02/02/2018

0:00:15 > 0:00:20On a point of order, I wish to correct the record of my answer

0:00:20 > 0:00:25yesterday. He is aware of this point of order. Yesterday I answered a

0:00:25 > 0:00:34question based on my honours two honest recollection. I understood it

0:00:34 > 0:00:39to be put to me as implausible because of the impartiality of the

0:00:39 > 0:00:44civil service. The audio of that conversation is available and I am

0:00:44 > 0:00:49glad the record is corrected. I accept that I should have corrected

0:00:49 > 0:00:55or dismissed the premise of my honourable friend's question. I have

0:00:55 > 0:01:03apologised to him who is an honest man. I have the highest regard for

0:01:03 > 0:01:07our hard working civil servants. I am grateful for this opportunity to

0:01:07 > 0:01:12correct the record and I apologise to the House.Point of order. I beg

0:01:12 > 0:01:18to move that the House set in private.The question is this, As

0:01:18 > 0:01:30many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no" I think

0:01:30 > 0:01:49we.The bill, second reading.Thank you, very much. I beg to move that

0:01:49 > 0:01:55the ill be read a second time. Can I say how good it is to see you in

0:01:55 > 0:02:01your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. In proposing this bill I have not made

0:02:01 > 0:02:06things easy for myself. It contains four separate main proposals

0:02:06 > 0:02:10spanning four different Government departments and potentially for

0:02:10 > 0:02:16Ministers. It is not a Government hand out bill and to complicate

0:02:16 > 0:02:21matters, three of the four Ministers were moved in the reshuffle. It has

0:02:21 > 0:02:25been a stressful couple of weeks. I know how hard it is to get a Private

0:02:25 > 0:02:34member will on the bricks, so on the face of it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am

0:02:34 > 0:02:39being greedy but for good reason. In over 20 years applying at the start

0:02:39 > 0:02:47of the session ballot, my name has never once come out of the hat. It

0:02:47 > 0:02:53probably won't again in what every years or months I have left here. As

0:02:53 > 0:02:57it is likely my only opportunity, I have been ambitious in trying to

0:02:57 > 0:03:01include many of the good causes that I have tried to promote in this

0:03:01 > 0:03:09place over recent years. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am the Private members

0:03:09 > 0:03:13bill novice after 21 years in this house and I ask the House to be

0:03:13 > 0:03:20gentle with me. It has not been easy to keep all the ducks in a row over

0:03:20 > 0:03:23for Government departments but I am grateful that they have all in tire

0:03:23 > 0:03:30met with support by Government Ministers, so this bill can proceed

0:03:30 > 0:03:36to committee, with the will of the House. It has not been an easy

0:03:36 > 0:03:44process and I would like to place on record the advice, patients of

0:03:44 > 0:03:50members in the Private bill office. The frustration has been that I have

0:03:50 > 0:03:55tried to be as flexible as possible with Ministers and sit down with

0:03:55 > 0:03:58officials to agree on the terminology is so that we can

0:03:58 > 0:04:06progress the bill. I agreed in principle the bill from the

0:04:06 > 0:04:10revolving cast list of Ministers, it has only been in the last week that

0:04:10 > 0:04:13officials have sat down with me to talk turkey and details have been

0:04:13 > 0:04:20thrashed out. My apologies for the late publication of the actual bill

0:04:20 > 0:04:25just in time. We have only just secured the lead minister and I

0:04:25 > 0:04:29welcome the honourable friend to the dispatch box and I am sure all is

0:04:29 > 0:04:38going to end well. Now, the upshot, I am sure it is... The upshot is

0:04:38 > 0:04:42that there is not as much detail and commitment is that I would have

0:04:42 > 0:04:47liked. It is much work to be done in committee and the after. I am

0:04:47 > 0:04:53confident that we have a bill containing robust principles which

0:04:53 > 0:04:56can be passed on to scrutiny, with the will of the House. I am grateful

0:04:56 > 0:05:03to all of those who helped reduce this bill and those individuals and

0:05:03 > 0:05:06organisations out side of this place who have been campaigning on these

0:05:06 > 0:05:12issues, based on powerful personal experiences. So to summarise, the

0:05:12 > 0:05:19parts of my bill as as follow. Further work in how the Government

0:05:19 > 0:05:26can extend civil partnerships to opposite sex couples as my previous

0:05:26 > 0:05:31presentation bills. Equal civil partnerships are unfinished business

0:05:31 > 0:05:40and change need only require an amendment to the act of 2004, which

0:05:40 > 0:05:46this house passed, with my own support. Second parent names should

0:05:46 > 0:05:50be included on marriage and civil partner certificate am based on

0:05:50 > 0:05:56previous bills. It will bring England and Wales in line with

0:05:56 > 0:06:02Scotland and Northern Ireland, for the first time in about 180 years.

0:06:02 > 0:06:06Thirdly, a provision on the registration of still births. My

0:06:06 > 0:06:14previous ten minute rule bill covered this. So that there is a

0:06:14 > 0:06:19formal recording of a child still born in the usual way but before 24

0:06:19 > 0:06:29weeks, which is the threshold at the moment. An amendment to the act to

0:06:29 > 0:06:31give coroners the power to investigate late stage still births,

0:06:31 > 0:06:39if the are suspected of medical negligence...If this bill is

0:06:39 > 0:06:49passed, people will be able to, once the detail is fleshed out, be

0:06:49 > 0:06:53married and have a civil partnership. I have been written to

0:06:53 > 0:06:59by two sisters. It is a burning injustice. If everybody is allowed

0:06:59 > 0:07:03to have a civil partnership, it is a burning injustice that these two

0:07:03 > 0:07:07sisters have lived together all of their life, when one of them dies,

0:07:07 > 0:07:12the other one will have to move out of their home. It is about money but

0:07:12 > 0:07:16I think it is an injustice and hopes when he works on the detail of the

0:07:16 > 0:07:22bill, he will try and help siblings day in the home they have lived in

0:07:22 > 0:07:26all of their lives.I understand my honourable friend's concern and this

0:07:26 > 0:07:34has been raised before. It is not my intention at this stage to extend

0:07:34 > 0:07:38civil partnerships other than to cohabiting couples who are in a

0:07:38 > 0:07:44relationship. I want to mirror the existing terminology within the

0:07:44 > 0:07:48civil partnership bill that came in in 2004. I am sure we will in

0:07:48 > 0:07:54committee, and report stage play later on, will be entertaining such

0:07:54 > 0:07:59proposals and no doubt he will want to raise it at this stage. It is not

0:07:59 > 0:08:07the intention as it stands at the moment.If you does one second. Does

0:08:07 > 0:08:11the honourable gentleman recognise it is an injustice and it would be

0:08:11 > 0:08:15completely unfair if everybody else was allowed to have any legal

0:08:15 > 0:08:19relationship they wanted apart from siblings? Does he at least accept it

0:08:19 > 0:08:24is the worthy cars which I have campaigned on for many years?I

0:08:24 > 0:08:31understand it is a worthy cause but it is a different injustice to allow

0:08:31 > 0:08:36people to have their relationship recognised by the state. There are

0:08:36 > 0:08:39disadvantages in the situation he describes and I think it does need

0:08:39 > 0:08:44to be dealt with. I am not proposing to deal with it at this stage in my

0:08:44 > 0:08:48bill, which would make it even more complicated than it is now. It is

0:08:48 > 0:08:54likely that the title of the bill will need amending in committee, to

0:08:54 > 0:09:00reflect the change to electronic records of marriage certificates.

0:09:00 > 0:09:03Let me start with the subject of extending several partnerships to

0:09:03 > 0:09:11include opposite sex couples, not just same sex couples, which itself

0:09:11 > 0:09:14was long overdue and enthusiastically supported by me and

0:09:14 > 0:09:18the great majority of members on all sides and tackled a clear obstacle

0:09:18 > 0:09:24to equal rights by loving couples who just happen to be of the same

0:09:24 > 0:09:32sex. The House decided it was time for equal marriage. These guys have

0:09:32 > 0:09:37not caved in and I do not want to reopen the bruising debate we had at

0:09:37 > 0:09:42that time, especially across my party. It did give rise to an

0:09:42 > 0:09:47unintended new inequality and surely it is time for equal civil

0:09:47 > 0:09:52partnerships, in natural extension, supported at the time of the bill by

0:09:52 > 0:09:57all parties, and just as much now. The original consultation before the

0:09:57 > 0:10:03bill showed a 61% of respondents in favour of extending civil

0:10:03 > 0:10:08partnerships to opposite sex couples. Alas, for some reason it

0:10:08 > 0:10:14never made it into the act, which would, I think, made it a better act

0:10:14 > 0:10:20and that is why change is still necessary today.Could be honourable

0:10:20 > 0:10:24member update the House as to how many people were involved in the

0:10:24 > 0:10:30consultation?Quite a lot. I have not got the actual figures. It was

0:10:30 > 0:10:37one of two consultations and the second consultation came up with a

0:10:37 > 0:10:42different result and as a result of that, no further action was taken.

0:10:42 > 0:10:50It is unfinished business. The second consultation had only 11,000

0:10:50 > 0:10:55entries, which one would argue is not a representative of the

0:10:55 > 0:10:59population or a gauge of public opinion.Given that there are

0:10:59 > 0:11:05three... I will come onto. There are 3.2 million cohabiting opposite sex

0:11:05 > 0:11:10couples, it is loosely is small proportion of those who are

0:11:10 > 0:11:14potentially affected. It is quite it is unfinished business and over

0:11:14 > 0:11:1880,000 people who have signed the petition in favour of the change in

0:11:18 > 0:11:21this bill are just a small indication of the demand that there

0:11:21 > 0:11:26is. I am grateful for the intervention. Now, I think there are

0:11:26 > 0:11:33three main rationales for supporting this bill. It will correct and

0:11:33 > 0:11:38unintended but glaring inequality resulting from the act, where

0:11:38 > 0:11:43same-sex couples are entitled to take up a civil partnership or to

0:11:43 > 0:11:47enjoy the extension of marriage whilst opposite sex couples have the

0:11:47 > 0:11:52single option of marriage, a larger range of institution. That does not

0:11:52 > 0:11:59fear. It gives rise to inequality.

0:11:59 > 0:12:01Secondly, a positive reason for pushing forward is families

0:12:01 > 0:12:06debility. As a former children's minister, that has been at the top

0:12:06 > 0:12:14of my priorities. Latest estimates are that some 3.2 million cohabiting

0:12:14 > 0:12:20opposite sex couples in this country. That is around double the

0:12:20 > 0:12:26figure reported just 15 years ago. They are also responsible for over 2

0:12:26 > 0:12:30million children. Some 53% of all birth registrations are two married

0:12:30 > 0:12:34parents, but one third out to unmarried parents who are living

0:12:34 > 0:12:41together. Cohabitation is the quickest growing, and we need to

0:12:41 > 0:12:45recognise our society is changing and we need to adapt is to promote

0:12:45 > 0:12:48family stability in whatever form to promote the continuation of giving

0:12:48 > 0:12:54children the best start in life. I will.Has he seen from our

0:12:54 > 0:13:01honourable friend her family's manifesto which raises the point of

0:13:01 > 0:13:04stability in the family for bringing up children and does he support the

0:13:04 > 0:13:15manifesto?My name is honoured. Absolutely. -- my name is on it. It

0:13:15 > 0:13:19has the ultimate aim of giving the best opportunities of stars in life

0:13:19 > 0:13:23for those children, the 2 million children in those sorts of

0:13:23 > 0:13:30relationships. It has been calculated the cost of this country,

0:13:30 > 0:13:33some £48 billion a year. That is some two and a half percent of

0:13:33 > 0:13:40breast and stick product. That is a problem. -- GDP. -- gross domestic

0:13:40 > 0:13:52product. 75 cents of family breakdown is involving children

0:13:52 > 0:13:57under five result from the separation of unmarried couples.

0:13:57 > 0:14:02There is a raft of statistics showing but parents not only to -

0:14:02 > 0:14:05parent family are more likely to fall out of school, more likely to

0:14:05 > 0:14:09get in trouble with the law, and not be in employment, education or

0:14:09 > 0:14:14training. That is not to be judgmental about parents who find

0:14:14 > 0:14:18themselves bringing up a child alone through no fault of their Rome, but

0:14:18 > 0:14:24two partners do make for greatest ability. We know marriage works, but

0:14:24 > 0:14:28we know civil partnerships are showing evidence of greatest ability

0:14:28 > 0:14:31for same-sex couples including those that have children through any

0:14:31 > 0:14:37means. There is a strong case for believing extending civil

0:14:37 > 0:14:44partnerships would benefit... If just one in ten same-sex couples

0:14:44 > 0:14:49entered into a civil partnerships, that would amount to 300,000 couples

0:14:49 > 0:14:53and their children. It would offer greater security, stability, less

0:14:53 > 0:15:00likely breakdown, and better financial outcomes. That is surely

0:15:00 > 0:15:06progress. Some people ask why can they not get married? People choose

0:15:06 > 0:15:10not to get involved in the paraphernalia of formal marriage for

0:15:10 > 0:15:16many reasons. Too much of an establishment thing, and if done in

0:15:16 > 0:15:22a registry office, it still has religious connotation. Some see it

0:15:22 > 0:15:26having a patriarchal side and it is seen as a form of social control. It

0:15:26 > 0:15:32is also rather expensive. But they are not seen as genuine partnerships

0:15:32 > 0:15:36of equal civil partnerships are. Those are not my views, but they are

0:15:36 > 0:15:44the views of many people and many people who have lobbied me. I will

0:15:44 > 0:15:50give way.Some may argue that in effect you are undermining

0:15:50 > 0:15:54potentially the idea of commitment. Would you agree that in fact in

0:15:54 > 0:15:59reality those who opt for civil partnership at those who would not

0:15:59 > 0:16:05have made the commitment?I have recorded an interview on television

0:16:05 > 0:16:09this morning with a couple who have been together for 26 years, they

0:16:09 > 0:16:17have teenage children, they do not want to get married. They travelled

0:16:17 > 0:16:22to the Isle of Man, which is the only part of the British Isles that

0:16:22 > 0:16:25recognises civil partnership for opposite sex couples. They are the

0:16:25 > 0:16:29first couple from mainland UK to have a civil partnership through the

0:16:29 > 0:16:34Isle of Man. It is not recognised in the UK proper. They made the point

0:16:34 > 0:16:41about they want to show their commitment. They want the stability

0:16:41 > 0:16:45and legal protections, but do not have as a cohabiting couple.

0:16:45 > 0:16:50Marriage is not right for those macro. The only way of getting that

0:16:50 > 0:16:54legal protection is effectively undermining marriage because doing

0:16:54 > 0:17:00it for the wrong reasons. Civil partnership shows the commitment,

0:17:00 > 0:17:03getting protection without having to conform any way they do not believe

0:17:03 > 0:17:09in. Whether we agree with them or not, that is their right. In an age

0:17:09 > 0:17:13where families take many different forms, the key thing we should be

0:17:13 > 0:17:20interested in is doing what is best for loving couples to thrive and

0:17:20 > 0:17:24where children are involved, to be brought up in a stable environment.

0:17:24 > 0:17:28This is another opportunity to get more people to take advantage of

0:17:28 > 0:17:39such a situation. There is a range...Thank you Mr Tebbit is

0:17:39 > 0:17:43bigger. I will point out the consultation that took place did not

0:17:43 > 0:17:48have any consensus that we should go down the civil partnership time. I

0:17:48 > 0:17:53wonder if she would comment on that in France religious marriages are

0:17:53 > 0:17:57not recognised and have to be preceded by a civil ceremony and

0:17:57 > 0:18:01whether any data has been gathered about how many split up families

0:18:01 > 0:18:07they have their whether they have any record that we will have year

0:18:07 > 0:18:12because this is what it is about, stability.Precisely the statistic

0:18:12 > 0:18:16that my friend Maggie is looking for and if she's patient for a few

0:18:16 > 0:18:19minutes longer, I will give her the information she is looking forward

0:18:19 > 0:18:25to. They are mostly in loving relationships, but if they do not

0:18:25 > 0:18:30want to go for a traditional marriage, they have no way of having

0:18:30 > 0:18:34that recognised in the eyes of the state. What is worrying is the

0:18:34 > 0:18:39misconception there is such a thing as a common law wife or husband as a

0:18:39 > 0:18:44woman finds out abruptly on the death of a partner when there is an

0:18:44 > 0:18:49inheritance tax on the estate and family home. If they have a child,

0:18:49 > 0:18:52the relationship breaks down, they are not entitled to any financial

0:18:52 > 0:18:58support if they are not married. There is not automatic entitlement

0:18:58 > 0:19:07to property. The long-term survivor will not see the same tax benefits

0:19:07 > 0:19:11as a married woman are in a civil partnership, which would be

0:19:11 > 0:19:18discriminatory towards the children. Even a couple engaged to be marriage

0:19:18 > 0:19:23have more rights than a cohabiting opposite sex couple. The question is

0:19:23 > 0:19:32why not those that have made a conscious...He will be aware of the

0:19:32 > 0:19:38work of resolution, the family solicitors group who have a

0:19:38 > 0:19:44cohabiting awareness week, has drawn attention to me and I'm sure many

0:19:44 > 0:19:49other honourable members that the lack of rights and that people are

0:19:49 > 0:19:53ignorant of the lack of rights they get is there it is any breakdown

0:19:53 > 0:19:57there is a lot of one of the cohabiting parents. Hopefully this

0:19:57 > 0:20:03will put this right.I completely agree with the gentleman. I was not

0:20:03 > 0:20:09sure there was a awareness week, but many family Law solicitors have

0:20:09 > 0:20:13written to me and support the campaign because they see the

0:20:13 > 0:20:17fallout of when it goes wrong, that people who come to them thinking

0:20:17 > 0:20:21they have entitlements because they have been living together for so

0:20:21 > 0:20:26long find out they do not, they have a tax bill and lots of problems and

0:20:26 > 0:20:30headaches and the children do not have a home to live in. If anything,

0:20:30 > 0:20:35this bill, I hope, will help to publicise the real problem in the

0:20:35 > 0:20:39law, that the Government needs to address at some stage and I will

0:20:39 > 0:20:43give the opportunity to the Government to take the bull by the

0:20:43 > 0:20:47horns and do something about it now. The question is, why should those

0:20:47 > 0:20:54who have made a conscious -- should not -- have the opportunity to have

0:20:54 > 0:21:01the same legal rights, response billet is in the eyes of the law,

0:21:01 > 0:21:06that we developed their are several further applications, many people

0:21:06 > 0:21:13with strong religious beliefs, particular Catholics who have had

0:21:13 > 0:21:16divorce, may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new

0:21:16 > 0:21:22partner because the church does not believe that they should be able to

0:21:22 > 0:21:31marry again. In addition, as it stands, admitting to being in a

0:21:31 > 0:21:35civil partnership currently automatically carries the revelation

0:21:35 > 0:21:40that you are in a same-sex relationship and that could be an

0:21:40 > 0:21:46unintended invasion of someone's privacy. There are a number of

0:21:46 > 0:21:49practical real-life scenarios in which civil partnerships for

0:21:49 > 0:21:51opposite sex couples could achieve something positive and

0:21:51 > 0:21:59non-discriminatory. I'm pleased that the sport this bill has attracted.

0:21:59 > 0:22:04It has been said that the marriage foundation supports this greatly. It

0:22:04 > 0:22:12is a strong profamily moment -- profamily movement. We will provide

0:22:12 > 0:22:15a new form a basis for those wanting to make a legally backed commitment

0:22:15 > 0:22:23to one another hue preferred not to marry. I welcome the support from

0:22:23 > 0:22:32the Times. I see the measure as an important part of reforming family

0:22:32 > 0:22:37law and making family arrangements fit for the 21st-century. We need to

0:22:37 > 0:22:45grasp the nettle with regards to... And we need to find new ways for the

0:22:45 > 0:22:48states to recognise committed relationships and give stability,

0:22:48 > 0:22:52especially to the children and making sure shared parenting and

0:22:52 > 0:22:56keeping warring parents out of the courts still needs further work

0:22:56 > 0:23:02also. Opposite sex civil partnerships are not something that

0:23:02 > 0:23:08have been cooked up in this country. In South Africa, the civil union act

0:23:08 > 0:23:12of 2006 gave same-sex and opposite sex couples the option to register a

0:23:12 > 0:23:22civil union I with all means on the same basis. In France, it was

0:23:22 > 0:23:26introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of

0:23:26 > 0:23:35the same sex or opposite sex and marriage was added to that also. Yet

0:23:35 > 0:23:41one in three marriages ends in divorce. There is evidence that some

0:23:41 > 0:23:45of the civil partnerships have created greater stability whether

0:23:45 > 0:23:52they are opposite sex or same-sex than traditional marriage. Noel,

0:23:52 > 0:24:01locations -- no convocations are proposed. That earlier comments. It

0:24:01 > 0:24:06was not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close

0:24:06 > 0:24:10family member or if the person is already in the union and the

0:24:10 > 0:24:14partnership would need to be subject to the same termination criteria. It

0:24:14 > 0:24:19is a similar proposal and now the case is overwhelming. All that will

0:24:19 > 0:24:24be required is a simple one line amendment, it could all be done in

0:24:24 > 0:24:30Mitty by tea-time, though I guess by the time drafting officials have got

0:24:30 > 0:24:33their teeth into it, many more clauses will be required. That is

0:24:33 > 0:24:43what I originally intended in this bill. I acknowledge that the

0:24:43 > 0:24:46Government have concerns about taking the full plunge, going the

0:24:46 > 0:24:54whole hog at this stage, and one to carry out further research. I have

0:24:54 > 0:24:58doubts about what this would achieve, given that it has been

0:24:58 > 0:25:04mentioned, we have had two public consultations in the last five years

0:25:04 > 0:25:07and we have 13 years worth of civil partnerships of same-sex couples in

0:25:07 > 0:25:12practice to go on the evidence. I understand the caution and securing

0:25:12 > 0:25:16a clear commitment to learn from this experience and promote

0:25:16 > 0:25:20equality, I hope they come to the same conclusion as I have together

0:25:20 > 0:25:25with the campaign for this. Now more than 80,000 people have signed a

0:25:25 > 0:25:30petition in support, many of whom have been enthusiastically lobbying

0:25:30 > 0:25:36local MPs. There is a growing tide of support fuelled by a court case

0:25:36 > 0:25:43Jude go to the supreme court. This has been pioneered by civil

0:25:43 > 0:25:47partnerships.

0:25:47 > 0:25:51I will. partnerships.

0:25:51 > 0:25:52I will.I partnerships.

0:25:52 > 0:25:52I will.I am partnerships.

0:25:52 > 0:25:52I will.I am pleased partnerships.

0:25:52 > 0:25:56I will.I am pleased he partnerships.

0:25:56 > 0:25:56I will.I am pleased he mentioned partnerships.

0:25:56 > 0:25:56I will.I am pleased he mentioned my partnerships.

0:25:56 > 0:26:00I will.I am pleased he mentioned my constituents. That case is going to

0:26:00 > 0:26:04the Supreme Court. The court has indicated it is for this house and

0:26:04 > 0:26:09Government to make decisions on this matter and will you join me in

0:26:09 > 0:26:14expressing dissatisfaction that the Government is looking at restricting

0:26:14 > 0:26:21civil partnerships? They have accepted but if they remove civil

0:26:21 > 0:26:25partnerships for same-sex couples, they will be restricting choice.I

0:26:25 > 0:26:31will come onto that point briefly in a minute. I am grateful for his port

0:26:31 > 0:26:37as the member for the couple I have mentioned and his support for this

0:26:37 > 0:26:43whole campaign. The issue began when Charles and Rebecca approached their

0:26:43 > 0:26:49registry office and they wanted to formalise their relationship and

0:26:49 > 0:26:54celebrate it with friends and family but they are not allowed to do. They

0:26:54 > 0:26:57preferred the idea of the civil partnership because it reflects us

0:26:57 > 0:27:05as a couple. We want equality within our relationship and we want

0:27:05 > 0:27:08protections. The couple have campaigned tirelessly through the

0:27:08 > 0:27:13court and at the repeal caught last year a split decision ruled against

0:27:13 > 0:27:18them but put the Government on notice that the current situation is

0:27:18 > 0:27:26unsustainable. Now, I do not want to prejudge the supreme court findings.

0:27:26 > 0:27:31It is hard to see how the Government will not be criticised by not taking

0:27:31 > 0:27:36heed of action when such a golden opportunity has dropped into their

0:27:36 > 0:27:40laps. I appreciate the Government is also reserving the option that the

0:27:40 > 0:27:44quality could be achieved by scrapping civil partnerships

0:27:44 > 0:27:51altogether. I think that would be a mistake. It is no surprise that

0:27:51 > 0:27:55there has been a big reduction in the number of civil partnerships

0:27:55 > 0:28:00since the option of full marriage was introduced in 2014. In 2016,

0:28:00 > 0:28:05there were 890 civil partnerships done, which was down from the

0:28:05 > 0:28:11previous year. That was an increase on the number from 2015, yet more

0:28:11 > 0:28:15tellingly, although the full figures have not been published, the number

0:28:15 > 0:28:22of civil partnership converting into marriage is still in the genes. When

0:28:22 > 0:28:29the option first became available, only 16% converted into marriage.

0:28:29 > 0:28:34That would suggest that civil partnerships have a different role

0:28:34 > 0:28:39and that applies equally to same sex couples as it no doubt would for

0:28:39 > 0:28:43opposite sex couples who have been denied the opportunity. Abolishing

0:28:43 > 0:28:50civil partnerships with stop the choice for all couples and leave

0:28:50 > 0:28:56tens of thousands civil partnerships in limbo, remaining as an abolished

0:28:56 > 0:28:59species or converting to a full marriage that they have resisted. In

0:28:59 > 0:29:08the last consultation, the church of England's position was to keep them.

0:29:08 > 0:29:13The Secretary General said that there are arguments for the

0:29:13 > 0:29:17retention of civil partnerships to maintain an option for those

0:29:17 > 0:29:22same-sex couples who want recognition but do not believe their

0:29:22 > 0:29:26relationship is identical to marriage. I hope the church of

0:29:26 > 0:29:30England will come round giving formal blessings in charge to its

0:29:30 > 0:29:35civil partners, too. I hope the Government will quickly move from

0:29:35 > 0:29:39the consultation phase two and implementation phase and nothing in

0:29:39 > 0:29:44this bill curtails the speed. It is not a requirement to put a

0:29:44 > 0:29:48consultation in legislation and I hope the review the minister wants

0:29:48 > 0:29:53to offer can start immediately and in parallel with the passage of this

0:29:53 > 0:29:57legislation. If the Government determines what we already know that

0:29:57 > 0:30:02thousands of civil partners can tie the knot, with the same urgency they

0:30:02 > 0:30:07approached the same sex couple bill in 2013. Many members believe the

0:30:07 > 0:30:13time has come, to the benefit of many cohabiting couples and the

0:30:13 > 0:30:17stability of our society. This part of my pill has cross-party support

0:30:17 > 0:30:23inside and outside of the House and this important measure could bring

0:30:23 > 0:30:32about equality and I ordered the House to support it.As the

0:30:32 > 0:30:35honourable member has been tenacious in his negotiations with the

0:30:35 > 0:30:43Government departments involved this week. May I just confirm, is the

0:30:43 > 0:30:47honourable gentleman confirming he is content for the first two classes

0:30:47 > 0:30:53to act as marker classes in the bill and he and I will both table a joint

0:30:53 > 0:30:58amendment to cause one and clause two of the bill in its current form

0:30:58 > 0:31:03so in committee we are looking at consultations in the way he has

0:31:03 > 0:31:10discussed this week?My honourable friend is in patient and later...

0:31:10 > 0:31:18Later, there is plenty more to go, I will say. So she has got in their

0:31:18 > 0:31:24first but it was not necessary. I am aware that I have for parts of the

0:31:24 > 0:31:30bill and there are other parts which are less obligated. The fact that my

0:31:30 > 0:31:35mother, my late mother, could not add her name as parent on my

0:31:35 > 0:31:41marriage to delegate is awful. Well past its sell by date and frankly an

0:31:41 > 0:31:47outrage. In fact, the signatures of my mother and mother-in-law were

0:31:47 > 0:31:52included but at our discretion as witnesses, not as parents. My father

0:31:52 > 0:31:58signed it, as did my wife's father because in the days when those

0:31:58 > 0:32:02anomalies originated the daughter belonged to the father and could be

0:32:02 > 0:32:06signed away at marriage. That has been the case in England since 1837

0:32:06 > 0:32:14and has not changed since then. The problem lies with the current system

0:32:14 > 0:32:19of marriage registration which relies on hard copy bricks that lie

0:32:19 > 0:32:24in religious establishes and registry offices. This is over

0:32:24 > 0:32:3030,000 churches, a big undertaking. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not

0:32:30 > 0:32:36beyond the wit of man or women in this age to introduce a single

0:32:36 > 0:32:41electronic register instead of relying on hard copies and this

0:32:41 > 0:32:50would meaning the newly married couple would sign a copy and it was

0:32:50 > 0:32:59returned to the alleged cult register. -- sign the register. This

0:32:59 > 0:33:05would include two spaces, for two signatures, for each of the partners

0:33:05 > 0:33:09for the marriage or civil partnership. That innovation came in

0:33:09 > 0:33:14when civil partnerships were introduced in 2004 first of all

0:33:14 > 0:33:18partnerships. We have done it for civil partnerships but not for

0:33:18 > 0:33:22marriages. Both parents would then be included, the same sex parents,

0:33:22 > 0:33:30which one may be biological parent or adoptive parent. This would be a

0:33:30 > 0:33:34progressive measure to acknowledge and celebrate all types of

0:33:34 > 0:33:38relationships that give rise to children who go in to get hitched.

0:33:38 > 0:33:44It avoids insulting scenarios when a single mother has given everything

0:33:44 > 0:33:48to give up a son or daughter cannot be acknowledged on a wedding to

0:33:48 > 0:33:53forget, where as an absentee or abusive father who did a runner at

0:33:53 > 0:33:58birth and had no part in the upbringing is registered on these

0:33:58 > 0:34:04difficult. Many parents only find this out when the pen is taken away

0:34:04 > 0:34:08from the mother straight after the naturals when the register is signed

0:34:08 > 0:34:12to confirm the marriage. It is a nonsense that this simple measure

0:34:12 > 0:34:17has not come to pass so far. Apparently it is the policy of the

0:34:17 > 0:34:22Government and the previous one. It has been supported by Prime

0:34:22 > 0:34:27Ministers, Ministers, early day motions, Private members bills and

0:34:27 > 0:34:34the other honourable members across and my right honourable friend, the

0:34:34 > 0:34:41Bishop of St Albans, they are trying to push through the measure. My

0:34:41 > 0:34:50proposals will mirror the intention. I will seek to restrict the Henry

0:34:50 > 0:34:54VIII classes. Making sure this bill passes into law quickly is the

0:34:54 > 0:34:59fastest way to achieve this change in the law and my bill could achieve

0:34:59 > 0:35:04that. Just to confirm, the two clauses relating to marriage

0:35:04 > 0:35:09certificates are marker clauses, as the honourable lady has pre-empted

0:35:09 > 0:35:15me pointing out and will be replaced and collaborated on as agreed with

0:35:15 > 0:35:25Ministers, albeit at the 11th hour. Finally, I,... Is she happy? My

0:35:25 > 0:35:30honourable friend is signifying that she is happy. My day is complete, Mr

0:35:30 > 0:35:35Deputy is bigger. Before it is and I come onto the subject of

0:35:35 > 0:35:39stillbirths. The most emotionally dramatic part of my bill and an

0:35:39 > 0:35:45issue that this house has been moved on many occasions by the Testament

0:35:45 > 0:35:50of honourable members on both sides who have bravely spoken out about

0:35:50 > 0:35:54their own experiences. It is because of those emotional personal

0:35:54 > 0:35:58testimonies I think this whole subject punches above its weight in

0:35:58 > 0:36:04this place and has given a voice and hope to the too many parents who are

0:36:04 > 0:36:08directly affected by the tragedy of stillbirths. I went to pay tribute

0:36:08 > 0:36:17to the work of the all-party group of baby loss and the work done for

0:36:17 > 0:36:20Colchester, Lewisham, amongst others. My honourable friend from

0:36:20 > 0:36:26Banbury as well and for Washington and I am sure anybody else that I

0:36:26 > 0:36:29have missed will take the opportunity to intervene. It has

0:36:29 > 0:36:36been a great cross-party effort and one of the things we do well in this

0:36:36 > 0:36:43house when we get it right. I first became involved as shadow children's

0:36:43 > 0:36:47minister and when the constituent came to me with a tale of how she

0:36:47 > 0:36:53had suffered miscarriages and is still birth after 19 weeks. It is

0:36:53 > 0:36:57classified only if the gestation period is 24 weeks or more, one day

0:36:57 > 0:37:06less and it is a non-viable delivery or a mid-trimester miscarriage.

0:37:06 > 0:37:11There are no records of those survey did not form part of the mortality

0:37:11 > 0:37:15figures, which whilst falling, I still have far too high in this

0:37:15 > 0:37:22country. Without wishing in any way to downplay the importance and pain

0:37:22 > 0:37:25of miscarriage, particularly for new parents struggling to have their

0:37:25 > 0:37:35first child, they are different. My constituent Hayley was pregnant. She

0:37:35 > 0:37:39carried the child and felt the baby kicking and went through all the ups

0:37:39 > 0:37:43and downs of pregnancy. Previously, she had suffered a miscarriage after

0:37:43 > 0:37:47just a couple of weeks. That they, around 19 weeks something went wrong

0:37:47 > 0:37:54and Healy and Fraser's baby died on board. It was not a miscarriage and

0:37:54 > 0:38:00Healy had to go through the pain of giving birth to baby who she knew

0:38:00 > 0:38:04was no longer alive. She had to take powerful drugs and experienced

0:38:04 > 0:38:08contractions. She went into hospital and had pain relief. The following

0:38:08 > 0:38:15day she gave her to her baby, Samuel. She held Samuel in her arms,

0:38:15 > 0:38:23she and her partner took photographs and said their goodbyes. She was

0:38:23 > 0:38:28given good support by the clinical staff at the hospital, and

0:38:28 > 0:38:35outstanding hospital, particularly the maternity department and had

0:38:35 > 0:38:40helped later. She was fortunate to find a sympathetic funeral director

0:38:40 > 0:38:46and a funeral took place. To all intents and purposes, Healy went

0:38:46 > 0:38:51through pregnancy and the pain endured that they were coupled with

0:38:51 > 0:38:56the unimaginable grief of a parent who has lost a child before they can

0:38:56 > 0:39:01get to know him. She did not just go through is still birth, she had is

0:39:01 > 0:39:07still baby. She became a mother. The difference is the baby is not

0:39:07 > 0:39:13recognised in the eyes of the state because he was born before 24 weeks.

0:39:13 > 0:39:18If he had survived until 24 weeks and one day, he would have been

0:39:18 > 0:39:21recognised and the death registered. More than just adding to the

0:39:21 > 0:39:26statistics, that would have been the acknowledgement of an actual

0:39:26 > 0:39:33individual baby. To add further insult to injury, the certificate

0:39:33 > 0:39:38was given straight afterwards. The story has a happy ending because the

0:39:38 > 0:39:44have gone on to have a healthy child, doing well and last year they

0:39:44 > 0:39:49got married. That stark difference surely cannot be right. It adds

0:39:49 > 0:39:53insult to the unimaginable pain that the parents have already had to

0:39:53 > 0:40:00suffer. Until the passing of the stillbirths act, the threshold was

0:40:00 > 0:40:0728 weeks. Prior to that, even more babies went unrecognised. That

0:40:07 > 0:40:11changed following a clear consensus at the age at which a baby is

0:40:11 > 0:40:17considered viable. There have been cases of babies born before 24 weeks

0:40:17 > 0:40:25have survived. It is true that is informal procedure for hospitals to

0:40:25 > 0:40:27issue certificates. They provide parents with the certificate that

0:40:27 > 0:40:34records the pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. A charity has produced a

0:40:34 > 0:40:37template and encourages all hospitals to adopt it. However, it

0:40:37 > 0:40:41is unofficial and pounds for a little, if nothing, in the eyes of

0:40:41 > 0:40:50the state. -- counts for little. I brought a bill in 2014. It was

0:40:50 > 0:40:56supported by members to do. Widely supported across the House, but it's

0:40:56 > 0:41:01run out of time. I did take the issue further with the then health

0:41:01 > 0:41:04minister who hosted a Round Table and we were in the middle of coming

0:41:04 > 0:41:12up for the solution with the Royal College of Midwives and charities,

0:41:12 > 0:41:19amongst others. As has been the bane of my experience, the minister was

0:41:19 > 0:41:24moved on and the initiative was lost. This bill would resurrect that

0:41:24 > 0:41:27initiative by committing the Government to holding a review of

0:41:27 > 0:41:32how we could come up with a scheme whereby the state would recognise a

0:41:32 > 0:41:36child such as Samuel existed. For the many parents who have written to

0:41:36 > 0:41:41me, I know it would help bring some closure after a dramatic ordeal.

0:41:41 > 0:41:46Some of the experiences are unimaginable to those lucky enough

0:41:46 > 0:41:51not to have gone through it.

0:41:52 > 0:41:56He is making a very powerful speech that is difficult to listen to, but

0:41:56 > 0:42:00I would like to ask whether he would like to go into detail about the

0:42:00 > 0:42:08effects of registration of a baby's body on the burial of the body, for

0:42:08 > 0:42:14example, what happens to the remains of the baby and on the legal

0:42:14 > 0:42:20position of maternity and paternity leave that are briefed.My

0:42:20 > 0:42:25honourable friend who has campaigned on this a long time and has her own

0:42:25 > 0:42:29personal experiences, there are implications in law and employment

0:42:29 > 0:42:33and others for recognising that somebody has gone through these

0:42:33 > 0:42:36experiences, has gone through the experiences of being pregnant for

0:42:36 > 0:42:40which they are entitled to various things, but just because the

0:42:40 > 0:42:46pregnancy came to a traumatic end before 24 weeks, all the support and

0:42:46 > 0:42:52recognition completely falls away. There are far thinking employees who

0:42:52 > 0:42:58take it into account, they are not obliged to. This is more than just

0:42:58 > 0:43:05giving closure to the parents that have had a traumatic experience,

0:43:05 > 0:43:09there are lots of things that can help them get through the experience

0:43:09 > 0:43:20as well and I will come to a quart the lack of close shortly. I want to

0:43:20 > 0:43:25give one brief example because one stark example was a woman who had

0:43:25 > 0:43:30given birth to stillborn twins delayed either side of the 24 week

0:43:30 > 0:43:35threshold. One was registered as stillborn, recognised in the eyes of

0:43:35 > 0:43:39the state, the other born just before 24 weeks I did not exist.

0:43:39 > 0:43:47That cannot be right, and we must and we can do better. I know the

0:43:47 > 0:43:50Secretary of State shares the ambition and is to be commended by

0:43:50 > 0:43:57the comprehension measures to bring down the level and deal more

0:43:57 > 0:44:01synthetically when this happens. Other countries such as Holland and

0:44:01 > 0:44:06Norway have reduced the mortality rate is much more. We see wide

0:44:06 > 0:44:11variations geographically here. The stillbirth rate in the south-west of

0:44:11 > 0:44:20England is just over... A 23% difference. Therapy differences

0:44:20 > 0:44:25between age groups and mums from different ethnic backgrounds. There

0:44:25 > 0:44:30are many babies stillborn in England and Wales in 2016. Those that

0:44:30 > 0:44:36officially stillborn over 24 weeks, not including those before the

0:44:36 > 0:44:44threshold. It is 15 times more common than cot death and equates to

0:44:44 > 0:44:47around nine babies every single day. That is nine mothers and fathers

0:44:47 > 0:44:51that have lost a father after completing more than half the term

0:44:51 > 0:44:55of the pregnancy. They then have to go through childbirth to see a baby

0:44:55 > 0:45:00that will not grow up. We need to see how we can do better and come up

0:45:00 > 0:45:04with a simple scheme that can have a huge impact on many grieving

0:45:04 > 0:45:11parents. It is to not to do with changing the law on abortion. I have

0:45:11 > 0:45:14deliberately not been prescriptive about what form the review should

0:45:14 > 0:45:19take. I trust the Government do the right thing and I think we are

0:45:19 > 0:45:23pushing at an open door. I know we are pushing at an open door with my

0:45:23 > 0:45:25last measure, as the Health Secretary signalled support for it,

0:45:25 > 0:45:31jarring a statement, on stillbirth is back in November. There appears

0:45:31 > 0:45:34to be an anomaly where coroners and England have the power to

0:45:34 > 0:45:40investigate any unexplained death of humans unless they are stillbirths.

0:45:40 > 0:45:44This is because a baby who dies jarring delivery is not legally

0:45:44 > 0:45:50considered to have live. If it has not lived, it has not died, as

0:45:50 > 0:45:54coroners can only investigate deaths where there is a body of the

0:45:54 > 0:45:57deceased person, they have no legal jurisdiction to investigate the

0:45:57 > 0:46:03deaths. Yet one in three stillbirths occur in healthy babies that die at

0:46:03 > 0:46:07term and sometimes occur due to mismanaged delivers and there have

0:46:07 > 0:46:10been high profile cases where clusters of such deaths have

0:46:10 > 0:46:15occurred well above the national average. According to the charity

0:46:15 > 0:46:18Sands, an estimated 500 babies die or are left disabled because in the

0:46:18 > 0:46:23event jarring their bird that was not anticipated or not well managed.

0:46:23 > 0:46:31-- jarring at their birth. -- during their birth. It has been shown that

0:46:31 > 0:46:35the hospital reviews can be inadequate and failed to inform

0:46:35 > 0:46:43parents of findings. There is no jurisdiction to investigate, Barat

0:46:43 > 0:46:47's examples of good practice where hospitals allow that. At its worst,

0:46:47 > 0:46:53some baby deaths are considered stillbirths when there were signs of

0:46:53 > 0:46:59life poster delivery in order to close down on further investigation.

0:46:59 > 0:47:04I'm sure the cases are rare, but it would be to the benefit of all who

0:47:04 > 0:47:09have suffered the loss of a baby want to be sure to back the hospital

0:47:09 > 0:47:13does everything possible to keep babies sake that there is more

0:47:13 > 0:47:16transparency and evidence lessons are being learned from the tragic

0:47:16 > 0:47:22cases. I am grateful to my local coroner who has championed the issue

0:47:22 > 0:47:27and approached me to include these objects in my bill. She introduced

0:47:27 > 0:47:32me to Michelle Hammington and Nicky Lion of the campaign for save the

0:47:32 > 0:47:42births -- safer births. I pay tribute to their bravery along with

0:47:42 > 0:47:48others at the campaign. My bill proposes an enabling clause to give

0:47:48 > 0:47:54the Secretary of State powers to amend this act, to give them the

0:47:54 > 0:48:01investigation rights for stillbirths. Discretion arranged is

0:48:01 > 0:48:08-- discretion can remain with coroners. However I appreciate the

0:48:08 > 0:48:16complexities of bringing such a change. I do not seek to be

0:48:16 > 0:48:19prescriptive about enabling power at this stage, but I'm sure secretaries

0:48:19 > 0:48:22of state will wish to get on with it sooner rather than later given the

0:48:22 > 0:48:27imperative that the Health Secretary has put on the issue. Importantly,

0:48:27 > 0:48:32it has been said that coroners can take on the initial investigations

0:48:32 > 0:48:37and it is likely it will cut down on subsequent litigation as it will

0:48:37 > 0:48:40thought certainty on what happened. It will lead to reduced care costs

0:48:40 > 0:48:46on the back of fuh damaged babies and give greater comfort to parents

0:48:46 > 0:48:50who are struggling to come to terms with such a loss. It should not be

0:48:50 > 0:48:55seen as a standard measure, but towards other improvements that the

0:48:55 > 0:49:01Government is bringing in, for which it is to be congratulated. I

0:49:01 > 0:49:05apologise for the length of my comments, but the complex nature of

0:49:05 > 0:49:10the multiple measures in my bill and the stressful routes to get here has

0:49:10 > 0:49:14meant that greater explanation is necessary. Much work remains to be

0:49:14 > 0:49:21done. I hope all honourable members that are here today appreciate the

0:49:21 > 0:49:25measures are important, that they welcome amendments to the anomalies

0:49:25 > 0:49:32in the law, all of which have the potential to impact on the life for

0:49:32 > 0:49:37good of a great many of our constituents and those yet to be

0:49:37 > 0:49:45born, and I commend my bill to the house.The question now is that the

0:49:45 > 0:49:49Billies read a second time. There are 16 members wishing to speak and

0:49:49 > 0:49:57I think we want to hear from everybody. If we can use brevity.

0:49:57 > 0:50:02Thank you, I will attempt to keep my contribution concise. Can I

0:50:02 > 0:50:09congratulate the honourable member for east with them -- East Worthing

0:50:09 > 0:50:12for bringing forward the comprehensive bill and I know he has

0:50:12 > 0:50:19been wanting to act on the matters for a long time so it is a tribute

0:50:19 > 0:50:21to his persistence and determination. I speak in support of

0:50:21 > 0:50:30the bill, but I will confine my comments to the issues addressed in

0:50:30 > 0:50:33clause four which is around extending the power of coroners to

0:50:33 > 0:50:40enable them to be able to investigate stillbirths. This will

0:50:40 > 0:50:45make a difference to many families who needs to know why their baby

0:50:45 > 0:50:50died, but even more importantly, it will ensure that lessons are learned

0:50:50 > 0:50:53and improvements made so other parents are spared the horror of

0:50:53 > 0:51:05losing a child. I will acknowledge the work of Secretary of State for

0:51:05 > 0:51:10Health through his maternity safety strategy and I recognise and

0:51:10 > 0:51:14welcomed his comments and support for this bill when he made a

0:51:14 > 0:51:20statement to the House last year where he said I will work with the

0:51:20 > 0:51:29Ministry of Justice to that about to be covered by colonial law. I

0:51:29 > 0:51:35thought that was an important and welcome development. I am here today

0:51:35 > 0:51:41on a Friday to speak for Harriet Harkins because she will never be

0:51:41 > 0:51:47able to speak for herself. Indeed, she never got to draw a breath, and

0:51:47 > 0:51:50as the honourable member has explained, back is very significant.

0:51:50 > 0:51:57I am here to support my incredible courageous but heartbroken

0:51:57 > 0:52:02constituent Jack and Sarah, Harriet's parents. Their fight for

0:52:02 > 0:52:07the truth has been so dreadful, so unnecessarily painful back we in

0:52:07 > 0:52:11this House must act to ensure that others do not have to go through the

0:52:11 > 0:52:17same thing. What happened to Harriet and Jack and Sarah and how it could

0:52:17 > 0:52:24have been so different - Harriet was Jack and Sarah's first baby, there

0:52:24 > 0:52:28were no problems in pregnancy and Sarah Wilkes was considered low

0:52:28 > 0:52:32risk. She experienced contractions one day after her due date on the

0:52:32 > 0:52:3911th April 2016. Sarah was in labour for five days before Harriet was

0:52:39 > 0:52:46eventually delivered. In that time, Jack and Sarah made ten phone calls

0:52:46 > 0:52:51and two visits to the hospital, Queens medical Centre. Each time,

0:52:51 > 0:52:57Sarah was assessed, reassured and sent home. When Sarah finally

0:52:57 > 0:53:01admitted, to Nottingham City Hospital, because the medical centre

0:53:01 > 0:53:06was full, and ultrasound revealed that Harriet had died. You might

0:53:06 > 0:53:11think that things could get no worse. Sadly, you would be wrong.

0:53:11 > 0:53:15Sarah was left struggling with an overly long labour and Harriet was

0:53:15 > 0:53:20only delivered over nine hours later. In the following days, the

0:53:20 > 0:53:25only contact Sarah and Jack had with Nottingham University hospitals was

0:53:25 > 0:53:28with the bereavement midwife. Each time they explained that Harriet's

0:53:28 > 0:53:33death was Jude two areas, they expected to be contacted as part of

0:53:33 > 0:53:42an investigation, but that did not happen. Both Jack and Sarah work for

0:53:42 > 0:53:44Nottingham University hospitals, Jack is a hospital consultant,

0:53:44 > 0:53:50clinical director in NHS improvement, and Sarah is a senior

0:53:50 > 0:53:53physiotherapist. They had an understanding of what they should

0:53:53 > 0:53:57expect, they knew that something had gone horribly wrong, and when they

0:53:57 > 0:54:03were told that a postmortem revealed the death was caused by an infection

0:54:03 > 0:54:07and told to try to move on, they refused to have their concerns

0:54:07 > 0:54:15dismissed. Following repeated requests, they met with their...

0:54:15 > 0:54:19They said that the trust carried out an investigation without Jack and

0:54:19 > 0:54:23Sarah's involvement and concluded there were no errors and that

0:54:23 > 0:54:28Harriet's death was down to an infection. As an expert in

0:54:28 > 0:54:30infections, Jack challenged the conclusion and they demanded an

0:54:30 > 0:54:37external review. The hospital conceded and Jack and Sarah met the

0:54:37 > 0:54:43external review team in August 2016. Following that meeting, Harriet's

0:54:43 > 0:54:48death was upgraded to a series on toward incident, 159 days after she

0:54:48 > 0:54:56died. It should have been within 72 hours. In December, Jack and Sarah

0:54:56 > 0:55:02were sent a draft report to check for factual accuracy. It stated that

0:55:02 > 0:55:07Harriet's death was directly contributed to by five things. That

0:55:07 > 0:55:13conclusion meant a great deal to the parents. But when the final SUI

0:55:13 > 0:55:17report was circulated, the conclusion had been watered down to

0:55:17 > 0:55:24the death had been avoided if... To Jack and Sarah, the significant

0:55:24 > 0:55:28change smacked of a cover-up and a refusal to learn from the handling

0:55:28 > 0:55:33of Harriet's berth. The trust would not explain why the investigation

0:55:33 > 0:55:37team had changed the conclusions and dissatisfied with the handling of

0:55:37 > 0:55:40the investigation, Jack and Sarah informed the clinical commissioning

0:55:40 > 0:55:53group. They organised a new external review team to conduct a second

0:55:53 > 0:55:57series untoward incident investigation. That report was

0:55:57 > 0:56:04published in December 2017 stop it said there were multiple missed

0:56:04 > 0:56:08opportunities for intervention and appropriate monitoring early in the

0:56:08 > 0:56:12labour. Had one of the opportunities been taken, it is likely the labour

0:56:12 > 0:56:17would have been substantially shortened, any faecal combo Mize

0:56:17 > 0:56:23recognised on CTG and likely that faecal death would not have

0:56:23 > 0:56:27occurred. The overall conclusion of the investigation was that the deep

0:56:27 > 0:56:33death of baby age was preventable.

0:56:33 > 0:56:39I do not know how many babies have died or been harmed since Harriet's

0:56:39 > 0:56:44death and whether they could have been avoided if the lessons have

0:56:44 > 0:56:49been identified earlier. I also do not know how many babies died before

0:56:49 > 0:56:57Harriet, due to feelings of care. Opportunities where are very clearly

0:56:57 > 0:57:02lost. Without Sarah and Jack's incredible fight, they would have

0:57:02 > 0:57:08been no learning from Harriet's death. They wrote to me earlier this

0:57:08 > 0:57:12week to say, we have always said that had we not been clinicians, we

0:57:12 > 0:57:17would not be here today fighting, we would have believed the flawed

0:57:17 > 0:57:22internal report and the external report. It has taken us almost two

0:57:22 > 0:57:27years to get an independent review. This should not be the

0:57:27 > 0:57:32responsibility of grieving parents to push for. An external review

0:57:32 > 0:57:36cannot deemed to be independent and it was sure not to be an example and

0:57:36 > 0:57:41it will not provide the honesty and openness of the coroner court. It

0:57:41 > 0:57:45will not provide the follow through in learning to prevent other baby

0:57:45 > 0:57:50deaths.Will my honourable friend give way? I am grateful to my friend

0:57:50 > 0:57:56and the testimony she gives. Does that not so clearly highlight the

0:57:56 > 0:58:01unique nature of the coroner court is to provide the facility to

0:58:01 > 0:58:04investigate these matters, supportively and with an ability to

0:58:04 > 0:58:10get to the truth?My honourable friend is entirely right. I think

0:58:10 > 0:58:15the role of coroners is incredibly important and there are a number of

0:58:15 > 0:58:20reasons why coroners are the right people to investigate. Why should a

0:58:20 > 0:58:26baby's death be treated differently to any other death? The coroner is

0:58:26 > 0:58:30an independent office holder and the inquest will be truly independent

0:58:30 > 0:58:34and transparent. They can address local issues at a hospital or a

0:58:34 > 0:58:39unit, they can refer to other statutory bodies, including the Care

0:58:39 > 0:58:45Quality Commission. If a coroner makes a future death report, it can

0:58:45 > 0:58:49be monitored closely and the family will be able to dissipate freely in

0:58:49 > 0:58:53the process and not merely consulted. They are able to have

0:58:53 > 0:58:57legal representation. They will be able to attend the inquest to ask

0:58:57 > 0:59:03questions and they will receive full disclosure of all policies and

0:59:03 > 0:59:08documents in advance. An inquest is heard in public and it ensures

0:59:08 > 0:59:13transparency of process and decision making. Of course, they can

0:59:13 > 0:59:17recognise trends and if necessary imposed improvement orders an

0:59:17 > 0:59:24organisation. Jack and Sarah are concerned that the bill commits to

0:59:24 > 0:59:29review and not to a definite change in the laugh. I say to the Minister,

0:59:29 > 0:59:34I hope you will listen carefully, acknowledge what the Secretary of

0:59:34 > 0:59:37State for Health has already said and you will not let down my

0:59:37 > 0:59:44constituents. Speaking on the media, as Jack and Sarah have, they say

0:59:44 > 0:59:48they want to make their daughter proud. They surely make us all

0:59:48 > 0:59:52proud. We bought it to them to make this change in the law. Please

0:59:52 > 1:00:02support this bill.I would like to congratulate the honourable member

1:00:02 > 1:00:07for introducing this bill. He has a long and proud record of supporting

1:00:07 > 1:00:11families and supporting progressive policies in this house and it is a

1:00:11 > 1:00:16genuine honour to follow his lead. I would like to congratulate the

1:00:16 > 1:00:20member for Nottingham southpaw her emotional and heartfelt, one of many

1:00:20 > 1:00:25we are about to hear today. This bill covers for important areas and

1:00:25 > 1:00:30many colleagues wish to speak. I will top about two of them. I have

1:00:30 > 1:00:35great sympathy and support all elements of this bill. I firmly

1:00:35 > 1:00:39support the call for the name of mothers to be registered on marriage

1:00:39 > 1:00:43certificates. I am glad this is an issue that is supported by the

1:00:43 > 1:00:48Government and many in this house, and for a long period of time. There

1:00:48 > 1:00:55are currently about 2 million single parents in the country, 90% of those

1:00:55 > 1:00:59are women, and as it stands, if any of their children married, they are

1:00:59 > 1:01:04not able to be registered. What a bizarre situation in this day and

1:01:04 > 1:01:09age. Both parents names are recorded on civil partnership certificates. I

1:01:09 > 1:01:14also agree with the argument that we should use this opportunity to

1:01:14 > 1:01:18introduce further reforms to the overall process of how marriages are

1:01:18 > 1:01:23registered, rather than simply changing the content of the marriage

1:01:23 > 1:01:27entry itself. Amending the registers may be the quickest court of action,

1:01:27 > 1:01:30but it is little to improve the efficiency of the system and would

1:01:30 > 1:01:37mean that if any further amendments were required, all of the registers,

1:01:37 > 1:01:4184,000 in the country, would need to be replaced again, at a cost.

1:01:41 > 1:01:47Britain is proud at its technology innovation and in this digital age

1:01:47 > 1:01:53we are leaders, surely it should not be too difficult to think of a way

1:01:53 > 1:01:58for marriages to be held in a single register. I will turn to the issue

1:01:58 > 1:02:04of extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples, on which I

1:02:04 > 1:02:06have received correspondence from constituents, on both sides of the

1:02:06 > 1:02:11argument. I have a very clear view on this. Although civil partnerships

1:02:11 > 1:02:15were introduced to extend the rights available to same-sex couples,

1:02:15 > 1:02:20rather than as an alternative to marriage, it has had the unintended

1:02:20 > 1:02:24consequence of creating and inequality on the basis of sexual

1:02:24 > 1:02:29orientation. By trying to eliminate one form of discrimination, we have

1:02:29 > 1:02:34unintentionally created another one. I will sure my colleagues are aware

1:02:34 > 1:02:41of the sadistic of the increasing number of children in the UK...

1:02:41 > 1:02:46# Aware of the statistics. The children did not have the

1:02:48 > 1:02:53Protections. Some of these couples may not wish to enter into a form of

1:02:53 > 1:02:58a union, I know this is not the case for many of couples in my

1:02:58 > 1:03:03constituency. They do want their relationship to be recognised but do

1:03:03 > 1:03:08not wish to marry, for many reasons. My honourable friend gave the

1:03:08 > 1:03:13example of divorced Catholics. Why I myself am happily married and I

1:03:13 > 1:03:19would like to believe my wife would say the same thing, I do accept that

1:03:19 > 1:03:21marriage is not for everybody and I am sympathetic to those who dislike

1:03:21 > 1:03:26the symbolism of marriage or the implications of ownership, inherent

1:03:26 > 1:03:35in a legally defining couple as man and wife. Not man and woman, but man

1:03:35 > 1:03:41and wife. It includes this element of possession which I know many

1:03:41 > 1:03:45people find very uncomfortable. Expanding civil partnerships could

1:03:45 > 1:03:50have a look and affects on other policy areas, including pensions. It

1:03:50 > 1:03:54is right we take time to understand the implications. I implore the

1:03:54 > 1:03:59Government to not take too much time. I hope the Government listens

1:03:59 > 1:04:05carefully to the arguments made today and acts accordingly because

1:04:05 > 1:04:07Britain has changed, attitudes have changed and it is time the law

1:04:07 > 1:04:16catches up. Thank you.The shadow minister.Thank you, Madam Speaker.

1:04:16 > 1:04:22I want to congratulate the member for bringing such an important bill.

1:04:22 > 1:04:26I am so very proud that civil partnerships were a landmark policy

1:04:26 > 1:04:31introduced by Labour. We took a stand long before it was considered

1:04:31 > 1:04:37fashionable or acceptable. We took a stand to allow lesbian, gay and

1:04:37 > 1:04:40bisexual people to allow their relationships acknowledged by all.

1:04:40 > 1:04:46This proud moment all on our history of fighting for the equal rights for

1:04:46 > 1:04:53people and the civil partnership act is paved the way. Following the

1:04:53 > 1:04:57hassling of same-sex marriage legislation, it is an anomaly that

1:04:57 > 1:05:02will partnerships are not available to all. An anomaly that the

1:05:02 > 1:05:04Government could have easily rectified and would have received

1:05:04 > 1:05:09support from all sides of the House. Although I was not a member at the

1:05:09 > 1:05:12time, it is clear that the only reason Labour did not push further

1:05:12 > 1:05:16during the passage of the bill was for fear of losing the bill

1:05:16 > 1:05:21altogether. We were met with much hostility but we were on a mission

1:05:21 > 1:05:25to ensure some level of equality as quickly as possible and be achieved

1:05:25 > 1:05:31just that. Times have now moved on but it appears some attitudes have

1:05:31 > 1:05:34not, allowing some couples to choose whether they marry or enter into

1:05:34 > 1:05:38civil partnerships or not is no equality at all. This anomaly is not

1:05:38 > 1:05:43in the spirit of the civil partnership act is an same-sex

1:05:43 > 1:05:46marriage act, which were based firmly in parity and not this

1:05:46 > 1:05:51semantics that are used to hide victory and registers. -- hide

1:05:51 > 1:06:01bigotry. Having joined us, it is disappointing this Government has

1:06:01 > 1:06:06made excuses to expanding civil partnerships. The argued that result

1:06:06 > 1:06:10of their consultation were inconclusive. They have been voices

1:06:10 > 1:06:13suggesting we abolish civil partnerships altogether. This would

1:06:13 > 1:06:17be a step backwards for the millions of couples cohabiting who want

1:06:17 > 1:06:24recognition of their relationship under the law. Surely it is our job

1:06:24 > 1:06:27to give further protection to our constituents and not to strip them

1:06:27 > 1:06:37away. On the other measures of this bill, allowing mother's names to

1:06:37 > 1:06:39being on civil partnership certificates, brings us into line

1:06:39 > 1:06:43with Scotland and it should not take a Private Members' Bill to make such

1:06:43 > 1:06:47obvious change and they might consider that such a measure should

1:06:47 > 1:06:52have been opposed by them through legislation. I am going to make

1:06:52 > 1:06:56progress. On the legislation of stillbirths, I would point out in

1:06:56 > 1:07:01the UK we still have a woefully high number of stillbirths for a western

1:07:01 > 1:07:06country. I know this because I used to work in an outpatient clinic and

1:07:06 > 1:07:12I remember it happening. It can be truly dramatic and we need to do

1:07:12 > 1:07:16more to support mothers. We agreed that still bursts that occurred

1:07:16 > 1:07:22before 24 weeks should be formally acknowledged and registered. --

1:07:22 > 1:07:29still births. We do not want to undermine abortion rights. We fully

1:07:29 > 1:07:34support this bill and only wish the rest of the Government were as

1:07:34 > 1:07:41forward thinking as the member will stop.It is an honour to take part

1:07:41 > 1:07:47in this debate. I must confess, I am confused by the remarks of the

1:07:47 > 1:07:55Honourable lady for a Lincoln. As I see it, this is not a matter to

1:07:55 > 1:08:00politicise. These are complicated moral issues that we are finding our

1:08:00 > 1:08:04way through together, consensually and some of the best things that I

1:08:04 > 1:08:08have done since I have been in this house have been on a cross-party

1:08:08 > 1:08:13basis and on these very, very difficult issues. I am thoroughly in

1:08:13 > 1:08:21support of my honourable friend in the entirety. I am going to confide

1:08:21 > 1:08:25my remarks to the three areas of the bill that I have personal experience

1:08:25 > 1:08:32of. I will leave civil partnerships to others. The inequality of

1:08:32 > 1:08:37marriage certificate is one of the first issues I came across as a

1:08:37 > 1:08:41constituent MP when I entered the House in 2015. We have an excellent

1:08:41 > 1:08:46debate and many members were present in Westminster Hall. I spoke about a

1:08:46 > 1:08:50terrible story of my own constituent whose father subjected her and her

1:08:50 > 1:08:54siblings to sexual abuse over a number of years. She had not seen

1:08:54 > 1:08:59her father since she was ten. Where she to get married now, and I

1:08:59 > 1:09:06believe one of the reasons she has not got married is because of the

1:09:06 > 1:09:09law in its current state, she would very much want to leave the father

1:09:09 > 1:09:14field blank. Well, as her mother, who is a heroine and brought them up

1:09:14 > 1:09:19to court with his full abuse, would get no mention. That is simply

1:09:19 > 1:09:27wrong. I accept the need to look for efficiencies and find ways to create

1:09:27 > 1:09:32a more secure system for the maintenance of marriage records. We

1:09:32 > 1:09:36must also consider what terminology we use. Inevitably, this will take

1:09:36 > 1:09:42time. As a former church warden, I am familiar with the register

1:09:42 > 1:09:50system. I see no reason why we cannot give celebrants the reason to

1:09:50 > 1:09:55cross out father and amend or to add to it, at least until the review has

1:09:55 > 1:10:00concluded. Next week we marked the centenary of women suffrage and I

1:10:00 > 1:10:04think it feels archaic standing here discussing such a glaring

1:10:04 > 1:10:12inequality. While we have been slow, I accept, on all sides to deal with

1:10:12 > 1:10:16marriage certificates. In the three years I have been here, the

1:10:16 > 1:10:19Government has been ambitious in the approach to still births. I am

1:10:19 > 1:10:23pleased with the progress we have made, although it does not go far

1:10:23 > 1:10:30enough, to having the number of stillbirths and 2025. The all party

1:10:30 > 1:10:33Parliamentary group on baby loss is a force of nature. I would like to

1:10:33 > 1:10:42pay great tribute to the members for Colchester, Sunderland west and the

1:10:42 > 1:10:46former member for Ipswich. When we were all there in the middle of the

1:10:46 > 1:10:50night determined to make things better and we were soon joined by

1:10:50 > 1:10:55the passion of the honourable lady for North Ayrshire and Arran, who

1:10:55 > 1:11:00joins us, and that fabulous speech from the member of Lewisham, who did

1:11:00 > 1:11:06so much to help our cause. We must take some credit that the way we

1:11:06 > 1:11:11talk about miscarriages, stillbirths is changing. As a group, we know

1:11:11 > 1:11:17there are strong views on the way stillbirths are registered and

1:11:17 > 1:11:24investigated. For me, much should depend on the wishes of the parents.

1:11:24 > 1:11:29For fear of touching on painful subjects. My honourable friend made

1:11:29 > 1:11:33it clear earlier, there is no need to upset the abortion laws, but fear

1:11:33 > 1:11:40of talking about it must not render us and capable of reflecting a

1:11:40 > 1:11:44situation where babies born at younger and younger are now living.

1:11:44 > 1:11:47Real people are suffering by our failure to address these difficult

1:11:47 > 1:11:50issues.

1:11:50 > 1:11:54A mother who has been through labour and going through lactation often

1:11:54 > 1:12:00for a significant number of weeks of a baby who was still born before 24

1:12:00 > 1:12:04weeks of course we'll feel that his or her life should be properly

1:12:04 > 1:12:09recognised and reported. I'm hopeful we as a group will have a great deal

1:12:09 > 1:12:12of input into the report for the Secretary of State will undertake

1:12:12 > 1:12:19should do is progress today. I was in the house in November for the

1:12:19 > 1:12:21statement on the government new strategy to improve safety in NHS

1:12:21 > 1:12:27maternity services. Worrying about maternal safety particularly of

1:12:27 > 1:12:31course those who use the Horton General Hospital in my own

1:12:31 > 1:12:35constituency keeps me awake at night will stop unfortunately we know that

1:12:35 > 1:12:41things do go wrong. Bereaved families deserve answers and are

1:12:41 > 1:12:46often motivated by a burning desire that such a thing never happen to

1:12:46 > 1:12:51another family. At the moment coroners in England don't have the

1:12:51 > 1:12:53power to investigate a stillbirth yet in Northern Ireland in 2013 the

1:12:53 > 1:13:00Court of Appeal held that coroners do have such a jurisdiction. I know

1:13:00 > 1:13:06from talking to members of embrace that the vast majority of cases will

1:13:06 > 1:13:10not be appropriate for a coroner to investigate a stillbirth however in

1:13:10 > 1:13:14the cases where relations with the hospital have broken down, where

1:13:14 > 1:13:19there is no faith in internal investigations or whether a wider

1:13:19 > 1:13:24learning point exists from a death is made in a small number of cases

1:13:24 > 1:13:28be appropriate. Previously I used to represent the government in military

1:13:28 > 1:13:33inquests and it strikes me that there is considerable potential for

1:13:33 > 1:13:37us to provide specialist training to a cadre of coroners brought in to

1:13:37 > 1:13:41deal with this extremely sensitive area in much the way that we did

1:13:41 > 1:13:49having learned from the introduction of inquests in military situations.

1:13:49 > 1:13:55I hope we can rely on my friends on the front bench to join upper crust

1:13:55 > 1:13:58across the bow until thinking is the work progresses. The member for his

1:13:58 > 1:14:03Worthing and Shoreham has met with me in advance of the day to scope

1:14:03 > 1:14:10out views and if this Bill progresses I look forward to the

1:14:10 > 1:14:16review. In conclusion I think this is a sensible and humane bill which

1:14:16 > 1:14:27as a cross-party group of members we should all be unite behind, if not

1:14:27 > 1:14:31merely to address long-standing problems with the law.Thank you

1:14:31 > 1:14:34very much Madam Deputy Speaker and it is an absolute pleasure to follow

1:14:34 > 1:14:40the honourable member who I am proud to call my friend and I think the

1:14:40 > 1:14:46work that we have done an the all-party group for baby loss really

1:14:46 > 1:14:52is an exemplar of cross-party working at its best. I welcome this

1:14:52 > 1:14:58Bill presented by the honourable member for ease Worthing and

1:14:58 > 1:15:01Shoreham and I support all four parts of the Bill wholeheartedly

1:15:01 > 1:15:05that I will speak this morning on just two parts. One briefly and

1:15:05 > 1:15:10another which is of great personal significance to me. Firstly I

1:15:10 > 1:15:14welcome the measures of the bill which would legislate to equalise

1:15:14 > 1:15:19civil partnerships and open them to heterosexual couples and have had

1:15:19 > 1:15:23many constituents as we all have contact me about this in recent

1:15:23 > 1:15:26weeks and I am happy to support the measures he proposes. To the main

1:15:26 > 1:15:34topic, I remember when the honourable member sent an e-mail

1:15:34 > 1:15:38rounds notifying us all of his intentions with this Bill, and being

1:15:38 > 1:15:45hopeful when I saw the provision to register stillbirths on under 24

1:15:45 > 1:15:49weeks gestation. In the e-mail he went on to say and I hope he doesn't

1:15:49 > 1:15:57mind me quoting his e-mail here but I quote currently a child born to a

1:15:57 > 1:16:01mother still born after 23 weeks is treated no differently to a

1:16:01 > 1:16:05miscarriage. Both or traumatic and we need to do more to support

1:16:05 > 1:16:13families in this way but the failure of the state to acknowledge these

1:16:13 > 1:16:20children effectively surely adds insult to injury.". When I received

1:16:20 > 1:16:28the e-mail it floored me because it was me he was describing. Me. This

1:16:28 > 1:16:35was exactly my experience when with Lucy my third child, I'm sure I used

1:16:35 > 1:16:40similar words to describe how I felt in the intervention, during the baby

1:16:40 > 1:16:47loss debate in 2016. Lucy was born at 23 and a half weeks sadly still

1:16:47 > 1:16:52born. I mention her for the first time in that debate in Parliament

1:16:52 > 1:16:56during the powerful baby loss debate, baby loss awareness week in

1:16:56 > 1:17:042016 and that was 11 years after. I said at the time and still do how

1:17:04 > 1:17:12much I admired my fellow officers at the eighth PPG on baby loss. The

1:17:12 > 1:17:17honourable member for Colchester and Enders break spoke about their

1:17:17 > 1:17:19losses in detail during the ground-breaking German debate the

1:17:19 > 1:17:24year before. I watched this from the safety of my office because I was

1:17:24 > 1:17:28too scared to be in the chamber for how emotional I would guess just

1:17:28 > 1:17:33listening in the chamber. The fact they were talking about it on their

1:17:33 > 1:17:39feet standard me. -- astounded me. I had never felt brave or strong

1:17:39 > 1:17:45enough to do what they did and I still find it very difficult... Even

1:17:45 > 1:17:50now, all these years later to even talk about it will stop I thank my

1:17:50 > 1:17:54friend for giving way, she is making a very brave and powerful speech.I

1:17:54 > 1:17:58would like to put on record by huge thanks and appreciation for all her

1:17:58 > 1:18:01work in the setting up of the all-party Parliamentary group and

1:18:01 > 1:18:06its continued work. I would also like to say that bereaved parents

1:18:06 > 1:18:08all of us wants to ensure that our child's life however assured has

1:18:08 > 1:18:15meaning. -- however short. She is doing that, and if you doesn't mind

1:18:15 > 1:18:20me saying, Lucy would be very proud of her mummy today.Thank you very

1:18:20 > 1:18:32much. If he was trying to calm me down, he's probably made me worse!

1:18:32 > 1:18:38As I say, I'm feeling very strongly about this issue. Even though I end

1:18:38 > 1:18:43up in tears I had to take part in this debate and express how strongly

1:18:43 > 1:18:49and why I want to support this sets of legislative changes. Lucy had

1:18:49 > 1:18:56been born alive, she would have immediately been incubated, 23.5

1:18:56 > 1:18:59weeks, rushed in an ambulance that was waiting with flashing blue

1:18:59 > 1:19:04lights to the RVI in Newcastle where we have the regional centre of

1:19:04 > 1:19:11excellence for special care baby unit 's. She would have had the best

1:19:11 > 1:19:17world-class care and would have been celebrated with a birth certificate

1:19:17 > 1:19:22and would have celebrated her 20th birthday this year. But sadly she

1:19:22 > 1:19:28was... Stillborn. So no flashing blue lights, no intimate and no

1:19:28 > 1:19:37birthday parties ever. And as I found to my horror, no birth or

1:19:37 > 1:19:42death certificate. As I held her in my arms and had to come to terms

1:19:42 > 1:19:45with what had just happened I also then had to come to terms with the

1:19:45 > 1:19:50fact that she officially did not exist. And I would not be getting

1:19:50 > 1:19:57any certificate of her arrival or death. She was three or four days

1:19:57 > 1:20:09short of the required 24 week legal age.It's very clear that Lucy does

1:20:09 > 1:20:14exist. Lizzie does exist or she exists in your memories and it is

1:20:14 > 1:20:18very important I think for so many constituents that the group on baby

1:20:18 > 1:20:22loss and the member for ease Worthing and Shoreham are raising

1:20:22 > 1:20:25this today and I want to say to my honourable friend I think she is

1:20:25 > 1:20:28very brave to be able to talk to this experience and as ever with the

1:20:28 > 1:20:33many issues these days we can cover in these debates, I think it is

1:20:33 > 1:20:36important for people outside to understand that MPs shared these

1:20:36 > 1:20:40experiences as we share mental health issues and other forms of

1:20:40 > 1:20:43loss and our families so I congratulate my honourable friend

1:20:43 > 1:20:46and just to say that I think that the group is doing a fantastic job

1:20:46 > 1:20:52of campaigning and if we can hear a little bit more, it is really

1:20:52 > 1:20:57valuable what she has to say.Thank you so much, I do appreciate all the

1:20:57 > 1:21:03support, everyone, that you are giving me to help me through this

1:21:03 > 1:21:09moment. She was three or four days short of the 24 week legal age to be

1:21:09 > 1:21:12considered eligible for a death certificate. I was then horrified

1:21:12 > 1:21:18and further traumatised when then I saw it entered in my records as a

1:21:18 > 1:21:23miscarriage. Because she was 324 weeks she didn't even get the

1:21:23 > 1:21:26dignity of being classed as a stillbirth. Although that was hard I

1:21:26 > 1:21:31always say if and when I do talk about this tragedy, which isn't

1:21:31 > 1:21:37often, we went on to have a lovely blessing by the amazing hospital

1:21:37 > 1:21:43chaplain in the private room I was moved to after she was born. We

1:21:43 > 1:21:46named her Lucy during the blessing and spent a number of hours with her

1:21:46 > 1:21:51before she was taken to the chapel of rest 20 years ago the Queen

1:21:51 > 1:21:59Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead didn't have cold carts, I hope they

1:21:59 > 1:22:02do now, so we couldn't spend the night with her even though I was

1:22:02 > 1:22:10kept in overnight heavily sedated. We had a very small family service,

1:22:10 > 1:22:15I children were two and three and a half at that time so they weren't

1:22:15 > 1:22:20even there, it was just parents, our parents, and that was organised by

1:22:20 > 1:22:25the chaplain and the Co-op refunded everything, organised and funded

1:22:25 > 1:22:30everything and that was just... Such a touching thing to do and as is

1:22:30 > 1:22:35almost always the case when my honourable friend for member whose

1:22:35 > 1:22:43constituency is gaze me dart white Swansea East! White flag I support

1:22:43 > 1:22:43her for that

1:22:46 > 1:22:50She was buried in a tiny white cotton in the same grave as my Nanna

1:22:50 > 1:22:58and grandad and I tell you this to highlight from all people involved,

1:22:58 > 1:23:05she existed, she was a baby who was sadly born dead. Her heartbeat is

1:23:05 > 1:23:08throughout my labour just up until minutes before she was born. She

1:23:08 > 1:23:15just couldn't... Make the final push into this world. And because of that

1:23:15 > 1:23:18and because of the matter of a few days she doesn't officially exist in

1:23:18 > 1:23:24any records other than in our memories and our own family records.

1:23:24 > 1:23:30Even the entry on the deeds for the grave is in my name as if I or in

1:23:30 > 1:23:36this case a bit of me, is buried there. Her name isn't on the burial

1:23:36 > 1:23:41plots because although buried there she doesn't exist. I hope honourable

1:23:41 > 1:23:44members can appreciate and understand how are the sort to deal

1:23:44 > 1:23:48with and how hard I was at the time to deal with what was and still is

1:23:48 > 1:23:52the worst thing I have ever experienced in my life. There must

1:23:52 > 1:23:57be a way to square this circle in such cases as this. With the whole

1:23:57 > 1:24:0224 weeks of viability argument. Babies born too soon before the 24

1:24:02 > 1:24:07weeks survive in much greater numbers than ever before. I have met

1:24:07 > 1:24:13some of them to my great delight at events in parliament and it is

1:24:13 > 1:24:19amazing, each one is a miracle. Surely if there a way to recognise

1:24:19 > 1:24:2522 or 23 week babies who didn't quite make it to their first breath?

1:24:25 > 1:24:28This is why I welcome wholeheartedly what the honourable member is trying

1:24:28 > 1:24:32to do with this bill and I hope the government will look favourably upon

1:24:32 > 1:24:43it.Victoria Atkin. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to

1:24:43 > 1:24:46thank my honourable friend, the member for ease Worthing and sure

1:24:46 > 1:24:51for bringing these incredibly important issues before the house in

1:24:51 > 1:24:55his private members bill.The has managed to squeeze into one private

1:24:55 > 1:25:00members bill the work I think of for government departments, maybe more,

1:25:00 > 1:25:05but one can see from the box how many officials, and believe me they

1:25:05 > 1:25:10are many more who have been working on it, I commend the government for

1:25:10 > 1:25:14what is hard to make sure we see justice on these four important

1:25:14 > 1:25:21issues. I would also like to thank members across the house for

1:25:21 > 1:25:26contributing to this debate. I must say it is difficult to follow the

1:25:26 > 1:25:30very, very moving speech of the honourable member for Washington and

1:25:30 > 1:25:34Sunderland West to bring Lucy into this chamber and to speak about her

1:25:34 > 1:25:37in the way the honourable lady has done was incredibly moving and I

1:25:37 > 1:25:44hope today will be a step for not just my honourable friend but for

1:25:44 > 1:25:48other mothers and fathers across the country who have suffered terrible,

1:25:48 > 1:25:53terrible loss. And I'm grateful also to the member for Nottingham self, a

1:25:53 > 1:25:56moving speech and of course my honourable friend for Mid

1:25:56 > 1:26:02Worcestershire and Banbury. Both of whom has spoken on these issues at

1:26:02 > 1:26:08great length and with great, sadly, with some personal experience. So,

1:26:08 > 1:26:12it has been a pleasure to work with my honourable friend, his reputation

1:26:12 > 1:26:18precedes him and as I say as a tenacious backbencher, a tenacious

1:26:18 > 1:26:22minister where he was Minister for children and I am delighted that we

1:26:22 > 1:26:26have reached a place where we can agree on the progression of this

1:26:26 > 1:26:32bill. The government cannot support the version of the long title that

1:26:32 > 1:26:36is currently before the house but we have made amendments that will be

1:26:36 > 1:26:41added at committee stage will be able to support and I hope will

1:26:41 > 1:26:46bring about the changes that so many in this house wish to see. Assuming

1:26:46 > 1:26:49that the house agrees to give the bill a second reading we will table

1:26:49 > 1:26:56the amendment before the house rises today jointly with my honourable

1:26:56 > 1:26:58friend for ease Worthing and Shoreham and that is those

1:26:58 > 1:27:05amendments will go before the committee.

1:27:05 > 1:27:10I do recognise my honourable friend wants to go further than this. I am

1:27:10 > 1:27:17grateful to him for working with us to reach an agreement. We will

1:27:17 > 1:27:22ensure the marker clause one and two are both amended accordingly. Just

1:27:22 > 1:27:27to explain the amendment that we are making too close to, because that

1:27:27 > 1:27:31deals with civil partnerships, this will require the Government to

1:27:31 > 1:27:36undertake a further review of the operational civil partnerships and

1:27:36 > 1:27:40bring forward proposals for how the law ought to be changed so that the

1:27:40 > 1:27:44difference in treatment in the current system is resolved. The

1:27:44 > 1:27:47amendment goes further than the marker clause in the bill before the

1:27:47 > 1:27:53House this morning in that it requires the Government to report to

1:27:53 > 1:27:57Parliament and include a full public consultation. I want to assure

1:27:57 > 1:28:02members that this is a commitment on behalf of the Government. We are

1:28:02 > 1:28:06committed to resolving this issue. We have to get some better evidence

1:28:06 > 1:28:11than we have at the moment as to have to deal with the civil

1:28:11 > 1:28:16partnership issue sensitively. I wish that it was a matter of

1:28:16 > 1:28:22changing a sentence in the act... In a moment, please. We have to also

1:28:22 > 1:28:27recognise it is not just about eligibility, the rights that flow

1:28:27 > 1:28:31from any changes. For example, the rules for dissolution of civil

1:28:31 > 1:28:36partnerships and divorced of marriages by a different. I will

1:28:36 > 1:28:43give way.I think that although the clause is disappointing in some

1:28:43 > 1:28:47ways, it is a step forward. The Minister will be aware that this

1:28:47 > 1:28:52matter is in the Supreme Court in May. Could you give an indication of

1:28:52 > 1:28:56the timescale of when the Government will reach these decisions?I am

1:28:56 > 1:29:01conscious that I must not comment on an individual case. The Government

1:29:01 > 1:29:05tends to get on with this piece of work regardless of whether the House

1:29:05 > 1:29:09permits this bill to have a second reading. I am sensing we are not

1:29:09 > 1:29:14going to have to do that. This piece of work is going to have to be

1:29:14 > 1:29:18commenced immediately. We are determined to resolve it. Just so

1:29:18 > 1:29:23that members of the House understand, the work we are

1:29:23 > 1:29:27committing to involves four elements. The first is to commit to

1:29:27 > 1:29:32continue our existing work assessing the relevant take up of civil

1:29:32 > 1:29:37partnership and marriage amongst same-sex couples. Since 2013 when

1:29:37 > 1:29:42marriage was introduced for same-sex couples, we have seen an increasing

1:29:42 > 1:29:45number of couples choosing marriage instead of civil partnerships. We do

1:29:45 > 1:29:51not know however whether the current levels of demand will be sustained

1:29:51 > 1:29:56or change over time. We have only two years of data for a civil

1:29:56 > 1:30:00partnership following the introduction of marriage for

1:30:00 > 1:30:05same-sex couples. Given the scale and significance of the decision, we

1:30:05 > 1:30:10believe it is proportion to gather more data is all we can be sure that

1:30:10 > 1:30:14demand has stabilised. Our assessment is that by September

1:30:14 > 1:30:182019, we will have a proportionate amount of evidence to be confident

1:30:18 > 1:30:25in assessing the on going level of demand amongst same-sex couples for

1:30:25 > 1:30:31civil partnerships. The second ats relates to those already in civil

1:30:31 > 1:30:37partnerships. We continue to consider whether it is the best way

1:30:37 > 1:30:41forward. We want to approach this issue sensitively and delicately

1:30:41 > 1:30:47because we do not... It would be wrong to rush towards a decision

1:30:47 > 1:30:50without understanding how it would affect same-sex couples who continue

1:30:50 > 1:30:55to opt for a civil partnership and who do not want to convert their

1:30:55 > 1:31:03civil partnership into marriage. We are committing to undertake and

1:31:03 > 1:31:06understand the remaining in a civil partnership and what the may do if

1:31:06 > 1:31:13the evidence drives us to remove them. The third piece of work we are

1:31:13 > 1:31:19committing to today is to undertake surveys to understand the demand for

1:31:19 > 1:31:24civil partnership amongst opposite sex, unmarried couples. Now,

1:31:24 > 1:31:28previous consultations did not suggest a significant number of

1:31:28 > 1:31:32opposite sex couples wish to enter a civil partnership. Indeed, the most

1:31:32 > 1:31:42recent survey conducted in 2014, admittedly a relatively small number

1:31:42 > 1:31:49of respondents, suggested that the demand for at this... People would

1:31:49 > 1:31:55not wish for it to be extended but we are mindful we want to ensure and

1:31:55 > 1:31:59conduct a thorough survey to make sure our evidence is accurate and

1:31:59 > 1:32:03up-to-date when it comes to assessing the demand within opposite

1:32:03 > 1:32:08sex partners and who may or may not wish to enter a civil partnership.

1:32:08 > 1:32:12The fourth piece of work will be a review of what has happened in other

1:32:12 > 1:32:19countries when they have been faced with similar choices. This is an

1:32:19 > 1:32:25important... This is an important part of the evidence base, whilst

1:32:25 > 1:32:29drawn from a different social context, the experience gives us

1:32:29 > 1:32:33information on the couples make when they have the choice between

1:32:33 > 1:32:39marriage and other form of legal recognition. That deals with the

1:32:39 > 1:32:43first part of the bill. I move now to marriage registration. Of

1:32:43 > 1:32:56course...Which she consider my integration. That is to publicise

1:32:56 > 1:33:01the lack of rights that cohabiting couples have is that partnership

1:33:01 > 1:33:06breaks down's there is no awareness at all of those lack of rights.

1:33:06 > 1:33:09Anything the Government can do to check out what their rights are

1:33:09 > 1:33:17would be very helpful.The idea of educating people of their rights is

1:33:17 > 1:33:22one I am drawn to agree with. If I may, I will take that suggestion

1:33:22 > 1:33:27away and speak to my officials and see how we could incorporate that in

1:33:27 > 1:33:31the survey to ensure that that education is provided. I turned to

1:33:31 > 1:33:39the happy subject...I am very grateful. I am delighted with

1:33:39 > 1:33:42everything the Minister has said, particularly the commitment to get

1:33:42 > 1:33:47on with this work now. Will she acknowledged that there has been too

1:33:47 > 1:33:51consultations and there have now been 13 or so years since civil

1:33:51 > 1:33:57partnerships were brought in. There are experiences in all those

1:33:57 > 1:34:01countries. A lot of that evidence is readily at hand and this further

1:34:01 > 1:34:06work need not take much time at all. Can I just have her commitment that

1:34:06 > 1:34:10there will be a sense of urgency to resolve this one way or the other?I

1:34:10 > 1:34:16am grateful to stop that is a sense of urgency, very much so. If you

1:34:16 > 1:34:20will forgive me, I will not be drawn into precise time limits because I

1:34:20 > 1:34:26would not wish to undermine academic research that will be undertaken but

1:34:26 > 1:34:31that is a great deal of urgency and, as we say, we hope by September next

1:34:31 > 1:34:35year we will have a proportionate amount of data on the pieces of work

1:34:35 > 1:34:42I have set out. Turning to marriage and in the Home Office, sadly, we

1:34:42 > 1:34:46very often have to deal with the very worst of humanity. It is a

1:34:46 > 1:34:50positive pleasure to talk about civil partnerships and marriage and

1:34:50 > 1:34:57to celebrate happy relationships and one hopes long lasting

1:34:57 > 1:35:01relationships. As someone who is very happily married to a very

1:35:01 > 1:35:08long-suffering husband, I know the irritation that can happen at the

1:35:08 > 1:35:12ceremony when people realise that the marriage certificates do not

1:35:12 > 1:35:19provide for the inclusion of mothers on the certificates. It is an issue

1:35:19 > 1:35:23that the Government fully supports in terms of correcting this and I am

1:35:23 > 1:35:29grateful to my honourable friend for drawing this forward. I should at

1:35:29 > 1:35:35this point welcome the honourable member of linking to her place and

1:35:35 > 1:35:38the front bench. Although I have only been a minister for eight weeks

1:35:38 > 1:35:43or something like that, if I may give her some advice, judging the

1:35:43 > 1:35:48tone of the House is very important role when we are on the front bench

1:35:48 > 1:35:52and she will have noticed that is a great deal of consensus in this

1:35:52 > 1:35:58Chamber today and perhaps we did not need to drag it into he said, she

1:35:58 > 1:36:06said. I will move on to my honourable friend's long title, it

1:36:06 > 1:36:10refers only to mothers being added to certificates. We need to ensure

1:36:10 > 1:36:15that when the marriage entry is updated it allows for all the

1:36:15 > 1:36:20different family circumstances in society today, for example same-sex

1:36:20 > 1:36:24parents and my honourable friend from Banbury as set out the other

1:36:24 > 1:36:29pressures that can be present in family circumstances and the need

1:36:29 > 1:36:34for a family certificates to reflect that. -- marriage certificates. We

1:36:34 > 1:36:41need to make sure this can be adapted. I know my honourable friend

1:36:41 > 1:36:44suggested that perhaps people could strike through the marriage

1:36:44 > 1:36:49certificate to include the mother's name. Please, please can I import no

1:36:49 > 1:36:55one does that because this is a technical legal document and to do

1:36:55 > 1:36:58so may mean it is not valid. The happy couple will have to go through

1:36:58 > 1:37:06another ceremony. But we will very much work on this. I would like to

1:37:06 > 1:37:10thank my honourable friend for agreeing to clause one of his bill

1:37:10 > 1:37:14at committee stage to insert the registration of marriage number two

1:37:14 > 1:37:20bill in place of the current class. This bill is important. This is the

1:37:20 > 1:37:25long-standing work of my right honourable friend who has been

1:37:25 > 1:37:31battling for years to have this anomaly in our marriage ceremony and

1:37:31 > 1:37:37marriage celebrations corrected. I would like, please, my thanks for

1:37:37 > 1:37:40her commitment to make sure mothers and other parents... The marriage

1:37:40 > 1:37:48certificate reflects the importance of both parents. When the number two

1:37:48 > 1:37:52bill is added to this bill, the provisions will form the way in the

1:37:52 > 1:37:59way marriages are performed, moving from paper-based to an electronic

1:37:59 > 1:38:03register. I know there will be those who worry immediately about what

1:38:03 > 1:38:13that means for the photograph folder, the all-important folder of

1:38:13 > 1:38:18photographs we show off at the end of a happy marriage ceremony. May I

1:38:18 > 1:38:21reassure the House, we will still be able to have the photograph of

1:38:21 > 1:38:29signing a document at the ceremony and so the photos and the wedding

1:38:29 > 1:38:33photographers need not worry and brides and grooms will get that

1:38:33 > 1:38:38all-important photograph with the document and their signatures.

1:38:38 > 1:38:42Moving to a scheduled system is the most efficient and cost-effective

1:38:42 > 1:38:49way and would be the biggest reform of how marriages are registered

1:38:49 > 1:38:53since 1837, moving away from the outdated legislation currently

1:38:53 > 1:38:57placed and for the joy of my colleagues in the Treasury, will

1:38:57 > 1:39:04also introduce savings of around to 8p over ten years. Now, Sun concern

1:39:04 > 1:39:12has been raised over the Henry VIII powers. -- millions of pounds. We

1:39:12 > 1:39:19would allow a sunset clause, limiting the powers to three years

1:39:19 > 1:39:25which would allow the act to be amendment and it would allow for any

1:39:25 > 1:39:29amendments required to deal with unintended consequences. Having

1:39:29 > 1:39:37dealt with civil partnerships and marriage, I now move to the subject

1:39:37 > 1:39:46of registering stillbirths. Again, I must acknowledge the very hard work

1:39:46 > 1:39:52and commitment of my honourable friend for Colchester, Edwards Berry

1:39:52 > 1:39:56and Lewisham and Washington and Sunderland West for such affective

1:39:56 > 1:40:03campaigns and ensuring these losses are felt within this Chamber and our

1:40:03 > 1:40:08legislation reflects that loss as well. The Government's ambition is

1:40:08 > 1:40:13for the health service to provide the highest quality care available

1:40:13 > 1:40:18anywhere in the world. I am sure we would all acknowledge the excellent

1:40:18 > 1:40:21NHS staff working tirelessly on a daily basis to help us achieve this

1:40:21 > 1:40:30ambition. Nevertheless, when it does occur... Just ensuring the front

1:40:30 > 1:40:35bench opposite pays due respect to this section of the bill.

1:40:35 > 1:40:41Nevertheless, when it does occur, the loss of a pregnancy is a hard

1:40:41 > 1:40:47rending tragedy for families, that stays with them for the rest of

1:40:47 > 1:40:53their lives. Many of the considerations for parents

1:40:53 > 1:40:57experiencing stillbirths, which is when a baby is born after 24 weeks

1:40:57 > 1:41:04gestation, would be similar for those experiencing a late

1:41:04 > 1:41:09miscarriage. Local policies may affect the type and place of care

1:41:09 > 1:41:15offered or available, depending on the gestation when baby loss occurs.

1:41:15 > 1:41:20Currently, parents whose babies are stillborn after 24 weeks, can

1:41:20 > 1:41:24register the name and receive a certificate of registration of

1:41:24 > 1:41:29stillbirth. When a pregnancy ends before 24 weeks, there is currently

1:41:29 > 1:41:36no formal process for parents to be able to register their loss legally.

1:41:36 > 1:41:41Some expectant parents find this to be not just distressing, but

1:41:41 > 1:41:46devastating. The Department for health and social care recognises

1:41:46 > 1:41:51the need to do more to support families affected by miscarriage.

1:41:51 > 1:41:56Some families may want their loss to be acknowledged and registered,

1:41:56 > 1:42:01others however may feel distressed at any mandatory requirement to do

1:42:01 > 1:42:06so under the circumstances of their grief. This issue must be approached

1:42:06 > 1:42:32with great care and sensibility.

1:42:32 > 1:42:40I hope all across the house will contribute to this review. I move

1:42:40 > 1:42:47now to coroners investigations and...I thank the Minister for

1:42:47 > 1:42:55giving way. Before she moves on the honour volley member moving the bill

1:42:55 > 1:43:04was not looking at abortion. Is that the government's view?I am grateful

1:43:04 > 1:43:09for his attention to detail. , the Poles for this bill do not affect

1:43:09 > 1:43:13the laws relation to the availability of termination and we

1:43:13 > 1:43:25put that on the record, thank you for clarifying that. I moved to

1:43:25 > 1:43:31investigations of the coroner and I should declare Madam Deputy Speaker

1:43:31 > 1:43:40I have worked in a previous capacity with the chief coroner. Turning to

1:43:40 > 1:43:48close for let me please first of all reassure the house, we need to look

1:43:48 > 1:43:56at the role coroners could play here. The 20 day Mac OS X due date

1:43:56 > 1:44:01for social care made a statement about the maternity safety strategy.

1:44:01 > 1:44:07The bill we consider today has a role to play in promoting better

1:44:07 > 1:44:14care for mothers and babies. Currently under the coroners in

1:44:14 > 1:44:17Justice act 2009 coroners do not just have jurisdiction to

1:44:17 > 1:44:21investigate when a baby does not show signs of life independently of

1:44:21 > 1:44:26its mother. They can commence an investigation if there is doubt as

1:44:26 > 1:44:31to whether a baby was stillborn or lived independently of its mother

1:44:31 > 1:44:34but the investigation stops if the coroners enquiries revealed that the

1:44:34 > 1:44:41baby was stillborn. Clause four places a duty on the secretary of

1:44:41 > 1:44:45state to prepare and publish a report on whether and if so how the

1:44:45 > 1:44:51law ought to be changed to enable or to require coroners to investigate

1:44:51 > 1:44:58stillbirths. It also gives the Lord Chancellor power to make amendments

1:44:58 > 1:45:06to part one of the coroners and Justice act part nine to provide for

1:45:06 > 1:45:09what circumstances coroners investigate stillbirths. I realise

1:45:09 > 1:45:14the house may have concerns about a power to make regulations in this

1:45:14 > 1:45:20way but the safeguards written into the clause will ensure that is used

1:45:20 > 1:45:23appropriately. For example the regulations will be subject to the

1:45:23 > 1:45:28affirmative resolution procedure though there will be scrutiny by

1:45:28 > 1:45:32both houses and regulations cannot be used to create any criminal

1:45:32 > 1:45:39offences unless the offence as they equivalent in the coroners Justice

1:45:39 > 1:45:45act 2009. The government thinks that carrying out a review in this area

1:45:45 > 1:45:51is important before making changes. There are important and sensitive

1:45:51 > 1:45:59issues to explore such as how far involvement should be triggered old

1:45:59 > 1:46:01Billy WACA of the koruna and potential other factors such as

1:46:01 > 1:46:09violence to the mother and medical negligence. We need to hear a wide

1:46:09 > 1:46:13range of views on this topic including those of coroners and the

1:46:13 > 1:46:17chief coroner, of medical professionals and researchers in

1:46:17 > 1:46:20this field and of course the bereaved parents and organisations

1:46:20 > 1:46:30that support them. I referred to the statement my friend made in this

1:46:30 > 1:46:35house on the government maternity safety strategy. He said that

1:46:35 > 1:46:38improvements underway in the NHS including the newly established

1:46:38 > 1:46:41health care safety investigation Branch which will investigate what

1:46:41 > 1:46:47happened in around 1000 cases per year of full-term stillbirth

1:46:47 > 1:46:51neonatal or maternal deaths or severe brain injuries during labour

1:46:51 > 1:46:57in order to discover what may have gone wrong and to learn lessons. At

1:46:57 > 1:47:02the same time he announced that the government intended to look closely

1:47:02 > 1:47:04at enabling coroners to investigate stillbirths and my honourable

1:47:04 > 1:47:11friend's Bill helpfully moves us forward in that regard. In

1:47:11 > 1:47:16conclusion Madam Deputy Speaker this short bill as grand ambitions. It

1:47:16 > 1:47:22deals with the happiest of times, the celebration of love and

1:47:22 > 1:47:26committed relationships. As well as the saddest of times, the loss of a

1:47:26 > 1:47:31much cherished baby. My honourable friend and others in the house have

1:47:31 > 1:47:40dealt with the inevitable emotions with such in occasions sensitively

1:47:40 > 1:47:43and compassionately and my government wants to work with my

1:47:43 > 1:47:48honourable friend and thanks him for the assurances he has given

1:47:48 > 1:47:53regarding clauses one and two of this bill and accordingly the

1:47:53 > 1:48:01government is pleased to be able to support it.Sandy Martin.Thank you

1:48:01 > 1:48:06Mehdi and Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the member for

1:48:06 > 1:48:09bringing forward this bill. And I would also like to commend the

1:48:09 > 1:48:15honourable member for Banbury and my honourable member for Washington and

1:48:15 > 1:48:22Sunderland for their bravery and determination here today. I support

1:48:22 > 1:48:27all elements of this bill but I wish to speak on the second clause I

1:48:27 > 1:48:33believe the civil partnerships aspect of this bill is long overdue.

1:48:33 > 1:48:37I do fully understand why the authors of the original civil

1:48:37 > 1:48:41partnerships act were very focused on their primary purpose, namely to

1:48:41 > 1:48:45allow gay men and women to live in couples recognised by the law. The

1:48:45 > 1:48:51need was great and honourable members are well aware that it is

1:48:51 > 1:48:54often better to put forward a bill which only fulfils the main purpose

1:48:54 > 1:48:59rather than loaded down with other possibly more contentious matters

1:48:59 > 1:49:04which may delay the transition of the bill. But I do think it was a

1:49:04 > 1:49:08shame that in passing the civil partnership act 2000 and 41 of the

1:49:08 > 1:49:13most important principles that gay people have been fighting for was

1:49:13 > 1:49:18potentially compromised, namely that every citizen of the country should

1:49:18 > 1:49:23be treated as equal before the law. Madam Deputy Speaker this point was

1:49:23 > 1:49:30made at the time and I can remember that some of those making it were

1:49:30 > 1:49:36seeking to scupper the 2004 act so I do appreciate the reasons why the

1:49:36 > 1:49:41act was passed in the form in which it was written. As a gay man in a

1:49:41 > 1:49:44civil partnership it was incredibly important to myself and my partner

1:49:44 > 1:49:49that our relationship should be recognised by the law of this land

1:49:49 > 1:49:55and in consequence treat it as equal by all the relevant institutions. I

1:49:55 > 1:49:58can member arguing with a customer service employee of the borough

1:49:58 > 1:50:02council that neither my partner nor I were living alone and that

1:50:02 > 1:50:06therefore we should not be in receipt of the single persons

1:50:06 > 1:50:12discount on our council tax. Madam deputy speak we were seeking to pave

1:50:12 > 1:50:15the borough the correct level of council tax and were denied the

1:50:15 > 1:50:24right to do so. The officer actually stated, the officer actually stated

1:50:24 > 1:50:29we do not recognise the existence of same-sex couples. My partner can now

1:50:29 > 1:50:34be my next of kin, will automatically inherit if I die and

1:50:34 > 1:50:38is accorded all the respect and accommodations due to someone as one

1:50:38 > 1:50:44half of a legally recognised couple. However, while I fully support the

1:50:44 > 1:50:48introduction of same-sex marriage, we have no overwhelming desire to

1:50:48 > 1:50:53get married, we have belief that the civil partnership records at the

1:50:53 > 1:50:57respect and protections we need and are happy to leave it at that. And

1:50:57 > 1:51:01that's come Madam Deputy Speaker is the position that a substantial

1:51:01 > 1:51:05number of opposite sex couples would also like to BN. Two of my

1:51:05 > 1:51:10constituents, one of whom well-known to me as a former borough council

1:51:10 > 1:51:15officer have lived a couple for 40 years, have two children, one is 29

1:51:15 > 1:51:21and the other 33, and have never wished to get married because they

1:51:21 > 1:51:26do not want to feel that they are binding themselves with some sort of

1:51:26 > 1:51:29moral straitjacket. They feel that going through the act of marriage

1:51:29 > 1:51:34would be like an admission that they might split up if it weren't for the

1:51:34 > 1:51:38marriage act. But they do want the fact that they are a couple to be

1:51:38 > 1:51:42recognised by the law. They have the knowledge and ability to have

1:51:42 > 1:51:46instituted a conjugated legal trust to prevent their children from

1:51:46 > 1:51:50losing their inheritance when the parents die but they are very aware

1:51:50 > 1:51:54that most couples do not have that ability. They do not understand why

1:51:54 > 1:52:03if I am in a civil partnership they should not also have that facility.

1:52:03 > 1:52:06Madam Deputy Speaker equality before the law is an important principle,

1:52:06 > 1:52:12and I believe I will happily give way.I'm very grateful and are

1:52:12 > 1:52:15grateful for the supportive way in which the honourable gentleman is

1:52:15 > 1:52:19supporting this bill and I thought his public spirit in this and

1:52:19 > 1:52:28wanting to pay more tax... Does he agree with me, if the option of

1:52:28 > 1:52:31abolishing civil partnerships and just having the level playing field

1:52:31 > 1:52:34of marriage would be deeply destructive because he would be in a

1:52:34 > 1:52:39limbo position of an exclusive group of dwindling numbers to which nobody

1:52:39 > 1:52:46can be added. And would be an extraordinary position and certainly

1:52:46 > 1:52:49not progressive.I thank the honourable member for making that

1:52:49 > 1:52:55point, I fully agree with him. I am very pleased with the civil

1:52:55 > 1:53:02partnership that I am in, I would not wish to have that changed in

1:53:02 > 1:53:06anyway but as he so rightly says if the civil partnerships that have

1:53:06 > 1:53:10already been entered in to remain but no further civil partnerships

1:53:10 > 1:53:15are allowed, that introduces a separate and different relationship

1:53:15 > 1:53:22under the law for people of same-sex which does not apply to people of

1:53:22 > 1:53:25opposite sex and the basic principle that people should be treated the

1:53:25 > 1:53:30same in law I think is one which is well worth upholding and the other

1:53:30 > 1:53:33point of course which the honourable member didn't make explicitly at

1:53:33 > 1:53:38that moment but which I think needs to be more in line is that there are

1:53:38 > 1:53:43very many opposite sex couples who have the same view as the opposite

1:53:43 > 1:53:47sex couple of my constituents who do not want to enter into a marriage

1:53:47 > 1:53:52but who do want their relationship to be recognised and I believe that

1:53:52 > 1:53:56my honourable friend. Route no longer in the house has made this

1:53:56 > 1:54:03point clearly and there are very many opposite sex couples who are

1:54:03 > 1:54:08living together and have been for some time, and anything to be done

1:54:08 > 1:54:12by the law that can regularise the position to make sure those couples

1:54:12 > 1:54:15stay together and are treated properly by the law has to be a good

1:54:15 > 1:54:19move and so in conclusion Madam Deputy Speaker equality before the

1:54:19 > 1:54:23law is a very important principle and I believe the civil partnerships

1:54:23 > 1:54:27aspect of this bill helps to address that principle and I urge honourable

1:54:27 > 1:54:35members to support it.Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a

1:54:35 > 1:54:39pleasure to speak before the honourable member for Ipswich and it

1:54:39 > 1:54:43would be wrong of me not to mention the emotional speech is that the

1:54:43 > 1:54:47honourable member from Washington and Sunderland West made earlier an

1:54:47 > 1:54:54indie chamber, ace exceptional advocate for her issue was I was on

1:54:54 > 1:54:59to do her testimony. It is a pleasure to be here to see the

1:54:59 > 1:55:04conmen will work for my honourable friend of his Worthing and sure. I

1:55:04 > 1:55:08often look around when I go into lobbying functions within the space

1:55:08 > 1:55:11to see who else is in the room and when I come across my honourable

1:55:11 > 1:55:18friend in these particular... I normally know my political compass

1:55:18 > 1:55:23is pretty much on message. There are some great elements to this bill,

1:55:23 > 1:55:28Madam Deputy Speaker at the first element I would like to touch on is

1:55:28 > 1:55:32on civil partnerships. Always worth remembering in this base to follow

1:55:32 > 1:55:37the evidence and look at where the background that case it's so I can

1:55:37 > 1:55:41talk through some of the evidence base that I have found them a civil

1:55:41 > 1:55:45partnerships were introduced in 2004 to allow same-sex couples to obtain

1:55:45 > 1:55:49legal recognition of their relationships and access to same

1:55:49 > 1:55:54legal rights as opposite sex couples and the first ten years 64,000

1:55:54 > 1:55:58people took up civil partnership is according to the ONS figures will

1:55:58 > 1:56:01stop the marriage and same sex act in two dozen and 13 meant that

1:56:01 > 1:56:04same-sex couples to marry under English and Welsh law and from the

1:56:04 > 1:56:10end of 2014 civil partners were granted the rights to convert their

1:56:10 > 1:56:14civil partnerships into marriage. Following the consultation in 2012

1:56:14 > 1:56:18no changes were made to the civil partnerships under the same-sex

1:56:18 > 1:56:21marriage act and the government argued at the time that civil

1:56:21 > 1:56:25partnerships were created to allow equal access to rights was 's

1:56:25 > 1:56:34abilities and protected for same-sex couples. To those who were married.

1:56:34 > 1:56:37In 2014 there was another consultation, that was launched to

1:56:37 > 1:56:42gather views and evidence to further the civil partnerships. Almost

1:56:42 > 1:56:5211,000 people responded. And there was a huge range of views,

1:56:52 > 1:56:59subsequently there was a legal case, but a lot of this sits behind. In

1:56:59 > 1:57:022016 a heterosexual couple presented a case to the High Court, saying

1:57:02 > 1:57:07they face discrimination and the present law. The case was raised,

1:57:07 > 1:57:11and they were wider implications. The judge granted the couple

1:57:11 > 1:57:15permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal. The hearing took

1:57:15 > 1:57:20place in November 2016 and the judgment was delivered in February

1:57:20 > 1:57:2817. All three judges said the claimant's human rights were

1:57:28 > 1:57:31affected, but they concluded that it was proportionate for the Government

1:57:31 > 1:57:37to take time to decide the future of civil partnerships. I have received

1:57:37 > 1:57:40correspondence on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have no

1:57:40 > 1:57:46problem with this element of the bill. However, I do believe, as the

1:57:46 > 1:57:50Minister has outlined, but we need to consider a wide evidence base

1:57:50 > 1:57:54before forming a consensus on that issue of the bill.With the

1:57:54 > 1:58:00honourable member giveaway?Of course.Does anyone else think that

1:58:00 > 1:58:04the report should look at whether there is an understanding in the

1:58:04 > 1:58:07public of the difference between civil partnerships and marriage,

1:58:07 > 1:58:13because they are equal in legality and financial benefit. There is no

1:58:13 > 1:58:17advantage of one over the other. I believe that my honourable friend

1:58:17 > 1:58:20from the South West makes an interesting point. I know we

1:58:20 > 1:58:24minister on the front bench was listening to that representation. On

1:58:24 > 1:58:29the second element of the bill that I'd like to touch on, it's a

1:58:29 > 1:58:33travesty that the mother's name isn't on the marriage certificate. I

1:58:33 > 1:58:37wasn't aware of this issue until I was doing some research into this

1:58:37 > 1:58:41debate today. It came as a real surprise to me that this wasn't the

1:58:41 > 1:58:47case. It seems madness, to me, that this has been allowed to go on for

1:58:47 > 1:58:52such a long period of time. Since 1837 the marriage register entry in

1:58:52 > 1:59:00England and Wales has indicated that details of the father of the spouse,

1:59:00 > 1:59:03but not the mother, there are presently to a bill going through

1:59:03 > 1:59:09Parliament that seek to change this inequality. One introduced by the

1:59:09 > 1:59:12Bishop of St Albans, which has its second reading in the Lords, and the

1:59:12 > 1:59:17other by Dane Caroline Spelman, which will be read, my honourable

1:59:17 > 1:59:22friend from Meriden, who will be read for a second time on February

1:59:22 > 1:59:29the 23rd this year. This change has long been called for, and has

1:59:29 > 1:59:33cross-party support. In 2014 the Prime Minister gave a commitment

1:59:33 > 1:59:36that the contents of the marriage and he would be updated to include

1:59:36 > 1:59:42the details of both parents, of the couple. As the current procedures do

1:59:42 > 1:59:48not reflect that in modern Britain. Statistics show there are currently

1:59:48 > 1:59:51some 2 million single appearance in the country, around 90% of those

1:59:51 > 1:59:58women. And as it stands, if any of those children get married they

1:59:58 > 2:00:03would be unable to include their father's details, they would be able

2:00:03 > 2:00:07to include only their father on the marriage empty. The mother's details

2:00:07 > 2:00:14would not be included. In the modern world that is just unacceptable. In

2:00:14 > 2:00:19drawing to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept the third

2:00:19 > 2:00:24and fourth elements of the bill. Many people have spoken about these

2:00:24 > 2:00:26elements before including my honourable friend from Colchester

2:00:26 > 2:00:30and Banbury. And the honourable member for Washington and

2:00:30 > 2:00:34Sunderland. I don't feel I can add anything to that. I look forward to

2:00:34 > 2:00:40the speeches that are yet to come on those issues. So, in conclusion,

2:00:40 > 2:00:47there are many commendable elements to this bill, and I do hope that Her

2:00:47 > 2:00:51Majesty's government and the member can find a way to review the

2:00:51 > 2:00:56elements that have been raised today. Thank you.Thank you, Madam

2:00:56 > 2:01:02Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the member for East Worthing and

2:01:02 > 2:01:06Shoreham for bringing this to the house. It is clear that the

2:01:06 > 2:01:12legislation on the births, deaths and marriages need updating. It is

2:01:12 > 2:01:16time that the details of both mothers, not just fathers are

2:01:16 > 2:01:19included in the marriage registration. It is time for us to

2:01:19 > 2:01:27reform the laws on the investigation and administration of stillbirths.

2:01:27 > 2:01:31Recently I received a letter from the coroner. Together with other

2:01:31 > 2:01:34coroners, he is seeking a change in the law that would enable coroners

2:01:34 > 2:01:44to investigate all stillbirths that occur after 36 weeks. This is

2:01:44 > 2:01:47generally regarded as full-term, and the reason for the death after 36

2:01:47 > 2:01:53weeks needs to be explored. Hospitals should involve parents and

2:01:53 > 2:01:58answer their questions about why the baby has died, through their review

2:01:58 > 2:02:04processes. But when those questions are not answered, the coroner plays

2:02:04 > 2:02:09a role in looking for answers and ensuring that lessons are learned,

2:02:09 > 2:02:15and mistakes are not repeated. As the law stands, the coroner cannot

2:02:15 > 2:02:20investigate stillbirths. This needs to change. Parents need to have this

2:02:20 > 2:02:26as an option. Because the problem is that they have been virtually no

2:02:26 > 2:02:29decrees in the rate of stillbirths in England and Wales in recent

2:02:29 > 2:02:38years. -- decrease. The latest figures for stillbirths in the UK in

2:02:38 > 2:02:432014 3252. This is higher than those in the best performing countries in

2:02:43 > 2:02:49Europe. I think it's reasonable to argue that the rate remains so high

2:02:49 > 2:02:54because stillbirth cases are not properly investigated. The effect is

2:02:54 > 2:02:57that the majority of stillbirths are avoidable, and the outcome for both

2:02:57 > 2:03:04mother and baby would have been different if the care was improved.

2:03:04 > 2:03:08How can we improve care and if there is no analysis? We need to learn

2:03:08 > 2:03:15from our mistakes. The inquest process would require these

2:03:15 > 2:03:19circumstances of the death to be looked at, considered and

2:03:19 > 2:03:23commendations made to improve outcomes in the future on which, of

2:03:23 > 2:03:28course, will save lives. However, I think it is very important to say

2:03:28 > 2:03:31that the inquest process would not be appropriate in all cases of

2:03:31 > 2:03:36stillbirths. It is vital that a coroner investigation into

2:03:36 > 2:03:41stillbirths should happen in close consultation with parents. Some

2:03:41 > 2:03:47parents may not want an inquest. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths

2:03:47 > 2:03:52charities welcome the changes to the bill which enable coroners

2:03:52 > 2:04:00involvement. But they don't wish to see it being made mandatory.

2:04:00 > 2:04:07Stillbirth is a traumatic experience for families. And I agree that there

2:04:07 > 2:04:13must be a review to ensure that the view of families are taken into

2:04:13 > 2:04:19account. It can be an extremely long and painful for families and we do

2:04:19 > 2:04:25not want additional harm to these parents.It's a pleasure to follow

2:04:25 > 2:04:30the honourable member for Bedford. I'd like to start by commending the

2:04:30 > 2:04:35honourable member for Washington and Sunderland for a powerful and very

2:04:35 > 2:04:39emotional speech. She said she wasn't brave or strong, and I

2:04:39 > 2:04:44completely disagree with her. She is very brave, and very strong and I

2:04:44 > 2:04:50thank you for your words today. I am sure whether people who have

2:04:50 > 2:04:55listened to your speech and see it on the TV will be very moved. It

2:04:55 > 2:05:00made important points and powerful words. Thank you for that. I'd like

2:05:00 > 2:05:03to congratulate also my honourable friend the member for East Worthing

2:05:03 > 2:05:09and Shoreham on bringing this Private Members Bill to this stage

2:05:09 > 2:05:13today. I think it's ingenious the way you've brought four pieces of

2:05:13 > 2:05:20legislation together, and I've looked for that common scene, and I

2:05:20 > 2:05:23think it's about how individuals and loved ones are recognised.

2:05:23 > 2:05:31Hopefully, that is in agreement on that. It feels like a pick and mix

2:05:31 > 2:05:37bill. I'm going to pick a couple of bits out of it to talk to today. I'm

2:05:37 > 2:05:41going to speak to the first to substantial clauses, the

2:05:41 > 2:05:43registration of marriages and civil partnerships on the form of

2:05:43 > 2:05:48marriages and civil partnerships on performance civil partnerships. As

2:05:48 > 2:05:55others have said, the honourable member for Meriden and my honourable

2:05:55 > 2:06:00friend have been very vocal on this and great advocates for the

2:06:00 > 2:06:05registration of marriages. It's so important to have mother's names

2:06:05 > 2:06:11marriage certificates. As my honourable friend for North Cornwall

2:06:11 > 2:06:16said, he wasn't aware until he had to look at this that our mothers

2:06:16 > 2:06:20names are not on our marriage to forget. I'm sure lots of other

2:06:20 > 2:06:24people are under that same illusion that they are there. Perhaps it's

2:06:24 > 2:06:28only when they look at them after the event they realise it's a very,

2:06:28 > 2:06:33very important person missing. Our mothers form of early lives, they

2:06:33 > 2:06:39form our lives as we grow up, and as we go into adult died. They play

2:06:39 > 2:06:43such an important role. They've also had bad really important role in

2:06:43 > 2:06:48pulling together that wedding ceremony. And at the last minute, to

2:06:48 > 2:06:51be denied their details on the marriage did it, I think it's so

2:06:51 > 2:06:58wrong. As we celebrate 100 years of women having the vote it's even more

2:06:58 > 2:07:04bizarre that it hasn't been sorted out before. I think it's a matter of

2:07:04 > 2:07:07equality. I think it's a matter of family history and a matter of

2:07:07 > 2:07:12social history as well. So much information can be gathered as we

2:07:12 > 2:07:17include our mothers names on our marriage to forget. If we look at my

2:07:17 > 2:07:28family has a case in point, my marriage to skid would have my

2:07:28 > 2:07:37father's -- marriage to forget would have my father's professionalised as

2:07:37 > 2:07:43a timber merchant, but my mother's profession, or what she did was a

2:07:43 > 2:07:48classroom assistant in a school for disabled children. If you looked at

2:07:48 > 2:07:53my parents's marriage certificate, on the paternal side it would have

2:07:53 > 2:08:01my grandfather as a mill worker. But what was missing was my grandmother,

2:08:01 > 2:08:07as somebody who was in service. On my paternal side it would have my

2:08:07 > 2:08:13grandfather as a railway worker, now, sadly, I don't know what my

2:08:13 > 2:08:20grandmother did. And I can no longer ask my mother. That piece of social

2:08:20 > 2:08:25history is missing. I think what we are discussing and debating today is

2:08:25 > 2:08:31adding in not just that social history which is so important, it

2:08:31 > 2:08:33shows social mobility, and also addresses the equality side of

2:08:33 > 2:08:41things.She's making a very... Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

2:08:41 > 2:08:46She makes an emotive point. What she agree that the social side is very

2:08:46 > 2:08:50important, because we seem to disappear if we aren't on marriage

2:08:50 > 2:08:55to forget, but in these days of equality, we have to celebrate 100

2:08:55 > 2:08:59years of women having the vote, and all we do even if Parliament is talk

2:08:59 > 2:09:04to quality but this is clearly completely unequal.I thank my

2:09:04 > 2:09:08honourable friend for her intervention. If we look across the

2:09:08 > 2:09:13board it's not just this where there is in equity, but other parts as

2:09:13 > 2:09:17well. I think perhaps we need to look at things in more detail to

2:09:17 > 2:09:23make sure that men and women are, and I include men in this, an equal.

2:09:23 > 2:09:27There are inequalities on both sides of the gender. We need to sort this

2:09:27 > 2:09:34out. I agree that we need to look at the cost of this, and make sure that

2:09:34 > 2:09:38it is not a huge cost to the taxpayer. That's why I welcome the

2:09:38 > 2:09:44wages propose. That is so important. Also, without losing that vulnerable

2:09:44 > 2:09:52certificate that means so much, to so many people. I now move on to the

2:09:52 > 2:09:56second part, which is about the reform of civil partnerships. I

2:09:56 > 2:10:02welcome the... The words of the minister today that more work is

2:10:02 > 2:10:08going to be carried out into this, I think, you know, we are aware that

2:10:08 > 2:10:13civil partnerships were originally not intended as an alternative to

2:10:13 > 2:10:17marriage, but they were legal recognition of a relationship and

2:10:17 > 2:10:21also providing access to same legal rights. I think we need to make sure

2:10:21 > 2:10:28that if we make any changes in legislation to include heterosexual

2:10:28 > 2:10:33marriage, relationships and civil partnerships, that we get it right.

2:10:33 > 2:10:38Let's look at some of the data as to what's happening with similar

2:10:38 > 2:10:45partnerships today, we find that now that the majority of people entering

2:10:45 > 2:10:51civil partnerships are now aged. Well, almost half are aged over 50

2:10:51 > 2:11:01or above, the pigs in 19% in 2013. I think, you know, the way people are

2:11:01 > 2:11:04perceiving civil partnerships has changed -- this compares to 19% in

2:11:04 > 2:11:102013. I think we need to look at what we are trying to do, what gap

2:11:10 > 2:11:15we are trying to fail. Also, the uptake of civil partnerships has

2:11:15 > 2:11:23decreased dramatically. In 2006, the data I've got in front of me shows

2:11:23 > 2:11:28they were 6000 women entering civil partnerships, and 9000 men

2:11:28 > 2:11:33approximately. We are now into just three figures for both types of

2:11:33 > 2:11:37civil partnerships. I think we need to make sure that we are actually

2:11:37 > 2:11:42providing the right mechanism for people to cement their relationships

2:11:42 > 2:11:49and provide that security they are looking for in the future.

2:11:49 > 2:11:54We probably have a good cohort of people on the Isle of Man with a

2:11:54 > 2:11:57population of 84,000 who we can look at to see what lessons can be

2:11:57 > 2:12:01learned from their weather civil partnerships for mixed sex couples

2:12:01 > 2:12:06are available and see what works there and what doesn't work there.

2:12:06 > 2:12:12So I am thankful that the Minister is looking at this in more detail

2:12:12 > 2:12:17and I think we need to make sure that any changes we do have we do

2:12:17 > 2:12:21get right and not, I know people say we haven't rushed into things but I

2:12:21 > 2:12:25think we need you find the right idea for the right people at the

2:12:25 > 2:12:34right time.They did very much Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make a few

2:12:34 > 2:12:41remarks about clause two of the bill, but can I begin by adding my

2:12:41 > 2:12:44congratulations to the member for each Worthing ensuring. It is a

2:12:44 > 2:12:49shame he had to wait 20 years for a bill Courtis making up for it now.

2:12:49 > 2:12:53It is always a pleasure to work with him because he has that spirit of

2:12:53 > 2:13:01just getting things done. I have been on the tasting panel to choose

2:13:01 > 2:13:05the new House of Commons gin and that went very well also. I should

2:13:05 > 2:13:16add it is very fine west London gin. It is I'm sure a bit disappointing

2:13:16 > 2:13:26that the bill doesn't go forwards, but I hope that it does do. I am

2:13:26 > 2:13:30alarmed that the bill will be mainly a holding clause raising the

2:13:30 > 2:13:34prospect of losing civil partnerships altogether because I

2:13:34 > 2:13:39think that would be a backward step clearly if the government is serious

2:13:39 > 2:13:42about looking at this adult sedative, I would urge them to think

2:13:42 > 2:13:45again because I think the consensus across both sides of the house been

2:13:45 > 2:13:52very supportive generally and of civil partnerships as an institution

2:13:52 > 2:13:58and as adding something to the institution of marriage. Yes, it is

2:13:58 > 2:14:05good that the government recognises, and this is a step forward, that

2:14:05 > 2:14:09there has to be a quality is that there is unfinished business here

2:14:09 > 2:14:14and how the law will change rather whether the law change clause as

2:14:14 > 2:14:19some of the other parts of the bill currently are. Yes, that lack of

2:14:19 > 2:14:25equity is very important because we shouldn't treat differently

2:14:25 > 2:14:33different couples, as I'm honourable friend for Ipswich said, that is not

2:14:33 > 2:14:41good, not good for any sort of couple. The idea of creating a

2:14:41 > 2:14:47historic and foster wised group of people if we now remove civil

2:14:47 > 2:14:50partnerships for same-sex couples seems a little perverse. A bigger

2:14:50 > 2:14:54stronger reason which I thought would appeal to the government is

2:14:54 > 2:14:59that this is extending choice. That I think is the primary motivation of

2:14:59 > 2:15:06my constituents Geraldine and Rebecca Stanfield who I am pleased

2:15:06 > 2:15:11to say who are here for the debates today and they have been Callum

2:15:11 > 2:15:18night in Sydney pouring -- supporting this matter all the way

2:15:18 > 2:15:23through the courts this year. There is a huge commitment from them, and

2:15:23 > 2:15:28they can both understand that the commitment of energy and time and

2:15:28 > 2:15:31resilience has been done, something they feel very strongly about

2:15:31 > 2:15:38because they feel that the situation of marriage is not for them but they

2:15:38 > 2:15:44also wants to make that commitment and want to have the security that

2:15:44 > 2:15:48they binding contract would give them and why should they be deprived

2:15:48 > 2:15:54of that? They have had substantial support from their legal team and

2:15:54 > 2:16:00from many other couples who are seeking this remedy, some people who

2:16:00 > 2:16:04have taken it by going to Isle of Man and other places already. They

2:16:04 > 2:16:07now have two young children that they didn't have at the start of

2:16:07 > 2:16:13this process and I think it would be good if the government can move

2:16:13 > 2:16:18speedily prompted not only by members here but by the Supreme

2:16:18 > 2:16:23Court and the Appeal Court itself to get on with it and I think the issue

2:16:23 > 2:16:26which is of itself is sufficient but there is one other point I will

2:16:26 > 2:16:34mention and this is the issue that was raised in Stroud in relation to

2:16:34 > 2:16:40cohabitation. There are now 3.3 million cohabiting opposite sex

2:16:40 > 2:16:46couples. That has more than doubled in the last 20 years. Surveys have

2:16:46 > 2:16:51shown that two thirds of those couples are unaware that there is no

2:16:51 > 2:16:55special with the tuition for common-law marriage. They have

2:16:55 > 2:17:01extraordinarily few rights. A couple separating perhaps after 20 years or

2:17:01 > 2:17:06on the death of one partner find that they have very few rights and a

2:17:06 > 2:17:12million liabilities that they would not otherwise have had. Lady Hale,

2:17:12 > 2:17:18the president leader of the Supreme Court has called for a law along the

2:17:18 > 2:17:22same basis as in Scotland where there is some protection there. Now,

2:17:22 > 2:17:29I dare say that the extension of civil partners chips won't be a

2:17:29 > 2:17:35magic bullet for dealing with the problems of gravitation or lack of

2:17:35 > 2:17:40it but I think this is a step forward and we are talking about it

2:17:40 > 2:17:44and the publicity around this bill and the issue I think will make more

2:17:44 > 2:17:47people aware of their lack of rights. Obviously and I would think

2:17:47 > 2:17:52a substantial number of people will take advantage of the change in the

2:17:52 > 2:17:57law, people for whom do not want to go through even a civil marriage let

2:17:57 > 2:18:00alone a religious marriage ceremony will see a civil partnership

2:18:00 > 2:18:05differently and will get that protection under the law. It is also

2:18:05 > 2:18:12an opportunity for the government to look more generally at what are the

2:18:12 > 2:18:16gaps. This bill deals with one of those gaps and we will return no

2:18:16 > 2:18:20doubt that some stage to this but the government also has a duty to

2:18:20 > 2:18:29look at the issue of cohabitation and perhaps not by coincidence it is

2:18:29 > 2:18:36also going to the Supreme Court in April this year, the case of Siobhan

2:18:36 > 2:18:44McMahon: who was in a cohabitation with a partner, who died leaving her

2:18:44 > 2:18:51for teenage children, and she found that she would have lost a widowed

2:18:51 > 2:18:56parent allowance of £100 a week. That case is going to the Supreme

2:18:56 > 2:19:04Court as well but I'm not sure that these are matters that should be

2:19:04 > 2:19:09left entirely to the courts, but it shouldn't matter that they are for