakespeare say that marriage was just a property arrangement?

“Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds”.

Surely that was not written about bare property arrangements. No, marriage has much more meaning than that. It establishes a new social unit and is based on the union of two individuals.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

John Donne eloped with his boss’s daughter and consequently wrote:

“John Donne, Anne Donne, Un-done”,

because he got into terrible trouble. He ended up losing his job in politics because of his carnal desire.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Order. I am blaming the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for this—for trying to be romantic. I should be most grateful if we could get back strictly to the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I was only bringing a bit of love into the Committee. It can go in lots of different directions.

What is clear is that marriage is not just the extension of a ceremony; it establishes a new social unit based on the union of two individuals embodying the fundamental distinction or difference within humanity—between male and female. Traditionally, marriage—this applies to the purpose of marriage in amendment 20—has embodied a physical and sexual union: an act with a procreative potential, even if it does not result in childbirth in every case or in every marriage. With a marriage, a husband and wife commit to each other and give themselves physically to each other in a way that is exclusive for life. Sexual union with another person of the opposite sex is recognised in law as adultery and is a specific ground for divorce.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

On the point about procreation, does my hon. Friend accept that many people get married at a later stage in their lives—and we would absolutely encourage them to do so—when they have no chance of procreating? Should their marriages be any less worthy for that?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Of course not. It is interesting if the Minister is telling me that I am making a judgment on worthiness—earlier we debated legitimacy and value judgments. I am simply giving a commentary on what the purposes of marriage have been established to be.

One of the last witnesses who gave evidence to us in Committee was Mark Jones. He spoke about the fact that he and his wife cannot have children; however, he recognised that the structure and form of marriage has been around the procreative act, even if it does not necessarily produce children. The sexual union embodied in that is one that he values and the structure is something that he thinks is important. The exceptions—to do with whether one can have children or whether one is too old to have them—do not necessarily mean that a central purpose of marriage should be put to one side.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

But the fact is that amendment 20 specifically draws attention to the procreation and nurture of children. That is specifically part of it, so my hon. Friend puts it at the centre of his amendment, although he knows that for many people whose marriages we value that will never—sadly, or otherwise, for them—be a possibility.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The Minister makes an important point. The purposes in my amendment are drawn from the traditional church ceremony and vows. If the Minister wants to argue that the Church is wrong to put that in its service, then he can. However, amendment 21 provides the opportunity to set this out quite clearly. Perhaps the Minister’s questions raise an important point—that we should have a slimline version of the purposes of marriage. Perhaps we should look carefully at amendment 21, which says that marriage is not about procreation. That helps the Minister, and I should be interested to hear whether he wants to support that amendment. It is important that we recognise the difference between arguments about the redefinition of marriage and those about the purposes of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, we received a letter from the British Humanist Association, which is not satisfied with the Bill, as it does not see how it allows for humanist weddings to be recognised in law. There is a logic to its position; indeed, I await with interest new clause 3—which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West will move at a later date—which seeks to deal with that point, although I do not want to speak to it now. The letter from the BHA helps to explain the purpose of these amendments and quotes from a letter it received:

“We were able to totally write our vows that reflected our own values of life and love and were also compatible with those of humanism. This was a wonderful process that allowed us to really look at our relationship and what it was and what we wanted it to be. The ceremony was relaxed and moving. Several couples we know who were there and had pretty much decided that getting married was pointless were inspired by what we were able to create and are now planning their own ‘dream days’.... Some people commented that the ceremony was not a ‘real wedding’ and just some hippy thing. It was not! For us it was a dream come true”—

the romance and the love that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned. That couple were very satisfied. For them, marriage is a dream day.

The Secretary of State told me that marriage means different things to different people. To that humanist couple it means the dream day, but have we now decided—perhaps we should properly codify marriage, including the purposes of marriage—that we are moving away from a collective view that I would say has held this country in good stead to an understanding and a new definition of marriage as an institution that is much more autonomous and much more about the couples themselves and whatever it means to them? The Secretary of State was clear when she gave evidence that she thought marriage was the gold standard—some members of the Committee took issue with her for saying that it should be the gold standard. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that he is “a marriage man” and many people will quite properly speak up for marriage.

Perhaps this marriage Bill is a really important opportunity for the Government to help us all to be clear about the purpose of marriage. We hear lots of talk about marriage and what it means. Surely we can be open and transparent in the way we allow the purpose of marriage to be clear on the face of the Bill. We do not have that statement, so these two amendments set out its purposes—one on a traditional basis, the other in a refined way.

During the recess I searched high and low for a reference in Government documents to the purpose of marriage. I managed to find something on page 11 of the consultation paper:

“At its heart, marriage is about two people who love each other making a formal commitment to each other.”

That might be the purpose of marriage as far as the Government are concerned—perhaps we should put that in the Bill—but surely that is insufficient. We all recognise that marriage is about people falling in love with each other, making promises, making a commitment to each other, the undying nature of love and the rest of it, but surely the institution of marriage is deeper than that—more magnificent, more multi-faceted, more society-enhancing.

Marriage is about more than commitment, because commitment can take many forms. We can commit ourselves to many endeavours and to other relationships —we can be committed to the care of family members—but that does not necessarily mean more than marriage. It is not enough for the Government, in talking about the purpose of marriage in the consultation paper, just to call it a “formal commitment”, because many contractual engagements and relationships can involve formal commitments, but they cannot be compared to marriage. Marriage is indeed all about love, but it is also about how we express and evidence it. Marriage is about more than love and more than a formal commitment.

I will not go through each millennium, but marriage has been around for millennia. It predates the Church—I am not suggesting that the Church owns the concept—and it certainly predates the state, which has assumed an increasingly active interest in it. It is important that we recognise that marriage has a civilising effect. It is a bulwark for our freedoms. Some communist dictatorships made efforts to eradicate marriage as a bourgeois institution, but it has outlasted many a dictator. In the final evidence session, we heard Brendan O'Neill say that he thought there was a bourgeoisie conspiracy to campaign for gay marriage. It is interesting to hear the different sides of the argument.

I do not believe that it is enough just to have one line about love and formal commitment, or a throwaway comment from the Secretary of State on what marriage is about. That is insufficient when dealing with an important Bill. We need to identify its purposes. That is why amendments 20 and 21 seek effectively to allow the Government a choice. Criminal justice Bills often look at the main purposes of sentencing, and there is often much debate around and interest in those purposes.

I looked a bit further than the consultation paper and found a Department for Work and Pensions paper published last year that cites the importance of the stability that marriage provides. It observes:

“Given that married relationships tend to have greater longevity and stability than other forms, this Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children. So the Government is clear that marriage should be supported and encouraged.”

Perhaps we are moving to the stage where the purpose of marriage is stability in relationships. That quote also refers—“at long last”, one might say—to children. Notwithstanding the Minister’s concern about couples who will not or cannot have children, the Government are clearer than others, including previous Governments, that the value of the state getting involved in marriage is around children, stability and the good outcomes that come from supporting marriage. That needs to be recognised and is important.

It is of concern that there has been little reference to children and parenthood. It is not a matter of indifference whether children are brought up in marriage, and we need to take account of that. That is why I included the word “procreation” in my amendment. I wanted to see whether the Government agree that it is one of the purposes of marriage. The Minister’s comments suggest to me that it should not explicitly be a purpose of marriage. If that is the case, let us be clear about it. The sad reality of divorce and marital breakdown means that we need to take the issue seriously. We need to be careful if we move to a stage where we are not encompassing the effect of the law on adultery, for example, in relation to married couples. We need to be clear about why we are doing that. I have therefore deliberately included in my amendment references to consummation and adultery. The absence of those concepts, or their qualification or exemption, is important because it indicates that we are moving to a different definition and understanding of marriage.

Jane Ellison (Conservative, Battersea)

Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence in, I think, the Church of England session, that there is an existing anomaly? Someone in a heterosexual marriage being unfaithful with someone of the same sex currently does not qualify as adultery. If there is an inconsistency, it is a persistent inconsistency.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful for that intervention. Is this not a good opportunity to deal with this issue? We are here to legislate on marriage and related issues, so should we not look at everything, including consistencies and inconsistencies? Some might even want us to put to one side completely the whole issue of adultery; some might say it is a red herring. Indeed, we had questions about the numbers, and a helpful letter from the Minister to the hon. Member for Rhondda told us that adultery is cited as grounds for divorce in approximately 15% of divorces, which is more than people say and not an insignificant figure compared with the 48% citing unreasonable behaviour. It is more than 17,000 divorces per year, or 17,000 people for whom the recognition that their spouse broke vows of fidelity was important. That is a significant number, so we need to have a serious debate on and scrutiny of this issue, and an explicit recognition that we are moving away from a traditional understanding of the purposes of marriage.

The right hon. Member for Exeter, who is not in his place at the moment, asked the Minister about the concept of consummation and adultery in an evidence session and suggested that it be repealed. Later in Committee, perhaps we will see an amendment from Her Majesty’s official Opposition on repealing the whole concept of adultery and consummation. The Minister said:

“We looked very closely at the relevance of those two concepts to extending marriage, but I did not really feel that it was appropriate to get into reforming those particular concepts as part of the scope of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2013; c. 6, Q12.]

I am not sure that we can take that fast and loose approach to qualifying adultery and consummation—they are in the Bill and within its scope, and we cannot avoid the debate. The lid is lifted off the issues and we need to see where the debate takes us.

The same question was asked of Ben Summerskill, who is in the Public Gallery, watching attentively for Stonewall. He made the point that civil partnerships are no longer good enough and that we need same-sex marriage. Civil partnerships, however, have been used as a model for the Bill, but adultery is absent as grounds for dissolution of civil partnerships. Importantly, the purposes of marriage have traditionally been about not only commitment and love but fidelity. In addition to the need to recognise the importance of companionship, which we all support—it is all about companionship—there is also evidence, explicitly recognised in the Bill, of the importance of sexual union: of the bringing together of two to be one. That is of resonance and importance to millions of people. If, as I am suggesting in amendment 21, we are not going to have sexual union as part of the purposes of marriage, and marriage is about companionship, let us be clear about that.

When pressed, Mr Summerskill said:

“In terms of consummation, one almost feels that one is getting to angels and pinheads in this territory. We…have not seen a lot of our stakeholders saying they are deeply concerned about consummation. It may be that perhaps sex is something that heterosexual people are slightly more fixated about than homosexuals.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2013; c. 64, Q169.]

We could perhaps argue that point, Mr Speaker—I mean, Mr Streeter; there is only a few letters’ difference. Perhaps we could redefine “Streeter” to “Speaker”; it is all very close. Although I am not necessarily obsessed by sex with my wife—perhaps I should be; who knows?—I am obsessed by sexual union and sexual fidelity. It may not sound too loving and romantic to talk in such terms, but this is a serious issue.

Historically, sexual fidelity matters greatly. Historically, as it once was with the private ceremonies of marriage, the only way there could be proper evidence of sexual infidelity in a public forum was through addressing the issue of adultery and showing that there was sexual infidelity. That matters greatly and is a fundamental aspect, not a red herring. We now know that, numerically, that is significant. The Government have led us into a greater state of confusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said in an intervention, and they need to clear that up so that we all know where we are going—this is the purpose of the amendment—and can understand what is happening.

We will discuss adultery and non-consummation later, but amendment 21 would enable the Government to exclude from the purpose of marriage anything to do with sexual union and sexual fidelity, enabling the explicit exclusion of sex as a central part of the purpose of marriage. Adultery is important; it is an objective test for divorce. Unreasonable behaviour is subjective. There is a clear difference in law in respect of how those matters are dealt with. There is no guarantee that, down the line, a court will always rule that adultery in one form is wholly unreasonable behaviour; it will depend on whether a petitioner can adduce enough evidence that they find it intolerable. Will adultery be regarded as not so unreasonable if someone has put up with it for 10 years, or if there is an open relationship?

We need to ensure, at this early stage, that we are clear about the purposes of Bill and whether it leads to a new definition of marriage, as stated in a submission to the Committee, which, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned, is as valid as any other definition. The submission states:

“Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognise and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.”

That definition may appeal to some, including Committee members, but it leaves out the crucial principle of exclusivity. The Bill takes us down the path of removing exclusivity, leading to the question of whether there can be stable romantic partnerships that at the same time allow other relationships.

In evidence, questions were raised about whether we are obsessed by sex, whether we should perhaps even remove the sexual element, and whether sex has less of a point in terms of being explicitly a purpose of marriage. We need answers to these questions, which is why the amendments were tabled. We need to be able to establish clearly the purpose of marriage. The Bill gives us a great opportunity to do so. Society has moved on and changed in many ways, enabling us to do that. I ask the Minister for those answers and I look forward to hearing his response.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I, too, welcome you, Mr Streeter, as Chair of the Committee, although not yet as Speaker.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he moved his amendments, although both are redundant and mutually contradictory, as is obvious, so he cannot really move, or even propose, both of them. My guess is that he considers them probing amendments. He said several times, and Committee members have said it too, that the purpose of marriage has never changed and that it has always fundamentally been the same. I wholeheartedly disagree with that proposition.

For many centuries, as has been said, the purpose of marriage law was to ensure the succession of property. Particularly in relation to magnates and the royal family, the whole point was to maintain the succession, and to establish that estates did not dissolve and that there was absolute legal clarity. The Marriage Act 1753, presented by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, was an attempt to regularise the fact that up until that moment, although in theory no marriage could be valid unless the banns of marriage had been published and it was performed in a church by a clergyman according to the rites and rituals of the Church of England, in many cases people eloped or got married in different ways. Those marriages were not voided. A lot of people took exception to that legislation at the time because they thought it was an attempt to invalidate their own parents’ marriages because they had not got married according to those rules.

When the Marriage Act 1836 was brought forward, which allowed not just the Church of England but a few other organisations to perform civil marriages, Bishop Henry Phillpotts of Exeter described it as

“a disgrace to British legislation.”

I feel as though Bishop Phillpotts was among us still. I think he still held slaves at the time; he had voted against the abolition of not only the slave trade but slavery, and he kept slaves for another 25 years, so I am not sure that he is my ultimate authority on changes in the law.

Well into the 20th century, women were still regarded as the property of their husband in legislation. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, used the word “lifelong” at one point; on Second Reading, when people were talking about the purpose of marriage, it struck me that some of those who were saying that marriage had never changed were people who had got divorced, and yet the meaning of marriage was that it should be lifelong. That, frankly, seems to be hypocrisy.

There are only two definitions in law of the purpose of marriage. The first is in the Book of Common Prayer, which is still really the only definition accepted by Parliament. To remind Members, it is this:

“First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

The next attempt at writing a definition of the purpose of marriage was in 1928, when the Church of England acquired its new freedom under the new establishment of the General Synod. It decided to bring forward a new prayer book: the Book of Common Prayer 1928. Unfortunately, Parliament refused ever to sanction it for use, but I suspect that an awful lot of people actually got married under those provisions, because the Church of England kept using it, even though those marriages were not really legally agreed marriages. The 1928 book is quite clear; it says:

“First, it was ordained for the increase of mankind, according to the will of God.”

That is slightly different from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1928 book goes on to say:

“Secondly, It was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed aright”—

a rather different proposition from the mere avoidance of fornication.

I raise all that because I think that it is fundamentally ill-conceived to put a definition of the purpose of marriage in any Bill. It may be legitimate for the Church of England to preach on what the nature of marriage should be, and I have my own version of what I think marriage is all about. I think it is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being, come wind or rain, for good or ill, and a highly public celebration of companionship, intimacy, fidelity, mutuality and, for that matter, difference as well. It may be a legal contract, but it is far more than that. It is a bilateral loyalty—an association of partners that provides stability for children, succour for individuals and a bulwark against the fleeting and the ephemeral in life. However, I do not particularly want to put that in any piece of legislation because somebody else may rather like the fleeting and the ephemeral. They may say that their marriage will be constituted in a completely different way.

The only bit that I take real objection to in the hon. Gentleman’s two varying definitions is the bit about procreation and the nurture of children. The reason why the Church of England decided in 1928 not to use the old language of 1662 was that it recognised, even if no one else did, that an awful lot of people were getting married not to protect property rights or to have children, but for the third clause—for the mutual society and companionship that one gives to another, thereby giving mutual society to the rest of society by strengthening and underpinning our wider communion.

Saying that marriage must be about procreation is a form of cruelty. If it is about procreation, I cannot see why on earth two divorcees such as the Prince of Wales and his wife should be allowed to marry. They do not count in either version of the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of marriage, unless he thinks they are in the second category.

The hon. Gentleman links procreation and the nurture of children in one fell swoop. I know a large number of friends who have either adopted children as a gay or lesbian couple, or taken on the nurture of children, whether those children are from a marriage that has since been dissolved or from a previous relationship, or whether that has been organised through surrogacy or some other means. Indeed, I remember when we debated whether fostering and adoption agencies should be allowed to refuse gay couples the right to adopt; even then, the Catholic Church said that gay individuals whom they allowed to adopt often took some of the most difficult children to place, because not every child who is put up for fostering or adoption is a three-week-old baby; many are much older.

I know the hon. Gentleman and others have often said that they feel under attack, because a lot of people are calling them bigots and so on. As he knows, I do not think of him as a bigot. I note that he has done a great deal of work in his constituency and elsewhere to address homophobic bullying. When people push the idea that marriage is all about procreation and the nurture of children, and when they link the two as if it somehow means that homosexual couples cannot provide a safe, nourishing, nurturing and cherishing environment for children to grow up in, they are profoundly misguided. Sometimes they cause genuine offence and hurt, not just to the parents—the parents may well be able to cope—but to the children, because that is the moment when, although everyone in the classroom knows that the child’s parents are two mums or two dads, the child thinks, “So apparently I am not in a safe and loving environment.”

That just takes us too close to those who, in their green-coloured, highlighted and italicised e-mails, written in block capitals, send me fulminations, supposedly from God, telling me what will happen when it comes to hellfire and brimstone. When those people take a direct line from homosexuality to pederasty and paedophilia, it is very dangerous territory, and we need to affirm that there are thousands of same-sex couples in this country who are bringing up children very well. Many of those children are deeply grateful. If anyone wants to see the most moving speech I have ever seen on that topic, it is on YouTube. The video is of a young man in Ohio or Idaho talking about how he was brought up by two women.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman has already confessed that he is obsessed with sex, and I will take confession later. Sexual union is far more difficult to define than he thinks. It has taken centuries to develop the common-law definition of sexual union, as in the consummation of heterosexual marriage. It might take a considerable period for us to define sexual union and consummation of a same-sex partnership, if we wanted to allow the common law to do so. That is why it is dangerous to leave the issue as one that is not referred to at all in statute—because people would not know what they were buying into when they entered into a same-sex marriage. If one were to go down the other route of defining consummation and sexual union in a same-sex relationship, there would be rather lengthy clauses that might be hotly disputed. I merely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when Bill Clinton said that he had not had sex with that woman, he in his head was speaking legally correctly, even though that was not the general public’s understanding of having sex with somebody.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not support his amendments, but he does not support them either. He is not going to press them to a Division or vote for either of them, I should think, although he is winking at me in a way that suggests one never knows what might come. That might just be his sexual obsession carrying on. I oppose these amendments because they are trying to drive a coach and horses through the Bill.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. As for the issue of getting us all together, I do not feel lonely on this side of the room, Mr Streeter. I am quite happy to be here, and to support colleagues on these issues.

Amendment 20 is important; it is the foundation of what I believe, as it is for the vast majority of people who have contacted me. As hon. Members are well aware, I have recounted that some 1,700 people have written, e-mailed or spoken to me to say that they were against the redefinition of marriage, whereas only 17 people wanted change.

Ever since the word “marriage” came into use, it has described the bonded relationship between a man and a woman, as officially recognised by the community here and all over the world. It is a word that gives structure to our lives more than any other. For thousands of years, in every society, every religion, every framework of law and every culture around the world, that has been its meaning. The institution of marriage is the backbone of society. What could be wrong with that? Is there a case for changing its meaning?

I would like to quote some of the people of a religious persuasion who contacted me. It is good and important to have in Hansard their thoughts and views on this issue. They say, and I agree, that there is only one true definition of marriage, founded on the words of Jesus Christ, and not merely on tradition. Jesus Christ himself said:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?”

That is what Holy Scripture says; that is what the 1,700 people who contacted me also say. I will also quote the statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is important to include that, as we base many of our religious viewpoints on the Westminster Confession.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I do not.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Well, many of us do. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, it will be the viewpoint of many here; there are obviously many things on which people disagree. The Westminster Confession of Faith, at XXIV(ii), helpfully explains that

“Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.”

People who contacted me from Churches also said:

“While we affirm the value of human beings made in the image of God, to redefine marriage as the mutual commitment of two men or two women is to contradict the revealed will of God and is consequently detrimental to the well-being of society.”

Those views are held by millions of people across the United Kingdom.

“What…God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Clearly, God has joined together a man and a woman. That is God’s good plan for us. That is the opinion of a great many people who have contacted me about the redefinition of marriage. It is important that they register their opinion, and I am here to register it on their behalf.

The redefinition of marriage, in many people’s opinion, is a corruption of language. Equality is not the same as equivalence. The purpose of language is to help us to express ourselves accurately, to speak the truth and to define difference, so that we can be clear and honest in what we say and mean, and I hope that many of us will be able to do just that this morning.

We cannot say that because other words change their meaning, it is all right to change the meaning of marriage. Words change their meaning through daily use, and without Big Brother legislation. We face the prospect of the word “marriage” being redefined, and many of us have some concern about that. We should not claim that the attempt to change the meaning of the word is just a natural evolution; it is a forced change, brought on by many people in this Committee and outside it, so it is a corruption of terminology.

I want to focus on procreation and the nurturing of children. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, the Minister and the hon. Member for Rhondda have expressed different opinions. My opinion is very clear, as I intend to show. There is every reason why two people who are in love with one another should be free to commit publicly to a lifelong partnership, and to be respected for that by society as a whole. Lasting personal commitments, regardless of sexual orientation, are good for us all.

Substantial issues arise, however, where children are involved. For many people, the purpose of marriage is to have children and to ensure that they are brought up in the most secure and balanced environment. Having all been children ourselves, we will appreciate the importance of that to our welfare. However, in the attempt to change the meaning of marriage, no account has been taken of the interests of children, or of how that change will impact on them. It is children who pay the highest price when it comes to the redefinition of marriage.

Once children arrive in any relationship, the game changes. Quite simply, the world has changed. A new child, with rights of its own, joins the stage and becomes an equal player. That is why the rights of children must be factored into any proposed change in the meaning of marriage.

Jonathan Reynolds (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Big Brother legislation, but I cannot think of anything more Big Brother than specifying five specific purposes of marriage in a Bill. However, what would be the practical effect of implementing the amendments, whichever one we went for? Would a marriage be invalidated if it did not meet the relevant meaning? Would someone be able, heaven forbid, to seek a judicial review of their marriage? Given that marriage means different things to different people, how can we specify those meanings in primary legislation?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

My opinion of marriage is very clear, and it will be different from the opinions of other members of the Committee. For me, marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman, and that is what the Bible tells me; indeed, it is also what great numbers of my constituents tell me they believe. I will, I hope, expound their viewpoint in this room today.

We have known since time immemorial that marriage is the most secure and most balanced environment for the child. There is no substantial evidence to show that anything will be gained by changing the definition of marriage. On the contrary, man-man or woman-woman relationships are, by definition, lacking in balance. Every child is born of a mother and a father. They created its path into the world, and it has a right to expect them to nurture it and help it grow up strong and well-balanced, physically, emotionally and spiritually. I believe that that happens with a mother-father balance.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of protecting children’s best interests. I also recognise that stable parental relationships are an important element of that. However, will he not acknowledge the oral evidence, presented to us by Stonewall, that civil partnerships are less prone to ending in divorce than opposite-sex marriages? Therefore, stability might actually improve for children if we opened up marriage to more same-sex couples.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I perhaps would not agree with the hon. Lady. On many of the issues she brings to the House, I wholeheartedly support her, but we will have to agree to differ on this one.

I put forward this viewpoint because it is the heartfelt view of the people who contacted me. The hon. Lady probably agrees that there is no such thing as the right to have children. It is a privilege. As the father of three boys and a wee grandchild, I understand the importance to a loving relationship of having children, and of having a grandchild. The great thing about being a grandfather, of course, is that at the end of the day you can give the child back to the mum and dad, who have to do all the worrying and extra work. Being a grandfather with a grandchild is a very different role. Children are not social accessories or consumer products. They need a relationship with a mother and a father, because it gives them balance in society, especially if they wish to have what many of their friends have.

I want to give two examples of where the law could be very difficult. If marriage became a catch-all to describe all officially registered relationships, think of the implications for divorce settlements between either two men or two women, particularly where children were involved, and a new man-man or woman-woman relationship had been formed.

Consider a scenario in which David and John are getting divorced. They have two children, Sean and Mary, both born to surrogate mothers. One was fathered by David, and one was fathered by John. David plans to marry Jack and have more children with him; John plans the same with Bill. Sean and Mary want to stay together—not with either dad, but with one of their natural mothers. What rights and status will Mary and Sean and subsequent children have? What will be the rights of their natural fathers or mothers? In time, David and John die without leaving wills. Later, their own fathers die, leaving great fortunes. Who will be entitled to what?

In another scenario with Janet and Joan—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I am sorry, but I think it is quite offensive to create hypotheticals that do not exist. If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring to this Committee actual examples of relations that do exist, rather than theoretical ones that do not, he would do his argument more favour.

Jim Shannon rose—

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Before the hon. Gentleman resumes, I would like him to relate his remarks expressly to the two amendments before us.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Streeter. I am quite happy to relate my remarks to the procreation and nurturing of children, which is what the amendment is about. Obviously, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda, as has not gone unnoticed.

As for the scenario relating to the families of Janet and Joan, and the consequences for their two boys of their divorce and remarriage, that involves facts of life that will have to be faced up to if the redefinition of marriage goes through. Each mother wants to take one child, but the boys do not want to be split up. Which parent has the rights? What catastrophe will this wreak on the lives of these children? It will create dilemmas that even Solomon could not solve. I am sure that members of the Committee know the story of Solomon. Those who wish to read their Bible again will learn what happened.

Once we concede the right to marriage, we concede the right to have children and to bring them up from birth. For me, the rights of the child supersede the rights of parents when they split up. The point is the children. Regrettably, many marriages fail, and that is unfortunate. Most work, and we must find out and implement what is needed to help more succeed. Crucially, the role of marriage in nurturing the next generation is under attack; it needs more support now than at any time before. If we allow marriage to include same-sex relationships, we will in future be unable to distinguish traditionally married couples who have had children naturally from same-sex couples who have had them artificially.

The advances of science were never intended to create a human production line, but the promotion of marriage for same-sex couples will only encourage increased production. This takes us away from the idea of a child being a gift, and is instead a passport to equivalence. Maintaining the distinction between marriage and civil partnership is therefore vital to protect the integrity of the child, who has no say in being born, and to secure the best possible future for all our children.

Many Members have mentioned statistics, including the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, who referred to national opinion polls. The fact is that of the 7 billion people on the planet, 2 billion live in the so-called liberal democracies, in fewer than a quarter of which civil partnerships are legal, so let us put things in perspective.

We have received deputations and have heard witnesses from small Churches. We do not ignore them, because it is important to have their views on board, but they amount only to a certain number of people. There are millions of people in the Church of England and the Church of Ireland, and in the Presbyterian, Methodist and Roman Catholic faiths. There are millions of Muslims, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, and members of the Baptist Church and Pentecostal faith, yet some people are grasping at the belief of a minority of Churches almost like it was the holy grail, to the detriment of all the other millions of people with opinions. As for the procreation and nurture of children, we experienced an almost dismissive attitude from one of our witnesses in respect of the 40,000 teachers who have an important role to play in how our children are brought up.

I know that I am in a minority, but I do not mind that. I am happy to be there and hold a view that is close to my heart, my faith and what I believe in. It is close to the opinion of my constituents, who have told me overwhelmingly that they want me to speak against the definition of marriage under the Bill. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, is worthy of consideration. It is a view to which many of us hold fast. There are various amendments to consider; whether they will be accepted, I do not know, but at least our opinion will be on the record, and that is important.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, for speaking to the amendments, and for this opportunity to debate the purpose of marriage—or perhaps relatively grateful. However, I fundamentally do not accept the contention that the Government must now define in law the purpose of marriage. That is not the purpose of the Bill. I genuinely believe that. It is very dangerous territory for a Government to step into.

Those in a marriage know precisely what it means for them and, as the Secretary of State made clear in our evidence session, the strength of the commitment that two people make in a marriage to stay together for life is something on which society thrives. That is precisely why we want to extend the opportunity of marriage to all couples, should their religion allow it. Of course, companionship, fidelity and all the various things set out in the amendments are good, if they are what the couple want, but not all of them will be present in all marriages, or have to be for all marriages to work.

It is not for us to prescribe that a marriage that does not involve procreation, for example, has failed in some way or purpose. That would be wrong and offensive to many people who marry late, or in the knowledge that they are unable to have children, or who decide, perfectly reasonably, that they do not want children. None of those things would make their marriage any less worthy.

To go to the philosophical point behind the amendments, the state has always had a broader understanding of marriage than many religions—for example, in relation to the recognition of divorce. Nothing in the Bill affects that. Religious organisations are free to continue defining marriage as they wish, in line with their beliefs. Picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda, there is nothing to prevent the Church of England from setting out its understanding of the purpose of marriage in its Book of Common Prayer, or to prevent any other religious organisation from setting out its understanding of marriage in its religious teachings.

Even among different religious organisations, marriage is understood in different ways. We have been absolutely clear that the Bill will not affect the definition of marriage, which means different things to different people. As a result, I do not believe that we should prescribe the purpose of marriage. The amendments are unnecessary and, of course, as has been highlighted, contradictory. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate not to press them to a Division.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful for the competent history lesson that the hon. Member for Rhondda gave us, which will help me when we discuss the next group of amendments because I shall not have to go through the history of our relationship with the Church. However, we cannot deny the important role that the Church has played in this country’s marriage laws, and its link to the purpose of marriage, as is outlined in the service.

I do not know the exact numbers for the Catholic Church, but the Anglican Church boasts that a quarter of all marriages take place in an Anglican setting. Most of those marriages involve an order of service that states the purpose of marriage, and that is what I have outlined in the amendments. Those services are welcomed by couples, and no one is saying, “You have failed if you do not procreate.” I take issue with the Minister’s suggestion that that is the purpose of the amendment. I have simply outlined what is in the services, which most couples assent to and welcome. They want to get married in a church setting and take part in a service that makes the points about the purpose of marriage that are set out in amendment 20.

The amendment does not say, “You must.” We would not dare to say, “You must procreate and you must nurture children.” There is no “must” in the amendment, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that it involves compulsion. It would simply set out in the Bill the purpose of marriage that forms an integral part of most weddings, and certainly those taking place in a church setting.

The Minister helpfully made the point that there is an issue about the different treatment of sexual union and sexual fidelity under the Bill. The point of the two amendments, which are obviously contradictory, is to bring that issue out into the open at this early stage. This debate has helped that to happen. It would be unwise for the state to prescribe purposes to which people must assent, because marriage means different things to different people.

The Minister agrees with the Secretary of State’s definition of marriage—or lack of definition—that it means anything to anyone, so I take issue with him suggesting that the Bill therefore does not redefine marriage. I do not see how marriage does not mean anything to anyone. The institution of marriage has a meaning and a purpose. In reality, as the Bill changes the shape of marriage, it also changes its purpose, and that is at the heart of the amendments.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

There is an important distinction. It is not that marriage does not mean anything to anyone, because otherwise no one would do it; it is simply that it means different things to different people.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I hear what the Minister says, but the way in which marriage has developed over many years in this country has been informed by Christian tradition and heritage. Those purposes are not contentious for the people who get married in churches up and down the country, so it is interesting that hon. Members find it contentious that I have set them out them in an amendment. Perhaps my point is made by the fact that such dissent has been caused by my putting such straightforward purposes in an amendment. The Government could take the view that they should go for the lowest common denominator view of the purpose of marriage, which would allow us to be clear.

It is important that I respond to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Rhondda. The courts are clear about adultery. It is defined in case law, and it is applied in 15% of the marriages that sadly break down. We cannot duck the issue. As we move further into the Bill, we should say that this is one way to deal with it. Previously, the Government thought about simply leaving it to the courts to decide over a number of years, but before we get into that debate, it is important for us to recognise that the Bill is saying that the sexual union, as it has been traditionally defined, and sexual fidelity are not issues that we want to hold as perhaps the “gold standard”, to use the Secretary of State’s phrase.

I appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda about my commitment to the equal value of all men and women and my concerns about homophobic bullying. I do not want the amendment and my comments to be misconstrued, and I hear the point about procreation being aligned to the nurture of children. I accept the value of same-sex couples nurturing children, and I do not want my words to give any succour to people who write in green ink and capital letters and want to judge otherwise. The evidence is still growing. Indeed, the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 showed that when one looks at that issue in greater detail—with regard to IVF treatment and the rest of it—the jury is still out. One needs to look evidentially at outcomes as children reach their teenage years.

I am not questioning the value of same-sex couples nurturing children. I am probing how the purposes of marriage, which have been recognised and spoken about in church services up and down the land, have informed our understanding of the institution of marriage. We will get to that when we debate the next group of amendments, but I take issue with the Minister, because one cannot avoid the fact that the Bill changes the purposes inherent in the institution of marriage.

Having said all that, even though I think that we are getting to a point where we have narrowed the definition and purposes of marriage, it would nevertheless still be helpful, albeit recognising the concerns about prescription, to have some understanding of the slim-line version of the purposes of marriage. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

‘Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the rights, privileges or powers of the Church of England to make provision about marriage.’.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘Any duty of a member of the clergy—

(a) to prepare a couple for marriage,

(b) to solemnize a marriage,

(c) to provide care, counselling or other support and services to a couple by reason of their marriage,

(and any corresponding right of persons with respect to the activities of members of the clergy in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex couples.’.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The right hon. Member for Exeter has suggested that the previous group of probing amendments was a waste of time. I take great issue with that, because there needs to be a proper opportunity to deal with these serious issues that cause grave concern to many people. It is important that the Committee has the opportunity for dissent.

We are making great progress by rapidly moving through the amendments to clause 1, and we are now on to a terrain that we cannot avoid, because it is an important fabric of our country involving the laws of the land and the laws of the Church. Amendment 22 would provide greater understanding about the relationship between the Church and the state. I do not think that that is achieved by the clause’s current wording, even if its outcome is perhaps the same.

Some who are making written submissions to the Committee want to take us down a different route, because they see the Bill as an opportunity to redefine not just marriage, but the relationship between Church and state. The Government need to be open and transparent so that we can look at how the Bill fundamentally affects—it could be said that it is unprecedented, although we can argue about the history—the historic relationship between Church and state and takes it to a whole new level.

The National Secular Society has stated:

“We now end up with the absurd situation that the church of the state will, in England, not abide by the law of the land that the government proposes for society generally and for other religious organisations. Additionally, religious organisations that register marriage on behalf of the state will now have the ability to pick and choose which of the varieties of marriage that they will choose to administer and celebrate and they will be legally protected against possible charges of discrimination for refusing to conduct same sex marriages. Given that two in three couples now choose civil ceremonies to register their marriage, it would seem appropriate to now consider a complete overhaul”

of

“the laws concerning marriage by requiring all marriages, of whatever type, to be registered firstly and separately in a civil ceremony by the civil registration authorities in non-religious premises.”

Clearly, the National Secular Society, which is very much a marginal society, given its number of members, sees the Bill as part of a wider agenda, but the Government have the opportunity to say that that will not be the case. A separation of Church and state could gets into the realms of a system such as that in France, where Churches are not legally allowed to register marriages. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would like us to debate that, given her earlier comments.

We need to recognise that, under clause 1(3), canon law will be departing from the laws of the land. The Government have been clear that the right to solemnise marriages in a place of worship is a historic reflection of the vital part that the Church has played, and still plays, in our country and in public life. It is also a key marker of the religious liberty that we enjoy, which is the envy of many around the world. When we debate clause 2, we will consider how the Government will want to protect the right to solemnise marriages and provide the locks for the Church of England, which conducts a quarter of all marriages, which millions of people want to enjoy.

It is important for us to recognise the Christian tradition that has informed the institution of marriage. In a sense, there is a marriage between the Church and state but, under the Bill, there is effectively a divorce. Church and state had a united concept and understanding of marriage, but subsection (3) effectively states that there is a divorce and that the Bill is the settlement that we are reaching. It divorces an understanding that has been the foundation of the way in which marriage has developed in this country to the point at which there is now an exemption for the Church. It is important for the Committee to flag that up so that the Minister may respond.

The state has developed an important role in intervening on the whole area of marriage. We heard the history from the hon. Member for Rhondda, which I will not repeat, which involved protecting marriage, regularising it and providing access in public. However, never before has the state intervened to the extent that it redefines marriage and effectively says that there is a break with the Church in canon law.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 was a pretty fundamental break from the understanding of marriage that pertained for hundreds of years before, which was the reason why many people, including Gladstone, opposed it? Surely allowing a wife to divorce her husband represented a fundamental intrusion of the state.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

There have been some important departures, but not to this extent, which is a fundamental foundational side to people’s understanding of marriage in the Church of England. It is interesting to take it further in relation to divorce. To pick up the earlier intervention on abortion, if we were to follow through on the issue of divorce, would we give a conscientious objection to individual ministers? We will come to that issue later when we discuss the amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda, which supports the Equality Commission’s view that compulsion should not extend to individual ministers. Does the same parallel apply in relation to divorce? Presently, there is an understanding that individual ministers do not have to solemnise marriages that they disagree with, such as, for example, remarriage of divorcees.

I appreciate that you are looking to see that I speak to the amendment, Mr Streeter; my point is that these areas are important and we need to ensure that the Committee, the Government and others are clear as to where we have got to in terms of the relationship between the state and the Church. We have already mentioned that historic dimension of that relationship in our earlier debate; we need to recognise that this issue is also historic—I would say even more so—and we should not let it go without mention.

Amendment 22 seeks to address a drafting issue with clause 1(3). That provision excepts any canon

“making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one woman”

from the provisions of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533. If such canons were not excepted they would be overridden by the redefinition of marriage for which the Bill provides. I do not seek to go against that provision. However, I have looked hard and searched high and low, and the only other exception from the 1533 Act is contained in a Measure of the Church itself, the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974, which effectively says that any ecclesiastical common law rules relating to worship and the doctrinal declarations that are required of the clergy are not to override provision made by canon in accordance with that Measure. The 1974 Measure would have come before Parliament in the usual way and been approved by both Houses before receiving Royal Assent, but, crucially, it was not originated by the Government, or, indeed, by any Member of Parliament or peer; it came from the Church itself. That dynamic is very important. I believe that the way in which the Bill has developed, with Parliament and the Government saying, “This is what we want to do, but, okay, Church, we are going to give you an exemption,” creates a new dynamic in the relationship between the Church and the state. Previously, matters developed and evolved, and a parliamentary form of statute emerged. We are doing things in a very different way—maybe that is what we want to do these days—by saying that we, the state, know what is best, and that the Church of England and its canon law can be exempt from that.

We need to recognise that that is a change. It is an historic departure. It is as much an issue of the process as of the substance. I have struggled to find precedents in the way in which we have got to this point. Perhaps what the National Secular Society said has more truth to it, and that is the route that we are heading down. If we are, we should be clear about it; if we are not, my amendment would make that abundantly clear with regard to the declarations in the Bill.

The provision in clause 1(3) is, I believe, an unprecedented departure, in that it permits canon law to define marriage in a different way from statute law. That is why we have the situation I mentioned when quoting the evidence of the Church of England. As the Church says, the effect is that English law will contain two different and, as far as the Church is concerned—as well as those who are not of any religious conscience—conflicting definitions of marriage, one in statute law and one in canon law. Both will have effect within their respective spheres. There is a concern that the Church of England will now have to justify its position in relation to so-called religious marriage to all and sundry and to Parliament. I expect it will not be too long before we see what we have already seen over women bishops and the like—although I would not to conflate those arguments—namely, many a debate in which people say how out of touch the Church of England is. The Prime Minister himself has spoken about how he thinks that the Church needs to be clear on issues of equality. There will be pressure on the Church of England—perhaps implicit, perhaps increasingly explicit—to get more equal, as it were.

The amendment is important, because it explores the unprecedented dynamic behind subsection (3), which is that the state through Parliament effectively thinks it has a new jurisdiction over the Church of England’s canons, because the Bill says that the canons can be excepted from the provisions. There is concern that there may be a creep towards a new relationship between the church and the state. The subsection is effectively saying that in time the Church of England will have to consider its own canons and remove or amend them to come into line with the laws of the land. The relationship between the church and the state on marriage has changed. It is no longer equal, but more of a master and servant relationship.

In the clause, perhaps by stealth, we have redefined the relationship between the church and the state, and that needs to be dealt with. Amendment 22, for the avoidance of doubt, states:

“Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the rights, privileges or powers of the Church of England to make provision about marriage.”

That has a better resonance and gives more integrity to the Church of England’s position in our land. That is why I tabled that amendment.

Amendment 23, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, makes a different point. It makes the case that we are not just talking about issues with clergy doing ceremonies. It is an attempt, as clause 1(4) is—I commend the Government’s intentions—to protect clergy. I accept the Government’s good intentions on the so-called locks, but the Bill needs to go further to give a proper understanding of the clergy’s role, for example. The wording of subsection (4) betrays a lack of understanding—perhaps not; the Minister can tell me—about the practical work of the clergy. A member of the Committee was previously a member of the clergy, so perhaps he can get involved in this issue.

In effect, the clergy offer services other than the solemnizing of marriages, not only in terms of worship, but in terms of goods and services relating to marriage. They offer marriage preparation and marriage counselling, and that is an important part of the marriage service that couples get from going to their local church for marriage. If the Government want to provide the protection that they say they want to—we have already heard that today—which people are looking for, and not just a protection that does not relate to the reality of what happens on the ground, that protection needs to go further.

Amendment 23, which was tabled by a clergyman and former parliamentary draughtsman, would replace clause 1(4) and give a more realistic list of the things that clergymen and women get involved in. Those activities in helping a couple to marry include preparing a couple for marriage, solemnizing a marriage, and providing

“care, counselling or other support and services to a couple by reason of their marriage”.

The amendment makes it clear that the extension of marriage to same-sex couples does not oblige a member of the clergy to provide such services for same-sex marriages.

Let us talk about real examples, as the hon. Member for Rhondda wants us to do. It may be that the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Member for Exeter go to their local parish churches—I think they are both members of the Church of England; I know the right hon. Member for Exeter is—to be married. In each case, they may well want marriage preparation and marriage counselling, but that individual minister may not agree with same-sex marriage. Presently, there is a lock that says that the minister does not have to engage in the solemnizing of marriage. However, the question is whether it is discriminatory for them to refuse, both before or after marriage, to offer marriage guidance or marriage counselling. This happens all the time with couples. I would ask the Minister to respond to whether there is need for further protection in those particular examples that go beyond solemnisation. These are important amendments and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

It is a delight to go back to 1533. It just seems a little bit odd that the Government have put this particular bit in the Bill and therefore Members feel that they need to refer to it.

There was a big row between Henry VIII and Archbishop Warham. William Sandys, who was Laura’s great, great, great something or other, was one of the King’s counsellors and Convocation refused to surrender the power to make its own canons. Henry VIII said, “No, you must surrender that power because I had always thought that you were my subjects but now I have discovered that you are only slightly my subjects and you are partially the subjects of the Pope.” It therefore seems rather odd to use one of the more autocratic moments of English history to allow a permissive piece of legislation. I think that it is aimed at allowing the Church of England to go down a separate route from that which Parliament determines rather than to seek to enforce that canon law must be determined by Parliament. However, in actual fact, the law still remains that canon law can only be agreed by Parliament. The only change that the Church of England can make on the solemnisation of marriage has to come through the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament and has to go through an ecclesiastical legislative process. This is why amendment 22 is completely and utterly redundant. Incidentally, the Government’s subsection is also redundant but I am quite happy to overlook that. I shall not overlook the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

You are being selective.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Yes, it is the art to discriminate that makes us good legislators—but not in the way that others might wish to discriminate. Amendment 22 is unnecessary and amendment 23 is downright dangerous. If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who is the son of a clergyman, is going to defend amendment 23 he should go home and have a few more tutorials from his father—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have not said anything yet.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

No, but I can imagine what the hon. Gentleman will say and it will all be wrong. My point is that there is a duty in law for Church of England clergy and Church in Wales clergy to perform the solemnisation of marriage of those who are legally entitled to marry—those who are within their parish and are not barred from marriage. There is also a special provision on the remarriage of divorcees. There is no requirement in law anywhere to provide,

“care, counselling or other support and services to a couple;”

Or, indeed, to prepare a couple for marriage. I have prepared a lot of people for marriage and solemnised quite a lot of marriages. I was required by law to solemnise their marriage unless I thought that there was a particular impediment. On one occasion, there certainly was an impediment and I refused to marry them. However, there is of course no requirement to provide anything else.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Let us take the example of a couple who get married in a local Quaker or Unitarian church. They go to their local parish church because they have problems with their marriage and they want to have marriage counselling from the parish priest. The parish priest refuses because he only recognises the validity of heterosexual marriage. Would any issue or claim for discrimination arise from that?

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “parish priest” and I am not quite sure precisely what he means by that term. He could mean either a priest in the Roman Catholic Church or a Clerk in Holy Orders in the Church of England or the Church in Wales. For the last two, there are specific requirements in law on the solemnisation of marriage but not any other public duty. If two people came to see any clergyperson of any denomination to talk about their relationship—

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Order. We will hear more about Henry VIII after lunch.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

This morning, Mr Burrowes raised a point of order on written evidence submitted to the Committee. The written evidence is circulated on Mondays and Wednesdays and will now be circulated both electronically and by way of hard copies placed on the letter board. The large number of submissions in yesterday’s circulation was directly due to evidence being received during the recess. I hope that that explanation helps right hon. and hon. Members.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘Any duty of a member of the clergy—

(a) to prepare a couple for marriage,

(b) to solemnize a marriage,

(c) to provide care, counselling or other support and services to a couple by reason of their marriage,

(and any corresponding right of persons with respect to the activities of members of the clergy in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex couples.’.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

As John Donne said,

“I struck the board, and cried, No more”,

and so I finish my speech with the view that I disagree with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate on these amendments.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Hood.

I support the two amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and other hon. Friends. As he said, they are very different amendments, on different subjects. Let us take the first one. Clearly, all of us in this Committee know—it is why we are spending some time considering clause 1—that we disagree on the principle of whether we need same-sex marriage and whether it represents an extension of equality. We will not agree on that principle, I am sure, and we will continue to vote as we voted on Second Reading, but what we do need to explore in this Committee, and the reason why the Committee is so important, is the robustness of some of the provisions in the Bill and its workability.

The purpose of amendment 22 is to probe whether clause 1 is suitably drafted. The hon. Member for Rhondda queried why clause 1(3) is in the Bill. He took issue with the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, but then also questioned why we need subsection (3). The reason I asked the Minister earlier about discriminating—apparently—against people who are devout Anglicans and who specifically are not able to get married in an Anglican church was that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are dealt with very differently from other faiths and other Churches, which can opt. They include those three Churches that we took witness statements from and that collectively represent a congregation of some 38,000. They are mentioned in the Bill at various points.

What I want to tease out goes to the heart of the relationship between the state and the Church of England, which is why the Church of England is so special in terms of this Bill, and how we change the law to protect the Church of England or not. The point on which I want to probe my right hon. Friend the Minister goes back to the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533, which I have with me. Apparently, it is the oldest Act that the Library has been asked to provide—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Library tells me that this is the oldest Act that it has had to provide, and it provided it to me. Section III, about canons, reads:

“Provided alway that no canons constitucions or ordynance shalbe made or put in execucion within this Realme by auorytie of the convocacion of the clergie, which shalbe contraryaunt or repugnant to the Kynges prerogatyve Royall or the customes lawes or statutes of this Realme; any thyng conteyned in this acte to the contrarye herof notwithstondyng.”

The Hansard writer is having a bit of a bate about that, but I will give them the wording as it appears. The whole point of that provision is that no canon of the Church of England should be in opposition to statutes of the land. Subsequent amendments and legislation have superseded or deleted parts of that Act, but not section 3. The Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974 made it clear that canon does not have to be the same as statute. It seems clear from previous legislation that the Church of England can do its own thing, without having to follow the law of the land and without fear of insulting the King’s prerogative, going back to 1533, so why have we had to put it in the Bill again in clause 1(3)? We need a proper explanation for that.

What I want to know is: what happens next? If the Church of England, through a meeting of the General Synod, decides to change its canons—to do so, it must go through a series of processes, as we heard from the legal representatives to the Church of England—I do not think it will be as easy as the Minister suggested it would be for the Church then simply to opt in. It is not a case that a Church can decide to do that, and then opt in. The Church of England is treated in a very different way, and that is why I want the Minister to reconsider his earlier answer. I want to know the details of how the Church of England could effectively opt in under this legislation.

The Church of England is a strange beast. We do not have disestablishmentarianism, and this opens up the whole debate on the relationship between the Church and the state. If the Synod decided that the Church of England would, in principle, allow same-sex marriages on Church property in a recognised official form, who would sanction that? Would every priest be covered? Would it be down to bishops to decide on the licensing of the clergy within their diocese, of whom my father was one?

Chris Bryant rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Member for Rhondda, having anticipated everything I was going to say, now wants to interrupt and will no doubt say, “I told you so.” I will let him intervene.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I did tell the hon. Gentleman so, but my point is that the Church of England would introduce its own Measure, just as it had to after the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which allowed for the remarriage of divorcees. The Church of England had to decide whether no cleric in the Church of England could remarry divorcees, or whether a diocese or an individual parish could choose to do so, or what would occur if a vicar wanted to but the bishop did not. All that was provided for by an ecclesiastical Measure that went through the usual processes in Synod and then came to Parliament—to the Ecclesiastical Committee and then to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It would be exactly the same for this.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The trouble with that is that it is not being consistent. One of my local vicars told me the other day that, although she can choose to marry divorced couples in her church, she cannot choose to bless the union of civil registration partners, for example, which I would support because it is a natural extension of what should happen. I see no reason why the Church of England should not bless those unions, which have been legal since the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was passed. The legislation has not been treated consistently regarding the instructions under which parish priests may perform certain ceremonies or not.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

It is entirely up to the Church of England to decide whether it wants to have uniformity across the whole of the Church on the remarriage of divorcees, or on the blessing of civil unions, or in future on same-sex marriage, if it wants to go down that route. I thought that we were all in favour of ensuring that the Church of England can make its own decisions on such matters, rather than the statute law telling it what to do.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, that ignores the special position of the Church of England. Who appoints the bishops and archbishops in the Church of England? It is the Crown or, effectively, the state. So there is a relationship unique to the Church of England that none of the other Churches that can decide whether to opt in actually has. The state could decide to appoint a whole load of bishops who are in favour of some of the things that I have mentioned, or in favour of same-sex marriage, or against it. The state is the final arbiter on that, which is why this legislation is unique to the relationship with the Church of England. That is why it is not as straightforward and simple as the Minister said—that it is simply up to the Church to decide.

The amendment is designed to get a proper explanation from the Government of exactly what the relationship is now, and why they have felt it necessary to insert subsection (3) into the Bill. I do not believe it is necessary, unless there are other complications of which we have not been made aware. I think that there are complications with the way that individual clergy may or may not be licensed or allowed to—or would want to—conduct same-sex marriages on Church of England premises within their own parishes.

Amendment 23 addresses a very different issue. It is about the functions of the clergy, which go beyond the obvious function of solemnising a marriage and conducting a marriage on licensed Church premises. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate explained, the job of a clerk in holy orders goes well beyond simply turning up at 2.30 on a Saturday afternoon to conduct a wedding service and marrying two individuals. The job of a member of the clergy involves preparing certain couples for a marriage. My father used to hold sessions for several couples to come together and be talked through whether they knew what marriage was all about. He would try to talk them out of it if he was not convinced that they were really meant for each other. At the other side of the delivery mechanism, if things started to come a cropper, he would effectively—he is retired now—perform the services of a Relate-style marriage counsellor if and when a marriage got into difficulties.

Although I think we are clear about the responsibilities and functions of a clerk in holy orders in actually taking a service, there are other aspects of a clergyman’s job and it is not clear how they would be covered in the legislation. It goes back to the earlier points raised when we challenged some of the witnesses about the position of registrars and marriage guidance counsellors, and specifically the two cases on which the European Court recently adjudicated.

The registrar and counsellor involved in those cases were not allowed to discriminate on the basis that they had a conscientious objection against civil partnerships—although I made the point at the time that if I were in a civil partnership, the last person I would want to go to for relationship counselling, if my relationship was in trouble, was somebody who had a problem with civil registered partners. However, according to the ruling, it was not up to the local association or the local authority to make that decision. It was expected that the relationship counsellor or the registrar would have to perform all types of services. Clearly that would now apply to same-sex marriage in the same way as to civil partnerships since 2005.

The amendment raises a question. We can take it as read that a vicar in the Church of England or elsewhere would not be forced to perform that marriage ceremony. The question then is: how does he or she stand on performing some of the ancillary services that go with it that are tantamount to the job of a relationship counsellor? I would like some clarification from the Minister about what makes a clergyman different from other people covered by the public sector equality duty. My understanding is that clergymen in the Church of England and the Church in Wales have a common law duty to marry all their parishioners, and they also bear a public sector equality duty to treat people alike, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. This public sector equality duty comes from the principal and agent relationship between the state and the Church of England and the Church in Wales clergy. So what specifically makes a Church of England vicar any different from a registrar or a Relate counsellor under that public sector equality duty?

I am asking the Minister to clarify rather than the shadow Minister, who would be quite useful on this because he has his own opinion. What is unique about the position of clergy that they can be exempted from the public sector equality duty in performing ancillary services which are not specifically the act of marrying a same-sex couple in a church? If the shadow Minister thinks he wants to answer, by all means let him.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

In law, a clerk in holy orders and a minister of religion in other Churches is an office holder, a post holder, not an employee. It is quite a simple, straightforward legal difference.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Where is the protection for that? Why can that not be challenged? What makes it so different from someone who is an employee, or someone who is a stand-alone relationship counsellor, who would not count as an employee? It would be quite useful to have these answers from the Government who are proposing this legislation, rather than from the Opposition. We will let the Minister respond.

The point of the two amendments is first to try to get to the heart of the relationship between state and Church which, on the face of it, seems to be catered for already, yet the Government have found it necessary to insert subsection (3) into the Bill. I do not see why they have done so. The second aim is to tease out, because it is really important as part of the protections on which the Government have promoted the Bill, why clergymen are not subject to those same public sector equality duties as other people, who have fallen foul of the law, most recently in the European Court. That is the purpose of these two probing amendments.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for tabling these amendments, not least because it gives me the opportunity to make it clear that the Bill’s protections for the unique position of the Church of England, as the established Church, are both appropriate and effective. Amendment 23 provides an opportunity to explore the boundaries of the common law duty on the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners. Crucially, during the evidence session the Church made it clear that it is perfectly happy with the protections as drafted and, and it has reconfirmed that in its subsequent contacts with the Department.

I accept, of course, that the Church of England must be free to believe if it wishes that marriage is an institution by which one man and one woman commit to each other for life and to express that position in the legislation governing its affairs. The Bill as drafted achieves that result, so amendment 22 is unnecessary. It is, in any event, an avoidance of doubt measure. As the Committee will know, the Church of England has the power, under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, to propose a Measure for approval by Parliament and, by means of such a Measure, to amend any Act of Parliament. That power is not constrained or changed by the Bill.

To stray a little into the future to deal with amendment 22, clause 11 makes it clear that no Measure or canon of the Church of England, whenever passed or made, is affected. All such laws will, when referring to marriage, mean marriage as the union of one man with one woman, unless the General Synod introduces provisions to change that position. I will come on to exactly how that could be done in a minute. As I have said, I entirely accept the premise that the Church of England should be able to operate on the basis of its belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the Bill as it stands achieves that.

We have made clear our intention that the common law duty on clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners should not extend, as a result of the Bill, to the marriage of same-sex couples. We are confident that the Bill does not extend the duty in that way. It is also clear that both Churches are also confident of that, as they made clear during the evidence sessions. Contrary to what amendment 23 suggests, we do not believe—the hon. Member for Rhondda made this point—that the common law duty to marry parishioners includes a duty to provide marriage preparation, care or counselling, or any other support for couples concerning their marriage. I am perfectly happy to put that on the record. Furthermore, we have not been given any indication by the Church of England or the Church in Wales that they believe that that might be the case.

To answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, it is worth putting on the record that schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010 already enables ministers of religion to restrict participation in the activities they carry out, including the provision of services, because of a person’s sexual orientation. That applies to all ministers of religion, not just to Church of England and Church in Wales clergy. Thus the law already makes it clear that restricting the sorts of services covered by the amendment to opposite-sex couples would not be unlawful discrimination because of sexual orientation.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What does that actually mean in practice? It strikes me that that might give powers to a clergyman to say that he will not allow gay people into his church. Is that right?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

The exact rights and responsibilities are clearly laid out in schedule 23 to the 2010 Act, which gives clergy an exemption from the provisions, exactly as I have just said. This is not a debate about the Equality Act.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Absolutely not, but it is very important that the Minister, if he cites the Equality Act to explain why we are treating clergymen differently—that is the point that the amendments seek to make—clarifies the extent of the powers. The theoretical extension of what he has just said, which would be pretty atrocious, is that a clergyman has the power to exclude gay people from coming into his church at all. Where in the Equality Act is that not permitted?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

As I said in my answer, ministers have the power to restrict participation in the activities they carry out, including the provision of services, because of a person’s sexual orientation. That is laid out in schedule 23 to the Equality Act.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

So he can exclude gay people?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Yes. [ Interruption. ]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. We are not having a conversation.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Finally, to answer the question about how the Synod would make the change, if the Church of England decided to allow same-sex marriages, it could introduce in the Synod an amending canon to amend its own canon law, and a Measure to amend the Book of Common Prayer and to change marriage Acts and other legislation where necessary. Like all synodical legislation—I am looking for a nod from the hon. Member for Rhondda regarding my pronunciation, as that is not one I have come across before—the Measure would of course be subject to parliamentary approval. That is exactly how it would happen.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I welcome the Minister’s response. Will he answer the question about

“Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the rights, privileges or powers of the Church of England to make provision about marriage”?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Yes. That is precisely why there are protections. I gently point out to my hon. Friend that if the Church of England thought that such might be the case, it would have raised that objection during the evidence sessions and made the Committee very aware of it. Not only did it not do that, but it did precisely the opposite and told us in very clear terms that it was entirely satisfied with the protections in the Bill.

On that basis, I hope my hon. Friend is reassured and would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I welcome you to the formal part of our proceedings, Mr Hood. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s response, which focused on the protections in clause 2, which we will soon discuss, and the fact that the Church has said it is happy. However, if one looks in detail at its response, I would say that “happy” is quite a broad way of describing the Church’s view, considering that it recognises that it is reliant on Ministers’ assurances regarding protections.

This morning the debate was not just about the issue of protections and locks. I sought to raise the issue of this being an historic and, I would say, unprecedented change to the relationship between the Church and the state, not least in terms of the issue before us—the redefinition of marriage and the departure of canon law from the laws of the land. As for the wording of the clause, I do not wish to go against the intention of subsection (3), but an “avoidance of doubt” declaration would have at least made it crystal clear and given more respect to the integrity of the Church’s position. However, I do not wish to dance on a pin on this issue or take up too much of the Committee’s time.

I welcome the Minister’s reassurance and clarity about schedule 23 to the Equality Act in relation to sexual orientation and the relevant protections and exemptions—that it wholly and squarely covers the issue of a suggested discrimination in relation to marriage. That is welcome.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Before the Equality Act, the Bishop of London removed the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement from St Botolph’s, Aldgate. There was a big legal row at the time, but it was clear in law that he had every right to do so and that there was no means of preventing that—although some may think it was a rather curious thing to do. It is quite difficult to be specific about precluding any individual homosexual person from a church, because it is quite difficult to spot them.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I do not think there is any particular need to respond to that intervention. I welcome the debate that we have had and the Minister’s assurances, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end add—

‘(5) Any duty of a registrar to conduct a marriage is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex couples where a registrar holds a conscientious objection to conducting such marriages.’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (b).

New clause 5—Conscientious objection—

‘(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.

(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 for its area to carry out in that area the functions of registrars and superintendents.

(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

This group includes two important amendments and a crucial new clause. Amendment 11 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who has joined forces with us on this amendment despite not being on the Committee. The amendment reflects a widespread concern, which has already been raised, about registrars and their obligations to conduct same-sex marriages.

Amendment 25 was also tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, alongside that of the hon. Member for Strangford. It would remove the provision excluding registrars from the conscience protection provided by clause 2, the debate on which will give us another opportunity to consider the issue in detail. We also tabled new clause 5, which would introduce a conscience clause to create the space for people to be registrars who, for religious or other principled reasons, cannot endorse same-sex marriage.

I would like to make some brief general points about what brings these amendments to the Committee’s attention. Plainly the Bill does not, on the face of it, give any protection to registrars who feel unable to preside over same-sex marriages. That is clear—indeed, the Government’s clear view is that it is not necessary to do so from a legal or policy point of view. Two weeks ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission told the Committee that registrars would have to perform such ceremonies because the definition of marriage will have been changed. As we know, there are a significant number of registrars in England and Wales. Many do not take issue on sexual orientation, but simply believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The Bill makes no attempt to protect their view. They are being asked to make a decision—it is one they are already having to make—to act violation of their conscience or lose their livelihoods. Meanwhile, those who might otherwise want to become registrars will find that it is a profession to which—it will be said—those with an orthodox Christian or traditional view of marriage need not apply.

One can look overseas for examples of how this has been handled. The Netherlands has a transitional provision to accommodate existing registrars and give them the space to recognise that, as far as they are concerned, the goalposts have changed, from the employment they entered to the one that has now been legislated upon them. The transitional provision protects them. Perhaps the Minister could say in response whether the Government have considered that type of transitional provision for this Bill.

We have received evidence from a number of people who say that not making any accommodation or offering any protection for a registrar’s conscience is a discriminatory move. I do not wish to dwell on the 19th century for too long, but I believe that Parliament has moved from that point—when there was, I suppose one could say, a more majoritarian way of handling these issues, reflecting the majority view—to a proper liberal democratic view, where the views and concerns of minorities are taken into account. Laws have been put in place specifically to avoid perverse or unintended consequences, particularly in relation to a minority view—there are even some examples from the 19th century, in relation to military service, vaccinations and the like.

An example from a completely different terrain—I would not suggest it is wholly analogous, but it nevertheless makes the point—is the Road Traffic Act 1972, which requires all motorcyclists to wear a crash helmet. The Sikh community expressed great concern and reservations about not being provided with a space—they would have had to violate their faith identity and remove their turbans or cease using motorbikes. That was obviously not sustainable. Parliament quite properly recognised that and introduced the Motorcycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976, to provide the Sikh community the opportunity to carry on wearing turbans and riding motorbikes.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Good afternoon, Mr Hood. My hon. Friend talks about competing minority rights. He and I are both members of minorities. He has chosen to belong to a minority practice of attending the Church of England. I was born a homosexual. Which right does he think should trump the other?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am not currently a member of the Church of England; I am a member of the Independent Evangelical Church, which represents about 5 million or so evangelicals.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

They are both minorities.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

They are still minorities in one sense, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. When looking at competing rights, such as sexual orientation rights and people’s right to manifest their faith, a number of cases have reached the European Court, and it has been the case that the rights of those seeking to manifest their faith have been trumped. It is an important point, and I do not believe that we as a Parliament have reached a settled position where we can enable a proper respect for minority rights while dealing with competing rights in a manner that supports important public policy goals—such as, in this case, the registration and solemnisation of marriages. It is important that we are able to accommodate different minority views.

I believe we have before us a law framed out of a regard to the concerns of a minority group that has expressed concerns about the need to extend marriage to encompass same-sex couples. However, drawing on my hon. Friend’s intervention, it is a law that can lead to unintended consequences—maybe they are intended—or, at least, some perverse consequences for other minorities, certainly in terms of their minority view. We have to look at whether there is any opportunity or space to accommodate that view.

Amendments 11 and 25 and new clause 5 seek to correct that—certainly as seen by the dissenters from this Bill, who represent the millions who join with us in their dissent—by saying that if it is the determination of Parliament and the state to take a new approach to marriage, there needs to be an ongoing space for those registrars in our society who subscribe to a traditional view of marriage, to avoid them having to choose between violating their conscience and losing their livelihoods. It is important to consider this.

This is not simply a hypothetical situation concerning the role of registrars; we are already aware of the cases that have come to court, not least the case of Lillian Ladele. We will recall that her lawyer, Mark Jones, gave evidence to the Committee a fortnight ago. That evidence concerned Miss Ladele who, as we know, was employed as a civil registrar by Islington borough council in 2002. Following the implementation of civil partnerships in 2004, Miss Ladele wrote to her employer explaining that she did not feel able to perform civil partnerships because of her religious beliefs. She requested that her employer provide reasonable accommodation for such beliefs and asked whether she could concentrate on officiating different-sex marriage ceremonies, while other colleagues without a faith objection to civil partnerships would manage the same-sex marriage ceremonies. A reasonable request, many would feel—it would not impact on others or prevent the registration of such marriages. In order to be helpful, she said she would be happy to be involved in the paperwork for civil partnerships. Despite acknowledging that there were more than enough registrars to carry out the required number of civil partnerships, the employer decided it was not willing to accommodate Miss Ladele and she was effectively asked to decide between her conscience and her livelihood. She lost her livelihood.

Miss Ladele is not a one-off case. The fact that she is mentioned quite often as an example may mean that people think she is on an extreme and that hers is simply one view. However, I have been informed that there are already local authorities that, without any primary legislation accommodation, have the flexibility and space for registrars with a conscientious objection to conducting civil partnerships, so long as—this is what is within the amendments—other colleagues are available to preside at civil partnership ceremonies. It is therefore unfortunate that the Bill does not provide the space to do that. A considerable number of registrars agreed to conduct civil partnership ceremonies on the basis that civil partnerships were not the same as marriage. I understand that Mark Jones, Lillian Ladele’s solicitor, has been approached by a number of such registrars, who are clear that if marriage is redefined, they could not in good conscience preside over marriage ceremonies without acting in violation of their conscience. It is therefore important to make it clear whether we want to change the law—as these amendments seek to—to make space for them, so that they will not be forced to act in violation of their conscience or lose their livelihood.

When one looks at these clauses, it is very much in scope to address the issue of the registrar, given that clause 2 refers to the whole issue of registration. We need to be sure that the law gives appropriate space. To that end, the proposal in amendment 11—that no registrar should be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages—speaks for itself. Amendment 25 and new clause 5 should be dealt with together. Amendment 25 deals with the problems with clause 2. It is not entirely clear why clause 2 mentions registrars—in that it deals only with marriages according to religious rites, which it terms “relevant marriages”—rather than a separate clause dealing with civil same-sex marriages. That would seem a much more logical way of dealing with the fact that such persons are not exempt or excluded.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why lesbian and gay taxpayers should be expected to pay for the salaries of people who are not prepared to provide them with a service to which they are legally entitled.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

We do not have a voucher system where taxpayers pay for the service provided by an individual registrar. We pay for the service. We pay the local authority to undertake duties responsibly and reasonably. We will soon have debates around other areas where local authorities are involved, such as how the public sector equality duty properly respects equality on behalf of taxpayers. We need to see how that duty will impact on other areas, such as registrars who operate in non-Church of England buildings.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

To aid my hon. Friend, according to the logic of the right hon. Member for Exeter, why should childless spinsters be expected to pay council tax for education services when they have no children to use those services? [ Interruption. ]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I encourage hon. Members not to heckle from a sedentary position.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I will not go down the route of spinsters, but I will say that it is unclear why the protection against being obliged to conduct such a marriage should apply only to the clergy or others within Churches. That protection has the potential to generate conflict between religious individuals and religious organisations. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rhondda has tabled an amendment around that. The Bill will accord greater weight to the religious freedoms of individuals than to institutional autonomy, but we will debate that at a later stage.

It is the view—not least of the Catholic Church, which represents a considerable body of people—that if the conscientious objection was broader and also protected individuals in circumstances where the state is involved, the interference would be justified. The fact that the measure is directed at religious organisations only is worrying and cannot be justified. Why has it been drafted that way? Why are particular interventions from the state not separate?

Amendment 25 deals with the conscientious objection issue. It would clarify the confusion caused by the reference to registrars in the context of relevant marriages. It would allow all individuals, including registrars and superintendent registrars to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and of religion. Crucially from a policy perspective, doing so would not prevent same-sex couples from accessing civil or religious marriage ceremonies. It is not necessary for all current and future registrars to become same-sex marriage registrars in order to provide same-sex marriage to couples who want it. It is an issue of conscience. As I understand it, at the beginning of a ceremony, the registrar would have to declare the definition of marriage as it extends to same-sex couples and there would be an issue of conscience as to whether they endorsed that view.

Amendments 11 and 25 and new clause 5 are important provisions that would ensure that the legislation matches the Government’s aspiration to provide freedom of conscience and would enable us to have a liberal, tolerant society that respects different views, including those of registrars. They would also protect existing registrars from being faced with a choice between a violation of conscience and losing their livelihood. That choice will persist unless the provisions are adopted or some transitional provisions could at least apply to existing registrars.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hood. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has proposed some interesting amendments. I will, if I may, refer back to some of the oral and written evidence that we received before this afternoon’s debate. It is right to draw on the experience that we have gained from the case of Ms Ladele who expressed a wish not to authorise or register same-sex civil partnerships. That is absolutely the starting point for the Government’s proposals in relation to marriage, which I should say for the avoidance of doubt that I support.

On 12 February, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, Lord Pannick said:

“Were a future Ms Ladele to say, ‘I am a marriage registrar and I have a religious objection to being involved in a same-sex marriage,’ she would fail for the same reason.”

That is the same reason that she failed in relation to civil partnerships.

“The reason she would fail is because if you want to perform the public function of being a marriage registrar, you really cannot say that you are not prepared to marry people who are marrying according to the law of the land in a civil marriage ceremony.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex couples) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2013; c. 48, Q142.]

That seems to me to go to the heart of the matter. We are talking about someone who is performing a state function. They cannot pick and choose when acting as an agent of the state to what extent they are prepared to fulfil the function that they are required to perform.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he said that we are seeking to strike a balance between the protection of, and respect for, religious freedoms and what we do when those come into conflict with prescriptions under the law. One Member cited the example of Sikhs and the road traffic legislation in relation to the wearing of helmets. Again, we had some helpful evidence in the course of our earlier sessions in relation to how the balance is approached. In its written evidence to us, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety”—

probably not applicable in this case—

“for the protection of public order”—

possibly—

“health or morals”—

perhaps—

“or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The EHRC goes on to say that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs is a “qualified right”, which means that the state can interfere with it in the circumstances specified. What the state needs to show is that any such interference meets the legitimate aims that are set out in that justification test. I contend that when the very purpose of the role of the registrar is to carry out registrations of marriages and other life events, it is absolutely legitimate and justified to interfere with their religious freedoms to that extent.

I just want to respond to a couple of point that have been raised in the debate on this group of amendments. The hon. Gentleman was making an important point when he highlighted the fact that for some registrars this would be a conscience issue. He said that it could become a real issue for registrars, who might have to choose between their beliefs and, possibly, their livelihood. That is a reasonable point to make, perhaps, if we are talking about existing registrars who entered into employment under one set of circumstances and then that set of circumstances changed. Regrettably, however, that is one of the things that goes with being a public servant. One is there to fulfil the requirements of the law as the law of the land stands at the time. To say, “I went in to fulfil this role when the law said x, and now it says y I am no longer prepared to follow the law”, is not an option for somebody who wants to operate as a public servant on behalf of the state and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter pointed out, draw his or her remuneration from the state. To go even further, the idea that someone might consciously apply for a job as a registrar with the full intention of not carrying out the role in full, because it conflicted with their religious beliefs is not conscientious objection, it is deliberately setting out to subvert the employment to which one is applying and it would not be right for this Committee to support applicants in that endeavour.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Does the hon. Lady agree that the people who are likely to be affected by this Bill if it becomes an Act are probably watching these deliberations quite carefully. Already, there is a very small number of registrars who are likely to feel this way. There is plenty of time, given that they work in local government, for them to think through the implications of Parliament changing this law and perhaps—and I hope local government is sensible about this—to apply for redeployment elsewhere in the public service: in the library service, or somewhere else where they have to serve the customers fairly and equally, but may not know the sexual identity of the people they encounter.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I certainly hope that local government employers will want to enter into reasonable conversations with their employees. Of course, redeployment opportunities in local government are diminishing by the day as we see substantial job losses in that sector. Nonetheless, I think it is interesting to observe that the Ladele case got to the point that it did. It may be that there will be many local authority employers who believe that they can broadly accommodate registrars conducting ceremonies according to their beliefs and will try to make that work.

My fundamental point is that, if one wishes to be appointed by the state and employed by the state to carry out the functions of the state, one does not have the choice to pick and choose which of those functions one will or will not fulfil. It is perfectly reasonable for employers to expect the whole job to be done by that employee. The legislation—the balancing of their religious freedom with other justifications for the state to interfere in those religious freedoms—is very clear. We should reject these amendments as opening up an opportunity to unwind some of that very careful and now well-understood analysis. If they are put to the vote, hon. Members should vote against them.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and the new clause. I agree that it would be a grave mistake to introduce legislation that has the effect of saying to registrars who do have a genuine conscientious objection to officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies that they must choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihood.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston does not seem to think that that is a problem. She is supported by the hon. Member for Bristol West, who thinks that they should just get on their bike. The cases in the European Court recently were retrospective. It is one thing to advertise a job where the applicant is required to comply with all the functions of a registrar, but another more serious issue to change the rules of engagement and change the terms of employment retrospectively knowing that it conflicts with the conscientious objections of a person who went into that job in good faith wanting to be a good registrar.

In the same frame as the case for the Relate marriage guidance counsellor, it seems nonsense to me that somebody who was the best marriage counsellor in the world, who was brilliant at dealing with opposite-sex couples whether married or unmarried, but had a problem giving advice to same-sex couples, at which they would probably be pretty rubbish, should be told retrospectively to get on their bike.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said, it is not a case of depriving the public who pay taxes to expect that service, because there is a duty and obligation on the local authority to employ a relationship counselling service or whatever to make sure that that service is available to local users. Surely the duty of care is to make sure that that service is available from all employees performing the role of a registrar or marriage guidance counsellor. Retrospective changing of the rules that would deprive people of their livelihoods is dangerous. It would be a grave mistake, because it would mean that recruitment would come with the rider that those with orthodox religious or other principled conscientious objections to same-sex marriage need not apply. That is pretty discriminatory in terms of an advertised job for which people may submit their CV. We would do the equality cause a gross disservice by introducing such crude and blunt measures. As has been said, it is entirely at variance with the true spirit of equality. One of the provision’s chief accomplishments would be the propagation of quite unnecessary employment discrimination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate was absolutely right to cite the provision properly made for atheist teachers to ensure that they are subject to different treatment under the law, inasmuch as they are not required to conduct collective service or to teach religious education. That is entirely right. If I wanted the best religious education for my child, I would have reservations about its being taught by somebody who had no belief in there being a superior theological force. I am happy that there are people in schools who hold those beliefs, but it would not be appropriate for them to engage in a religious education function. It would be absolutely wrong to tell atheist teachers that they must choose between acting in violation of their conscience or losing their livelihood. Similarly, it would be absolutely wrong to create a situation in which adverts for teachers in the non-faith school sector came with the words, “Atheist teachers need not apply”. That would be discriminatory.

A similar argument applies to those in the medical profession, as we mentioned earlier, given a conscientious objection right in respect of the provision of abortion. Our law does not state to doctors that they must choose between acting in violation of their conscience by providing an abortion service and losing their livelihood, nor does it say to would-be doctors that those with a conscientious objection to the provision of abortion need not apply. Yet the propagation of such discrimination will be the precise effect of the Bill, although happily it need not be if the Bill incorporates amendments 11, 25 and new clause 5, which the Committee will be invited to do soon.

There is currently only one reference to registrars and superintendent registrars in the Bill, in line 21 of clause 2, which states that for the purpose of the clause “person”

“does not include a registrar, a superintendent registrar or the Registrar General”.

Given the recent decision of the European Court in Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom that was the subject of our deliberations in relation to Mrs Ladele, a registrar who had a conscientious objection to performing civil partnerships and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as a result, it is surprising that the conscientious objections of registrars are not referred to elsewhere in the Bill in respect of civil same-sex marriage.

Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate noted, it is odd that the drafters chose to mention registrars under clause 2, which deals only with marriages according to religious rites that are termed a “relevant marriage” in the clause, and not under a separate clause that deals with civil same-sex marriages. Will the Minister clarify whether that was intentional or simply a slip of the draftsman’s pen? If it were intentional, it is very concerning. In either event, we need amendment 25 and new clause 5 to deal with the problem.

To continue our earlier debate, it is unclear why clause 2 protection should apply only to protect the clergy or others within Churches from being obliged to conduct such marriages. Such protection has the potential to create significant tension and conflict between religious individuals and religious organisations. The Bill will accord the religious freedom of individuals greater weight than institutional religious freedom. If the conscientious objection clause was broader, and it protected individuals in circumstances where the state was involved, as with this measure, the interference would be justified. It is concerning that, at present, it is directed only at religious organisations, and I do not think that it can be justified.

Amendment 25 therefore addresses this difficulty by removing line 21 from clause 2 and inserting a separate clause dealing with conscientious objections. It effectively clarifies the confusion caused by the reference to registrars within the context of relevant marriages. Crucially, it also allows individuals, including registrars and superintendent registrars, to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and religion. At the same time, it does not prevent same-sex couples from accessing civil or religious marriage ceremonies by doing so. As I have stated earlier, the duty is on the local authority as the provider.

It is simply unnecessary for all current and future registrars to become same-sex marriage registrars in order to provide same-sex marriage to couples who want it. As the Government have acknowledged, demand for same-sex marriage is not expected to be enormous. If the current number of civil partnerships is anything to go by, it is worth remembering that, when expressed as a percentage of the number of marriages, the resulting figure is something like 2.6%. We will not see a surge. There may be a blip, as we know, from those who want to convert from a civil partnership, but we are not talking about a figure that will overwhelm registrar departments up and down the country.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I want to warn the hon. Gentleman against predicting numbers. In quite a few cases, the Labour Government were not good at predicting numbers, including the number of civil partnerships—I think there were four times as many as they predicted. Also, a large number of gay and lesbian couples decided not to have a civil partnership until they could have full equality, so there may be something of a surge.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I certainly agree that the previous Labour Government were pretty rubbish at predicting figures, but even so, the numbers, as a proportion of those who are conventionally married, are still very small. The hon. Gentleman is right to say, as I suggested, that there was something of a blip when civil partnerships came in. In the first full year of civil partnerships, 14,943 were conducted. The year after that, the figure subsided to 7,900; it virtually halved. In 2011—the last year for which I have figures—it was just over 6,000, having been around 6,000 for those previous few years. It is therefore a constant number, though as I say, a blip is likely. It is absolutely possible that there will be people who did not want to go down the civil partnership route, but we are still talking about a small proportion of the 241,100 people who were married conventionally in 2010.

My point is that local registrars will not face a tide of applications for same-sex marriages that cannot be catered for unless every single local registrar is able and willing to conduct same-sex marriages. The hon. Gentleman also needs to bear in mind that many of the Churches that seem to have been singled out as major motivations behind this legislation—Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews—will open their doors to same-sex marriages. That is something that they could not do to civil partnerships. In some respects, therefore, there may be even less pressure on registrars, because there are more players in the market as a result of this legislation. Let us not be deterred or go down that blind alley.

Going back to that figure, it is important to remember that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 does not require all registrars to be designated civil partnership registrars. It simply requires registration authorities to ensure a sufficient number of civil partnership registrars for the area. I have given the figures to try to illustrate precisely that point. Across the United Kingdom, registrars’ beliefs have been accommodated by some local authorities, which have allowed registrars with sincerely held religious objections to the formation of civil partnerships not to be designated as civil partnership registrars. By doing this, local authorities have protected both the legal entitlements of same-sex couples and the conscientious rights of registrars. To put it another way, they have used some common sense.

Crucially, new clause 5 will not allow individuals to exercise a conscientious objection if doing so will result in same-sex couples being unable to access marriage services from a registry office. If a sufficient number of registrars is not available at any point, a registrar with a conscientious objection will come under a duty to conduct the same-sex marriage. Therefore no same-sex couple will be prevented from marrying by reason of the new clause. Surely that is what this is all about.

If we go ahead with the Bill, and there is a duty to make sure that the service is available consistently up and down the country, why do we need to place an obligation on every single member of the public who chooses to become a registrar—or who wants to continue as a registrar, having successfully fulfilled that function for many years, and who does not want to heed the pleadings of the hon. Member for Bristol West, who says that they should get on their bike, go somewhere else and lump it? Amendment 25 and new clause 5 would merely legislate for and endorse the approach already adopted by the sensible, tolerant local authorities that were prepared to live and let live in the context of civil partnerships. If we took that approach, we would prevent further cases like that of Lillian Ladele, and no same-sex couple would be denied the opportunity that the Bill intends to give them of getting married by a registrar.

Without amendment 25 and new clause 5, there will inevitably be legal disputes. There are some who, by reason of their religious or other beliefs, embrace civil partnerships but do not believe that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Clearly there will be many who object to same-sex marriage, as I do, and as do some of my hon. Friends and the many hon. Members who voted against the Bill but for civil partnerships. They embrace and have no problem with civil partnerships. So we will potentially be dealing with a bigger problem.

Without the amendment and new clause, registrars with a conscientious objection to presiding over same-sex marriages will be compelled to choose between violating their conscience and losing their livelihood. The post will henceforth come with the discriminatory caveat that those with conscientious objections to same-sex marriage should not apply and, worse still, those with such objections who are already in that job should get on their bikes. I do not think that was the Government’s intention. I hope it is not the Committee’s intention. By adopting these amendments, we can make sure that that does not happen.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I should to like to comment on this group of amendments, and to focus on amendment 25. As an introduction, I ask the Committee to cast their mind back to the evidence sessions the week before last. On the Tuesday morning, Lord Pannick and Baroness Kennedy outlined why they felt that the quadruple lock was okay and safe. We also heard from Professor McCrudden from the Roman Catholic faith, who stated:

“There are two different questions. The first is whether existing registrars should be able to gain an exemption, and as you know the Ladele case was of that kind in the civil partnership context. As you also know, the European Court of Human Rights has recently held against Miss Ladele in that, despite the fact that—this is relevant for the Committee’s considerations—the Court of Appeal had decided, and the Court of Human Rights accepted, that it would have no effect whatever on the delivery of the service.”

Although there appeared to be some grey area over that decision, the local council went ahead with its opinion. Professor McCrudden also said that amendments should be introduced

“to cope with both of those provisions. Essentially then, the answer to your question is that we regard that as a difficulty for registrars.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2013; c. 36-37, Q101.]

Professor McCrudden put on the record his concerns about this. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is not a member of this Committee, and I attended a seminar the week before last with three human rights lawyers. We heard two of the three express their concerns about the Ladele case, in relation to registrars. There is clearly legal concern, from a variety of points of view, about how such matters are handled. We have tabled the amendments to address that issue and to secure important protection for registrars, which we hope will be possible.

The Committee will be aware that there is currently nothing in the Bill allowing a person to refrain from conducting civil same-sex marriages on the grounds of conscientious objection. A provision allowing for conscientious objection is what the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate, and for East Worthing and Shoreham, wished to introduce, and I want to underline that point in the few moments available to me. The amendments would protect all people, including registrars and superintendent registrars, with a conscientious objection to conducting a same-sex marriage, whether the ceremony is religious or civil.

There is only one reference to registrars and superintendent registrars in the Bill, in clause 2(4)(b), in line 21. That states that, for the purposes of clause 2, a person

“does not include a registrar, a superintendent registrar or the Registrar General”.

Given some of the recent decisions in relation to Ms Ladele—a registrar who had a conscientious objection to performing civil partnerships and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as a result—it is surprising that conscientious objection on the part of registrars is not mentioned or addressed elsewhere in the Bill in respect of civil same-sex marriage.

We want to put clearly on the record our concern for those with conscientious objections or issues that we believe are important. I hope that nobody in the Committee would promote legislation that brushes aside the opinions of those with conscientious objections, or disregards those who have a heartfelt, honestly held opinion on this subject. Perhaps we should look forward to amendments that have been tabled by other Committee members, who are trying to do away with the word “may” and to insert the word “shall”. Will those hon. Members give an indication of what they are trying to do with the Bill in this House and in Committee?

It is unclear why the draftsmen chose to mention registrars in a clause that deals only with marriages according to religious rites—and matters are developing with the new clause—and not in separate clauses dealing with civil same-sex marriages. It is also unclear why the protection should apply only to clergy, and does not prevent others within Churches from being obliged to conduct such marriages. The protection has the potential to generate conflict between religious individuals and religious organisations, and the Bill will accord the religious freedom of individuals greater weight than that of an institution. If the conscientious objection clause was broader and also protected individuals in circumstances where the state was involved, its appearance might be justified and considered. The fact that it is directed only at religious organisations is worrying and cannot be justified.

The biggest issue, when people speak to me about this, is the impact on people’s religious beliefs and what they feel. Whether Committee members like it or not, there is a vast amount of religious opinion among the general public; we are talking about many millions who are clearly worried and concerned about this, which is why we need the to discuss this in Committee.

The amendments to clause 2 and the new clause dealing with conscientious objections would clarify the confusion caused by the reference to registrars with the context of relevant marriages. They would also allow individuals, including registrars and superintendent registrars, to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and religion. They would not prevent same-sex couples from accessing civil or religious marriage ceremonies. It is not necessary for all current or future registrars to become registrars of same-sex marriages to provide same-sex marriage for couples who want it.

Hon. Members have referred to exceptions. The new clause would not be unprecedented in our legal system or under the law of this land. It would not have a detrimental effect on the Bill. Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows individuals with a conscientious objection to abstain from participation in abortions. That has not resulted in any difficulty for women wishing to have abortions. That is not taking into account my personal opinion in relation to abortions; that is what the law of the land says. A conscientious objection clause in this Bill would similarly not result in same-sex couples having difficulty accessing same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Furthermore, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 does not require all registrars to be designated civil partnership registrars. It simply requires the

“registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of civil partnership registrars for its area to carry out in that area the functions of civil partnership registrars”.

Across the UK, registrars’ beliefs have been accommodated by some local authorities that have allowed registrars with sincerely held religious objections to the formation of civil partnerships not to be designated a civil partnership registrar. While doing that, local authorities are responding to the rights of same-sex couples and registrars. It is so important, given that we have the privilege of, and responsibility for, making legislation in Committee, that we get it right for our people, and ensure a fair system of legality, through the Bill, in the House.

New clause 5, like the Civil Partnership Act 2004, would not allow individuals to exercise their conscientious objection if doing so would result in same-sex couples being unable to get married. If a sufficient number of registrars were not available at any point, a registrar with a conscientious objection would come over and conduct the same-sex marriage. Therefore, no same-sex couple would be prohibited from marrying by the new clause.

The amendments would promote tolerance, rather than hinder it. I think we have all tried, in a responsible way, to bring tolerance into the Bill. There are viewpoints that are heartfelt for us all. Individuals are more likely to live in harmony with one another even if their thoughts and traditions regarding marriage are contradictory, if one person’s privileges are not limited in favour of another’s. Many people tell me that in this country and in Northern Ireland, and many Christians have heartfelt fears and concerns. In this debate, equality, harmony, broadmindedness and tolerance are more likely to be achieved if both those who do and those who do not believe in same-sex marriage are equally valued and respected.

It is that tolerance and protection that we are seeking for the conscientious objector. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 did not cause problems for registrars on the whole, except in the case of Ms Ladele. Ms Ladele’s local authority could have taken the approach that many other local authorities had adopted, and allowed her to refrain from being designated a civil partnership registrar. By not doing that, it forced Ms Ladele to endure protracted litigation, both in the domestic and European Court. In that case, the response of the local authority gave rise to the legal dispute. We often refer to the threat of Europe legislatively, and to the European Court of Human Rights, but sometimes things are closer to home, when it comes to the burden of legislative change and the direction taken.

The amendments would legislate for an approach that has already been adopted by sensible, tolerant local authorities that were prepared to live and let live in the context of civil partnerships. By adopting the amendments, we will prevent further cases like Ms Ladele’s. Without the amendments, there will definitely be legal disputes in future. There are some who, by reason of religious or other beliefs, wholeheartedly embrace civil partnerships but do not believe that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.

Without the amendments, the rights of those people with conscientious objections will be limited so that same-sex couples can access marriage, and some registrars will lose their jobs. I hope there is no one on the Committee who would put people in the position of losing their jobs. Parliament can and should encourage tolerance through the amendments, which will protect the rights of individuals with conscientious objections, and indeed of same-sex couples. I hope that the Committee will look on the amendments favourably. It is important that they do. If they do, protection will be given to registrars. If they do not, we are living in a sorry state.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, for the amendments, as they give the Committee the opportunity to debate the importance of striking the right balance between removing the unfair barrier preventing same-sex couples being able to marry, and the rights of those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Let us be honest about it: as with much else in the measure, the key word is “balance”.

We recognise that extending marriages to same-sex couples may—and I only say “may”—put some current marriage registrars who hold the religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman in a difficult position. Registrars are public servants who perform statutory duties. That is a point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter. It is an important principle that public servants should perform their duties without discrimination.

A registrar who marries a couple is conducting a civil marriage ceremony on behalf of the state, not performing a religious function. That is the case whether they perform the function in the register office or elsewhere. It would not be right, in our view, to allow public servants to pick and choose their duties in the way suggested, based on their beliefs about marriage and the sexual orientation of those seeking their services, any more than it would be right to accommodate different views on interfaith marriages or divorce.

It is also worth mentioning—this answers a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate—that officials in the Department had extensive discussions with the national panel for registration prior to and during the consultation period. Conscience was not mentioned in the national panel’s response. Indeed, the response to the consultation from registrars focused on practical administrative issues, not issues of conscience.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister has just used the phrase “pick and choose”. How is this different from allowing another public servant, a surgeon, to pick and choose whether to perform an abortion?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Generally speaking, I believe all these cases are different. There are plenty of issues. I spent some time as a young man in the Army, and there are plenty of cases in which the Government take a decision and expect public servants to carry it out. That is not an unfair principle in any way.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Why is it the principle that a surgeon who has strong Catholic views is allowed to pick and choose whether to perform abortions or other surgery, if the same principle cannot be applied to a Catholic registrar with strong views, allowing them to pick and choose whether to perform that other public service? What is so essentially different that we protect one but not the other?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

It is because they are different functions; that is the short answer.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is not an answer.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Yes, it is. They are different functions. One is an abortion; the other is a same-sex marriage.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Why do we protect religious views on abortion but not the religious views of registrars, when in both cases public servants perform a public function, for which the public pay? They are different, but saying they are different is not a justification for treating them differently.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

It is about whether that is in the Bill; that is the short answer. It is relevant that in the extensive consultation period the national body responsible did not ask for that exemption. I do not know whether that was the case when the Abortion Act 1967 was put on the book, and what representations were made by the professional bodies at that point; but the issue was not raised.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

To confirm what the Minister says, the Government are picking and choosing who has an exemption and who does not.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

No. The Government have laid out a very straightforward process in the Bill, which does not provide the exemption that my hon. Friend wants. The Government envisage that if the Bill is passed, registrars as public servants should carry out their functions.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

To pursue the Minister’s logic about the difference between the two functions, the Government have decided that in relation to the function of registration there will be protection, exemption and respect for the conscientious objection of religious organisations, but that does not include registrars, superintendant registrars or the Registrar General.

There is an acceptance by the Government that one cannot distinguish a public function, given that non-Church of England organisations will effectively be licensed to register same-sex marriages. Why, then, do the Government want to distinguish between religious organisations and individual registrars when it comes to protections? They give some protection—but not in the case of a registrar.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

The simple answer is because they perform different functions. During the consultation, the Church made it very clear that it wanted the protections and has since made it clear that it is happy with them, whereas one of the reasons that the protections were not extended to registrars is that the body responsible for representing registrars did not ask for them.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

May I helpfully suggest one of the significant differences between abortion as it affects the medical profession and what we are discussing now? The jobs open to devout Catholics in the medical profession are many, the vast majority of which would never take them anywhere near an abortion. That is completely different from the functions of a registrar, which are sometimes solely, and always largely, to conduct marriages and civil ceremonies.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

It is a point well made—I slightly strayed off that one because I am not entirely familiar with the provisions that lie behind the Abortion Act 1967 and the reasons why that particular conscience clause was offered. The point is well made.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The Minister said that the Churches were happy with this; the Churches were not happy—I go beyond the Church of England. Can the Minister provide me with evidence that the millions in Evangelical Churches were happy with the clause? Can the Minister provide me with evidence from the Catholic Church? They provide a civil and religious function in relation to registration of marriages in their churches—how can he give them distinct protection but not individual registrars?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

The short answer is that anybody who wished to was able to respond to the consultation and give evidence. The Church of England made very, very clear in its evidence session that it was entirely happy with the protections and specifically asked us not to change them in any way.

Like other people, registrars are of course entitled to hold beliefs about marriage without restriction. They are free to express their views at work, as long as that is not done in an offensive manner and does not affect their ability to do their job. Contrastingly—I think many agree with this—it is reasonable that an employer should be able to expect an employee to do their job, particularly when that job has been extended by an Act of Parliament. That is the balance that we are trying to strike.

New clause 5 states that it is

“without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars for its area”,

but it is not clear how an authority could be confident that it could meet that duty if any registrar it currently employs and any it might employ in the future could seek to rely on that exemption at any time, regardless of whether they have an objection at the time the Bill is enacted. As others have mentioned, a registrar could apply for a post that would specifically require them to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies and then change their mind the week after they started. That would obviously cause all sorts of problems, and would place same-sex and opposite-sex couples on a different basis.

New clause 5 would apply the conscientious objection provision to any person. It is unclear whether it is intended to apply just to registrars, and if not, who else it is intended to apply to. It is also unclear whether the proposed new provision is intended to apply only in respect of the actual solemnisation of the marriage and not to any other tasks undertaken that are associated with the solemnisation of marriage. In our view, clause 2 already provides sufficient protection for individuals in religious organisations who do not wish to conduct or participate in a religious marriage ceremony for same-sex couples. That said, I do understand the issues here. However, I come back to the crucial point that the representative body for registrars did not ask for a conscience objection. On that basis and on the basis of my response, I would urge my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate to withdraw the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful for this very important debate on a subject that is not in any way a side issue. We are not only dealing with the registration of marriages but are going to the heart of the debate about the challenges facing the Government. When they seek to redefine marriage, they have to accomplish a balancing protecting not just religious liberty but liberty of conscience. They have to consider whether rights are trumped and whether we can properly accommodate the conscience view of individuals. That is at the heart of the amendments. I have heard the debate and the Minister’s argument, but I am not persuaded. I believe that we increasingly have, as shown in the Bill, a hierarchy of protections.

3.30 pm

First, I am not convinced by the reasons given for why we have the particular framing in clause 2, which is all about marriage according to religious rites. We have had no response to that. Why are registrars picked out as not having access to the conscientious objection that individual ministers will have as part of a religious organisation? That is a concern, because the reality is that, contrary to the Minister’s assertion, the situation is different if one goes beyond the Church of England: the discussions were predominantly around issues of protection for Churches and activities within church buildings. The amendments go beyond the issue of church buildings and the Minister’s noble efforts to try to provide appropriate protection for religious organisations, certainly within the confines of a church building.

There is an inconsistency in the Government’s position. They rightly want to protect the conscience of individual ministers performing both a civil and a religious function. If one gets married in a Catholic church, the minister has to provide both civil and religious functions. They are not separate as the Government would conveniently want us to say that they are. Such ministers are protected: they are protected on the civil side of that function as much as on the religious one that the Government want to pray in aid. Our concern is about the inconsistency in the Bill on the civil function. The conscience of ministers is protected, but that protection does not extend to registrars, superintendent registrars or the Registrar General.

Even at this stage, however, the state provides conscientious objection for certain functions, such as for doctors in relation to abortion or for teachers, as we have heard, in relation to taking part in collective worship as well as in other parts of education. We are left in a situation where many of us dissenters are not satisfied—myself in particular—by the Government’s response. We need to press the Government to recognise that someone’s individual conscience should be properly respected. Their conscientious objection should be properly considered. One answer that we have heard is that registrars will have to look for another job. I would be interested, beyond the day-to-day, to get further evidence from registrars to see whether what the Minister says about the panel having no concerns at all really stands the test of challenge and to see whether we are in a situation where, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, registrars will have to get on their bike.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

My hon. Friend did not quite go this far, but if he is convinced that the problem is what he says it is, why does he think that the national panel did not mention it as a problem at any stage in the consultation? If there is a huge problem, why did the panel not raise it? What does he think the Government did that so frightened or intimidated the panel that it was unable to raise the issue?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

It is a shame that we did not have an evidence session with the panel to raise that question directly. That perhaps illustrates the point that I heard today, which is that the panel are of that view. It would be good for us to be able to examine that evidence to see how the panel reached its considered view. It would also be good to see how that view differs from that of several individuals who have already made the point to the solicitor representing Lillian Ladele that they are directly challenged by the Government’s provisions and will have to seek new employment. I will happily seek to find further evidence if the Committee is not with me.

If the amendments do not succeed, we will undeniably be left with a situation where registrars face a choice between acting in violation of their conscience or losing their livelihood. I want us to be able to withdraw today what the Government is effectively putting forward, which is a notice to quit in several months for many such registrars. That is not something that we would want to do in good conscience if we are on the side of liberty of conscience. I therefore want to withdraw amendment 11 and to press amendment 25 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) Premises owned or under the control of bodies specified in Schedule [ ] may not be licensed for the solemnization of a same sex marriage.

( ) The Secretary of State must, by order or regulations, amend the list of bodies specified in Schedule [ ] if further bodies notify him that they wish to be included in the Schedule.’.

I do apologise that I am still batting away. I am not sure if I have yet got into stroking any balls into the boundary; it may still be singles. I share the crease with the Minister at the moment—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I must ask hon. Members to stop chatting among themselves, because they are encouraging some people in the Public Gallery to do so, which cannot be tolerated.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

As someone who represents a majority in the Conservative party as well as millions across the country, it is my duty to give careful scrutiny to the Bill and to provide unofficial opposition to it. The amendment takes the Government’s position on locks a stage further. I think we are up to four locks—a quadruple lock is in place—so this is a quintuple lock. It provides an additional lock—one could call it a deadlock—to the other locks that are in place, particularly in dealing with this area of Church concern. I want to draw the Minister into this area because it is not all about the Church of England. We have had an important debate about the fact that the Church of England is significantly affected—it has had detailed conversations with the Government about its concerns—but there is a wide body of Christian concern in other Churches. One could even say that that concern is increasing.

One could point to the 5 million or so Evangelical Christians, or to others from whom we heard during our evidence sessions such as the United Reformed Church and Methodists, who would all say that they are not minded at present to opt in to same-sex marriage. They may do at some point, particularly the United Reformed Church and the Methodists, who indicated that there would be debates in their governing body. I would be extremely surprised if other organisations such as the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches ever opted into same-sex marriage proposals, but that would be a matter for each individual Church to determine. It is important to recognise the process that they have to go through, and whether there is a need for an additional lock, perhaps one that is also a very public or published lock that provides opportunities, with amendment 12, for additional comfort.

Certain non-Church of England religious bodies have to make an application under section 41(1) of the Marriage Act 1949 for their buildings to be registered for the solemnisation of marriages. The framework for the registration of places of religious worship under the 1949 Act could, on the face of it—this is the opinion of Aidan O'Neill, QC, of Matrix Chambers—allow a little discretion to the relevant public authority to apply conditions to any such registration or authorisation to solemnise marriages, although the public authority would still be bound by the public sector equality duty in carrying out any functions in connection with such registration.

When one looks at the terms of section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949, and when consideration is being given to applications for permission for religious premises to be used for the solemnisation of marriages, it will be a relevant consideration for, and the duty of, the relevant public authority to have regard to how any such approval might impact on its attempt to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. How it may advance or impede equality of opportunity to remove or minimise historic disadvantages experienced by minority groups should also be considered. We shall come on to consider amendments that seek to address the issue of the public equality duty head-on, but to avoid a conflict between the registration duties under the 1949 Act and the equality duties under the 2012 Act a public authority might—I say that with caution— seek or be required to, let us say in judicial review, read down the registration provisions under the Marriage Act 1949 in a manner which then could be considered to be human rights compatible and consistent with the positive obligations under the Equality Act 2010. That is relevant, because these questions raise important issues that can provide a degree of instability for the current premises registration and approval regime.

While the Government have sought to deal with this with their quadruple lock, it is important to recognise that, if Parliament wants to prevent the possibility of such interpretation or application of the relevant legislation, it needs to be even clearer about the protections that are available. Aidan O'Neill says:

“Without such amendment of the legislation, non-Anglican churches might better protect themselves against the possibility of becoming entangled in any such disputes by simply deciding not to seek or indeed renounce State sanction which currently allows them to provide legally recognised (as opposed to purely religious) marriage services at all, since there could then be no complaint of discrimination in the provision of services to the public as between same-sex and opposite-sex couples”.

Those Churches might simply seek to opt out completely from any involvement in legally recognised marriage. That is a relevant, practical concern for Churches. I am not sure if the Minister has met those Churches, groups and organisations directly, or whether he has received and considered the evidence that they want it to be made crystal clear that they are not going to be under any threat such as, for example, the withdrawal by the local authority of their licence to carry out their legal function of marriage, or something that impacts on them in another way. We will deal with that issue later.

The amendment seeks to enable the provision of a list that is no doubt publishable and gives real clarity on which bodies have opted in or out of same-sex marriage. Amendment 12 makes the point clearly that there would be premises owned or under the control of bodies specified in a schedule that may not be licensed for the solemnisation of same-sex marriage and that the Secretary of State may by order amend that list.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I apologise to the spectators—votes stopped play. We have been in the pavilion of the Commons for a while now, but we are back to amendment 12.

In conclusion—those words may have particular resonance to Committee members—the amendment would create an extra line of defence. It takes the Government at their word that they want to protect civil liberties and religious freedom in the Bill. It would strengthen the Government’s quadruple lock by turning it into a quintuple lock. It would add a deadlock for the use of Churches or other religious organisations and groups. The amendment is about religious freedom. It bowls the Minister a full toss that he can knock off for a boundary by saying that he supports those principles at the heart of the Bill—[Interruption.] I apologise that the hon. Member for Rhondda is not following my terminology.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Is there protection in amendment 12 for those who own buildings as well as for Churches? The people who own buildings may not be clergy. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating protection for both parties?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he very much is in this Committee as one of my fellow dissenters. The amendment would allow bodies and organisations to be specified in a schedule, and the list could be amended by order or regulations. It would put in place a statutory process whereby everybody would be clear about who wished to license same-sex marriage and who did not. My hon. Friend will recall that the issue of the owners of buildings, in particular trustees, was raised by the representative of the United Reformed Church. We will come on to discuss amendments through which we will press the Government about whether there needs to be particular protection for the trustees of buildings, but amendment 12 relates to the bodies themselves. It would make it clear that the Bill provides protection, which is what the Government want to achieve, by putting in place an additional reassuring lock. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I listened with careful attention to the hon. Gentleman in search of the point of his amendment, but I am afraid I am still not sure that I understand it. There is a danger that the amendment would over-legislate, as it would add a fifth lock to those four locks that all the witnesses I heard in our oral evidence sessions seemed to think were sufficient. There is no need to introduce further complication by setting out a list of premises in a schedule, which presumably would have to be amended and updated repeatedly over time. The amendment certainly does not have my support.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I thank the hon. Lady for being brief, because everyone is keen to conclude our consideration of clause 1 by the end of the sitting, if we can.

The amendment would create a statutory list of bodies that own or control premises and do not wish to have same-sex marriages solemnised on their premises. I fully appreciate that people want to feel secure that the permissive system works and, indeed, protects those religious organisations that do not wish to marry same-sex couples. However, we do not consider that the amendment is the way to go about it.

The religious protections in clause 2 and the opt-in provisions under clause 4 to 8, which will no doubt be discussed in detail later in our proceedings, will provide a robust and effective system to ensure that religious organisations that do not want to marry same-sex couples have strong protection. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said, the Church of England, in particular, indicated that it was more than happy with those protections.

The amendment is not limited to religious organisations. It would allow non-religious and commercial organisations, such as a hotel chain, the proprietor of a stately home or a football stadium, where marriages can take place, to prevent same-sex marriages from being carried out. Such an outcome would be completely contrary to the Government’s intention under the Bill that marriage should be available to same-sex couples through civil ceremonies in the same way as is it for opposite-sex couples. Under our proposals, premises approved for marriages through civil ceremonies would be available for opposite-sex and same-sex marriages on the same footing. That is a key element of delivering equal marriage for all.

Even if the amendment applied only to religious premises, I would still resist it. Although I understand to some extent the desire of some religious organisations to place on record their governing authority and so enshrine in the Bill who must give consent to a place of worship being registered for same-sex marriages, it is doubtful how much value that would add in practice. The opt-in system that we have devised whereby the consent of the governing body is provided at the point when the individual premises are registered for marriages of same-sex couples has the advantage of simply linking the premises directly to the governing authority at the relevant point in the process.

When the application is made, not only does a copy of the consent need to be provided but, importantly, the proprietor or trustee needs to certify that the relevant body has given consent. Adding another stage by which reference must be made to a central list of governing authorities would merely add unnecessary bureaucracy. It is also clear that such a list could not replace the provisions that we have already made. There are a great many small religious organisations whose governing authorities are effectively local and the maintenance of a list of all of them, in the event that they chose to opt in, would be impractical.

No religious organisation can be forced to conduct same-sex marriages and any religious organisation wishing to do so will have to take positive steps to register buildings for those purposes. What we have already provided for will work, and the Committee does not have to take my word for it, although I hope that it will, because hon. Members will be familiar with the evidence of the Church of England in the witness session. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate will withdraw the amendment.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am trying to avoid repetition, but the amendment was drafted not because of Church of England issues, but for the sake of the opt-in organisations that have expressed worry about the matter. I do not want to take up the Committee’s time unduly by responding to the Minister although, in effect, we are only in the first day of a five-day test. As he knows, it is important that we make full use of each day to achieve the maximum effect.

I do not want to cause the hon. Member for Rhondda concern with my cricket analogies, and nor do I want to press the amendment to a Division, given the Minister’s assurances about the quadruple lock. There will be opportunities under clause 2 to test whether those assurances hold water, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—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 2—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”.’.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I promise the Committee that there will be no cricket metaphors, analogies or references in my speech. On one of the occasions I appeared in the Daily Mail sketch, Mr Letts said, “Mr Williams is just the sort of man who you know will be absolutely no good at cricket.” I think it was meant as an insult, but he was actually very accurate, as my games teacher from school could no doubt confirm.

The Bill is about extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples and, from that perspective, about equalities and civil rights. New clauses 1 and 2 would complete the circle of equality by extending the rather more recent institution of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I shall advance three reasons why I hope the Committee will consider that this is a good proposal. More importantly, by the time that we get to Report, I hope that the Government will either embrace the new clauses or table provisions of their own to put the proposal into effect.

The first reason is that we should have parity of esteem between civil partnerships and civil marriage—a parallel legal and societal recognition of loving, sexual and exclusive relationships between two consenting adults. Civil partnerships will remain after the Bill is enacted. The Government must have considered whether to abolish them, perhaps at some point in the future, but they have decided not to do so. They will therefore remain for the couples who have them as a legal recognition of their relationships. Same-sex couples will still be able to enter into new civil partnerships under the Bill. Some of the existing holders of civil partnerships may decide to convert them into a civil marriage, or even into a religious marriage, if their denomination or faith opts into the provisions of the Bill.

I describe that process deliberately as a conversion. I do not see converting from a civil partnership to a civil marriage or even a religious marriage as trading up. I do not think that marriage is necessarily the gold standard. It would be regrettable if, after the Bill’s enactment, people who have civil partnerships and do not wish for whatever reason to convert them into civil or religious marriages feel that they are somehow members of a residual class of relationship that declines in importance as more people take up civil and religious marriages. Parliament should not only continue with civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but extend the opportunity to enter into a civil partnership to opposite-sex couples.

The second reason is that there may be some demand from opposite-sex couples to take up a civil partnership, as opposed to the civil or religious marriages that are already available to them. Modern Britain has many different households and we are a very diverse society. We have many people who live alone and are in no particular relationship. We have single-parent families. We also have families with children who have two fathers or two mothers, as well as the more traditional family units of which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate would approve. We therefore need modern laws that recognise the sort of relationships that people have in modern Britain.

The latest Office for National Statistics report on household structures in the UK that is relevant to this debate is from 1 November 2012. It is entitled “Cohabitation in the UK” and shows that there are 2,893,000 opposite-sex couples in the UK who are not married. That figure is up from 1,459,000 in 1996, when the figure was previously reported, so between 1996 to 2012, the number of opposite-sex cohabiting couples doubled. Almost 6 million people are in relationships and living under the same roof, but not married, and that is the fastest growing type of family unit in the UK. Among different age groups, it is fastest growing among those aged over 65, who are clearly not entering into such relationships to have children.

While those 6 million people are currently cohabiting, as society sees it, but unmarried, as far as the law sees it, they are none the less in committed relationships. They share a home and there will quite possibly be children in the household. We can speculate about why people would choose to do that. It could be inertia, because they might have decided that their existing relationship works fine for them and see no reason to change it. It might even be cost, and I am sure that the Chancellor will have received representations about that prior to the Budget, perhaps even from several hon. Members in the room, who might wish to intervene to say that tax is the reason why people do not enter into a marriage. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate will tell us.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am hoping that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me. I understand that Stonewall attended the Lib Dem conference in 2010 and pointed out that the extension that he seeks would cost £5 billion over 10 years. I am not sure where that figure came from, but is he aware of it? Has he been able to assess the likely cost of his proposal?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I was not aware of the figure. No doubt the Minister will give us reasons why the Government have chosen not to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples under the Bill. Cost may well be one reason, but perhaps it is not the most compelling one.

Six million people are currently cohabiting in a relationship, perhaps living with children. While that might be due to inertia or cost, I suspect, in many cases, that it is simply a conscious decision that people have made, perhaps because they have an objection to the historical institution of marriage, as it has been defined over time. After the Bill becomes an Act, the perception of marriage might change. However, it has been put to me that many people see the current institution of marriage as a means of social control to which the equal rights of women have been a relatively recent addition.

People in the room, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda, are much more qualified than me to talk about the marriage ceremony. I believe that the phrase “love, honour and obey” has disappeared from the marriage service or is not usually an option any more, but it none the less it lives on in folklore and memory.

I am sure that all of us on the Committee can think of people, perhaps friends or members of our families—certainly several members of Bristol council—in long-term relationships in opposite-sex couples, perhaps living with children, who have chosen not to marry. If we passed the new clauses, those couples could have the option of entering into a civil partnership to give recognition to their commitment and, by that legal underpinning, perhaps also strengthen it, especially if there are children.

The ONS report to which I referred says that, in 2012, 39% of unmarried couples had at least one child in their household compared with 38% of married couples. The latest statistics from the registrar of births, marriages and deaths show that, in 2010, 53% of birth registrations were to parents who were married. Some 31% of registrations were to unmarried parents who live together, while the remaining 16% were to parents living separately or when the father was not identified for whatever reason.

It is therefore clear that marriage is not necessarily about procreation, and a number of people who enter into marriages do not procreate. Equally, a large number of family units in the United Kingdom certainly do procreate but, for whatever reason, choose not to enter into the existing institution of marriage that is legally available to them. Roughly four out of 10 unmarried couples choose to have children and roughly a third of children are born to unmarried parents living together. Extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples would give legal recognition to such family units.

The third reason behind the proposal is that the legal rights of unmarried couples, or couples who are not in a civil partnership, are not equal to those of couples who are married or in civil partnerships. There is no such thing—certainly in the law of England and Wales—as a common-law husband, wife or partner. While I was reading up on this, I discovered that even a couple who are engaged to be married—as long as there is an indication of clear intention, perhaps by buying a ring—have greater legal protection than a cohabiting couple. That is provided for under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, with which I am sure that at least one of the Ministers in the room is very familiar—or is about to be, if they are not.

At present, unmarried opposite-sex couples can have separation deeds or can enter into cohabitation contracts. These existing societal arrangements seem to offer very good work for solicitors. We have all heard of pre-nuptials for people who are considering entering into marriage—I understand that some family lawyers refer to these agreements as no-nuptials—in order to protect existing property rights. An obvious example would be where a man—it probably would be a man in many cases—owns a house and his girlfriend moves in. They may live together for many years, but if that relationship breaks up at some point in the future, the girlfriend would have absolutely no rights if there had been no intention to marry and they had not been engaged. Even if there were children present, they would still need to have recourse to the courts under the Children Act 1989 to try to establish rights to what everyone else would see as the family home. Extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, particularly if children were present, would provide for protection under the law much more easily.

This Bill is about equality and civil rights, but it would be perverse to pass it unamended and thereby create a new excluded minority—a large, 6 million-strong minority—who cannot enter into a civil partnership if they wish to do so. During our evidence sessions, many of us asked the witnesses whether they supported, or saw any objection to, civil partnerships being extended to opposite-sex couples. I do not recall a single witness who replied negatively. Some were neutral, but nobody put forward an opinion of why we should not do this. Indeed, Baroness Kennedy and Lord Pannick said the Bill would be much better if this extension were included.

The new clauses represent no harm to society, but could be an opportunity to create much happiness in the country. It is very rare that parliamentarians are able to vote on things that do not represent any harm but have the potential to create much happiness, so I hope that we will embrace that opportunity at some point.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I broadly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, although I would say that the Bill itself will provide immense good without providing significant harm to anybody. Some still subscribe to the Westminster Confession and others have religious objections but, none the less, the broad weight of the Bill will provide greater benefits, even if it is unamended, and I think that that is the public’s view as well. However, the Bill will also lead to some anomalies. It would be inaccurate to say that this is a Bill of perfect equations and perfect equality, because we will end up with rather different rules for heterosexuals and homosexuals, and I would prefer us not to go down that route.

When the Secretary of State came before us, her “gold standard” argument seemed to be based on the fact that she would, in all honesty, prefer to abolish civil partnerships, pretend they had never existed and go forward with same-sex marriage. However, that is not possible, because there are inconvenient people, such as myself, who are in civil partnerships, and we might not want to be in a same-sex marriage—we might be perfectly content. When civil partnership legislation was first introduced, many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people said, “I actually like the fact that the legislation is slightly different. We don’t want to pretend to be heterosexuals.” That conversation has moved on dramatically.

However, I know many heterosexual couples who have lived together for many years—several of them have children—and have never wanted to enter into marriage, which they associate, even if it does not take place in a church, with religion, to which they do not subscribe. None the less, they would like to be able to regularise their relationship and put it on a proper legal footing. All too often, as the hon. Gentleman says, people have inherited this bizarre assumption that there is this thing called a common-law husband or common-law wife, which somehow brings with it certain rights. The Law Society has produced endless reports saying that Parliament really must look at provision for people who have lived together for many years, but who have not managed to regularise their relationship in law. Normally, the woman ends up losing out massively when her partner dies.

Those who take a religious perspective might say, “But there is a gold standard: it is marriage.” The hon. Member for Strangford quoted Matthew, chapter 19, verses 4 and 5. There, Jesus quotes Genesis, chapter 2. At that time, he did not expect that, for a marriage to be concluded, three banns of marriage would be provided in a church and that someone would be able to go only to their parish priest, rather than somebody else’s parish, unless they got an archbishop’s special licence.

The whole construct of legal marriage in this country hinges on an historical assumption that it is right for two people to marry one another. When we had the representative from the Quakers before us, it was interesting that they talked, in a sense, about an older understanding of marriage, in which the priest or the vicar was not marrying the couple, because they were marrying one another, and everybody else was a witness. In a sense, that is what the civil marriage does.

Given all that, it would be wrong to talk about a gold standard and to say that it is what the Church provides and calls marriage, holy matrimony or whatever term we want to use, or, for that matter, that it is marriage in a registry office or some other place that is legally licensed. Many people actually want platinum, silver or whatever other precious metal we might want to refer to, because we all live our lives in different ways.

I think of the kind of couple who have lived together for 25 years and who have children. They do not want to invalidate the emotional commitment they personally made right at the very beginning, which has lasted all these years, and that is what they feel that going to a registry office to perform a marriage with a ceremony would require. However, they do want to make sure that, if anything were to happen to them, their partner would be provided for in law. That is why I think the hon. Member for Bristol West is right.

It is a big question whether it is right to make changes on this issue at this stage of the Bill. This is the Committee stage, and we can completely and utterly change any Bill in Committee, should we choose to. However, many right hon. and hon. Members thought long and hard before they voted for the Bill on Second Reading. This measure was not part of the Bill on Second Reading. It would change quite significantly the kinds of letters that a lot of right hon. Members and hon. Members would want to write to their constituents about the nature of the Bill.

I hope that we will have a debate on this issue on Report, and that we will not have a vote this afternoon; if we were to do so, although I personally support the idea behind it, I would vote against the new clause, because a decision on it should be made by the whole House rather than in Committee. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, who are now about to fulminate.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have a good deal of sympathy with the new clause. I completely fail to understand the logic of the hon. Member for Rhondda in saying that it should not be up to a Committee that has been appointed by the whole House to pass new clauses that will then have to be endorsed or overturned by the whole House. The whole point of the Committee is to have the breadth and space to discuss amendments and put forward new clauses in the spirit of consideration that is given by being in a Committee Room, and then to send the Bill back to the Floor of the House, where any other Members who have an interest can take part in the debate. The logic of the hon. Gentleman saying that he will vote against something in Committee that he actually possibly agrees with because he wants his mates to have a go at it too is bizarre. Why does he bother with the Committee at all?

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

To listen to your speeches.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am delighted. It is always a pleasure to perform in front of the hon. Gentleman, but I find his latest contribution quite extraordinary.

The point of the new clauses is to right an anomaly that has pervaded since 2004. On the figures that the hon. Member for Bristol West quoted, that anomaly is going to get worse. There is a very large excluded minority that we are going to be discriminating against in a Bill that is supposedly fashioned to combat discrimination. All of us—well, almost all of us—on the Committee who were in the House back in 2004 were happy to vote in favour of the Civil Partnership Act. I have to say that there is one exception to that; I looked at the record, and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West, who was at that stage the PPS to the leader of the Conservative Party, voted against civil partnerships on Second Reading, and was entrenched in his position against them. Magically, the sunlit road to New Forest West brought about some conversion, whereupon he became the now Prime Minister’s PPS. Alas, my right hon. Friend is not able to contribute to the Committee’s proceedings, so we will not be able to find out at what point on that sunlit road to New Forest West that extraordinary conversion took place for somebody so entrenched against the perfectly legitimate, reasonable and long overdue extension of rights and recognitions to people in same-sex relationships in that important piece of legislation from 2004.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

There is more rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repenteth. I would point the hon. Gentleman to the website of the right hon. Member for New Forest West; it has a wonderful letter on Leviticus, which it would be well worth the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham reading.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have all seen that letter on the website and have all chuckled greatly at it. Most of us would not have the guts to write to our constituents in those terms, although some of us take a different view based on completely non-religious personal beliefs, or on religious beliefs that can be backed up by what is in the Gospels and the New Testament, without having to go back to the rather extraordinary law that existed in the time of the book of Leviticus.

I was looking back over the debate we had in 2004. What was interesting about the debate about the Bill is that many contributions on Second Reading were reliving that 2004 debate. It was all about giving recognition to same-sex couples; but we had that debate in 2004. That equality in the eyes of the law was achieved at that time.

What was interesting about the debate was that there was no mention, then, even in the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, which I have read and re-read, and taken to bed and re-read with interest—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I will sign it if you want.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Delighted.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

A lot of order, Mr Hood, yes.

There was no mention, at that stage, of the need to make sure that same-sex civil partnerships were also available to opposite-sex couples. It is strange that it did not come up; but also, at that stage, there was no mention of same-sex marriages. That is why I made the point on Second Reading about its being bizarre: in 2004 advocates of the legislation such as the hon. Member for Rhondda, many Conservatives, and others, were not called bigots for not proposing full-blown same-sex marriage; what I still find to be an anomaly, and am still unconvinced about, is the question of what has changed so much in the period between 2004 and 2013 that same-sex marriages have become the requirement, so that anyone who does not support them is, in some people’s eyes, bigoted and intolerant.

The new clause would also provide an answer to Alice Arnold’s question. She said in a perfectly legitimate testimony to the Committee that she really regrets the fact that because she is in a civil partnership with her partner, when she is asked “Are you married?” she must say, “No, but”. Another of her concerns is that as a magistrate she could not refer to herself as married. Technically, she could, actually. The law says that the term “marriage” can be used by anyone. People can refer to themselves as married as long as they do not do so to defraud someone for financial advantage—and it is also against the law for someone in such a case to describe themselves as married in filling in the census.

What Alice Arnold and others who gave evidence were concerned about—and I can understand it—is that by having to say they are in a civil partnership someone automatically reveals that they are in a same-sex relationship. If the provision is passed, as I hope it will be—whether we get the opportunity to vote, with the support but not the vote, in Committee, of the hon. Member for Rhondda and his colleagues, or whether we wait for a larger debate on the Floor of the House—people in a civil partnership will have the opportunity to say that they are in a civil partnership without revealing their sexuality, if that is, perfectly understandably, a sensitive issue for them.

There is great merit in that. The whole basis of the argument for same-sex marriage is that it is in the interest of eliminating discrimination; but in bringing it about we should in some eyes give rise to much greater discrimination, in relation to the 6 million people who choose to cohabit without a formal union, and their opportunity to go down the route in question if they choose. There are some people, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, who choose not to get involved in a formal partnership, whether for financial reasons, the cost of the thing, an aversion to mothers-in-law or whatever: it is just something they choose not to do.

The provisions will close an important anomaly. They will do something to eliminate discrimination, which will be exacerbated if the Bill is passed in its present form. It is something we should consider properly now. I would be prepared to vote in favour in Committee. That in no way undermines the capacity of the whole House to add its thoughts, and, ultimately, to vote on Report. It is about the parity of esteem, which is the phrase that I think the hon. Member for Bristol West used. It seems fair, it seems sensible, and I really want to know from the Government, if they are still going to take this standpoint, why they would prefer to see this anomaly pervade, rather than at this appropriate stage, closing a clearly unsustainable loophole?

Mr Burrowes rose—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

I call Mr Burrowes.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

On a point of order, Mr Hood. I want to make a few comments on clause stand part, but would it be appropriate to hear from the Minister first?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

It is certainly appropriate for the Minister to speak when he wishes to speak, but you caught my eye, and you stood first, so I called you to speak.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Given my innings and other issues, I would not want to go too far into the new clauses that were moved well by my hon. Friends and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I wish, however, to emphasise the question I asked: in response to the consultation, have the Government made an assessment of the financial impact of the clause? Has there also been an assessment of the impact in relation to the numbers of people who now would not want to proceed with marriage? It has been mentioned already that a key motivation of the Bill is to extend the numbers who are married; indeed, extending marriage and so allowing the numbers to increase is something that the hon. Member for Rhondda said he has campaigned on for many years. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has any projection or assessment of the likely impact on the numbers of those who would choose marriage if there was the option of a heterosexual civil partnership.

I would like, however to take the Committee briefly into a wholly different direction, which is part of the point of a clause stand part debate. Part of the principle and policy rationale behind clause 1, which I and other dissenters find objectionable, is to take gender out of marriage as a distinguishing feature. That is something that the LGBT community have campaigned on, and we heard evidence from it. We did not hear evidence from everyone, as has already been pointed out, which was plainly the case given the confines of time, but some of us have had a chance to read some—if not all—of the written submissions made.

If one takes gender out of marriage, the Bill has to respond also to the legitimate concerns of, for example, the UK Intersex Association. It has made a submission and I want to put on record a genuine concern on its behalf, without making comments.

We have a submission from Christie Elan-Cane, who says that she is fighting for legal recognition. There has not been the opportunity to raise this issue, but it is important. I ask the Government both to respond to the submission and to explain their policy rationale given that they want to move beyond the issue of gender in relation to marriage and want the Bill to be on the side of equality. Christie Elan-Cane makes the point that the Bill

“takes no account of non-gendered people who do not define as male or female.”

There is a physical ambiguity that they have to deal with. Christie continues:

“If the purpose of this Bill is that every legitimate couple should have an equal right to marry, the government has failed.

The draft terminology is unequivocal in its description of a couple as comprising of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women.”

Christie then makes the point:

“Members of society who do not identify as male or female (and do not regard themselves as either men or women) are forced to present as gendered in order to register a marriage, and the Marriage Bill will not change”—

as far as Christie and the UK Intersex Association are concerned—“this unacceptable situation.”

Christie makes the point that,

“The Bill serves only to perpetuate injustice on socially invisible members of society who have no legally enforceable rights, but who nonetheless can form relationships and should have the same right to have a relationship recognised by the state.”

I ask the Minister to respond directly to those concerns. That call for equality must be responded to by the Government, and they should explain the rationale behind the clause.

We have had a lengthy debate on the clause, and I wish to avoid repetition. In reality, the clause, in my view and the views of many others, is unacceptable in its present form. I do not want to simply return to the debate on the principle that we had on Second Reading. Nevertheless, the clause touches on the important principle at the heart of the Bill. Perhaps there was an acceptance that, as far as the Government are concerned, the purpose of marriage does not need to be defined because it means different things to different people, and we are not in the realms of redefinition. I have made the case that it is clearly a redefinition of marriage. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the word of the leading counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said in his submission that it is clearly a redefinition of marriage.

It is important to make the point that

“The government’s definition of marriage”—

which is at the heart of the clause—

“reduces it to the important but insufficient elements of mutual love and formal public commitment. It omits four key interconnected features”—

which are not mandatory, and not everybody is going to sign up to, but which are central features of the Christian understanding that formed the institution of marriage in this country, and of other faiths that must be given a proper voice. There is

“widespread recognition of these features across space and time in culture and law”.

I do not wish to go thorough the millennia of historical characteristics of marriage, because we are at the end of the day. However, it is important that marriage is properly recognised.

The clause plainly goes against the first principle, that

“marriage establishes a new social unit based on the union of two individuals who together embody the fundamental…distinction or ‘otherness’ within humanity—being male and female.”

It also goes against the second, interconnected feature, that

“marriage is expressed and embodied in a physical, sexual union.”

That is something that it does explicitly, when one looks at the issue of non-consummation. I move on to the issue of adultery. The third principle is,

“in marriage, husband and wife each commit to give themselves physically to each other in this way exclusively for life.”

The clause seeks to set itself against that feature of exclusivity. The fourth principle is,

“the trans-generational good of establishing a legally-recognised and socially-supported context for both the procreation of children and their continued nurture and healthy development to adulthood in a community”.

It is not just an issue of the right of individual couples to access marriage. It is also about being part of a community that is based on otherness, recognition, and the respect of both the distinctive value of all in their differences, and the institution that is reflected by a man and a woman who are biological parents committed to each other.

I do not want to rehearse the previous arguments,. However, those are fundamental principles that many of us believe are important, interconnected characteristics of marriage. Given that the clause seeks to go against them and redefine marriage, I do not want it to stand part of the Bill.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why the clause should stand part of the Bill, but, for the convenience of the Committee, it might make sense if I deal with the new clauses first. New clauses 1 and 2 would allow opposite-sex couples to register as civil partners. I entirely understand the arguments behind that idea, but there are five points that balance it.

First, as we have said a number of times today, the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Marriage is a hugely important institution in this country. I am not sure I would go as far as to say that it was the gold standard—I would quite like people to be able to opt to do what they want—but it is a hugely important institution. The principles of long-term commitment and responsibility that underpin it bind society together and make it stronger.

The Government believe that people should not be prevented from getting married unless there are good reasons. Loving someone of the same sex is not one of them. The Bill will remove the unfair barrier that prevents same-sex couples from being able to get married and, by doing so, open up the vital institution of marriage to all couples. The Bill points in that direction, rather than back towards opening up civil partnerships.

In that context, it is worth reminding ourselves of how the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came about. That Act had a single objective: to provide access to legal rights, responsibilities and protections for same-sex couples, who previously had none. Civil partnerships are not designed to be an alternative to marriage—their aim is to give same-sex couples rights that are broadly equivalent to those already enjoyed by opposite-sex couples through marriage.

Secondly, the argument put before us in support of new clauses 1 and 2 is that opposite-sex couples should have access to civil partnerships as an alternative for those who do not want to marry, but want to gain the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings. However, the institution available for those who want the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage is marriage.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The thing is that that is not always the case. For example, for a couple who have been living together for a long time, if one of the partners was going to die, and they knew that they were going to die, and they were not able to consummate a marriage, full, non-voidable marriage would simply not be available to them, whereas a civil partnership would.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I just want to make sure that I have got that clear. If that couple did not wish to get married in those circumstances—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The couple could get married, but physically they would not be able to consummate. The marriage would therefore technically be voidable. Marriage is not available to every heterosexual couple. There are certain circumstances in which a couple might not want to have a full ceremony but go for a civil partnership.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

A Minister sometimes gets this wonderful feeling of passing outside their comfort zone. This may be one of those moments.

Having resisted the temptation of getting into all the cricket analogies first thing this morning, the logic there would depend on the basis on which we opened up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will not go into that discussion. I have made the point that the institution is marriage, except in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has itemised. I would not want, in any way, to take away from the importance of civil partnerships. Through the 2004 Act, more than 50,000 same-sex couples were able to celebrate and gain legal recognition of their relationship like other couples for the first time.

Thirdly, as I have said, opposite-sex couples can marry; they have always been able to. They have the choice to do so through either a civil or a religious ceremony. Many Members have said today that they know people who would avail themselves of the new opportunity if it were to come about, but I am not entirely clear what detriment could possibly be suffered by an opposite-sex couple in not being able to register as civil partners. I am not absolutely convinced that there is a group of people campaigning for that. That did not appear until the consultation was published, to which I will come in a minute. As I said in the beginning, the Government believe in the importance of marriage, and we want to encourage people to make the commitment.

Fourthly, it is true that, in our consultation, 61% of those who answered the online response form said that opposite-sex couples should be able to register a civil partnership. However, it is important to distinguish between those who call for the change and those who would avail themselves of it. That is part of the point I made before. More than half of those who answered the question identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and we are not entirely convinced at this stage of the demand by opposite-sex couples for civil partnerships.

Finally, I come to what may be the crucial and, I regret to say, dreaded process argument. Attempting to open up civil partnerships in the way new clauses 1 and 2 suggest would fail on its own, because a raft of changes to other legislative provisions would be needed to deal with issues such as pensions, as well as the consideration of all references to civil partners in legislation. The new clauses in themselves offer no means of making such changes, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to do so. Nor would they deal with the complexities of amending legislation relating to a devolved matter that has effect across the UK, whereby any proposal would need to be discussed with the Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as indeed is the case with the provisions in the Bill. That would then get into the issues of whether such relationships would have legal status in those jurisdictions.

In conclusion, although I hear the argument and understand the case being made, I am not convinced that opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is necessary. It would risk the central aim of the Bill and would almost certainly delay it while the other legal consequences were worked through.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Will the Minister tell us the likely impact on cost and the numbers projected to marry as a result of the Bill? Has there been any analysis of that during the consultation?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

The simple answer is, not that I am aware. If we have any indication I will certainly write to my hon. Friend. The reason we do not have that information is because the basis on which the consultation was done, going back to point one, was to extend marriage to same-sex couples, not to head in the opposite direction. I am not sure that piece of work has been done. If those figures or any estimate are lying around I have not seen them. If they are there, I will write to my hon. Friend on that basis. Just to finish where we were, I urge the hon. Member for Bristol West not to press proposed new clauses 1 and 2, although I suspect we may return to them later in our deliberations.

I do have a speech related to the stand part debate on clause 1. It might be easier just to answer the question, rather than go through something we have already been debating for six hours. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”] I knew that would be popular. I will answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate about intersex and gender-neutral people who are not helped by the Bill. The Bill indeed does not address issues concerning people who do not consider that they are either men or women. The reason is that that is not the purpose of the Bill.

We are aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raised, but what we are attempting to do is focus on the issue of opening up marriage to same-sex couples. The law in this country has a very binary understanding of gender; rightly or wrongly, that is the case. I acknowledge the issue but do not think that the Bill is the vehicle for opening it up.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Clause 1 is obviously the foundation of the Bill. Despite the fact that we are likely to finish at 5.30 pm, I suggest that it is important to have a response to clause 1, so that we can make a judgment as to whether we conclude that particular part at another date. I would not want us to curtail a response, just for the sake of time, to what is an important clause, notwithstanding the fact that we have debated various elements of it. They have been predicated on the scrutiny that the dissenters have allowed. I would ask the Minister to consider responding.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

As my hon. Friend is well aware, a speech on clause stand part goes through the clause and describes why all the various parts in it are necessary. I suspect, with the debate now bordering on six hours, that we have probably been through that in some detail. It is very, very clear—he is absolutely right—that clause 1 is the cornerstone of the Bill. It sets out the fundamental purpose that underlines the Bill by making the marriage of same-sex couples lawful in England and Wales, and removes a significant unfair barrier facing same-sex couples in that regard. The subsections list the legislative routes to achieve that through parts 3 and 5 of the Marriage Act 1949, the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 and the various Orders in Council that need to be undertaken. They are all the requirements that flow from the clause. Of course, subsection (3) makes particular provision in relation to canon law, as we have discussed.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

If we are not going to have a proper clause stand part debate, there are certain things that have been left unconfirmed. Will the Minister confirm for the record that he has now established that there is a hierarchy in the public sector equality duty? That is what our earlier debate showed absolutely. We debated the specific example comparing doctors and abortion with registrars. He said that that is different; clearly there is a hierarchy. Will he confirm that one thing that has come out of the debate on clause 1 is that that hierarchy is now in place?

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

No, I will absolutely not confirm that. I will be very, very clear about this: I do not know what led to the provisions in the Abortion Act 1967 to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not know what the thinking was behind them and I was not part of that debate. What I do know, and what I absolutely believe in personally, is that if the House passes a piece of legislation, there is a duty on public servants to carry it out. That duty is part of a process in a democracy, which is precisely why I would resist new clause 5. Registrars are public servants. If a Bill is passed in this House with a very considerable majority, as was the case on Second Reading—I do not know what will happen in future—then registrars, as public servants, are under an obligation to carry out the duties contained in that Bill, plain and simple. On that basis I commend the clause to the Committee.