Jeff Smith
MP for Manchester Withington · Labour · United Kingdom
“T9. Have Ministers noted the recent report from the University of Sheffield, which showed that drug diversion schemes for people caught in possession of controlled drugs are more successful at cutting reoffending than prosecutions? Will the Minister encourage police forces to use those schemes?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making a typically entertaining and informative speech. I wonder whether she would agree that, from the customer’s point of view, there does not appear to be that much difference between tiered pricing and dynamic pricing—it is just that when the cheap seats have gone, they have to pay the premium.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Researchers tell me, however, that the barriers the current system puts in place really restrict research. Research involving schedule 1 controlled substances generally requires a Home Office licence, and the bureaucracy and inertia in the system adds delay, cost and an administrative burden to the extent that research grants are being lo…”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 5 and 6 place duties on the Secretary of State to promote patient involvement, patient choice and innovation. My new clauses 86 and 87 would apply those principles to psychedelic-assisted therapy treatments involving schedule 1 controlled substances.”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2025 the Government accepted the ACMD recommendations in principle. There is supposed to be a pilot of a proposed extension to test operational feasibility, but that has not happened. The Government said the policy work was under way and that further plans would be published in due course, but without a timetable for implementation.”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The 2022 Canadian special access programme has allowed clinicians to request restricted drugs, including psilocybin and MDMA, to treat those conditions. We can learn from those experiences.”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,369 lines on record for Jeff Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 8 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“A number of young people earning the minimum wage in the night-time economy would benefit from a specific measure that the Government have not introduced even though they promised to do so—namely, letting them keep their own tips. Lots of bars and restaurants are great employers, but some keep the discretionary service charge. The Government promised to sort this out, but they have not done so. That should have been part of an employment Bill. The climate crisis is urgent, but, as we have just heard, the Queen’s Speech sets out very little to address it. The draft energy security Bill will not address the short-term struggles with household bills or help improve energy efficiency, the most cost-effective way to reduce energy bills permanently.”
House of Commons17 May 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is overdue and I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review. Alongside reform of the Mental Health Act, however, we must see real action on early intervention, to reduce the number of people becoming unwell in the first place and ensure that those who are struggling can access help early. We also need a proper workforce plan, as Labour has promised. After three years and many promises, where is the employment Bill? It is really disappointing. It could have addressed statutory sick pay, flexible working and the rights of people in precarious employment.”
House of Commons17 May 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the Government’s new timetable, a regulator would not be in place until at least 2024—although I think it could take longer than that—which for many clubs could be too late. We have already had extensive research, consultation and engagement with fans and stakeholders. We need to get on with it. Football clubs are at the heart of our communities, and we need a suitable governance system. A quarter of mental health beds have been cut. Right now, 1.6 million people are waiting for mental health treatment. We know that the pandemic has made the situation worse: depression has doubled and crisis referrals are up by 15%, including among under-18s. It is welcome that the Queen’s Speech committed to overhauling the Mental Health Act 1983 and to introducing a long-awaited mental health Bill, although again only in draft.”
House of Commons17 May 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard warm words from a number of Conservative Members—they could join us tonight and make a difference by voting to give real help to people who need it at a time of crisis. Some important measures were not in the Queen’s Speech. It is disappointing that the fan-led review of football governance has resulted in only draft proposals rather than a Bill. We have been calling for a long time for the acceptance of the recommendations, and especially for the creation of an independent regulator. The Government have, in fairness, said that they will do that, but they have kicked it into the long grass. It is urgent for the future of our national game. Bury has already collapsed, Derby and Oldham have struggled, and we have seen in the media that more clubs across the country could be on the brink.”
House of Commons17 May 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I agreed with much of what she said. This is a Queen’s Speech from a Government who have the wrong priorities and are running out of ideas. Our constituents are struggling to get by, let alone live well, and the Government’s response has been a parade of out of touch and, frankly, insulting ministerial media appearances. There is a huge gap where there should be a strategy to tackle the cost of living. As many have said—not just in this Chamber, but in business as well —we need an emergency Budget, because we need immediate help for struggling families in Manchester, Withington and across the country. We need the windfall tax on gas an oil profits, and I am looking forward to voting for it tonight.”
House of Commons17 May 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“11. Last night we learned that the Home Secretary put the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) on an expert panel offering advice on sexual exploitation. At the time, he was under police investigation following allegations that he had assaulted a minor, of which he has since been found guilty. He sat on the panel long after the Conservative party received a complaint from his victim. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his party did not take the victim seriously and put someone who abused a minor in such an important position? Does he wish to take this opportunity to apologise to them?”
House of Commons27 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have said all along, quite rightly, that they accept in principle the proposals in the review, so let us get on with it. We are already too late for Bury, Derby and Oldham. If further clubs go under or suffer because of delays to the implementation of the review, responsibility will rest partly on the Government’s shoulders. The Labour party is happy to work with the Government to find space for legislation sooner rather than later. The right result is already clear; we do not need extra time. For the future of our national game, let us see legislation in the Queen’s Speech and action as quickly as possible.”
House of Commons25 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The fan-led review gave the Premier League and the EFL until the end of 2021 to work it out between them, but that has not happened: the bodies have not been able to come to an agreement for months. If they fail, the review proposes action from the regulator, but on the current timescale—unless the Minister can tell me otherwise—a regulator will not be in place until at least 2024. At what point will he intervene urgently to get the Premier League and the EFL to an agreement? The dedicated review of women’s football, which was an important recommendation in the review, is really welcome. Can the Minister give any more detail on who will chair it, what timescale it might follow and how its recommendations will be taken forward in due course?”
House of Commons25 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are missing an opportunity to embed fan representation, as recommended in the review, and give supporters a say on changes to the heritage assets of their club. The Minister’s statement, although welcome, left some questions unanswered. The Minister could not rule out to the Select Committee recently that a regulator might be located within the FA. Can he do so now? We believe that it is vital for the regulator to be truly independent. The statement confirmed that the Government are accepting all 10 of the strategic recommendations. That is good, but can the Minister confirm that the Government support the 47 detailed recommendations in the report? Perhaps more importantly, are there any that they do not support? The announcement today will do nothing to break the impasse on the redistribution of funding.”
House of Commons25 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need a clear timetable and new legislation to be included in the Queen’s Speech in 15 days’ time. The need for urgent action is clear. Oldham Athletic were relegated from the English football league on Saturday after years of mismanagement ending in fan protests. Derby County are in ongoing crisis and were relegated from the championship this week—not because the players are not good enough, but because of bad owner management and governance. Those two historic clubs, founding members of the premier and football leagues respectively, have been hit hard because of reckless owners. In the wake of the Ukraine war and sanctions, Chelsea are in limbo. Many supporters want the review recommendations to be incorporated in the club’s sale.”
House of Commons25 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The fan-led review was a rigorous and wide-ranging piece of work, based on engagement with every possible interest group alongside more than 20,000 individual fan responses to a survey, and supported by an expert advisory panel from the world of football. As the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), rightly said when doing the media rounds this morning, “there has been huge input from fans up and down the country”. Eleven years after the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report, three years after the collapse of Bury, a year after the disastrous European super league proposal and five months after the publication of the fan-led review, we do not need further consultation or a road map.”
House of Commons25 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and all those who contributed to her excellent and timely review of our national game. I welcome the confirmation that the Government are supporting the strategic recommendations of the fan-led review. Labour has been calling for the plans to be fully implemented ever since the review was published and, in particular, for the independent regulator for English football, which is key to reform. But however the Government try to spin it, today’s announcement of a White Paper and further delay will come as a disappointment to fans.”
House of Commons25 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is so busy I could not find a space, Mr Speaker. The event in question happened on 19 June 2020. Two days later, on 21 June, my constituent Steven’s partner died of cancer at home. In the weeks before that, she was in hospital. Steven said: “When she needed me most, I was told I could not visit her because of the no visitors rule. In the texts I received from her, it was obvious that she needed somebody to just talk to and hold her hand.” Steven obeyed the rules and, like so many people, he thinks the Prime Minister should stand down. The defence from Conservative Back Benchers seems to be that he cannot resign because we have a crisis in Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister think he is the only person on the Conservative Benches who is capable of leading the country through a crisis?”
House of Commons19 April 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The moving of 411 jobs from Chorlton in my constituency will have a serious impact on the district centre and the shops and services that they help sustain; undoubtedly, the same will apply to the other 40 offices in towns and suburbs across the country. How do those office closures contribute to the Government’s stated aim of spreading civil service jobs around the country and, indeed, to levelling up?”
House of Commons31 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The cases of the constituents in Manchester who contact me generally follow the same pattern, which is that they do the hard work of locating and liaising with the family in Ukraine, they submit the complicated application form, they get a receipt and then they hear nothing. That is the frustration. People are being left in limbo either in Poland or under shelling in Ukraine. One of my constituents phrased it very well. He said: “All I want to do is to make sure there is nothing we haven’t done which may be holding up the application process.” If the Government will not sort out a simple emergency visa scheme, can they at least sort out the communication so that people know what is going on?”
House of Commons31 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to know the specific steps that the Government are taking to ensure that there is parity. We have concerns that without action and a proper licensing process, the online space will continue to develop as a wild west when it comes to gambling products. Most importantly, given the extent of the issues and the problems that we have heard about, we need to know exactly when the gambling review is due to be published. With respect, we need a date. We have been waiting for a date for a long time now. What we need to see is a plan to tackle problem gambling that is fit for the modern age. There is clearly a political consensus on the importance of getting this right, on the need for reform, so the Minister can be assured of widespread support if the Government act effectively, listen and get the balance right.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the online space continues to develop—we are now looking at the issue of gambling in the metaverse, with the potential for virtual reality casino experiences and other experiences—we need to be looking ahead. I am keen to know what the Government are thinking in terms of plans to tighten up safeguards, with a view to the future and gambling in the metaverse. Obviously, we have the Online Safety Bill coming up. That is a matter for another day; we need the Minister to be clear and gambling-focused in his response today. There is currently a discrepancy between the regulation of physical gambling and the regulation of online gambling, with lower-harm games such as bingo being subject to tighter restrictions in some areas than addictive online betting.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The big five gambling companies have committed to paying 1% of their gross yields towards safer gambling initiatives by 2023, but the variation between online casinos and their donations is a concern. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, many of us do not trust that all the gambling companies will act to do the right thing. Labour believes that operators can and must do more to support vulnerable people. I hope that the Minister will also reflect on the huge increase in online gambling advertising, especially during live sporting events. That can lead to a normalisation of gambling among young people. I am keen to understand the Government’s thinking on how to tackle that—how they can create the evidence base to understand how that advertising affects gambling addiction and how that can inform future policy.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to do everything we can to make sure that people like Jack who are aware of their addiction have the tools and support available to help them through their problem. Will the Minister give an indication of the Government’s thoughts on imposing a mandatory levy on all gambling operators? A levy would help to fund educational resources and treatment services for people suffering as a consequence of their gambling. Colleagues will, I think, be aware that there is already the legal power to impose a levy on the gambling industry; it is already there in legislation. The Government have always insisted that the industry should support harm-reduction work on a voluntary basis, but the current, voluntary system lacks consistency, transparency and accountability.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I met a group of former gambling addicts about a month ago and they were from a wide variety of backgrounds; as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, gambling addiction can hit anybody. They had all followed that same pattern: starting to gamble and then getting into online gambling, and it destroyed their lives. Unbelievably, at the time, banks were prepared to give them loans to fund their gambling habit. It is a problem that we must get a grip on. The whole aim of gambling adverts, incentives and VIP schemes is to maintain or increase the spend of their so-called valuable clients. Those harmful schemes are addictive in nature and offer supposedly free stakes—as my hon. Friend said, there is no such thing as a free bet—to lure customers in.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to do more to protect individuals against addictive and easily accessible games, and those protections must include safeguards and affordability checks, particularly for online slot and casino games, where the Government have been slow to act. As I have said, change is long overdue. Only last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) led an Adjournment debate on the tragic death of his constituent Jack Ritchie, who was driven to take his own life after battling a severe gambling addiction. Jack saw his addiction begin at his local bookies at the age of 17 before moving onto online gambling. That kind of addiction can come very quickly and have devastating consequences. Jack’s story is a familiar one.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Government action is long overdue. The experiences, the stories and the numbers speak for themselves, particularly when it comes to the rapid increase in online gambling practices. I want to particularly focus on that area, as many others have, given that it is the source of many of the harms that we have heard about today, Among women in particular, online gambling is growing at an alarming rate. According to research by GambleAware, it almost tripled during the pandemic. We need only look at the data for 2020-21 from GamCare’s national gambling helpline—it shows that 84% of calls made by individuals related to concerns about online gambling habits—to get a feel for the scale of the problem. It is a problem that we did not appreciate in 2005, but we must now address it and treat it as a public health issue.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we know, the Gambling Act 2005, which is the basis for regulation of gambling in the UK, has not been updated since it was passed. Today’s debate is a reminder of how unfit that legislation is in meeting the demands of the digital age. As we have heard today, the mental and physical health consequences of harmful gambling can be devastating in many ways. Many of us have met people who have been damaged, and whose families have been damaged, by gambling. Aside from the cost to individuals, the Government’s own gambling-related harms evidence review showed that the cost to the Government is, at a minimum, at least £340 million each year. Despite that, it has now been two years since the Government committed to publishing a gambling White Paper. Meanwhile, someone with gambling-related problems dies by suicide every day.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is really good to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. May I start by paying tribute to my hon Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this debate and, more importantly, for her work over the years. She has been a brilliant campaigner on this issue and set out the problems very clearly in her speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who gave powerful speeches. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, particularly the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). It is not often that I agree with every word he says, but I did today. We have had a variety of contributions, but there is something that shines through—namely, the wide recognition and consensus that reform is needed.”
House of Commons29 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perhaps I ought first to declare an interest as a Manchester City fan who plans to attend the FA cup semi-final against Liverpool, but is it not wrong to hold that match between two north-west teams at Wembley on a weekend when there are no trains running from the north-west to London? What influence will the Government use to get the FA to sort this problem out, ideally by moving the semi-final to another venue? Is this not just further evidence that we need the voice of fans in football decision making, and that the fan-led review needs to be urgently implemented in full?”
House of Commons24 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q8. The Prime Minister is visiting Saudi Arabia and, as usual, we are told there will be frank, private discussions on the Saudis’ human rights record. In the light of the state murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and in the light of the brutal execution of 81 men at the weekend, why does the Deputy Prime Minister think the UK’s representations on human rights are so ineffective? What more will we do to make the Saudis behave ethically?”
House of Commons16 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has said many times now that the Government make representations and have frank discussions. Can she point to a single example of any impact or effect of those representations?”
House of Commons14 March 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. — ( Mr Simon Clarke. )”
House of Commons22 February 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I look forward to more detail on the implementation plan as it comes forward. With that, I am happy to offer the Opposition’s support on Third Reading. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments. Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Programme) (No. 2) Ordered , That the Order of 5 January 2022 (Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Programme)) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.”
House of Commons22 February 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It reduces red tape, including by making it easier for charities to amend their governing documents, such as through small changes to charitable purposes; and by making it easier to dispose of land efficiently, to use the resources of the charity more effectively and to avoid disputes over whether a trustee has been correctly appointed or elected. I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I do wish to thank the Law Commission and the charity sector for their great work on the Bill. I thank the Lords for their careful scrutiny of what is quite a technical and involved Bill: they did a great job of scrutinising the measures in the other place. I am also grateful for the Minister’s engagement and particularly for his writing to me yesterday to set out an indicative timescale for the implementation of the measures in the Bill.”
House of Commons22 February 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“During the passage of this Bill there has been agreement on all sides that the new measures detailed in it are important progress towards allowing charities to amend the ways they operate and making it easier for them to achieve their core purpose. The Bill seeks to make a series of changes that will make it easier for charities to navigate the law and carry out their functions effectively, while retaining important safeguards. So the Opposition are pleased today to support the Bill, which takes on board the large majority of recommendations put forward in the Law Commission’s report and makes a number of significant changes for charities.”
House of Commons22 February 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his introduction. The Opposition are proud to support our charity sector, which does such fantastic work for individuals, communities and society. The contribution of charities to our society could not have been shown more clearly than during the coronavirus pandemic, as organisations and volunteers have done fantastic work to support vulnerable people around the country. We owe it to them to provide a legal and operational framework that is clear, efficient and manageable, especially for the large number of small charities with limited staff and resources, and that allows them to concentrate not on bureaucratic technicalities but on doing their work.”
House of Commons22 February 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) was far too vague. Musicians and orchestras are facing a touring crisis. We need an EU-wide cultural touring agreement that includes allowances for cabotage, carnets and customs rules. That needs to happen now, so what are Ministers doing to sort the problem as a matter of urgency?”
House of Commons10 February 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister was wrong in something he said earlier: the Sue Gray update can be both damning and incomplete. Most of us can only guess how much more damning the full report will be. His colleagues should worry about that. I think he knows how bad it is going to be, because he knows what has gone on. Is that not the real reason why he will not commit to publishing the report in full when the police have completed their investigation?”
House of Commons31 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) on bringing the Bill to this stage and to wish him success as it moves forward.”
House of Commons28 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be brief; we have had an extensive debate this morning, ranging from Tutankhamun and Richard III to pubs and zoos, so I do not intend to detain the House much longer. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) set out our support for the Bill. We think it is a sensible and proportionate measure that will provide useful safeguards for the ability of our cultural institutions—the British Museum and galleries, museums and libraries up and down the country—to stage the kinds of exhibitions that add so much to our cultural and tourism offer. We reaffirmed our support in Committee, and the Opposition support the measures before us today. It therefore remains only for me to congratulate the right hon.”
House of Commons28 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Dr Huq; it is really good to see you in the Chair. I apologise for my late arrival—I had another commitment —and thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on securing the debate, and I am sorry that I missed most of his speech.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Government today commit to legally recognising humanist marriages at the earliest opportunity? Failing that, will they commit to doing so after the current review? If so, how soon do they intend to bring that legislation into force? These are really important questions about ending discrimination in this country, to give everybody a fair chance.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Even before the outdoor marriage reforms, it was the case that the Government must extend legal recognition to humanist marriages after the Law Commission review is over. Yet the Government’s repeated position, in response to all letters, parliamentary questions and other approaches since the 2020 judgment, has been to simply say: “The Government will decide on provision for non-religious belief marriage in light of the Law Commission's recommendations.” Even in the light of the judgment, the Government have not committed to acting at the end of the review, only saying that they will decide whether to act once the review is over. How can that position possibly be tenable, given the very clear judgment from the High Court? I have three questions for the Minister.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Specifically, in relation to the treatment of humanist and other non-religious belief marriages, particular issues were identified relating to the location where the ceremony might take place…these were matters seen to potentially give rise to new species of discrimination if reform was only undertaken on a piecemeal basis.” That was the Government’s defence, but they have undermined that legitimate aim through their action on outdoor civil and religious marriages. That is not to say that I do not welcome the reforms to enable outdoor marriages—I do—but merely to say that it leaves the Government with no excuse to not also legally recognise humanist marriages. What I find most difficult to understand about the Government’s position is that the judgment in that case is legally binding case law that the Government must follow.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She wrote: “Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country that will necessarily engage with the wider concerns that have been raised.” She found that, “the Defendant’s stated desire to consider any reform on a wholesale, rather than piecemeal, basis” was a legitimate aim, because, “the Government has identified concerns as to the potential consequences of addressing one area of unequal treatment without doing so as part of a more general reform.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secretary of State for Justice, in which the judge found that “there is a continuing discriminatory impact upon those who seek to manifest their humanist beliefs through marriage…the discrimination suffered by the Claimants is real: the difference of treatment they experience in seeking to manifest their humanist beliefs through the ceremony of marriage is a matter of substance, not merely one of form…I have found that—subject only to the question of justification—the present law gives rise to article 14 discrimination in the Claimants enjoyment of their article 9 rights.” She rules that the Secretary of State for Justice cannot “simply sit on his hands” and do nothing. The judge also said that she had given the Government the benefit of the doubt that they would reform marriage law after the Law Commission review.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It can also be seen in the universal periodic review of the UK conducted by Dr Shaheed’s predecessor Asma Jahangir as long ago as 2008. In that review, she wrote that “humanists made the criticism that in practice there are institutional and legal examples of discrimination against non-religious believers…while humanist weddings are legal in Scotland since June 2005, marriages conducted by humanist celebrants are not recognized in the law of England and Wales.” That was in 2005—17 years ago—and nothing has changed since. The correctness of Dr Shaheed’s assessment can be seen in the judgment of the High Court in the 2008 case, R (Harrison and others) v.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“None the less, that is seen by Dr Shaheed as lawful, because it treats everyone equally, regardless of their religion or belief; he does not believe that approach violates international human rights treaties. As already mentioned, recognising only religious ceremonies is wrong, compelling people to take part in religious acts or denying them the right to marry at all. However, in Dr Shaheed’s view, recognising only civil and religious marriages also represents discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. It treats religious people more favourably than humanists, offering the former a privilege that is denied to the latter. That privilege does not have to be offered to any religious or humanist group, but where it is, it should be offered to all. That is the case in the US and Ireland.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Common to all the countries in the latter section is that they started off recognising only religious and civil marriages but moved to recognising humanist marriages either because of political will and political pressure or following court cases, as was the situation in Northern Ireland and parts of the US. That demonstrates that we are perhaps more isolated than we might realise. It is also worth knowing what Dr Shaheed thinks of each approach, in terms of human rights. Recognising only civil marriages may not be as flexible in giving people what they want. Famously, in France, it is common for Catholic churches to be situated opposite town halls, so that a wedding party can easily transition from the civil marriage to the religious ceremony.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In fact, it is seen only in a few European countries, with the nearest to us probably being Denmark, and—possibly due to the colonial inheritance—in a number of Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and in parts of Canada. Finally, the fourth approach is to also legally recognise humanist marriages. That is now the situation in the large majority of our neighbours, namely Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands, Norway and Iceland, and also the US, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Canada.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The second approach is to recognise only religious marriages. That is the case across much of the middle east, north Africa, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia. In Dr Shaheed’s view, that is not human rights-compliant because it denies couples the chance to have a marriage at all unless it is religious, and in some cases only of a certain religion. The third approach is for the state to recognise religious and civil marriages but not humanist marriages. As we have heard, that is the approach in England and Wales. It is easy to assume that, because that is the situation here, it is quite typical of the situation everywhere else, but that is not the case.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not doubt it. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group and a member of Humanists UK. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, recently conducted a survey of marriage laws around the world. He found that, broadly speaking, there are four approaches. The first, which is the most common, is for the state to legally recognise only civil marriages, or perhaps to not even recognise any ceremony at all and simply have the state involved in signing the paperwork entirely separately from any ceremonial aspects. That is seen in most European countries, including—most famously—France but also Germany; across much of Asia, with China, Korea and Japan taking the non-ceremonial approach; in most of Latin America; and across much of Africa.”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister makes the point about approved premises. What if we only have approved premises, but humanist marriages were allowed in those premises? That is something that Humanists UK is prepared to accept. Surely that would be a solution?”
House of Commons27 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the complexities of women’s sport and the crises that have cropped up, a full review of the future of women’s football is urgently needed. The Government have said they would respond in full to the review in spring, but why the delay? Will the Minister clarify whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Treasury are the block on progress? The issues raised in the debate mean that a separate women’s review is needed, so why not get on with it? The Government have accepted in principle the fan-led review’s recommendation for an independent regulator. I repeat the request of other Members that the Minister should now endorse its call for a review of women’s football. That is what we need. Let us get on with it.”
House of Commons26 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗