After the Cayman Islands court judgement (which has been appealed by the Cayman Island Government) ten Overseas Territories have legal recognition and protection for same sex relationships. The British Overseas Territories are separate, largely self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected representatives. Our relationship with the Overseas Territories is based on partnership and therefore as policy on marriage law is an area of devolved responsibility it should be for the territories to decide and legislate on. As has been demonstrated by recent LGBT cases, the Territories' justice mechanisms and processes should be allowed the space to address these matters. We are working to encourage those Territories that have not put in place arrangements to recognise and protect same sex relationships, to do so, and continue to engage with all the Overseas Territories to ensure that their legislation is compliant with their international human rights obligations. We continue to raise LGBT rights and broader human rights obligations consistently with the leaders of Overseas Territories - both bilaterally, and at the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Councils. This is also a matter that is raised by Governors' Offices.

As marriage is devolved in Northern Ireland, any question of reform to law or policy is rightly one for a devolved Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland to carefully consider and debate. The Government would hope and encourage a restored Executive to progress legislation on this issue.

My Lords, first, I do not think that there is a double standard. The noble Baroness may recall my vociferous defence, as the Minister for the Overseas Territories, of the autonomy of the overseas territories, believing that it was right that they should continue to take forward the issue of the registers, as they were doing quite progressively. However, the will of the other place was such that the will of Parliament was upheld by the Government. We would rather not have been in that position. On this issue, we continue to respect the autonomy. However, at the same time, I assure the noble Baroness that we work very progressively. We have seen in recent developments in places such as Bermuda how the courts domestically are reacting to the importance of progressing this issue.

My Lords, we are pleased that the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—I sound like a train announcer—have all taken steps to recognise and enable same-sex marriage. In the overseas territories where same-sex marriage is not currently recognised, we continue to engage constructively with both Governments and civil society to encourage and promote equality irrespective of gender or sexuality.

The noble Baroness is quite right of course that it is a celebrant-based system. A schedule is issued by the register office stating where the marriage can take place, and the celebrant then goes back to the register office and the matter is registered there. The Government have considered the matter and will continue to do so, and will bear in mind the very cogent representations that have been made on behalf of humanists. At paragraph 3.20 of its report, the Law Commission said that,

“activating the statutory order-making power to permit marriages according to the rites of non-religious belief organisations is simply not, in our view, a viable option”.

The Government have to take that into account and consider the integrity of marriage as well as, of course, the wishes of individuals.

I can tell my noble friend that in Scotland there were 3,052 humanist marriages in 2012. There are estimated to be 600 to 800 humanist marriages which are not legally valid at the moment, although 80% have civil marriages as well.

Again, my noble friend will know that built into the Bill was protection for religions that did not want to conduct same-sex marriages, as well as for those within religions that decided that it should be allowed—so we have no evidence of that at all.