No.10 to fly the flag

THE Cross of St George will fly over 10 Downing Street for each of England’s remaining World Cup matches and for next year’s women’s tournament, Theresa May has said.

The Prime Minister told MPs she will be encouraging other departments across Whitehall to adopt the practice for the team’s remaining clashes.

Mrs May congratulated England on making it through to the next round and said: “No 10 will be flying the flag on the day of each England game.” A HETEROSEXUAL couple fighting a law which prevents them entering into a civil partnership have called on the Government to “act with urgency” after winning a legal battle at the UK’s highest court.

Following a declaration by the Supreme Court that the current legislation is “incompatible” with human rights laws, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan described being “elated”.

Speaking outside court after yesterday’s ruling, Ms Steinfeld, 37, said: “We are a step closer to opening civil partnerships to all, a measure that would be fair and good for families and children across the country.”

Mr Keidan, 41, said there was now only one option – “to extend civil partnerships to all”. He said it was hoped the Government would now “act with urgency” for the sake of thousands of couples across the country.

The couple, who have two young daughters and live in Hammersmith, west London, are currently prevented from having a legal union through the route of civil partnership because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says only same-sex couples are eligible. Five Supreme Court justices, including the court’s president Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld Lady Hale, granted a declaration that, in precluding a different sex couple from entering into a civil partnership, the Act was “incompatible” with European human rights laws on discrimination and the right to a private and family life.

While granting the declaration, the court pointed out that the Government was not “obliged” to do anything as the result of its decision on incompatibility.

Lord Kerr, explaining the decision, said the Government “does not seek to justify the difference in treatment between samesex and different sex couples”.

He added: “To the contrary, it accepts that the difference cannot be justified.” What the Government sought was “tolerance of the discrimination while it sorts out how to deal with it”.

He concluded: “That cannot be characterised as a legitimate aim.”

Lord Kerr said it was “salutary to recall that a declaration of incompatibility does not oblige the Government or Parliament to do anything”.

During a hearing in May, the couple’s barrister, Karon Monaghan QC, told the Supreme Court that they have “deep-rooted and ideological objections to marriage” and are “not alone” in their views.

The Supreme Court justices unanimously allowed an appeal by the couple against a Court of Appeal decision which went against them in February last year.

The Court of Appeal had agreed that they had established a potential violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to discrimination, taken with Article 8, which refers to respect for private and family life.

But, by a majority of two to one, the judges said the interference was justified by the Government’s policy of “wait and evaluate”.