Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert Hayward (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, in rising to move my amendment, I will make reference to a number of different aspects, but it is appropriate on St David’s Day to start and follow a theme through my comments. That is on comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others in reference to what has changed. Since I last spoke on this amendment four weeks ago, the Welsh beat the English—damn them. I notice at this point the Welsh contingent is moving, although I tried not to offend them and to acknowledge their achievement Before I come to my own amendment, I will refer to fears arising from it. First, I refer to my own comments in col. 1308 of Hansard on 1 February. I made clear then and have made clear on a number of other occasions: "I do not want to delay the Bill or lose it at any point".—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1308.] That is the key message I convey to the literally hundreds of people who have written to me in fear of the possibility that they may lose their opportunity for a civil partnership. As far as I am concerned, that is not in question. Actually, gay relationships and gay marriage have gained hundreds of supporters in Northern Ireland, because all the emails I have received have not only been overwhelmingly courteous but have also committed to supporting what I am trying to achieve. From whichever part of the land, they have made that clear In saying that and congratulating those who have organised it, I make two observations. One is that there was a fear about what the Conservative Party would do, which is based on an incorrect premise, because what I am asking this House in this amendment is a matter of conscience. People should therefore be allowed a free vote, under the circumstances. That is clear. I have also commented on previous occasions—and I come back to the message of change—that there is a clear indication that attitudes are changing markedly in Northern Ireland. This applies across all sectors of the community, and I believe it will continue. Therefore, the supposition of opposition there is also incorrect I say on this in conclusion that I have had some touching comments from the civil partnerships lobby. I will quote from one that clearly exemplifies the reason for this legislation, as one is tempted to forget the key element. This is a message I had from somebody in Newton Abbot in Devon, close to my birthplace. This female partner says in part of her letter, "I am always afraid if he"— her partner— "is late from work that something may have happened, and the knowledge that I am not his legal next of kin hurts me deeply" That summarises incredibly well what this legislation, as it stands, is trying to achieve. I wish all those well who will benefit from the Bill. The number of representations I have had leads me to the conclusion that so many people will have the opportunity to celebrate their partnerships that we will kick-start the economy in one go by all the parties to which we might be invited—although I note I was not invited to the celebration of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman; I will feel scorned for ever hereafter Regarding my Amendment 2, which relates to Northern Ireland, as I said at the start of my comments, things have changed. I concluded my speech here on 1 February by saying: "Sooner or later, on behalf of however many people, we have to say enough is enough".—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1310.] I believe that. I believe it sincerely, on behalf of large numbers of people, because things have changed. When we stood here on 1 February, did anyone think that England’s cricket captain would turn to a West Indian player and say: "There’s nothing wrong with being gay" I praise Joe Root for his comments, which meant so much to so many people. That resonated not just with me and the gay community but the whole of this nation. I ask everybody in Northern Ireland to recognise that matters are changing I have paid compliments to those who lobbied on civil partnerships. The other thing that has happened since 1 February is Valentine’s Day. I pay credit to Patrick Corrigan from Love Equality and Amnesty International and the hundreds of people in Northern Ireland who, on Valentine’s Day, indicated that they wish to be in the same position as people in England, Scotland and Wales to celebrate their partnerships by marriage, as soon as possible The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, spoke at the last debate. He was very courteous. He came to me and I acknowledged there was a problem with flights. I therefore did not comment on his comments at the time. He said: "Respect goes two ways. It must be given not only by those on one side of the argument but also by those on the opposite side of the argument".—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1310.] I respect people who hold different views from me. I recognise that it is important, in any debate on whatever subject, that we respect people who hold different views. As long as they have been carefully thought through, we must respect every point of view But the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, made no reference in his comments to when we might make the change if we go back to a proper devolved Assembly, nor did he indicate what his view would be if that were the position, because the position has changed in Northern Ireland. I made reference previously to the series of votes that had taken place in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Finally, in November 2015, there was a majority, but there was a petition of concern against it. As I indicated in reference to that petition: "That is quite reasonable, because that is the constitutional practice in Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1308.] I respect that, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who is in his seat today, acknowledged in a brief intervention in that debate: "When … the petition of concern was created, it was intended to be used so that one political party would not impose its will on another … I do not think it was ever considered the means for one community to impose its moral standards on another".—[Official Report, 1/2/19; cols. 1313-14.] That was one Northern Ireland representative speaking with authority. After all is said and done, the noble Lord was deeply and heavily involved in the negotiations for the Belfast agreement.