Following Tom’s

20 May 2013

Dear Mr XXXXXX

Thank you for your latest email re same-sex marriage.

If the Bill currently before parliament becomes law, then homosexual couples will be given a legal right to marry. If a public servant excuses himself from providing any service related to that right, then he will have no defence under the Human Rights Act, since under the Act, as you rightly point out, the freedom of religion does not extend to compromising the rights and freedoms of others. Undoubtedly this is a point of law that will be tested after the legislation becomes law.

The comparison of same-sex marriage with abortion is, I think, inappropriate. Nurses who exercise their right not to take part in abortions believe a human life is at stake. Registrars who refuse to marry same sex couples will be simply imposing their own unwanted religious views on others for purely ideological reasons. And if the motivation for invoking conscientious objection is because a registrar finds same-sex marriage “morally repugnant”, then I hope such individuals will quickly leave a profession to which they are clearly unsuited.

I refer again to the specific wording of the amendment you want me to support: it allows individuals to be excused from doing their job for either religious or “other belief”. There are, no doubt, some devout racists out there who believe sincerely that marriage should only take place between people of the same race. This amendment would allow them to so object. It is abhorrent and I pray it is defeated.

You still haven’t explained, in secular, non-religious, factual language, why legalising same-sex marriage will have any impact at all on your or my marriage. “Because God says so” may be enough for you, but it is not enough for MPs who are morally obliged to legislate for the whole country, for those of every faith and of none. We do not live, thank God, in a theocracy.

Your suggestion that as a Scottish MP, I should have no regard for people living elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is disingenuous (at the very least!). I am prepared to bet a great deal of money that had I publicly declared myself opposed to same-sex marriage, you would be encouraging me to vote accordingly in the House of Commons.

Yours sincerely…

Dear XXXXXX

Thank you for your latest email about same-sex marriage (SSM).

I disagree that my views undermine any part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or, indeed, the Human Rights Act 1998. The protection of freedom of religion specifically excludes allowing such expression to compromise the rights of others, which conscientious objection would surely do. Your example of the Jewish individual leaving home early on a Friday in order to observe the Sabbath is a red herring; such action may mean more work for his colleagues, but it is not aimed at denying a specific group of people a legal right to which they will be entitled under this legislation.

I believe my example of the teaching of creationism is entirely relevant; yes, the national curriculum makes sure teachers stick to the proper subjects, and that is a good example of the government imposing standards and regulations to ensure compliance from public servants.

I cannot echo your complacent approach to the definition of “other beliefs”. Such ambiguous terms should be avoided wherever possible when drafting legislation, and a court would be quite within its rights to define “other beliefs” as covering racial and homophobic prejudice. I do not want to give them the chance to make such a ruling.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether SSM undermines traditional marriage. it certainly makes it more inclusive and more accessible by loving couples. But you have still not provided any concrete practical examples of how SSM undermines marriage.

Yes, generally speaking, marriage is “closely linked to bearing and raising children” (although I’m not sure any modern definition of the word would encompass the “protection of women”). But there will always be occasions when a marriage is exclusively for companionship, an elderly couple, for example, or a couple who have decided not to have children, or cannot. Such marriages are no less valid than marriages which result in children, and SSMs in the future do not need to seek the approval of religious opponents in order to attain the same level of validity.

I’m afraid the “next we’ll be legalising polygamy” argument is tiresome and barely worth responding to. Suffice to say, I will not be supporting any such legislation.

I disagree with your final point: I am not using the same word to cover two different things. I refer to “same-sex marriage” because that is how it is referred to in the legislation and in the media. After the Bill becomes an Act, marriage will continue to be marriage: a legally recognised life-long commitment between two loving adults.

Yours sincerely

TOM HARRIS MP

In the run-up to Monday’s debate on amendments to the Marriage (Same Sex) Bill, Glasgow South MP Tom Harris has responded to constituents who have urged him to support various changes to the legislation:

Thank you for contacting me about the Marriage (Same Sex) Bill in advance of its returning to the floor of the House of Commons next week for its Report Stage and Third Reading.

I completely understand your objection to Labour’s decision to impose a whip during the votes on the Report Stage of the Bill proceedings. However, I can assure you that I will not be changing my vote on any issue as a result of my party imposing a whip. While it is true that Labour has imposed a whip on votes taking place on some amendments to the Bill, there will be a free vote on the Third Reading, when MPs will indicate their support or otherwise for the entire Bill.

I have now had an opportunity to look at the amendments to the Bill tabled by MPs in advance of next week’s debate.

I do not believe it is acceptable for anyone to cite their religious beliefs as grounds for excusing themselves from his or her public duties. Were this to be enshrined in law, what guarantees would we have that teachers would not refuse to teach the scientific facts about, for example, the age of the earth because it contradicts the literal interpretation of creation provided by the Book of Genesis?

When the relationship between an individual and God starts to impede on the quality of life of others, that is when the state has a duty to act to ensure that all citizens, irrespective of race, sex, sexuality, or political or religious belief, receives the same level of service expected by everyone else.

There is one particular phrase in these amendments to which I particularly object: that a conscientious objection (to facilitating a marriage between people of the same sex) “must be based on a sincerely-held religious or other belief”.

Perhaps the mover of the amendment will be able, on the day, to define what he means by “other belief”. But as this amendment stands, a public servant – ie, someone paid from your and my taxes to provide a service to the public – would be able to boycott a gay wedding if he believed gay marriage was wrong. While I have said publicly many times that opposition from the church to same-sex marriage should not be dismissed as homophobia, this amendment as it stands clearly allows someone who dislikes the very idea of homosexuality to withhold his services, provided he is sincere in his belief. No civilized society would tolerate such a change to this Bill and if it is moved in its current form, I will vote against it.

‘Redefinition of marriage’

It has been suggested that supporting the Marriage (Same Sex) Bill is to advocate an “attack” on existing marriages, and that existing marriages require “protection” after the Bill is enacted. Yet no-one has yet explained how this “attack” will manifest itself. Extending the right to marry to gay couples will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on my own marriage, which will require no ”protection” from the state after the Bill becomes an Act.

Referendum

I have received a number of requests from constituents to support the amendment calling for the public to be consulted in a referendum before the Bill is enacted. These constituents claim that such a vote is necessary because same-sex marriage was not included in any party manifesto at the last election. I will not do so. Parliament is frequently and inevitably called upon to pass judgment on issues which were not explicitly flagged up in party manifestos. Same-sex marriage is an issue of fundamental human rights. It should not, therefore, be subject to a popularity contest.

Such a social reform is either worth pursuing on its own merits, irrespective of the support it carries among the public, or it is not. I’m prepared to be proved wrong on this, but I understand that the legalisation of homosexuality was similarly not included in any party’s manifesto at the 1966 election. This necessary reform was nonetheless, rightly, enacted in the subsequent parliament.

As it happens, the evidence from any number of polling organisations would suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage – in my constituency as elsewhere – is confined to a minority.

I accept my responsibility to represent my constituents in parliament; on an issue like this, however, it is simply impractical to vote according to the wishes of all 68,000 of them, particularly when less than a tenth of one per cent of them have been in touch to express a view. I am not Glasgow South’s delegate to the House of Commons; I am its representative. That means that where I make a decision with which a majority of my constituents disagree, I can be removed at the subsequent election. I understand fully the sincerity with which opponents of same-sex marriage hold to their views and am prepared to face the democratic consequences of their disappointment at the next general election.

Yours sincerely

TOM HARRIS MP

Read Tom’s views on the Bill itself.

Further reading: A Christian perspective on same-sex marriage (article for the Christian Socialist Movement)

On the eve of the crucial EU vote on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, Shadow Environment Minister Tom Harris said:

“Tomorrow night member states will vote to reform the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). After years of negotiation, the end is in sight.

“But longstanding divides on what reform should look like continue to polarise member states and threaten much needed change. France, along with its southern European counterpart, Spain, are fiercely resisting measures designed to end the immoral practice of discards and return fish stocks to sustainable levels by 2020. There is a real possibility that if no consensus is reached this week, then the entire process will go into protracted EU discussions.

“In June, the Irish presidency – which has been crucial to driving forward reform – will end, and with European Parliamentary elections looming in 2014, failure at this late stage cannot be permitted. For too long the CFP has been failing our fisheries, forcing fisherman to dump over a million tons of discarded fish into our seas.

“This is an intolerable waste that will no longer be accepted by the UK public. It is wasteful, it affects the sustainability of fish stocks, it distorts scientific evidence and it frustrates our fishermen. Steps have already been taken by the UK fishing fleet to address discards but If legislators fail to meet their side of the bargain they will be given short shrift by the electorate, and deservedly so. Healthy seas and productive fish stocks are a prerequisite for a profitable fishing sector and thriving fishing communities.

“Labour will always support policy that has a strong scientific basis and we support moves towards the application of Maximum Sustainable Yield – the highest catch that can be taken consistently while maintaining the fish population at maximum productivity – where possible, by 2020. The government’s reluctance to commit to a biomass figure, even one that is aspirational and non-legally binding, is troubling. Plans to decentralise power and move away from a one-size-fits-all, top-down management programme are also under threat.

“Fisheries must be dealt with at the most appropriate level. A sea-basin approach which promotes greater participation and flexibility by empowering local stakeholders to identify tailored measures for their own regional seas is not only right, but crucial to achieve workable, sustainable management in the future.

“The current Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, is in a tight spot. For years he has said the right words, but tomorrow he must finally deliver. The government must stick to its promises and deliver an economically and ecologically sustainable package of reforms. As one of the world’s great maritime nations Britain should be leading the agenda for reform, not taking a back seat. The government must build alliances with the other 26 member states to enact change. If he fails, then a historic opportunity will have been squandered. With more than 60 per cent of fish stocks overfished and many fishermen struggle to make ends meet, we cannot go on as we are.”

He was joined by his colleague, Ian Davidson MP, MP for the neighbouring Glasgow South West constituency and chair of the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee, who conducted the formal opening ceremony.

Tom’s new office is based at Cathcart Old Parish Church in Carmunnock Road. He was forced to move from his previous location at Lesser Hamden because the building, which he shared with Queen’s Park Football Club, is to be demolished shortly to make way for a training track for Commonwealth Games athletes. His first office in the constituency was based in the Couper Institute in Clarkston Road.

Tom with (left to right) staff members Carolyn Harris, Stuart Donaldson and Donald Campbell

Tom told the invited audience of community councillors, local residents, church members, Glasgow City councillors and members of Police Scotland: “I’m incredibly grateful to the Reverend Neil Galbraith for accommodating us here in the church, and to members who have already made us feel so welcome.

“Cathcart Old is the centre of many community activities and organisations and it’s a real privilege to be able to play a part in that.”

A lion yesterday

Labour has welcomed draft legislation, published today, outlawing the use of wild animals in circuses from 2015, but called for clear deadlines to avoid any further delay.

Tom Harris, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Animal Welfare, said: “It’s about time. For too long the Government has dragged its feet on implementing an outright ban that has been backed by parliament, endorsed by the public, and supported by the major animals welfare and veterinarian organisations.

“The Government has wasted too much time, too many resources, and too much money on its ineffective licensing scheme. It now needs to set a clear and definitive deadline to end this cruel practice as quickly as possible.”

Read the Draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill.

What most MPs' floors look like already

Proposals  to exclude MPs from having to pay tax on their income are an insult to voters and doomed to failure, Tom Harris has warned.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) announced last year that they were reviewing MPs’ salaries and that their recommendations would take effect from the 2015 general election.

Today Ipsa revealed that while they don’t intend to increase MPs’ salaries from the current level of £65,738, they have reached agreement with HMCR that they will pay no tax whatever on their gross salaries. MPs would continue to be subject to National Insurance contributions, but a spokesman for Ipsa has called on the Chancellor to waive this also.

This measure alone would add at least £1000 to an MP’s monthly pay packet.

Income earned by MPs outside parliament would still be subject to income tax, although they wouldn’t start paying the basic 20 per cent rate until they were earning above £66,000 a year.

Tom, the MP for Glasgow South, said: “This is an outrageous proposal which is clearly intended to keep Ipsa’s total outgoings down, while placing a bigger burder on the Treasury and therefore the public.

“How can MPs stay in touch with their constituents if we’re voting to impose taxation that we’re not subject to?

“I also object to Ipsa’s decision to make this ridiculous announcement during the Easter holiday weekend, when they hoped that few would notice it.”

Shadow fisheries minister Tom Harris today blasted confusion at the very heart of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) after a promise of transparency from the fisheries minister, Richard Benyon, was overturned by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).

Benyon has, on a number of occasions, recommitted the government to publishing a comprehensive list of the private owners of the UK’s fishing quota – a commitment which the Labour Party welcomes.

However, on 23 January 2013 Tom submitted a Freedom of Information request for “‘a comprehensive list of those individuals and organisations currently in possession of UK fishing fixed quota allocation units, and how many units each individual or organisation possesses”. His request was passed on to the MMO, which responded on 22 February.

“The MMO’s response is deeply worrying,” said Tom. “It is withholding the information I requested on the basis that disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. The MMO also placed my request within Regulation 12(3) of the EIRs, which states there is an exception to the disclosure of personal data related to third parties, where disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

“The MMO also concluded that ‘the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs that in disclosing the withheld information’, adding:

“Clearly there are contradictions here between Richard Benyon’s own (welcome) stated position on publication of quota owners and that of the MMO, which makes no reference to his own view or to any prospect of a change of policy in the near future.

“So what is the government’s position? Is it as stated in the MMO’s response? Or should we trust in Richard Benyon’s repeated statements to parliament?

“This is a complete shambles. The very least we might expect would be for Defra and the MMO to be following the same policy. Sadly for the industry and for consumers, this is not the case.”

Read the MMO’s response to Tom’s Freedom of Information request here.

Labour backed new reforms – including measures to end the wasteful practice of discarding fish, new commitments to restore fish stock to sustainable levels, and moves towards greater regionalisation of fisheries policy – which were agreed at a full session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg earlier this month.

With the fear that a number of EU member states may yet block the reforms at the upcoming Council of Ministers vote, Labour have called on the government to stick to its prior commitments and drive through desperately needed change.

Speaking today, Labour’s Shadow Fisheries Minister, Tom Harris said: “This month the European Parliament took a landmark step in addressing the failings of the past. Richard Benyon, the fisheries Minister, must now be good to his word and deliver much needed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

“For too long the CFP has been failing our fisheries, forcing fishermen to dump over a million tons of discarded fish into our seas and pushing smaller sustainable fisherman into the financial mire. This is a shocking waste, which has rightly caused outrage amongst the UK public.

“As one of the world’s great maritime nations Britain should be leading the agenda for reform, not taking a back seat. The government must build alliances with the other 27 member states to enact change – with more than 60 per cent of fish stocks overfished and many fishermen struggle to make ends meet, we cannot go on as we are.”

The report, published earlier this week, claimed a number of large-scale foreign fishing companies – including companies that have been linked to illegal and destructive fishing practices – are a dominant force behind the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) – an influential lobby group in the UK fishing industry and one of the government’s leading industry advisors on fishing matters.

In the light of evidence showing that British fishing quota is held and exploited by foreign interests, Labour have branded the government as incompetent and complacent for not knowing who holds UK fishing quota.

Speaking today, Labour’s Shadow Fisheries Minister Tom Harris said: “Our seas are a vital public resource, but today’s revelations show that the right to fish in the UK is falling into the hands of large-scale foreign fishing companies who provide virtually no economic benefit for the UK.

“The report’s findings will come as a bitter pill to swallow for small-scale fisherman and struggling coastal communities. It is unacceptable that fleets representing the smaller, sustainable end of the industry, and which employ nearly two thirds of full-time workers should have to survive on just four per cent of the UK fishing quota.

“The fact that the government does not know who owns UK fishing quota, and what vested interests are at play, smacks of complacency. The public have the right to know who has the right to fish in the UK, but Ministers have dragged their feet on fulfilling their promise to publish this data.

“The government must now reassure the British public that it remains committed to putting sustainable fishing, which benefits Britain, at the centre of future policy.”

However, Barrie Deas of the NFFO countered the Greenpeace report, highlighting his organisation’s record on representing small-scale fishermen – including opposing reductions in TAC (Total Allowable Catch) for species important to the inshore fleet and increased safety funding

Mr Deas said the Greenpeace report was “a deliberate and conscious attempt to divide the fishing industry along superficial small boat/big boat lines, in the hope that this will give Greenpeace space and leverage to pursue its own fundamentalist environmental agenda. As the largest, most credible and most active fishermen’s organisation, the NFFO stands in its way and has to be taken down a peg or two.”

He added: “No other organisation has put forward more positive ideas for giving small-scale fishermen a stronger voice and increased involvement in management decisions.”

“The key to having a successful Games is to have as many people as possible available to help spectators make the most of this tremendous event,” said Tom. “Glasgow is the friendliest city on the planet, and I know that when they Games open, the many thousands of people who come to enjoy Glaswegian hospitality and to take in the spectacle of some of the world’s greatest athletes will have a wonderful time – thanks in large part to our army of volunteers.

“The Games Makers at the Olympics did a fantastic job is welcoming visitors to the London games. We can do the same in Scotland’s biggest and most vibrant city,” added Tom.

Sign up as a Glasgow 2014 volunteer here.