This Mother’s Day, give women what they really want: marriage equality
|
Version 0 of 1. As Mother’s Day approaches, children across the country are looking forward to showing their appreciation to the women who gave them everything. Indeed, recent exchanges at prime minister’s questions (PMQ) have seen both party leaders use the platform to champion their mothers. Whether it’s the need for a posh suit and tie, or protesting against cuts to his own local services – it would seem that the prime minister still clings to the motherly advice he has received over the years. This makes it all the more surprising that David Cameron has not yet fulfilled his promise to recognise mothers in the documents marking seminal moments of our lives. Despite a petition signed by 70,000 people, debates led by his own party’s backbenchers and a positive response when I raised the matter at PMQs, the Victorian-era exemption of mothers’ names from marriage certificates in England and Wales remains. Back in 2014, with a general election looming, the prime minister pledged to end this inequality in a speech given to the Relationships Alliance summit. He agreed that the centuries-old anachronism “clearly doesn’t reflect modern Britain” and that “it’s high time the system was updated”. In light of the stark language he used, it is utterly perplexing that the Home Office has spent the past two years delaying a simple administrative reform that enjoys such broad consensus. The exclusion of mothers from marriage certificates means that children are still classified as akin to their father’s property, to be signed off at marriage. There are 2.5 million single-mother families in our country, meaning that many children are unable upon marriage to recognise the parent who has brought them up alone, and can record only the individual who has been absent from their upbringing. Providing the space for both names to appear on the certificate is not to give undue importance to one parent or the other, but to recognise the many types of family in 21st-century Britain. This issue also speaks to those who come from multinational backgrounds and want to trace their heritage. My cultural background has been shaped by my mother’s experience of being a political asylum seeker who arrived in Britain in the 1970s. Her journey is a vital part of my family history, and to have her excluded from my marriage certificate compromises the ability of future generations of my family to trace their roots. Given the sheer diversity of Britain’s population, I have no doubts that this experience will be shared by many across the country. Since being elected last May, I have repeatedly sought to understand the government’s lack of progress on this simple but important reform. Responses from ministers have been nondescript and infuriating in equal measure, informing me that “a timetable will be confirmed as soon as there is an opportunity to legislate on this matter”. Ministers do not seem to have noticed that my colleague Christina Rees, the Neath MP, put forward a bill some time ago now, let alone that the prime minister gave them the green light over two years ago. Either way, their inaction is perpetuating a historical injustice. This year will see bigger battles in the fight for gender equality. The gender pay gap still sees women paid for only 11 months of work this year, and the unfair representation in politics remains a source of shame to name but two examples. However, this is an important, symbolic step for the prime minister to take – and one he could implement with ease. This Sunday is a timely moment to reflect on women’s lives – and the need to show we are no longer wedded to such sexist Victorian relics. Our mothers deserve nothing less |