Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2004.

Standing Committee D

Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I understand that my co-Chairman gave permission at a previous sitting for hon. Members to divest themselves of their top item of clothing. I have no intention of rescinding that agreement.Clause 83 Formation of civil partnership by registration

Clause 83 - Formation of civil partnership by registration

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I wish to make a few comments. First, we are all delighted to see you back, Mr. Cook. Such stoicism is to be commended and proves that British politicians are every bit as resilient as American former Presidents.

The Scottish clauses in the Civil Partnership Bill achieve the same policy purpose as part 2, but have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scots law. The purpose of the Government's amendments is to ensure complete legal consistency between rights that accrue to civil partners and married couples.

I trust that we shall have an opportunity this morning to consider not just the Scottish provisions but the Northern Irish provisions as we are discussing three jurisdictions in the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 1.

Clause 84 - Eligibility

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 84, page 38, line 36, leave out

'of understanding the nature of civil partnership'

and insert 'of—

(i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or

(ii) validly consenting to its formation'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 53 to 57.

Government new clause 1—Separation.

Government new clause 4—Succession: legal rights arising by virtue of civil partnership.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

The amendments relate to the Scottish provisions in part 3 of the Bill, which are consequential on the creation of civil partnerships. Government amendments Nos. 52 to 56 concern the capacity of someone to enter a civil partnership. At present, clause 84 sets out that in order to enter a civil partnership, a person must understand

''the nature of civil partnership''.

Government amendment No. 52 provides that a person must also be capable of

''validly consenting to its formation''.

The purpose of the amendment is to amend clause 84(1)(e) to mirror the provisions in section 5(4)(d) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

What does that mean in terms of a read-across to mental capacity?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

May I return to that point in a few minutes?

Clause 90 provides that if someone objects to a civil partnership on the grounds that either of the civil partners is incapable of understanding the nature of a civil partnership, such an objection must be accompanied by a supporting certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner. Government amendment No. 56 to clause 90 provides that the requirement of evidence as indicated above also applies when an objection is made on the grounds that one of the parties is incapable of validly consenting to a civil partnership. The policy

intention of the Bill is that the process for entering a civil partnership mirrors that for civil marriage. It is therefore important that that aspect of the 1977 Act is replicated for civil partners.

The Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament recommended that the Scottish Executive's position on capacity to consent be reconsidered in the interests of ensuring parity in the protection available to civil partners, compared with married couples. The Deputy Minister for Justice made a commitment to the Justice 1 Committee to amend the Bill so that the provisions mirror in their entirety those that exist for civil marriage.

I want to come on to adoptive and half-blood relationships. The amendments add a further two subsections to clause 84 to confirm that half-blood relationships and adoptive relationships are included within the degrees of relationship specified in paragraph 1 of schedule 11. That is the policy intention. At present, it is not clear that adoptive and half-sibling relationships are within the prohibited degrees. The Bill as drafted could allow a man to form a civil partnership with his adoptive brother or half-brother. That is not the policy intention. The policy intent is that, since people in such a relationship cannot marry, they should similarly not be able to enter a civil partnership.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

Can the Minister confirm that that excludes foster children and wards of court?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

My understanding is that it does exclude foster children and wards of court.

The amendment will mean that adoptive and half-blood relationships are included within the prohibited degrees, as is the case with marriage.

Government amendment No. 57 is intended to offer some clarity in clause 120. At present, clause 120 sets out that if a couple register as civil partners in Scotland despite not meeting the eligibility criteria detailed in clause 84, the civil partnership will be void, meaning that it will be treated as never having taken place. The amendment provides that where a couple are registered as civil partners in Scotland and, although eligible to do so,

''either of them did not validly consent'',

the civil partnership will be void.

Like married couples, civil partners will be able to apply to the court for a civil partnership to be made void. That exists in Scots common law. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make it clear in law that a civil partnership can be made void by the court if either party did not validly consent to its formation. The Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament made representations on that point and the Deputy Minister for Justice agreed to lay the amendment.

On judicial separation, new clause 1 is intended to add back into the Bill a clause that was removed on Report in the House of Lords. It is an important clause that provides an opportunity to those in civil partnerships that is already available to married couples. The clause provides that civil partners may

apply to the Court of Session or the sheriff court for a decree of separation. The court may grant such a decree if satisfied that there are grounds justifying such a separation.

Clause 118 is consequential to this clause. It provides that if civil partners have a decree of separation and subsequently decide to dissolve their civil partnership, they may apply to the court, citing the same evidence on which the degree of separation was based. The court can treat a decree of separation as proof of the facts under which the decree was granted. However, that does not entitle a court to grant a decree of dissolution of a civil partnership without receiving evidence from the civil partner seeking the dissolution.

I come now to legal rights of succession. New clause 4 seeks to ensure that civil partners have legal rights of succession in a similar way to spouses. Legal rights are covered by common law in Scotland. The Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 is amended by schedule 28 to ensure that civil partners will have prior rights of succession. That is an important right that civil partners will require; it is a complex area of law and detailed consideration has been given as to how the common law could best be captured in the provisions for civil partners.

Before I finish I shall deal with the read-across of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on mental incapacity. If a person is incapable of consenting to a civil partnership for whatever reason, that partnership will not be valid, which includes situations where a person suffers from mental incapacity. To clarify the situation, adopted children are considered the same as natural children for the purposes of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I shall address my remarks to the issue of separation. I do not understand why civil partners, if their partnership has broken down, should not just be able to split apart permanently. Throughout the course of the proceedings I have been arguing not against the principle that there should be some system of registration for partnerships outside marriage, but that the system should be established on a distinct basis from marriage.

Incorporating the concept of separation gives credence to the belief that we are contemplating none other than same-sex marriage in the Bill, although the Government deny that. The amendment passed in the other place to exclude references to separation was sensible. If the amendments are carried, in a situation where one of two civil partners who separate but are not ''divorced''—I suppose that is the expression people would use—dies, the one who survives will be entitled to a minimum of 50 per cent. of all their estate. I should have thought that if a civil partnership were on such shaky ground that the parties to it had separated, it would be better for it to be brought to a conclusion rather than to have the halfway house of separation.

I shall not repeat at length the references that I made earlier to what happens in France, where civil solidarity pacts can be applied to all couples outside

marriage relatively easily, and can be brought to an end equally easily. It seems to me that there is a demand for that, rather than what is specified in the Bill, which is getting incredibly complicated. It will ultimately have the perverse effect of deterring a lot of people from entering into civil partnerships because they will realise that it will be very difficult to disentangle themselves from the involvement created in law if something goes wrong, as is sadly often the case. I am against the incorporation in the Bill of the concept of legal separation as some sort of halfway house.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I echo the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the Justice 1 Committee. The draft Bill was originally placed before the Scottish Parliament and the level of pre-legislative scrutiny that the provisions received was a textbook example from which pre-legislative scrutiny in this place could learn a lot. As a result of that, the amendments that have been introduced by the Government, from the Scottish Executive, have made the passage of this Bill a great deal easier for those of us who represent Scottish constituencies and have an interest in such matters.

I want to pick up on the important point just made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He asked why we should have this provision on separation, but in fact it is not on separation but on judicial separation, which is a quite important distinction in this context. In all the years when I was in practice and doing court work, I never came across anyone who opted to undertake judicial separation, but it is an important part of Scots family law.

Hearing the hon. Gentleman trampling over Scots family law in a pair of tackety boots sold only with prejudice and ignorance reminds me of all the reasons why we considered it necessary to have a Scottish Parliament in the first place. The arguments that he made would apply equally to judicial separation for those who are parties to a civil marriage. The fact is that rightly or wrongly, we have this curious animal of judicial separation in Scotland, in much the same way that those of you south of the border have the curious arrangement that if a 16-year-old wants to enter a civil marriage—and hopefully some day a civil partnership—they have to go and ask their mammy and their daddy first. That does not make any particular sense to me, but clearly it is an important part of English marriage law, and if that is what people in England and Wales want, that is for them to decide.

Judicial separation is an important right available to people in Scotland who are parties to a civil marriage, and I can see absolutely no good reason why it should not be extended to those who enter a civil partnership. To remove that provision while retaining clause 118 would make nonsense of the whole Bill. Not to reinstate this provision would leave us with incoherent legislation.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I, too, rise to support the Government amendments. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) correctly stated, there has been a great

deal of pre-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament on these provisions. In addition to a three-month consultation period with responses from more than 300 parties, there have been four separate evidence sessions held in Committees during the past six to eight months to consider in great detail the provisions of this part of the Bill.

I concur with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we appreciate and respect Scots law principles on family law matters. Like him, I was a practising solicitor, and I came across only one or two judicial separation actions in 18 years' experience. Nevertheless, that has been an established element of family law in Scotland for a considerable time, and if anyone were to change that principle, it should be the Scottish Parliament. This Parliament, which created the Scottish Parliament, should respect its rights over marriage law. We have differences on separation. We have maintained the two and five-year periods of separation and the difference in consent for 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland, on the basis that it is for the Scottish Parliament to make differences in family law as and when it requires.

That also applies to the law on succession, and I particularly welcome new clause 4, which contains a matter that I raised on Second Reading. It seeks to provide for same-sex couples the principle of equivalence to couples in marriage, and it will be important for many couples in same-sex relationships. We have respected the Scottish rights of succession and the Scottish laws on succession, and the principles on which they are founded, and again, quite rightly, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, if and when it decides to review the succession law, whether there will be any subsequent amendments when, as I hope, this Bill becomes law. I congratulate the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament on their thoroughness during their participation in the scrutiny process and on their valuable amendments, which much improve the Bill.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

I should like to seek some clarification from the Minister about the mathematics and language of new clause 4. I am trying to grapple with it and I am not sure that I totally understand it. As I understand it, in new clause 4(1), where a partner dies, the other partner has a claim on the deceased's estate to a minimum of half.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Movable.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

Movable estate, which perhaps for clarity the Minister will define. If that person has issue, the partner would have a claim on a third. I do not understand what happens if the partner who remains alive has issue. How does the division scrape up? If they are civil partners with a joint estate, how is the estate assessed and divided?

I do not understand the language of new clause 4(2), perhaps because I am not a lawyer. I do not understand the grammar of:

''That circumstance is that the person is also survived by issue''.

It needs parsing, and I quite simply cannot make sense of it. It looks as though other Members can, and, if it

can be translated from the Scottish, as a Scot I would very much appreciate it.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

The law of succession is a very complicated piece of Scots law. There is a good Scots phrase, which the hon. Member for Christchurch should learn when meddling, dabbling or seeking to comment on Scots law, which is, ''Wha daur meddle wi' me.'' For the uninitiated I will translate. It means: ''Don't meddle with me too often.'' Before my Scots colleagues get in first, the second part of the phrase is, ''There's gaye few an' ther' a' deid.'' It means: ''Very few meddle with the Scots and those that do usually end up—''

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In hospital.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

''—in another place,'' and I am not talking about the House of Lords.

That leads me neatly to state that I will write to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton.

Ann McKechin rose—

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

A lawyer to my rescue. I never thought I would see the day.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

May I say that the wording of new clause 4 follows that of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964? The Act uses exactly the same wording, and that is why the wording has been used in the legislation before us. It matches that in the Act, which has been in force quite successfully for 40 years.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Well, there we have it. I am so glad that Government Back Benchers are so multi-skilled that they can remember all that.

On the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, judicial separation is appropriate for some couples who may not wish to dissolve their civil partnership because of beliefs or the impact it may have on any children. Judicial separation is an option for marriage couples and it should similarly be an option for civil partners.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that he was not aware of any cases of judicial separation in his legal life. Will the Minister tell us how many instances there are of judicial separation in Scotland at the moment?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland operated in one part of Scotland. It is a big country. I am unable to provide the hon. Member for Christchurch with the exact number, but regardless of whether judicial separation is used it is part of our judicial regime and it should be read across into civil partnerships. The amendment was moved on those grounds.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 1.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I have a reputation for being somewhat pedantic at times. I shall now demonstrate why I have that reputation. Just to be precise, I am informed that the only languages that are permissible in the House are English, Latin and ancient Norman. The introduction of strange tongues can be somewhat confusing.

Secondly, on a much more serious point, I must draw to the Committee's attention the fact that it is customary for a right hon. or hon. Member to rise in their place, not simply to lift an eyebrow, to indicate to the Chair that they wish to make a contribution to the debate. Do be co-operative with the Chair.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in

clause 84, page 38, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. This is simply to seek your guidance on procedure. Is it permissible either by ruling of the Chair or by the will of the Committee for consecutive clauses to be voted in a block, or must they be taken individually?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

They must be taken individually, save with the leave of the Committee. In other words, to avoid the rule, one would have to put the proposal to the Committee in those terms and seek leave of the Committee before presenting them.Schedule 11 Forbidden degrees of relationship: Scotland

Schedule 11 - Forbidden degrees of relationship: Scotland

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Taking on board your advice, would it be appropriate to test the Committee's opinion as to whether clauses 85 to 114 may be taken en bloc at this point?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Taking clauses 85 to 114 together would be impossible because there are Government amendments in between those two clauses. Taking clauses 85 to 89 en bloc is a prospect that the Minister may chose to put to the Committee.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I ask that the Committee's will be tested on that proposal.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Is it the Committee's wish that the clauses be taken together?

Clause 85 - Appointment of authorised registrars

Clause 86 - Notice of proposal civil partnership

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I am slightly confused and I hope that you can help me. I thought that we voted to take a bloc of four clauses together and I think that we just voted on one of them only.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

You are right that leave of the Committee was sought to consider the clauses together. What seems to have escaped your attention is the fact that there was an objection in the form of a no vote. Therefore, the leave that was sought was negatived.

Clause 87 - Civil partnership notice book

Clause 88 - Publicisation

Clause 89 - Early registration

Clause 90 - Objections to registration

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. There is a lot of atmosphere in the Committee this morning. Apparently, people feel that it is unreasonable that we should have to go through all the clauses one by one. May I point out that, because of the Government's guillotine motion, it was not possible to put the equivalents of the individual clauses to a vote when they were debated under the England and Wales part of the Bill? The way in which the Government are trying to restrict debate is highly provocative and contentious. They refused to table in the other place a host of amendments that they tabled in this Committee, thereby taking up much more Committee time.

We saw an example earlier of an hon. Member who seems to be under the impression that the majority should always have sway, irrespective of any other consideration. Today, in the other place, minority rights—the right of people to be able to go hunting—will be debated. There are minority and majority rights at stake in this Committee, and it is important that people should bear that in mind.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to put his views on the record. Not only was the programme motion fully discussed by the whole Committee, but it was in fact extended. His comments are not a point of order for the Chair and are therefore inappropriate at this moment.

Clause 91 - Place of registration

Clause 92 - The civil partnership schedule

Clause 93 - Further provision as to registration

Clause 94 - Civil partnership with former spouse

Clause 95 - Certificates of no impediment for Part 2 purposes

Clause 96 - Application of certain sections of 1965 Act

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Our procedures at the moment are unfolding in a clear and familiar pattern. We face the prospect, in the passage of about 40 minutes of the clock, of having 30

consecutive Divisions, all of a similar pattern. Is there anything under the Standing Orders, or any discussion that you might have with the Chairman of Ways and Means, to say that although many, including I, do not approve of guillotines, knives or reducing the power of delay when it is appropriate for the Opposition, there comes a point at which such a series of Divisions actually becomes frivolous? Would you have such discussions to see whether in the context of the inevitable guillotine that we ultimately face, this kind of procedure is inappropriate to proper discussion of the Bill?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

There is provision in the main Chamber to deal with a situation of this kind, but not in Standing Committee. I can, however, give the Committee an assurance that I will discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means and place it on the agenda for the next meeting of the Chairmen's Panel.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. When you raise that matter at the Chairmen's Panel, will you also take into account the fact that on each individual clause it is open to those who wish to raise questions on that clause or speak against it to do so? It would probably take longer to put those arguments and questions, and one way of demonstrating opposition to a clause is to vote against it, without taking up the Committee's time by speaking against it. That certainly happened during proceedings on the Traffic Management Bill, on the Committee of which I had the privilege to serve previously—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. Principles of limitation of time are well known to this House; I should have thought that they were known to every Member once they have been here more than a week. It serves no purpose to raise aspects of other legislation dealt with at other times. I have given the Committee an assurance that I will raise with the Chairman of Ways and Means and with the Chairmen's Panel the essence of the points raised in the point of order—namely the fact that perhaps some of the tactics engaged in Committee today might be considered by some people as frivolous. Those points I will raise. Limitations of time are well known to us and we have lived with them for years, since long before I came to this place.

Clause 97 - Correction of errors in civil partnership register

Clause 98 - Offences

Clause 99 - Occupancy rights

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton raised his point of order, I had been in discussion with my hon. Friend who has been voting in a similar way to me.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. May I seek clarification? Is this a point of order?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. We feel very strongly about the way in which the Government have transacted the Bill. We have voted against every clause in part 2 as a matter of principle. We are hotly opposed to part 3, but we have made our point. We hope that the Government will accept the right to debate issues about which they feel strongly, but about which a minority also feels equally strongly, and that they will take account of the strength of feeling that we have expressed.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Having been presented with a point of order, I must respond that if the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the clause stand part, he is free to do so. That is the Committee's procedure.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not wish to discuss the clause stand part; I wish to let the matter go.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 100 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115 - Dissolution

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 236, in clause 115, page 59, line 37, leave out 'dissolution' and insert 'cessation'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 237, in clause 115, page 60, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—

'(a) the defender consents to the granting of decree of dissolution of the civil partnership,

(b) the defender has committed an act of sexual infidelity, or

(c) there has been no cohabitation between the civil partners at any time during a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the bringing of the action.'.

No. 238, in clause 115, page 60, line 22, leave out subsection (4).

No. 239, in clause 115, page 60, line 36, leave out subsection (6).

No. 240, in clause 115, page 60, line 40, leave out subsection (7).

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

These amendments mirror amendments that were tabled to an earlier part of the Bill but could not be discussed because of the guillotine. Their purpose is to ensure that the Bill reflects more properly the concerns expressed by, among others, the noble prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, who said:

''it is a concern to some in the Churches that the legislation enshrined in the Bill parallels that for marriage at almost every point. There is an ambiguity here that some find worrying''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 399.]

I find it worrying, as do a lot of people whom I have spoken to. They want to ensure that the Bill recognises that cohabitation and partnership short of marriage involve a looser bond than marriage, which is the purpose of the amendments. If they were agreed to, they would effectively ensure that civil partnerships had a different nature to marriage and were described in different language.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman was trying to pray in aid the comments of the Bishop of Oxford. He will, I am sure, have read all the Bishop's speech, in which he made it clear that while many in the Church expressed such feelings, he personally did not, which is why he chose that form of words very carefully.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

He said those words, nevertheless. He recognised—perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not—that there are a large number of people who find the matter worrying.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

But not the Bishop of Oxford.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

One way of overcoming such concerns is to pass the amendment and ensure that the Bill creates something more akin to the civil solidarity pact available in France, as opposed to same-sex marriage, which is in essence what the Government are trying to impose on the country.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland got rather wound up when I referred to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is a Liberal Democrat, but much of the language in the amendments is taken directly from Lord Lester's own Bill on civil partnerships—the plural form was used—in the House of Lords, and that language is also analogous to the law in France. The amendments anticipate that chapter 1 of the Bill will still refer exclusively to same-sex partnerships—the current reality. They would remove the need to show that a relationship had broken down irretrievably and introduce the issue of cessation instead.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

On the point about cessation instead of dissolution, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will favour us with an explanation of what he sees as the distinction. Will he explain why he seeks to change ''dissolution'' to ''cessation'' in amendment No. 236, when amendment No. 237 states:

''the defender consents to the granting of decree of dissolution''?

Why did he not favour us with an amendment making further reference to dissolution?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that I had not tabled enough amendments and that I should have tabled some more consequential amendments, I plead guilty. However, on the substantive concern he has expressed, the issue of cessation was referred to by Lord Lester in his Bill, and I presume that he used that term—indeed, this is why I have drafted my amendment as I have—because it makes it clear that the partnership that we are discussing is different from marriage. The Government say that that is the case, but we keep saying that if it looks like marriage and has all the trappings of marriage, it is marriage, even though they deny it.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that Lord Lester of Herne Hill introduced a different Bill, but why I do not quite understand he keeps referring to that Bill during consideration of the Bill that is before us, which he seems to recognise is different. I am not suggesting that he should table more amendments, but asking him to explain the inconsistency in the amendments that he has tabled.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech, perhaps accepting some of my amendments, but saying that some further amendments are required to iron out inconsistencies. When he has developed his arguments in that respect and I have listened to the logic of his point of view, I am sure that I will be able to wind up this debate, give my verdict and see whether, in the light of his points, it is worth pushing the amendment to a vote or whether it should be withdrawn. That is the essence of an open debate.

I do not need to speak at great length about the amendments. Essentially, I want to make it easier for people to get out of same-sex partnership

arrangements. The fact that people can do so easily in France is a good thing. I would like it to be equally easy for people to do so in this country and in Scotland, to which these amendments relate. I hope that, even at this late stage, people will be able to accept that if there is to be a difference between civil partnerships and marriage, it would be as well to make that apparent in the Bill to a much greater extent, instead of trying to mirror marriage at every stage, including with regard to the complicated arrangements that relate to the breakdown of marriage.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend has just lamented what he regards as the unnecessary complexity of the existing provisions. I put it to him that the way in which his amendments introduce a new concept of sexual infidelity causes him to be guilty of the very offence of excessive complexity of which he is effectively accusing the Government. Does he not accept that there is already provision for unreasonable behaviour to be considered a ground for dissolution—or, God forbid, if he got his way with his amendment, for cessation—and that therefore there is no good reason to introduce the concept of sexual infidelity?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not know why my hon. Friend is so sensitive to this issue of sexual infidelity as a ground for establishing irretrievable breakdown. That is what we are talking about: the grounds on which irretrievable breakdown can be established. At the moment, there is no reference to being able to establish irretrievable breakdown on the basis of an act of sexual infidelity. That is pretty fundamental stuff. How can people have a firm civil partnership or relationship if one of them is indulging in sexual infidelity? If that is connived at or agreed to by the other party, that is fine, but if it is not consented to or connived at by the other party, the party who is the victim of that sexual infidelity should have an absolute right to be able to say that, on those grounds, the relationship has broken down.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scots law the definition of unreasonable behaviour would include sexual acts that are not covered under the definition of adultery? That has always been the case in family law in Scotland and it is covered specifically in subsection (3)(a) of the clause.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

It is some years since I studied law in Scotland, so I accept the information that the hon. Lady has provided. Perhaps that will be the explanation from the Minister as to why the amendment is thought inappropriate. However, in English law, adultery is still a specific ground and is specified as evidence of a breakdown of a marriage. If the provision is already implicit in the law in Scotland, I still think that there is no harm to be done by making it explicit in the Bill, which would be the effect of amendment No. 237. The provisions would then refer to the defender committing an act of sexual infidelity.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's contribution in Committee has been to try to make the

Bill less like a gay marriage Bill. Does he not realise that introducing a concept of gay adultery makes the provisions of the Bill more like gay marriage?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In trying to amend the Bill and to put forward arguments, the challenge has been that I have encountered resistance from the Government and from the majority on the Committee to any idea that we can make the Bill deal with civil partnerships outside marriage at a lower level of commitment. I am faced—against my will—with the fact that the Government and the hon. Gentleman are insistent on making the Bill as much like a same-sex marriage Bill as possible.

I am trying to say that, if the Bill is going to be like that, I think that it is unfair and unjust that people should be tied up in long-standing relationships with a commitment to each other that they will not be able to break for up to five years without the consent of the other party, even if that other party is committing acts of sexual infidelity. It is important, therefore, that the party who is the victim of that sexual infidelity should be able to use, as a ground for dissolution or cessation of the partnership, the fact that the person with whom he or she is living has been guilty of an act of sexual infidelity.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have always regarded my hon. Friend as something of a logician in this House. I am genuinely troubled by what he just said. Does he not see that there is a curious neurosis about his attitude to the various amendments to the Bill? Does he not accept the logic of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just said—that, on the one hand, my hon. Friend is arguing for the use of the term ''cessation'' rather than ''dissolution'' to underline the essential difference between the institution of civil partnership and that of marriage and, on the other hand, he is arguing for a provision that makes the arrangement much more like marriage? It seems that my hon. Friend is guilty of a degree of turgidisation that is unworthy of him.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not know whether you have read the Official Report of the last sitting, Mr. Cook. My hon. Friend sought to provoke me to recant for having nominated him to be a member of the Conservative party candidates list. I do not recant from that nomination because I think that the House would be a much poorer place without the presence of my hon. Friend.

However, I thought that my hon. Friend understood the procedures of Parliament. Although we cannot express the amendments as being ''in the alternative'', that is essentially the way in which amendments Nos. 236 and 237 should be viewed. If amendment No. 236 is successful, I shall not seek to put amendment No. 237 to a vote. Amendment No. 236 seeks to simplify the way in which the arrangement can be brought to an end, by means of cessation, rather than requiring all the complications of dissolution. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

If I am unsuccessful in getting amendment No. 236 to the vote and winning that vote, the alternative—if one was doing pleadings, whether in Scotland or in

England, one would put that the latter pleading was ''further'' or ''in the alternative''—is amendment No. 237. That amendment accepts the decision of the Committee on amendment No. 236 to continue to pursue dissolution as the means to end the partnership. In amendment No. 237, I say, ''If you're going to insist on same-sex marriage in all but name, we might as well give the partner to that same-sex marriage the ability to bring that marriage to an end on the grounds that the person with whom he or she is living has been guilty of an act of sexual infidelity.''

I turn the argument back to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). If, as I think he is, he is in favour of what are effectively same-sex marriages, why does he not think that sexual infidelity on the part of one of the partners to the marriage should be a ground for its dissolution?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The answer is that adequate provision is already made in the context of unreasonable behaviour. The term ''adultery'' has a specific legal connotation.

As I am a generous man, may I simply say to my hon. Friend that my belief that he is at heart a logician is now confirmed? There is a certain logic to his position, at least according to his lights.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Praise indeed. That is as far as my hon. Friend is prepared to go. I do not know whether his comment is fair, but it certainly amused me.

There is no point in trying to develop my arguments further. As I understand it, for Scotland we are not talking about unreasonable behaviour but irretrievable breakdown. There is a series of grounds upon which a marriage can be dissolved on the basis of irretrievable breakdown, and the provisions set out what could happen—for example, if there has been at any time behaviour such that the pursuer cannot reasonably be expected to cohabit with the defendant.

Unfortunately, I understand from what I read in books that these days some marriages or partnerships are open marriages or partnerships in which one or other, or sometimes both, of the partners has sexual relationships outside the partnership with one or more other individuals. I would call that adultery in the context of marriage or, in the context of a same-sex marriage, sexual infidelity. My understanding of the law is that if persistent sexual infidelity has been connived at or ignored by one of the partners in a partnership, that in itself could be used as a defence against a dissolution application made on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. The argument would go this way: on the basis that my partner was quite happy with my sleeping around up until now, why is he suddenly calling a halt on this particular relationship outside the partnership? In order to prevent such an estoppel arising in a contested dissolution, if one party to the marriage is a victim of sexual infidelity, without any further argument that should be a ground for making an application for dissolution on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am not sure where to start. Dealing with the logic of the hon. Gentleman's arguments is a little like trying to unscramble eggs. He said various things that require an answer. The first

is his suggestion that his amendments Nos. 236 and 237 are alternatives. I do not see how changing ''dissolution'' in one part of one clause but leaving it elsewhere, as evidenced by any number of different examples, answers the objection that the amendments are not consistent with each other or the remainder of the clause.

I wish to deal with the point about sexual infidelity. I am not aware of any other area of family law in which sexual infidelity is used as a term of art in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman would wish it to be used for civil partnerships. He has not favoured us with an amendment to any part in the Bill in order to suggest what might constitute sexual infidelity. Therefore, one would assume that it would be left to the courts to build up a body of law on what constituted sexual infidelity. Would that be a single sexual act with another person, or would it have to be a series of acts? Would—to put it bluntly—a single kiss be sufficient or would something more be required? Not for the first time, the import of what the hon. Member for Christchurch has brought to the Committee is that it would in effect be a lawyers' charter—another gravy train for no good reason. Subsection (3) includes the question of the conduct with which the defender might not reasonably be expected to live, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) has already said, it is clear that most of the acts envisaged by the hon. Gentleman would be caught by that.

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that sexual infidelity should somehow be a read-over for adultery in civil marriage does not work for me. One has to consider the question of what ''infidelity'' means—unfaithfulness, to use another word. It is my view that the circumstance that the hon. Gentleman outlined would not even be caught by the phrase ''sexual infidelity'' because if someone engaged in some sort of sexual act with another person with the acceptance or connivance of the partner in a civil partnership, surely he or she would not have been unfaithful to that partner. Infidelity is more than a mere act, in the way that adultery is.

There are all sorts of contradictions in the hon. Gentleman's position. He has argued at great length throughout the Committee proceedings that we should not be creating a rival institution to marriage, yet he suggests that we should make dissolution or cessation—he has never yet explained the difference—more like marriage. I do not understand that, but I think that the root of the problem is that the hon. Gentleman just does not get this Bill at all, or what it is about. He is obsessed with labels and considers all the time whether we are creating something that is like marriage. This is not about creating something that is like marriage, but is about creating the safer circumstances that arise from marriage. If the creation of something that is like marriage is necessary for that, I am quite happy with it.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head in his last couple of comments. If I could use a 1960s vernacular phrase—well, it was very popular in the 1960s and hon. Members who are too young to

remember that must forgive me—we have here seen a fundamental dichotomy, and it is clear that the hon. Member for Christchurch has very little sympathy with the Bill. He just does not get it, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said.

With the greatest respect, that was shown in some of the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch. He wants to make cohabitation, as he calls it, looser in the Bill. He wants to make it easier to get out of same-sex partnerships. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in previous discussions, we see them as something far more stable—a means of giving legal coherence to long-term relationships. I fear that the radical changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes would totally undermine that approach.

I shall deal briefly with the amendments to which the hon. Member for Christchurch has spoken. I shall make the assumption, which may be wrong, that since he did not speak to two or three of his amendments, he is not so exercised about them. To save the Committee's time, I will deal with those to which he spoke.

Amendment No. 236 replaces dissolution with cessation. I have already stated that a civil partnership is a serious commitment with legal consequences and that it requires an appropriate level of formality to bring it to an end. The legal effects of a civil partnership, such as the inability to enter another civil partnership or marry, are in force until such times as those formalities have been completed. I suggest to the hon. Member for Christchurch that a civil partnership is not just a simple arrangement—Saturday night, become a civil partner; Monday night, get it dissolved. That is not the intention of the Bill.

The terminology in the Bill is important. Dissolution reflects the legal, court-based process required to bring a legal relationship such as a civil partnership to an end and the fact that the legal consequences of a civil partnership remain in place until all necessary formalities are completed. Cessation implies that a civil partnership can be brought to an end at will, and the word is incompatible with the status and dignity that the Government wish to give to civil partnerships.

Amendment No. 237 seeks to remove provisions that set out when an irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership is taken to be established and to legislate, in the hon. Gentleman's words, in much more flexible or looser terms. As with civil marriage in Scotland, the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership could be taken on grounds of unreasonable behaviour, desertion, non-cohabitation for two years when the defender agrees with the application for dissolution or non-cohabitation for five years where the defender disagrees. The amendment would mean that the irretrievable breakdown is taken to be established if the defender consents, if the defender has committed

''an act of sexual infidelity,''

or there has been no cohabitation for six months.

The first part of the amendment would mean that the civil partnership could be dissolved almost as soon as it has been formed. It makes a mockery of what civil partnerships set out to be and it undermines the legal relationship. The second part sets out that a civil partnership can be dissolved where the defender has committed an act of sexual infidelity. It is not necessary to put that in the Bill. Clause 115(3)(a) already sets out that a civil partnership can be dissolved on grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and sexual infidelity certainly constitutes such grounds.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If sexual infidelity can constitute such grounds, what assurance is there that it will always constitute such grounds? That is the difference between what the Minister is saying and my amendment.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

What I am saying is the same as any dissolution process. I am certainly not going to second-guess a judge or sheriff and certainly not in a Scots court. The provision for unreasonable behaviour is in the clause, and sexual infidelity could constitute such grounds for dissolution.

The hon. Gentleman also ducked a problem of definition. What is sexual infidelity and how would it be proved? Adultery is a voluntary sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex who is not one's spouse. Adultery is specific grounds for divorce in Scotland, but if a husband commits sexual infidelity with another man, it is not adultery. However, that is covered by unreasonable behaviour in Scots divorce law.

The third part of amendment No. 237 sets out that a civil partnership can be dissolved if there is no cohabitation between the partners during six months prior to the action. As is the case with civil marriage, there is no requirement for married couples physically to live together. Some couples who already have their own homes and choose not to live together will form a civil partnership. Living apart for six months does not always signify the end of a relationship; it might simply mean that one partner has temporarily moved to take up work. Members of Parliament in Scotland live four days a week away from their marital home, and I am not sure whether we could cite that as a case for dissolution. Perhaps some of our spouses would disagree with that.

I do not want to get into the details of the other two amendments. Clause 115 provides that an action for the dissolution of a civil partnership can be brought in the Court of Session or in the sheriff court. It sets out the terms under which a court may grant a decree and when an achievable breakdown of a civil partnership is established. In the light of those arguments, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister says that she and I are at odds about the principles of the Bill, and we are. The basic problem is that I am keen that all relationships outside marriage should be treated on a par. That is why I earlier described cohabitation as a looser bond than marriage and why I think that a same-sex partnership should be a looser bond than marriage. That should be reflected in the Bill, but I understand that some people take a different view.

The Minister said that sexual infidelity can be taken into account in dissolution proceedings in Scotland, but she also told us that in divorce proceedings in Scotland, adultery is a specific ground. She then sought to differentiate between adultery and sexual infidelity.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I have listened to as much as I can. There is only one ground for divorce, and that is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There are various ways in which that could be evidenced. If the hon. Gentleman is going to make his point, can he at least make it accurately?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In order to try to shorten matters, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about evidence. The Minister was saying that adultery is evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, but she does not think that sexual infidelity should be. If adultery is specifically identified as evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage in Scotland, why should sexual infidelity not be acknowledged in relation to the breakdown of a civil partnership?

Technical points have been made about the definition of sexual infidelity. I am sure that the details of the sexual infidelity would be set out in any pleadings and that the court would be able to reach a judgment. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland thinks that that will create a gravy train for lawyers. To say that is to suggest that he expects a lot of civil partnerships to be the subject of legal proceedings for their dissolution. I did not think that that was the case being put forward by the promoters of the Bill.

Amendment No. 237 is the most fundamental of this group of amendments. Amendment No. 236 would insert the word ''cessation'' because that is different language from dissolution. It is also the language that was adopted by Lord Lester in his Bill, which was designed to differentiate between marriage and relationships outside marriage, which have a looser bond. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 237, in clause 115, page 60, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—

'(a) the defender consents to the granting of decree of dissolution of the civil partnership,

(b) the defender has committed an act of sexual infidelity, or

(c) there has been no cohabitation between the civil partners at any time during a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the bringing of the action.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 13.

Clause 117 - Effect of resumption of cohabitation

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I had tabled an amendment to omit the clause because I take the view that the process of dissolving a partnership should be a lot easier than is currently contemplated. That fits in with the argument that I was making earlier, although that has been rejected by the Committee. The effect of clause 117 would be:

''In an action to which . . . section 115(3) relates, the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership is not taken to be established if, after the expiry of the period mentioned . . . the pursuer resumes cohabitation''.

That would not have made any sense at all with my earlier amendments, which dealt with a cessation after a short number of months. However, in the light of the fact that my earlier amendments were defeated, I will not press clause 117 to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 118 and 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120 - Nullity

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in clause 121, page 62, line 16, leave out '50' and insert

'50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e)'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 59 to 64.

Government new clause 5—Validity of civil partnerships registered outside Northern Ireland.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

This group of amendments refers to clause 121, which deals with the circumstances in which a civil partnership registered abroad is void or voidable in Scotland. A new clause to provide equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland consistent with clause 54 for England and Wales and clause 121 for Scotland, as amended, is also included in the group. The amendments are largely consequential on the addition of specific provisions for Northern Ireland following Government amendments to the Bill in another place.

Clause 121 concerns the circumstances in which a civil partnership is to be treated as void or voidable in Scotland when the parties originally registered as civil partners outside Scotland. That could be an issue when partners have subsequently moved to Scotland and the validity of the partnership fails to be determined by a court in Scotland.

Amendments Nos. 58 and 63 remove references to clause 50(1)(d), which refers to the issuing of an interim gender recognition certificate as a basis on which a civil partnership is voidable in England and Wales. In Scotland, the issuing of such a certificate is treated as grounds for dissolution of the partnership under clause 115(2)(b). Dissolution is to be treated under the Bill as a matter to which the law of the forum applies. For that reason, courts in England and Wales will not dissolve a partnership registered in Scotland on the basis that a gender recognition certificate has been issued as that is a basis for annulment, not a ground for dissolution there. By the same token, Scottish courts should not annul a civil partnership registered in England and Wales on the basis of such a certificate, but should maintain the Scottish approach of treating that as a ground on which a partnership may be dissolved.

Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 reflect the insertion into the Bill of new Northern Ireland provisions and correct the text of clause 121 to accommodate those. Amendment No. 62 creates the same effect as the text removed by amendment No. 58, but does so, dare I say it, in a more economic way.

The first part of amendment No. 64 is made for the same reasons as amendments Nos. 58 and 63. The new subsection (8A) is designed to apply English and Northern Irish procedural bars to annulment of a voidable partnership when the partnership is to be treated as voidable in Scotland on the basis that it was

registered in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or that English or Northern Irish law otherwise applies to the case. It would be wrong for a party to have the benefit of English or Northern Irish rules on nullity without having to surmount the procedural obstacles that would apply if bringing an action to have the partnership annulled in either of those two jurisdictions.

New subsections (8B) and (8C) are consequential on the other changes to the text already made by amendment No. 64.

The new clause inserted after clause 172 provides an equivalent provision for Northern Ireland and is, again, consistent with clause 54 and clause 121, as amended.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 59, in clause 121, page 62, line 19, leave out

'by virtue of provision made under section 149,'

and insert 'under section 169,'.

No. 60, in clause 121, page 62, line 21, leave out

'by virtue of such provision'

and insert

'under section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e)'.

No. 61, in clause 121, page 62, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

No. 62, in clause 121, page 62, line 32, after '(2)(a)' insert 'or (b)'.

No. 63, in clause 121, page 62, line 37, leave out from first 'voidable' to end of line 42 and insert 'if—

(i) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is England and Wales and the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), or

(ii) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Northern Ireland and the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e).

(5) The appropriate part of the United Kingdom is the part by reference to which the condition in subsection (2)(b) of the relevant section is met.'.

No. 64, in clause 121, page 63, line 7, leave out from 'law,' to end of line 15 and insert—

'(b) where either of the parties was domiciled in England and Wales at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), or

(c) where either of the parties was domiciled in Northern Ireland at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e).

(8A) Section 51 or (as the case may be) section 171 applies for the purposes of—

(a) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (4)(b),

(b) subsection (8)(a), in so far as applicable in accordance with the relevant law, and

(c) subsection (8)(b) and (c).

(8B) In subsections (8)(a) and (8A)(b) ''the relevant law'' means the law of the country or territory where the overseas relationship was registered (including its rules of private international law).

(8C) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A)(b) and (c), references in sections 50 and 51 or (as the case may be) sections 170 and 171 to the formation of the civil partnership are to be read as references to the registration of the overseas relationship.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 123 - Regulations

Clause 133 - Formation of civil partnership by registration

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 133, page 67, line 22, leave out 'civil partnership'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 8—Restriction on publicity of reports of proceedings.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I am delighted that we have moved on to part 4 of the Bill, which makes provision for civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. Part 4 is very much a mirror image of part 2, which deals with England and Wales, given the great similarities of legislative style and history between the two jurisdictions.

There are very few Government amendments. With the exception of a single drafting amendment, the other amendments as well as the schedule of minor and consequential amendments for Northern Ireland and two ancillary technical amendments were all taken for debate on Report in another place. Because of other difficulties, they were not moved and it was necessary to seek their inclusion in the Bill at this stage.

As I indicated, amendment No. 65 and new clause 8 deal with Northern Ireland. The first amendment is a textual one. It is a technical drafting amendment to remove certain unnecessary words from clause 133(5). The term ''registrar'' does not need to be qualified by the words ''civil partnership'', given the definition in clause 156.

New clause 8 inserts a new clause at the end of part 4 of the Bill to deal with a Northern Ireland law. The new clause extends section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes (Reports) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to civil partners. Section 1 of the 1966 Act makes it an offence to publish certain details in connection with judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage or judicial separation; proceedings relating to a declaration as to whether a civil partnership is valid; any proceedings by one spouse against the other for financial provision; or proceedings concerning another order made in connection with any such cause or matter. The amendment makes it an offence to disclose similar details in respect of civil partners involved in comparable judicial proceedings under the Civil Partnership Bill.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not propose to say much at this stage about the

clauses of the Bill that relate to Northern Ireland. I have a later amendment, which I hope we will get to this afternoon. It will afford an opportunity to discuss in more detail the views and concerns about aspects of the Bill that relate to the part of the United Kingdom that I represent.

However, I want to put it on the record that when the Government carried out a consultation in Northern Ireland prior to tabling the Bill before Parliament, the clear majority of responses were against their proposal. As my party leader pointed out on Second Reading, the 2001 census found that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Government say that at most only 5 per cent. of same-sex couples will commit to civil partnerships, only 14 of 288 households in Northern Ireland would seek to benefit from the arrangements for civil partnerships.

Frankly, we have other priorities in Northern Ireland and other issues for which we would like legislation before we get down to this kind of arrangement. That is why I shall oppose the Government's amendments. I do not believe that the Bill should apply in Northern Ireland, and the amendment that I will move this afternoon, should we come to it, will seek to make an arrangement whereby the Northern Ireland Assembly will have the right to the final say on the application of the Bill in Northern Ireland.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

In response to the hon. Gentleman, I wish to put it on the record that, since the consultation, we received an additional 403 letters from same-sex couples in Northern Ireland and from their friends and families when some doubts were raised about whether Northern Ireland would be included in the Bill.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If the hon. Lady's statistics are correct, they are at variance with those in the Government census in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady hinted at the end of her remarks that the letters were from the family and friends of same-sex couples in addition to same-sex couples. Some clarity is needed on that matter.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I wanted to put it on the record that when it appeared that the provisions would not extend to Northern Ireland, we received, I repeat, 403 letters from same-sex couples, from family and friends. That would properly reflect opinion and it deals with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in respect of consultation. I hope that that clarifies the matter; we have had representations from more than 14 people in Northern Ireland.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Clause 134 - Eligibility

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not recall agreeing to schedule 12 remaining part of the Bill.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

We dealt with schedule 12 some time

ago.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

I apologise for not paying attention, Mr. Cook.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

As Chairman, I find it rather comforting that I am not the only one who falls asleep.Clause 135 Notice of proposed civil partnership

Clause 135 - Notice of proposed civil partnership

Clause 138 - Objections

Clause 155 - Regulations

Clause 170 - Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 243, in clause 170, page 83, line 33, at end insert—

'(ca) at the time of its formation, the respondent was suffering from a communicable sexual disease;'.

The amendment mirrors amendment No. 227 to clause 50, which we could not debate in the previous sitting because of the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I have refrained from voting against many clauses in this part of the Bill because we want to get on to debate some of the amendments.

This is one of the amendments that I tabled so that we would have the opportunity to debate the subject and tease out the Government's thinking on it. I am sure that I will be attacked for saying that the amendment is a recognition that we are talking about same-sex marriage, when I am against same-sex marriage. However, I recognise that that is what the Bill is about and if we are going to have nullification of same-sex marriage, we might as well have the same grounds for voidability as we have for what I would call proper marriage.

The amendment would add a new ground and would make a civil partnership voidable if at the time of its formation the respondent was suffering from a communicable sexual disease. That is nothing new under the law in the sense that that is already the law as it applies to marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. For those who do not have the terms in front of them, section 12 of that Act provides that a marriage celebrated after 31 July should be voidable ''on the following grounds'' only. Many grounds are set out and ground (e) is that at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form.

The amendment is intended to put the provision in the Bill on a par with what happens under the law of marriage as it stands under the 1973 Act. Of course, the provision would be subject to the following clause, as it is under the 1973 Act. If the other party to the partnership—or, in terms of the 1973 Act, to the marriage—consents to or connives at this, that remove the grounds for nullity. However, in the absence of the other partner's knowledge, that would remain a ground on which a civil partnership would be voidable. It must be in the public interest to prevent a party to a civil partnership from finding out that the other party was carrying a communicable sexual disease at the time that the partnership was formed, without his or her knowledge. The provision is a necessary protection to be applied in those circumstances.

We do not need to go into the crisis in sexually transmitted diseases among people of all ages. However, you may be familiar, Mr. Cook, with the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology note No. 217, issued in April of this year and headed ''Teenage sexual health''. One can see from that the trends in sexually transmitted infections in 16 to 19-year-olds. To say that they present a horrendous picture is to understate the situation. We can see that

there have been percentage increases in the incidence of various sexually transmitted disease diagnoses that range from more than 50 per cent. to doubling. We are talking about quite small numbers, but there was a fivefold increase in one sexually transmitted disease.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Can the hon. Gentleman say how such provisions would be a protection, as they would simply void a civil partnership as they can void a marriage? Is that not closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? If we wish to protect people from communicable sexual diseases, it cannot be done by voiding a marriage. It must be done by proper education in such matters prior to people beginning sexual relations with each other, regardless of whether they are married, in civil partnerships or not. Even if he does not approve of it, he will surely admit that quite a lot of sexual relations go on outside of marriage.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I agree with the hon. Lady. We are not at odds on the matter, and I was quoting figures only to indicate that the problem is widespread. At present, if a party to a marriage, unknown to the other party, is carrying a sexually transmitted disease, that is a means of making that marriage null and void. We are not talking of something fanciful because the figures show that under this Government—this is not a party political point but a fact—such cases have become more commonplace. It is important that we should extend the same protection to those engaged in civil partnerships that we extend to those in lawful marriage.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The hon. Gentleman has just said something rather staggering, which is that the political colour of a Government seems to have some relationship to the level of sexually transmitted disease. If he stops and thinks, he will realise how ludicrous that actually is.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

When the hon. Lady reads the record, she will see that I did not say that. All I was doing was quoting the figures that happen to cover the period during which the Government have been in office. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton realises that, tempted as I was to make a party political point, I was not going to do so, and expressly said that I was not.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

As a parent, I share the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern about the prevalence of communicable sexual disease among young people, but he will be aware that in many communities one of the biggest sources of AIDS infections is among gay men who are in the closet, possibly even concealing their sexuality from themselves, who persist in heterosexual relationships and do not talk about such issues. That is one of the greatest sources of infection. If we are trying to address the prevalence of communicable disease, perhaps we should issue a call to gay men in the closet to come out today and stop infecting hapless women who have no means of knowing that they are in the closet.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am sure that the hon. Lady is right, but her argument goes slightly beyond the terms of the amendment, which is confined to what happens after

people have registered civil partnerships. It is only saying that in a situation where one of the parties to a civil partnership is the carrier of a sexually communicable disease and the other party does not know about it, that should be the ground of setting the relationship aside.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

What happens if the partner carrying the disease did not know about it either, and could not have done so?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not know about ''could not have done so''. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about matters relating to medicine to know which sexually communicable diseases are such that the carrier is ignorant of them. Even if both parties are ignorant of such a disease, under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, ignorance is no excuse. The law considers the facts, and if the other party to the marriage wishes to annul that marriage as a result of his or her marital partner having a sexually transmitted disease, they can do so under the 1973 Act.

If my amendment were carried, there would be no difference between what would happen in a civil partnership and what would happen in a lawful marriage. Although I have not been able to carry the Committee on several of my amendments, I would have thought that it would be concerned to protect the interests of a partner in a civil partnership who is ignorant to the fact that the other partner is carrying a sexually transmitted disease that would torpedo the effectiveness of the relationship.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As I understand it, no such provision exists for England, Scotland or Wales, so my hon. Friend is proposing an arrangement that does not obtain in any other part of the United Kingdom. Is there a reason for that?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Yes, the reason is that I tabled an amendment on this matter for England and Wales, which was not reached, so I had no chance to move it. This is an important issue, and I am sure that if the amendment were carried in relation to Northern Ireland, the Government would introduce on Report amendments reflecting the will of the Committee to extend the change to England and Wales and, subject to further advice, to Scotland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that an amendment originally tabled for discussion during the first part of the Bill was not reached because of the really mean guillotine motion introduced by the Government.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Amendment No. 243 would add the provision that a civil partnership would be voidable at the time of its formation if either partner were suffering from a communicable sexual disease. I must correct, with the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Buckingham: there is a provision in section 14 of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 for marriage to be voidable if the applicant can show that at the time of the marriage the other person was suffering from venereal disease in

a communicable form. That is a similar provision relating to the marriage law of England and Wales.

As hon. Members know, the Government's intention in drafting the Bill was that civil partners would be treated in the same way as spouses except where there was justification for a difference in treatment. This was one matter on which we felt that there was justification for difference. It is a medical fact that men and women may carry certain sexually transmitted infections for many years without knowing it, and we do not believe that it is appropriate in present-day circumstances to include that as a ground for nullifying a civil partnership. The deliberate transmission of a sexually transmitted infection might well be considered as a basis for dissolution, as a factor proving unreasonable behaviour.

I suggest that were we starting now to create marriage law, it would be highly questionable whether we would include such a provision in that law. It is a provision from a bygone age when, perhaps, we were less informed about sexually transmitted diseases. The Government have clearly stated in their national strategy for sexual health and HIV that we need to de-stigmatise the whole issue of sexually transmitted infections if we are to tackle the increasing infection rate, as two of my hon. Friends have said. Suggesting that sexually transmitted diseases should be treated differently from any other communicable diseases in that regard is counterproductive to that aim. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which adds nothing to the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Again, this has been a fascinating insight into the Government's thinking. The Minister has made an important policy announcement, namely that she does not believe that the existing Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the law relating to marriage in England, Scotland and Wales, should any longer, in the light of modern-day events, contain a provision that a marriage should be voidable on the ground that one of the parties to it has a communicable sexually transmitted disease. She is saying that although the Government are not introducing any amendments to marriage law to reflect her opinion on that at the moment they think that, contrary to everything else that has been said on equating this Bill with a marriage Bill, they should be anticipating such a change in the law on marriage and removing from this Bill any references to sexually transmitted disease as a ground for nullity.

That is rather analogous to the debate that we had earlier, prompted by my amendment on the process of registration and whether it would have to be carried out in the locality where the parties were living. The challenge that I put to the Minister is this: if it is reasonable to be thinking about changing this provision in marriage law in due course, and if the Government want to have this Bill on a par with the laws of marriage as far as possible, why is this provision not included in the Bill now so that when in future the Government decide to change marriage law they can at the same time change the law on civil partnerships? At the moment, if the amendment is not accepted, civil partnerships will be the only type of

marriage that may not be voided on the ground that one partner suffers from a sexually transmitted disease. So I will not withdraw my amendment.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland is looking into marriage law in Northern Ireland.

I also suggest to him that he should not put words into my mouth. I put on record that the situation in England and Wales would be questionable. The hon. Gentleman, in response to the hon. Member for Buckingham, obviously did not appreciate that. My opinion, which got some consideration in Committee, is that that is where we will start. The underlying principle of the Bill is, as the Government have suggested all along, that we will treat civil partnerships equally except where there is a justification not to do so. In this case, we think that there is a justification not to do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Yet again we seem to be on the verge of being beaten by the clock. Among the amendments and Government amendments yet to be debated are several important ones relating to pensions. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will put forward a change to the timetable so that we can debate all the Government amendments that are on the amendment paper for discussion between now and 11.25 am.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

In view of the discussions that have taken place in prior sittings of the Committee, that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Clause 170 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 171 to 189 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 - Wills, administration of estates and family provision: Northern Ireland

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 174, in schedule 15, page 239, line 18, at end insert—

'( ) In paragraph (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after ''paragraph (1A)'' insert ''or (1B)''.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 175 to 179.

Government amendments Nos. 168 and 169.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

These are minor consequential amendments that ensure that references to couples living together as husband and wife are clearly understood to apply also to cohabiting same-sex couples. All the provisions being amended by the amendments also apply to spouses and have, therefore, been extended to civil partners in the Bill.

The amendments are being tabled because of consideration of the Civil Partnership Bill in the context of the judgment given on 21 June 2004 in the case of Ghaidan v. Mendoza. In that case, the House of Lords confirmed that tenancy legislation would be incompatible with the European convention on human rights if it treated a same-sex couple less favourably than an unmarried opposite-sex couple. The Lords ruled that, to prevent such an incompatibility, the courts should interpret the reference in that legislation to persons living together as husband and wife as applying equally to same-sex couples. That is an important ruling of potentially wide application in analogous circumstances.

The amendments are needed to preserve the effect of the Mendoza judgment in the new context created by the introduction of civil partnership. If we do not make these drafting changes, courts and legal advisors could be unsure of Parliament's intention—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [19 October], as amended [21 October], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Amendments proposed: No. 174, in schedule 15, page 239, line 18, at end insert—

'( ) In paragraph (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after ''paragraph (1A)'' insert ''or (1B)''.'.

No. 175, in schedule 15, page 239, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) After paragraph (1A) insert—

''(1B) This paragraph applies to a person if for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died the person was living—

(a) in the same household as the deceased, and

(b) as the civil partner of the deceased.' ''.

No. 176, in schedule 15, page 240, line 5, at end insert—

'In Article 5(2A) (application by person living as husband or wife of deceased: matters to which court is to have regard), in sub-paragraph (a), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Question put, That the amendments be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Schedule 16 - Appeal against refusal to issue civil partnership schedule

Schedule 18 - Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership

Clause 201 - Fatal accidents claims

Clause 204 - Meaning of ''overseas relationship''

Schedule 21 - Meaning of overseas relationship: specified relationships

Clause 206 - The general conditions

Clause 208 - The same-sex requirement

Clause 229 - Supplementary provisions relating to recognition of dissolution etc.

Standing Committee D

Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I rise because I had occasion earlier today to read Hansard for the third sitting on Thursday 21 October. This issue arises because I did not check the record before it was printed, as one has a chance to do, and I apologise to the Committee for that.

In my speech, which begins in column 104, I used the phrase ''gay and lesbian people'' rather a lot. However, Hansard has recorded ''gay'' but missed out ''lesbian''. In some areas, ''gay'' refers overwhelmingly to men and does not include women. I just want to make it clear on the record, if that is possible, that I said ''gay and lesbian'' and that all my references to ''gay'' in Hansard also refer to lesbians. Part of the trouble that lesbians have is that they are invisible, and I do not want to be seen to fall into that trap. I request that Hansard include the word ''lesbian'' if it passes my lips.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. Would the hon. Lady accept that it is shorter and simpler just to say same-sex?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The point of order is for the Chair. I would appreciate it if hon. Members would address their point of order to the Chair and not elsewhere.

On the point of order, I am happy that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to put her concerns on the record. I am sure that Hansard will print her comments very clearly on this occasion, and I hope that she will be able to point to the appropriate column to correct any misunderstanding of her earlier comments.

Schedule 24 - Social security, child support and tax credits

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in schedule 24, page 319, line 19, at end insert—

'In section 8 (role of the courts with respect to maintenance for children), after subsection (11)(e) insert—

''(ea) Schedule 6, 7 or 8 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or''.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 80 to 95.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

These amendments to do with social

security legislation have been identified in addition to those already included in schedule 24. If I spell out what schedule 24 covers, it may be helpful in understanding the amendments.

The schedule makes consequential changes to legislation covering child support, social security, pensions, benefits and tax credits. The amendments are a necessary consequence of the Bill's proposals for a new legal status for same-sex couples in the UK and are technical in nature. They do not seek to change the way in which the social security system operates but will ensure parity of treatment between opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The general intention is to ensure that civil partners are treated in the same way as married couples.

Furthermore, provision is made for same-sex couples who are not in a civil partnership but who live together as if they were civil partners to be treated in the same way as unmarried opposite-sex couples who are living together as husband and wife. These general principles are applied throughout the schedule.

Parts 1, 2, 8 and 9 cover child support arrangements. Parts 3 and 4 make a range of arrangements in respect of the income-related benefits, including income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, child benefit and guardian's allowance, adult dependency increases and state pensions, bereavement benefits, and various miscellaneous administrative arrangements. Parts 5 and 6 make similar social security arrangements in respect of certain benefits in Northern Ireland; parts 7 and 10 cover claims for jobseeker's allowance from joint claim couples; part 11 covers state pension credit and part 12 amends tax credits legislation.

Schedule 24, as I am sure hon. Members who have had a chance to read it in detail will confirm, is very full. However, we identified in addition to the areas already covered in schedule 4, a few amendments. Government amendments Nos. 79 to 95 are a necessary consequence of the Bill's proposals for a new legal relationship of civil partnerships for same-sex couples in the UK. They do not seek to change the way that the social security legislation operates but simply ensure the parity of treatment that I have outlined. They are in addition to the considerable range of issues already covered in schedule 24. On that basis I commend them to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 80, in schedule 24, page 320, line 32, at end insert—

'In Article 10 (role of the courts with respect to maintenance for children), after paragraph (11)(d) insert—

''(da) Schedule 16, 17 or 18 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or''.'.

No. 81, in schedule 24, page 325, line 16, at end insert—

'In section 61A (contributions paid in error), in subsection (3)—

(a) after ''spouse'' insert ''or civil partner'', and

(b) in paragraph (b), for ''widows or widowers'' substitute ''widows, widowers or surviving civil partners''.'.

No. 82, in schedule 24, page 326, line 13, at end insert—

'In section 113 (general provisions as to disqualification and suspension), in subsection (1), for ''wife or husband,'' substitute ''wife, husband or civil partner,''.'.

No. 83, in schedule 24, page 328, line 4, at end insert—

'In section 171ZL (entitlement to statutory adoption pay), in subsection (4)(b)—

(a) after ''married couple'' insert ''or civil partnership'', and

(b) after ''spouse'' (in each place) insert ''or civil partner''.'.

No. 84, in schedule 24, page 328, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) In paragraph 5(2)(a)(ii) of Part 1, after ''spouses'' insert ''or civil partners''.'.

No. 85, in schedule 24, page 330, line 5, leave out paragraph 58 and insert—

'58 (1) Amend section 107 (recovery of expenditure on income support: additional amounts and transfer of orders) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(b), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.

(3) In subsection (15), after paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of ''maintenance order'' insert—

''(iii) any order under Schedule 8 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for the making of periodical payments or for the payment of a lump sum;''.'.

No. 86, in schedule 24, page 334, line 14, at end insert—

' In section 61A (contributions paid in error), in subsection (3)—

(a) after ''spouse'' insert ''or civil partner'', and

(b) in paragraph (b), for ''widows or widowers'' substitute ''widows, widowers or surviving civil partners''.'.

No. 87, in schedule 24, page 335, line 10, at end insert—

'In section 113 (general provisions as to disqualification and suspension), in subsection (1), for ''wife or husband,'' substitute ''wife, husband or civil partner,''.'.

No. 88, in schedule 24, page 337, line 3, at end insert—

'In section 167ZL (entitlement to statutory adoption pay), in subsection (4)(b)—

(a) after ''married couple'' insert ''or civil partnership'', and

(b) after ''spouse'' (in each place) insert ''or civil partner''.'.

No. 89, in schedule 24, page 337, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) In paragraph 5(2)(a)(ii) of Part 1, after ''spouses'' insert ''or civil partners''.'.

No. 90, in schedule 24, page 339, line 13, at end insert—

'In section 3 (the income-based conditions), in subsection (1)(dd) and (e), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.

In section 15 (effect on other claimants), in subsection (2)(b), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.

In section 15A (trade disputes: joint-claim couples), in subsection (5)(c), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.'.

No. 91, in schedule 24, page 339, line 15, at end insert—

'In section 31 (termination of awards), in subsections (1) and (2), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.'.

No. 92, in schedule 24, page 339, line 40, at end insert—

'In Schedule 1 (supplementary provisions), in paragraph 9C(1),

for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.'.

No. 93, in schedule 24, page 341, line 33, at end insert—

'In Article 5 (the income-based conditions), in paragraphs (1)(dd) and (e), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.

In Article 17 (effect on other claimants), in paragraph (2)(b), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.

In Article 17A (trade disputes: joint-claim couples), in paragraph (5)(c), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.'.

No. 94, in schedule 24, page 341, line 35, at end insert—

'In Article 32 (termination of awards), in paragraphs (1) and (2), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.

In Schedule 1 (supplementary provisions), in paragraph 9C(1), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.'.

No. 95, in schedule 24, page 341, line 35, at end insert—

Amendments of the Social Security Act 1998 (c.14)

(1) Amend section 72 (power to reduce child benefit for lone parents) as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after ''spouse'' (in each place) insert ''or civil partner''.

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

''(3) For the purpose of this section, a parent is to be regarded as living with another person as his civil partner if, but only if, he would be regarded as living with the other person as his spouse, were they instead two people of the opposite sex.''

Part 10B

Amendments of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1506 (N.I. 10))

(1) Amend Article 68 (power to reduce child benefit for lone parents) as follows.

(2) In paragraph (2), after ''spouse'' (in each place) insert ''or civil partner''.

(3) After paragraph (2) insert—

''(3) For the purpose of this Article, a parent is to be regarded as living with another person as his civil partner if, but only if, he would be regarded as living with the other person as his spouse, were they instead two people of the opposite sex.''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 245 - Power to amend enactments relating to pensions

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 180, in clause 245, page 119, line 23, after 'amendments', insert

'(including the power to make retrospective pension provision)'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 181, in clause 245, page 119, line 25, after 'pensions', insert

'(including private sector schemes, both contracted-in and contracted-out)'.

Amendment No. 244, in clause 245, page 119, line 41, at end insert

'and calculated on the same basis'.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I place on record my appreciation of the great progress that the

Government have made in respect of pension provisions in the Bill. At the end of consideration on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), announced that same-sex couples in public service schemes would benefit from equal treatment with married couples or mixed-sexed couples in relation to the backdating of their entitlement to 1988. The Minister said that that did not require amendments to the Bill. On this occasion, I am happy simply to let the Government honour their word.

The amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon relate to those people who become parties to civil partnerships and who are in receipt of income from a private scheme. It is a mopping-up exercise. It is accepted that 75 per cent. of the schemes that would be affected by the amendments—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

91 per cent.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that the figure is 91 per cent. The figure that I used came from a Unison briefing that was given to me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain how he got to 91 per cent. At any rate, we are talking about a high level of provision as matters stand. The Unison briefing, which was supported by both Unison and Amicus, also shows that the figure for those funds that persist in not accepting same-sex couples is only 9 per cent.

The question is straightforward. It is one of equality of provision. That lies at the heart of the Bill. The amendment would place an obligation on all such schemes to make that provision. I am sorry to labour the point about the small number of pension funds that are affected but it is important because it means that the cost would be fairly minimal. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what that cost would be, but we can say with a degree of confidence that it would be fairly small.

A number of different groups are affected. One group that has been brought to my attention is that of those who previously contributed to public sector pension service schemes but were then contracted out as the service that they were providing was privatised or contracted out. The important point to note is that those people are often on the lowest of incomes, and any assistance that can be given to them would have a considerable—one might almost say, a disproportionate—effect. As I said on Second Reading about public service pensions, there is also a spin-off benefit in that if people are to obtain benefits from pension schemes in that way, they would obviously not be relying on state benefits such as pension credit and the like.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I apologise in advance if I am being slow in picking up the hon. Gentleman's argument. Amendment No. 180 is clearly about enshrining the power of retrospection. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that, on the whole, he thinks that, in relation to contracted-out arrangements operated by the private sector, good

practice will tend to prevail but that the purpose of his amendment is to adopt a belt-and-braces approach?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

In essence, that is what I am saying in a roundabout way. The fact that only 9 per cent. of pension funds do not recognise same-sex couples gives weight to the argument. That figure is down from 12 per cent. in 2000, so the trend is on our side. However, when we have an opportunity at this stage in legislation to make provision for everyone, it is incumbent on us to take that opportunity. That is why I felt it was important to start by accentuating the positive.

The Government have taken on the bulk of people who were going to suffer some discrimination but there remain a small but significant number of people who will be affected and placed in an unequal position. Accordingly, it was necessary to table the amendments in order to hear the Government's position on the matter.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I rise to speak to my amendment No. 244, make an observation about amendment No. 180 and discuss the general issue. One of the best discussions of this issue one finds appears on page 12 in the Fifteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—paper HL 136. It sets out the problem with the Bill as drafted prior to the Government making their welcome announcement on Second Reading that they would remedy it. The Bill extends to civil partners survivor pension rights, first to the state pension as provided for in clause 244 and in paragraph 3 of schedule 23. It is available to surviving civil partners.

I thank the Government for happily conceding that there was a problem with the Bill on Second Reading. As it was originally drafted, it would have entitled survivors who were civil partners to approved pensions only from the date of the commencement of the Bill rather than 1988 when most other survivor pension rights are due.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) was somewhat sceptical when my right hon. Friend the Minister announced at the beginning of the debate that she and the Government were willing to consider the issue again. The hon. Gentleman decided, rather cynically, that it was a way of getting her through Second Reading. Happily, that uncharacteristic burst of cynicism was gloriously proved to be completely unfounded when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland announced at the end of that debate that the Government had seen a way through the problem and were willing to ensure in secondary legislation that survivors' benefits in state occupational pensions would go back, as with the vast majority of other provision, to 1998.

It is important to say that this is an issue of equity and not retrospectivity. It bears on the wording of amendment No. 180. People who have not been allowed to register partnerships or get married pay the same contributions as those who have. Even though they are in parallel circumstances they have never been able to benefit from the survivor benefits of

either a state pension or, increasingly, the vast majority of private occupational pension schemes. The Government's late but welcome change of heart says not that there is retrospectivity, because that is enormously disruptive to existing pension schemes and should be avoided, but that there is equity for contributions already paid. It is an important distinction, which the wording of amendment No. 180 fudges.

Turning to the final amendment in this group, it is welcome that the Government have conceded in respect of the vast majority of survivor benefits dating back to 1988. Only the small percentage of people who are in private sector schemes, having contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, would—as things stand at the moment and without Government amendment—qualify for survivor benefits. On the figures put forward, only 9 per cent. of those in private sector schemes would qualify for survivors' benefit from 2005, which is when, we understand, the Bill will come into effect. Again, it seems wrong that that anomaly should remain, which is why I tabled amendment No. 244. I doubt whether the drafting is as perfect as it might be in the circumstances—this is a complex Bill—but it emphasises that there is a small group of people in an anomalous position.

When I was a Minister at the then Department of Social Security, individuals in contracted-out schemes were not put at a disadvantage from the position they would have been in if they had been in non-contracted out, SERPS-based schemes. At present, a small group of people will be at a disadvantage. Unison has made submissions and representations to me, as has Amicus, other trade unions and the Trades Union Congress, and they have a fair point. I shall be interested to see whether my right hon. Friend the Minister will be as accommodating on this last remaining kink in the survivors' pension issue as she was on Second Reading. If that were so, I am sure that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would, with joy in his heart, withdraw his amendment and await what she introduced on Report.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

I am slightly puzzled by the meaning of the words in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). Clause 245(4) allows—it does not compel—the provision with respect to widows, widowers and independent persons to be made in different ways. The hon. Lady wants to add the words

''and calculated on the same basis.''

I cannot get my head round that. On the same basis as what, and will it be ''may'' or ''should''? Perhaps I do not fully understand the grammar, but it may also be puzzling for lawyers. Perhaps the Minister is convinced that it makes sense. If she is and can explain, I would go along with it, but I cannot make clear sense of it at the moment, so I ask the Minister to do so.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Today's debate has, to some extent, been a continuation of the case made by some of my

hon. Friends on Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey identified, it was made very strongly by several of my hon. Friends, Stonewall, several trade unions, the TUC and many individual correspondents with me and other Ministers. The Government have listened carefully to the debate on survivor pension provision for civil partners and to those representations from the wide range of organisations and colleagues from whom they have come. That is why, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, we announced on Second Reading that surviving civil partners in public service schemes will accrue rights on the basis of service from 1988. That will not require further amendment to the Bill, because public service schemes already have sufficient powers to amend their schemes in line with that announcement. As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have said, that provides equality and parity for the vast majority of those pension schemes that do not already have a parity of provision in survivor benefits for same-sex and opposite-sex partners.

However, my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have identified and continued to push for the final piece in the jigsaw of equality, if I may put it like that, on the Bill's current position on the rules around pensions that are contracted out. The Government have some sympathy with the argument that the picture will be complete when we are able to insert that last piece of the jigsaw, so I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has further agreed that all members of contracted-out pension schemes will be able to build up rights for surviving civil partners on the basis of the contracted-out rights accrued from 1988. That will achieve the objective rightly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey of providing parity of treatment for surviving civil partners in contracted-out schemes—for example, survivors of members of schemes such as the privatised utility or transport companies.

That will require amendment to the Bill, and I know that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have attempted in amendments Nos. 180 and 244. On judging between those, I am more taken by the arguments of my hon. Friend, whose amendment recognises this as an issue of equality and parity, than I am with the wording of amendment No. 180, which sees it as an issue of retrospection. However, even though I am more taken with my hon. Friend's arguments—this partly responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—a problem with amendment No. 244 is that I cannot be certain that it technically would achieve what it sets out to achieve, which is to allow schemes to calculate survivor benefits on the same basis as for widowers.

In fact, neither amendment would achieve precisely what we need, but I hope that hon. Members will be reassured if I say that following the agreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to which I have already alluded, the Government will further consider what amendment

to clause 245 is needed to ensure that its power can be used to require schemes that contract out to provide survivor benefits for civil partners on the basis of members' contracted-out rights accrued from 1988, and that we will look to introduce an amendment to fulfil that commitment on Report.

That will address the concerns that have been brought to our attention about employees in private pension schemes. It will achieve, as far as possible, pensions equality with surviving spouses in the requirements about surviving civil partners of members of contracted-out pension schemes. It is in line with the Government's policy on civil partnerships and with the decision on public service schemes announced on Second Reading. As I have suggested, that should meet all the concerns expressed by hon. Members and others outside the House of Commons, and I hope that on that basis, hon. Members will not seek to press their amendments.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

My right hon. Friend's response, again, has filled us all with joy, at least on the Government side of the Committee, and I suspect various Members on the Opposition Benches. We all like to see jigsaws completed, especially jigsaws of equality.

I have no pretension to being a lawyer, and although I do not have the chance to withdraw my amendment, there are those in government much better qualified than me to get the technicalities right to bring about the aim that my right hon. Friend has just expressed. As a former social security Minister, I would like to say that the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has had a positive effect, and I would like to place on record my thanks to him and Treasury Ministers for being so understanding. I look forward to the final piece of the jigsaw being put in place on Report.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister leaves me at something of a loss. As far as I have understood it, proceedings in this place run something roughly along these lines: we make eminently sensible suggestions, Ministers stand up, suck their teeth and say, ''We'd like to, but we can't really'', there is a vote, we lose and that is the end of it. I did not realise until today that the mere expression of my scepticism was such a powerful tool. I shall bear that in mind for future reference.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to entertain unrealistic expectations, but is this the first example of pre-emptive gratification that he has enjoyed and does he not think that we can look forward to other examples from the Treasury in future?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am trying to get my mind round the concept of pre-emptive gratification. I suppose that I should take my hands out of my pockets as I do so.

I am grateful to the Minister for having taken on the concerns, and in such circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in clause 245, page 120, line 10, leave out from '(1)' to 'may' in line 14.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 78.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

This is a slightly less exciting but nevertheless important Government amendment, which contains the power to amend existing provisions within pensions legislation to make provision for surviving civil partners or dependents of deceased civil partners. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the power will fulfil a useful purpose in line with the overall policy of the Bill. We have made it clear that we intend to use that power to amend the contracting-out rules governing private and public sector pensions, the judicial pension schemes and church legislation in relation to survivor pension benefits.

In the other place, Lord Higgins drew attention to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which recommends that in the clause either some indication of the policy should be included or, failing that, any order made under the clause, whether it amends an Act or not, should be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure. Ideally, we would have included all those provisions in the Bill.

Clause 246 and schedule 25, which we shall come to, already include amendments to statutory pension schemes, but pensions legislation is immensely complex and detailed, as I have discovered during the past few weeks. It is therefore important to ensure that the changes made by the Bill fit with the overall scheme of that legislation, particularly as the Pensions Bill currently progressing through Parliament will make further changes.

I am happy to accept, however, that the exercising of the power that we are taking in the clause should be subject to full parliamentary agreement through use of the affirmative procedure, as the House of Lords required. That is what Government amendments Nos. 77 and 78 achieve.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I welcome the amendment as a step in the right direction, because without it the existing power would be extremely wide. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would answer a question that still troubles me. She said that clause 245 is subject to amendment because pensions legislation is very complicated. Similarly, inheritance tax law is highly complex. Why have the Government been prepared to incorporate in the Bill detailed provisions and powers in respect of pensions but have not been able to do anything about inheritance tax?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As has been said previously, while we can appropriately legislate through the order-making power in respect of pensions in this legislation, it is a long-standing convention, not only of this Government, that tax provisions are the subject of Finance Bills because of the interrelatedness of all such matters. We made it completely clear that the inheritance tax implications of our policy will be made real in the first available Finance Bill. That is the right and appropriate place for considering such

provisions, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my assurance in respect of the policy that we have set down.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

When the Minister says ''the first available'', does she mean the first one?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, I mean the first available Bill in which it is appropriate to put into place the tax changes that would come from the policy set out in this Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will certainly be in the position when we implement the provisions of the Bill also to have in place the tax provisions that will stem from it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 78, in clause 245, page 120, line 24, leave out subsections (11) and (12).—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 245, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 246 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 25 agreed to.

Clause 247 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 26 agreed to.

Clauses 248 and 249 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 250 - Community obligations and civil partners

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 250, page 123, line 16, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

'(1) Subsection (2) applies where any person, by Order in Council or regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) (general implementation of Treaties)—

(a) is making provision for the purpose of implementing, or for a purpose concerning, a Community obligation of the United Kingdom which relates to persons who are or have been parties to a marriage, or

(b) has made such provision and it has not been revoked.

(2) The appropriate person may by Order in Council or (as the case may be) by regulations make provision in relation to persons who are or have been civil partners in a civil partnership that is the same or similar to the provision referred to in subsection (1).'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 115.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause confers a power to make domestic provision for civil partners if European Community legislation requiring implementation deals with persons who are or have been married or whose marriage is void, but is silent about persons who are or have been in a civil partnership or whose civil partnership was void.

The amendments have the effect of making possible the exercising of the power in clause 250 by any person who is exercising the power in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or who would have that power if section 2(2) were being used at the same time as the exercising of the power in clause 250. That includes the devolved Administrations, in circumstances in which they would have the power to use section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. The amendments

ensure that the power in clause 250 is available where implementing measures are being made under section 2(2), and also where they have already been made.

The amendments add a power to make Orders in Council alongside the existing power to make regulations, and they apply to statutory instruments made under clause 250 the same procedural provisions that apply to instruments made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.

I have no doubt that that is clear to members of the Committee.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Yes, I will and, what is more, I will answer the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not think that in the parity of states one could wish for anything better. It is as clear as clear can be. However, I wonder whether the Minister would like to demonstrate her knowledge of the extent of the clarity by providing a practical example that we can long savour. I am sure that most of us strongly support what is proposed, but it would be quite helpful to know what it actually means.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I would be delighted to explain to the Committee that the issue relates to the fact that although some EU legislation refers to a person's spouse, to date there has been little mention of registered or civil partners. That is basically the problem that we are trying to identify. We should be able to have a power that is analogous with that in section 2(2) of the 1972 Act in order to ensure that we can include civil partners. The new directive 2004/38/EC on free movement for EU citizens and their families may mark a turning point. However, there is no guarantee that future Community legislation will deal either at all, or clearly, with the position of civil partners. This power therefore enables the Government to make comparable domestic provision for civil partners where Community legislation requiring implementation deals with married persons but is silent in relation to civil partners.

For example, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has relatively recently made an Order in Council under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act—I am sure that both the Act and the order will be familiar to hon. Members—to implement Community obligations relating to maintenance. It would not want to be restricted in the future to making regulations in order to avail itself of the power in clause 250 to make comparable provisions for civil partners. In other words, we could use the power in clause 250 to make provision for civil partners that is parallel with that being made, in respect of the example on which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pressed me—by section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.

With that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 115, in clause 250, page 123, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7) and insert—

'(4) ''The appropriate person'' means—

(a) if subsection (1)(a) applies, the person making the provision referred to there;

(b) if subsection (1)(b) applies, any person who would have power to make the provision referred to there if it were being made at the time of the exercise of the power under subsection (2).

(5) The following provisions apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (2) to make an Order in Council or regulations as they apply in relation to the power conferred by section 2(2) of the 1972 Act to make an Order in Council or regulations—

(a) paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act (procedure etc.in relation to making of Orders in Council and regulations: general);

(b) paragraph 15(3)(c) of Schedule 8 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46) (modifications of paragraph 2 in relation to Scottish Ministers and to Orders in Council made on the recommendation of the First Minister);

(c) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act (modifications of paragraph 2 in relation to Northern Ireland departments etc.)and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I.12)) (treating the power conferred by subsection (2) as conferred by an Act passed before 1st January 1974 for the purposes of the application of that Order);

(d) section 29(3) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) (modifications of paragraph 2 in relation to the National Assembly for Wales).'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 250, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 251 - Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and revocations

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 116, in clause 251, page 124, line 2, at end insert—

'(2A) Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland) contains minor and consequential amendments relating to Northern Ireland.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 127 to 135.

Amendment No. 230, in schedule 27, page 352, line 29, leave out paragraph 17.

Amendment No. 231, in schedule 27, page 352, line 31, leave out paragraph 18.

Government amendments Nos. 136 to 160.

Government amendments Nos. 99 to 113.

Government amendment No. 117.

Government new clause 3—Evidence.

Government new clause 7—Evidence (No.2).

Government new schedule 1—Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

These amendments will seem positively straightforward in comparison with some previous amendments. They make a number of changes to the minor and consequential amendments in schedules 27 and 28. Schedule 27 relates to England and Wales and schedule 28 relates to Scotland. New schedule 1 is a new minor and consequential amendments schedule for Northern Ireland. A number of small amendments are also being made to schedule 29 and to clauses 251 and 252. Those amendments are largely technical in nature. They are

uncontroversial and they complement those already included in the Bill.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The Minister says that these are all minor amendments, but I congratulate the Government on the comprehensiveness of their desire to achieve equality, not least because they have noticed that some civil partners might have suffered the terrible injustice of not being able to retain a licence to hold a slaughterhouse after a death has occurred. The Government are being very comprehensive.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. He is right; an awful lot of work has gone into trawling legislation that, as I suggested, goes back to the 1600s and the Declinature Acts. There is an awful lot of legislation to which minor and consequential amendments have been necessary because of the policy intentions of the Bill. I pay tribute to all those who did the trawling.

As I suggested, the amendments are largely technical in nature. They are uncontroversial and complement those in the Bill. The additions to schedules 27 and 28 add references to a civil partner alongside existing references to a spouse. In several cases, the amendments provide clarification. For example, they clarify that the same exemption from giving evidence and the same limitations to that exemption would apply to civil partners as to married couples.

An example is the amendment to the Civil Evidence Act 1968 and the addition of new clauses 3 and 7, which ensure that civil partners are exempt from liability to be a compellable witness against their partner. That exemption is similar to the one currently enjoyed by spouses. Proposed subsection (1) of new clause 3, to be added after clause 82, inserts into the Bill provision that:

''Any enactment or rule of law relating to the giving of evidence by a spouse''

will also apply to the giving of evidence by a civil partner. However, subsection (2) sets out that the general provision in subsection (1) is subject to

''any specific amendment made by or under this Act which relates to the giving of evidence by a civil partner.''

In some cases, it will be helpful to amend specific provisions in other enactments or rules.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

Given that we just decided that clause 249 should stand part of the Bill, does not the Minister have the power to make such subsequent amendments anyway?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 249 gives the power to make subsequent amendments, but it is right that we have done the trawling job and made clear in this legislation the implications for the vast variety of legislation that appears in schedules 27 and 28 and in the new schedule on Northern Ireland. The fact that we were able to do that provides certainty about the intent of the legislation. Of course, it is possible that we have missed something. The Bill is comprehensive, but we may have missed something, so it is important that the power set out in clause 249 is there as well.

I was speaking to new clause 3, which relates to the limit on the compellability of civil partners to give

evidence against their partner. New clause 7, which is to be added after clause 201, mirrors new clause 3 and provides that the same rules of law that apply to the giving of evidence by a spouse in Northern Ireland also apply to the giving of evidence by a civil partner in the same circumstances. The Government's aim in tabling the amendments is to provide clarity and consistency. The amendments clarify that the same exemption from giving evidence, and the same limitations to that exemption, that apply to married couples will apply to civil partners.

However, the amendments cover other areas as well. Amendment No. 105 removes from schedule 28 an amendment to the Family Law Act 1986 ensuring that civil partnership proceedings would be recognised by the Scottish court. As the 1986 Act is a UK-wide measure and the required amendments for England, Wales and Northern Ireland are to be achieved by regulation, the necessary Scottish amendments will also be achieved through regulation to ensure consistency throughout the UK.

The Government's aim in tabling the amendments to schedules 27 and 28 is to provide clarity and consistency. All the amendments are consistent with the overall policy aim, which is to create provision for civil partners where legislation currently does so for marriage.

As I said, the new schedule adds an equivalent to schedules 27 and 28 for Northern Ireland. The thrust of the amendments to existing legislation in Northern Ireland follows exactly the same principle as the amendments to schedules 27 and 28, which is to extend the scope of the legislation being amended so that the rights, responsibilities and privileges attaching to marriage will attach also to civil partnership. The differences between the Northern Ireland schedule of minor and consequential amendments and schedule 27 simply reflect the different legislative history in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the amendments and new clauses will have the support of the Committee.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I should like briefly to address my amendments Nos. 230 and 231. Amendment No. 230 would remove paragraph 17 of schedule 27, and amendment No. 231 would remove paragraph 18. As members of the Committee are well aware, I take the view that it is a mistake to make civil partnership equivalent to marriage in all but name, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Some of the amendments, in particular the new clause on the Civil Evidence Act 1995, to which the Minister referred, emphasise my concerns that we are seeking to set up one type of relationship outside marriage in a position that is superior to that of other relationships. I do not understand why people who are cohabiting as husband and wife should not be able to have the same protection under the 1995 Act as people who have entered a civil partnership, but that is the import of her comments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton disagrees with me about that issue, but I know

that he respects our differences. I am sure that he would not wish me to miss this opportunity of reminding the Committee of my concerns. I have not been voting against all the Government amendments and new clauses, because I believe that it is important that we get on and discuss the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), as the applicability of the Bill to Northern Ireland is a serious issue. We should get on with that.

My amendment puts into legal language my concern that a person should not be prevented from entering a real marriage because of a subsisting civil partnership that may have broken down but of which the other party is unwilling to let go. The amendment would ensure that, in such a situation, a civil partner would be able to enter a legal marriage.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Does the hon. Gentleman realise what contempt he shows and what hurt he causes when he uses pejorative terms such as ''real marriage'' to refer to the difference between civil partners who clearly cannot get married and those in marriage? Does he not think that it is time to reflect on the effect of such language on those involved?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I know that the hon. Lady sincerely holds different views from mine on this issue, but she will be aware that there is now such a thing as same-sex marriage in some European jurisdictions. I do not know whether she would describe same-sex marriage in those jurisdictions as real or unreal marriage. The language that we were brought up with in our everyday lives is now being changed. For example, people coming to my advice centre who describe themselves as partners now have to emphasise that they are cohabiting heterosexual partners, because all the emphasis now is on partnership equalling same-sex partnership. The word ''partner'' is being changed in its everyday usage, in the same way in which the word ''gay'' was changed a generation ago.

The hon. Lady takes up this issue of real marriages as opposed to other partnerships. I emphasise—and this is the Government's view—that there is only one institution of marriage, and that is heterosexual marriage. Unfortunately, that is not now reflected in some of our European partners' jurisdictions. However, I pray in aid what happens in Portugal, where a subsequent marriage of a civil partner has the effect of dissolving that civil partnership and enabling the marriage to proceed.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say earlier that he was not forcing Divisions in order that we might get to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley? Is he therefore conceding the point that the practice of repeated Division calling obstructs the progress of the Committee?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am not saying that such proceedings obstruct the progress of the Committee. What I am saying—I surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand this—is that I resent the fact that we have not been able to debate this Bill as much as we would have wished, because of the timetable constraints imposed upon us. It is intolerable that, because of the

guillotines, about 100 clauses have not been debated, including a host of Government amendments that could have been tabled in the other place.

I am sure that when the Bill returns to the other place, their Lordships will be very concerned that a number of Government amendments have not been properly considered in Committee. That is not my fault; it is the fault of the Government's insensitivity to the Bill's controversial nature and their reluctance to agree to a more realistic timetable. This Bill is tantamount to a constitutional Bill. It will have a severe and major impact on the way in which people conduct themselves and on legal relationships. The Government should have been prepared to give as much time as was needed to debate it in Committee.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's amendments refer to the deletion of a couple of paragraphs. I hope that he will confine his comments more directly to the amendments rather than ramble about constitutional change.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am sorry, Mr. Cook. I only got into that subject in response to an intervention.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return his attention to the amendments.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I shall certainly do so.

Before I gave way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I was concluding my remarks on amendment No. 230. Amendment No. 231 has a similar effect in relation to paragraph 18, and I expect that it will find as little favour with the Committee as some of my other amendments, but that does not mean that the idea that a subsequent marriage should be sufficient to dissolve a civil partnership is not already part of the law in Portugal. There is much to be said for making such provision in this country, because it would enable people to continue to get married when they wished to do so, if neither of them had previously been party to a marriage. The Bill creates a new bar on legal marriage, and my amendment would remove that bar.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We got to the meat of the hon. Gentleman's amendments towards the end of his remarks. First, he is proposing to remove the Government's proposed amendment to section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which will add as an additional ground the provision that a marriage will be void if at the time of the marriage either party is already a civil partner. Secondly, amendment No. 231 would remove the provision that the Bill adds to section 14 of the 1973 Act. The Government's amendment to paragraph 18 of schedule 27 provides that a marriage governed by law outside England and Wales will not be treated as valid if at the time of the celebration either party was already a civil partner.

The crux of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman, as he said at the end of his remarks, wants there to be no restriction to prevent people currently in a civil partnership from entering a marriage. To be honest, I do not believe that he takes that view because he wants us to maintain consistency with Portugal. He takes such a view because he wants civil partnership to be

something that people can drift in and out of, and which has no significance whatever. The Government disagree.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I agree exactly with the Minister's critique of my hon. Friend's amendment. May I put it to her that a theme underlying the whole debate is that the essential contradiction in my hon. Friend's position, and that of people who think and speak in the same way, is that on the one hand they claim as a matter of prejudice that gay and lesbian relationships are essentially transitory and unstable, but on the other hand, they resist the opportunity to demonstrate the opposite through the vehicle provided by the Bill for the promotion of stable relationships? What they are really engaged in is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is complete illogicality in proclaiming, as I do, and as I suspect the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) would, the value of stable, committed, long-term relationships, but arguing against a provision to support and enable stable, long-term, committed relationships. The hon. Member for Christchurch has done that not only with these amendments but throughout our deliberations on the Bill.

In the Government's view, a civil partnership is a serious commitment with legal consequences parallel to those of civil marriage. It is right that a marriage contracted when one party is already a civil partner should not be treated as valid. It is important for the status and dignity of civil partnerships that people should not be able to marry while they are still registered as civil partners. It is central to the Government's policy on civil partnerships that civil partners should have a legal relationship that precludes either marriage or entry into another civil partnership while the first civil partnership remains in existence. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would undermine that legal relationship. More importantly, they would undermine his own avowed intent to support stable, committed relationships. It is the Bill that supports that intention, and his amendments that undermine it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 251, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 27 - Minor and consequential amendments: general

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 177, in schedule 27, page 362, line 30, at end insert—

'( ) After section 9(3) insert—

''(4) For the purposes of this section two persons are civil partners of each other if they are of the same sex and either—

(a) they are civil partners of each other; or

(b) they are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners.'''.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 178 and 179.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

This morning, I was cut off if not in my prime, then in full flow, when introducing this group of amendments. The amendments are minor and consequential, ensuring that references to couples who are living together as husband and wife are clearly understood to apply to cohabiting same-sex couples. All the amended provisions apply to spouses and have therefore already been extended to civil partners in this Bill. As I suggested earlier today, the amendments are a response to the judgment on 21 June in the Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza case. The intention is to ensure that the drafting changes make it clear to courts and legal advisers how Parliament intends phrases such as ''living together as husband and wife'' to be interpreted after the Bill takes effect. Without the amendments, the risk is that the Bill could be seen as removing the equal treatment that already exists following that judgment. The amendments are designed to remove that uncertainty.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 153, in schedule 27, page 362, line 38, at end insert—

'In Schedule 2 (the activities of a friendly society), in Head A, in class II—

(a) in the second column (description), after ''Marriage'', insert '', civil partnership'', and

(b) in the third column (nature of business), after ''sum on marriage'', insert ''or on the formation of a civil partnership''.

Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 (c.52)

In section 23 (restriction on enforcement of awards against certain property), in subsection (3)(b) for ''the wife'' substitute ''the spouse or civil partner''.

In section 241 (intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise), in subsection (1)(a), for ''wife'' substitute ''spouse or civil partner''.

In section 292 (death of employee or employer), in subsection (3)(b), after ''widow,'', insert ''surviving civil partner,''.'.

No. 178, in schedule 27, page 363, line 9, leave out paragraph 70 and insert—

'70 (1) In section 23 (exemption for small dwellings), amend subsection (7) as follows.

(2) In the definition of ''near relative''—

(a) after ''spouse'' insert ''or civil partner'', and

(b) for ''by affinity)'' substitute ''by marriage or civil partnership)''.

(3) For the definition of ''partner'' substitute—

'' ''partner'' means the other member of a couple consisting of—

(a) a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife, or

(b) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners.'''.

No. 154, in schedule 27, page 363, line 12, at end insert—

'Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18)

In section 57A (time off for dependants), in subsection (3)(a), after ''spouse'', insert ''or civil partner''.

Family Law Act 1996 (c.27)

(1) Amend section 64 (provision for separate representation for children) as follows.

(2) Omit ''or'' at the end of subsection (1)(c).

(3) At the end of subsection (1)(d) insert ''or

(e) Schedule 6 or 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.'''.

No. 155, in schedule 27, page 363, line 15, at end insert—

'Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c.12)

In section 7 (power of courts to make orders for preserving evidence etc.),in subsection (7), after ''spouse'' insert ''or civil partner''.

National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c.39)

In section 14 (powers of officers), in subsection (2), for ''married, the person's spouse'' substitute ''married or a civil partner, the person's spouse or civil partner''.

Access to Justice Act 1999 (c.22)

In Schedule 2 (community legal service: excluded services), in paragraph 2(3)(d), after ''Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978'' insert ''or Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004''.'.

No. 156, in schedule 27, page 366, line 43, at end insert—

'Representation of the People Act 2000 (c.2)

(1) Amend Schedule 4 (absent voting in Great Britain) as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3(3)(c), for ''his spouse,'' (in both places) substitute ''his spouse or civil partner,''.

(3) In paragraph 6(6), for ''husband, wife,'' substitute ''spouse, civil partner,''.'.

No. 157, in schedule 27, page 367, line 2, at end insert—

'Land Registration Act 2002 (c.9)

In section 125 (privilege against self-incrimination), in subsection (2), after ''spouse'', insert ''or civil partner''.'.

No. 158, in schedule 27, page 367, line 5, at end insert—

'In section 222 (bodies corporate: accessories), in subsection (10), after ''spouse'', in paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) (in each place) insert ''or civil partner''.

Licensing Act 2003 (c.17)

In section 101 (minimum of 24 hours between event periods), in subsection (3)(a) and (d), after ''spouse'', insert ''or civil partner''.'.

No. 159, in schedule 27, page 367, line 9, at end insert—

'Courts Act 2003 (c.39)

In section 76 (further provision about scope of Family Procedure Rules), in subsection (2)(b), after ''divorce county court'' insert ''or civil partnership proceedings county court (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984)''.'.

No. 160, in schedule 27, page 367, line 22, at end insert—

'85 (1) Amend section 43 (sections 38 and 41: marriage exception) as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (1)(b) insert ''or civil partners of each other''.

(3) In subsection (2), for ''were lawfully married at the time'' substitute ''were at the time lawfully married or civil partners of each other''.

(4) In the heading to section 43 for ''marriage exception'' substitute ''exception for spouses and civil partners''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 27, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 28 - Consequential amendments: Scotland

Schedule 29 - Repeals and revocations

Clause 252 - Extent

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 165, in clause 252, page 124, line 5, after 'Wales),' insert

'excluding section (Power to assimilate provisions relating to civil registration in England and Wales) but'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 11—Power to assimilate provisions relating to civil registration in England and Wales.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendment amends the extent clause, consequential on the addition of new clause 11 to the Bill. New clause 11 adds a new power in place of the power in clause 36(4), which was removed by an amendment passed during the previous sitting of the Committee. The new power is needed to ensure that civil partnership and civil marriage can follow similar registration procedures. Although the Government are clear that civil partnership and civil marriage are different legal relationships, registration authorities must provide both services to the public, along with their other statutory duties.

In order to ensure parity of treatment between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and operational ease for registrars, it makes good sense to have similar registration provisions for civil marriage and civil partnership. It is important not to introduce unjustifiable differences between the registration provisions for civil marriage and civil partnership. As we touched on during a previous sitting, the registration provisions in the Bill are drafted to follow many of the proposals for the preliminaries to and registration of civil marriage, outlined in the consultation paper, ''Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change'', published in July 2003. It is now proposed that the regulatory reform order that will contain the legislative reforms needed to implement the proposals will be laid in draft during the next session of Parliament, but after the passage of the Bill.

The purpose of the power in clause 36(4) as originally drafted was to ensure that the Civil Partnership Act could be amended to reflect any changes to the proposals for civil marriage contained in the regulatory reform order that had not been anticipated during the drafting of the Civil Partnership Bill. While that remains the case, subsequent developments have led us to adapt the power to fit the current situation better. My colleague, Lord Filkin, announced in July that there was to be further consultation on the absence of any proposal

to change the legal requirement for marriage ceremonies to be either civil or religious.

Of course, the issue does not arise for civil partnership, where there is no alternative to a civil procedure, but it means that there is still a question on the shape of the proposals to be included in the draft regulatory reform order. It also means that any changes to the proposed reforms of the procedures for marriage resulting from the consultation may impact on the wider reforms to civil marriage and civil partnership legislation.

The Government's view is therefore that the power in clause 36(4) was not sufficient for the overriding purpose of ensuring that civil marriage and civil partnership can follow similar procedures wherever that is considered appropriate. The power, as originally drafted, would allow amendments to the registration provisions only as a consequence of provisions included in a regulatory reform order. That power would not, however, allow for the amendment of provisions in the Bill if those anticipated changes were not legislated for. It is because of that continuing uncertainty with the content of the reforms for civil marriage registration that we feel it is entirely sensible to extend the power in such a way.

If an anticipated change of the basis on which the Bill has been drafted were left out of the regulatory reform order when that change had already been included in the Civil Partnership Act, the original power would not have allowed for civil partnership procedures to be brought into line.

The Bill must therefore contain sufficient provision to ensure that the civil partnership legislation can be amended to make it compatible with marriage law, and the amendments allow us to do that in all possible scenarios. The Government have drafted the power so as to specify clearly the purpose for which it is to be used and it should be noted that that power remains subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 117, in clause 252, page 124, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments: Northern Ireland) extends to Northern Ireland only.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 252, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 253 - Commencement

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 253, page 124, line 26, leave out

'Parts 1 and 2, including Schedules 2 to 10, come'

and insert

'Part 1 comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel.

( ) Part 2, including Schedules 2 to 10, comes'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 119 to 126.

Government new clause 9—Gender recognition where applicant a civil partner.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Amendments Nos. 118 to 125 relate to clause 253, which provides for the coming into force of the provisions of the Bill. All substantive provisions are to come into force by commencement orders, which will be made by the Secretary of State, except in the case of provisions for which legislative competence has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament or would be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly if it is re-established. The Scottish provisions will be commenced by the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland provisions will be made by the Department of Finance and Personnel—in both cases, after consulting the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must also consult the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Finance and Personnel before commencing certain other provisions where the connections between devolved and non-devolved areas are strong.

The consequential amendments ensure that the arrangements for the commencement powers properly reflect the devolution settlement. They correct references to numbering and ensure that the subsections of the clause refer to the relevant related parts of the Bill.

Amendment No. 126 removes clause 254(2), which was added on Third Reading in the House of Lords as a privilege amendment to avoid infringing the privilege of the House of Commons to decide the financial consequences of the Bill. Since a money resolution has been agreed to, subsection (2) can now be removed.

New clause 9 amends the Gender Recognition Act 2004 as a consequence of the introduction of civil partnerships. It ensures that civil partnerships are treated in the same way as marriages for the purposes of that Act. It was not appropriate to include those changes in the Bill earlier because the Gender Recognition Act received Royal Assent only in July 2004. The Gender Recognition Act provides that if an applicant for a gender recognition certificate is married, they cannot be recognised in their acquired gender until the marriage is brought to an end. In order to achieve that, they are issued with an interim gender recognition certificate, which provides grounds for them to annul—or in Scotland, dissolve—their marriage. The court that makes the annulment or dissolution absolute then grants a full gender recognition certificate, which means that the person is subsequently to be treated for all purposes as a person of the acquired gender.

The new clause provides for civil partnerships to be treated in the same way. In particular, it inserts a new section 5A, which provides for the granting of a full gender recognition certificate by the court that makes the final nullity order, or, in Scotland, grants the decree of dissolution, in relation to a civil partnership. That is similar to the procedure already provided in section 5 of the Gender Recognition Act for cases in which an existing marriage is annulled or dissolved. As

in section 5, if the civil partnership comes to an end in a defined period by virtue of annulment, or dissolution on any other ground, or the death of the person's civil partner, an application for a full gender recognition certificate can instead by made to a gender recognition panel. That amendment follows the principles that the House agreed on when considering the Gender Recognition Bill.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

It may well be that, for those following our proceedings and thinking about their future plans, this clause is one of the most important. I think that all of us have faced the questions, ''When will this be law? When will people be able to enter into a civil partnership and, crucially, so to organise their financial and legal affairs that they can put into practice the provisions contained in the Bill?''

A measure of confusion has arisen, notwithstanding the momentary hiccup in another place, about the interaction between the Bill that will become an Act and a Finance Bill that will give efficacy to the most crucial of provisions—tenancy, wills and so on—that flow from it. There was a measure of uncertainty in an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the Minister about what ''the next available Finance Bill'' means. Does it mean the one that is still going through Parliament and might yet have something put into it on Report? Does it mean the next Finance Bill?

A Finance Bill takes a long time to go through Committee. Once that has happened, might there not yet be another full year before everything that we are discussing can practically be implemented? So that we are clear about the affairs that we are discussing, it would be enormously helpful if the Minister would give a clear forward picture about when she predicts that the commencements are likely to be triggered and how they will work hand-in-hand with the Finance Bill that will implement the provisions of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Notwithstanding the legitimacy of my hon. Friend's queries of the Minister, I put it to him that, in essence, the position should be simple. If the Government plan to make provision in the next Finance Bill, because they decide that that is the next available Bill, and the Bill goes through before the election, all is well and good. In the event that it does not, it is incumbent on the Conservative party to make it clear in the run-up to the election that, having won that election, we will make the necessary provision in our first Budget and in the ensuing Finance Bill that flows from it.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot promise him that I will be Chancellor of the Exchequer but I certainly promise him that, like him, I will do everything I can to accelerate things if we are in government.

The serious point is that there is not much clarity in people's understanding of the likely timetable for putting the Bill into practical effect. There is a measure of uncertainty, partly because it is thought that there is an election looming and we are not sure when the Finance Bill will happen. So, will the Minister give an indication of what she thinks is the likely timetable for

triggering everything that is needed to get the Bill fully into effect?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that we already said publicly that we envisage that—assuming that the Bill completes the stages of its consideration in this House and in another place and that it receives Royal Assent—implementation will take about a year following Royal Assent.

Interestingly, that is not largely because of the tax provisions, which I will return to, but because some complex changes need to be made to, for example, court rules. There are some lengthy conditions about consultation with respect to court rules. Changes would need to be made to registration arrangements. Training would, of course, need to be given to judicial officers with respect to the legal implications, not least the requirements on dissolution and annulment. We have been honest in saying that although we are very keen to ensure that the provision is implemented as quickly as possible, there are some complex issues of implementation that will need to be put into operation.

Notwithstanding what might or might not occur in a general election next year, I therefore find it difficult to envisage that within a year of gaining Royal Assent for this Bill we will not have had an available Finance Bill. I have made it clear, but I shall reiterate it, that the tax consequences of the policy that we have identified in the Bill and have stated publicly will take effect on the commencement of the Bill's provisions. I hope that that will give the hon. Gentleman the certainty that he understandably asks for on behalf of those who are keen not only that the Bill goes through but that its provisions come into effect as soon as possible

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Following on from what the Minister has just said, I should point out that every week one reads in the financial columns of the newspapers new implications of administrative decisions being taken by the Inland Revenue that have an impact on people who are living together in same-sex relationships. If I may give an example, the Government have recently said that if a husband and wife are engaged in a business together as a company, the husband running the business and the wife a principal shareholder, the money paid to the wife by way of dividend will be treated as the husband's income for tax purposes. Where does that leave a situation in which two partners of the same sex are carrying on a business as directors and shareholders? I give that as a current example of where it seems that there is a different rule, under the law, for those engaged in business as husband and wife and those in the same position in a same-sex relationship.

The Minister says that she wants to clarify all that and sort it out. On that point, which does not need any legislation at the moment but is just a matter of administrative practice, can she advise the Committee what the Inland Revenue's practice will be? My understanding from reading some of the other material is that putting the social security rules on the treatment of cohabiting same-sex couples on a par with those relating to cohabiting heterosexual couples is to come in immediately. That is not dependent on the Royal Assent of this Bill because it covers same-sex

relationships outside civil partnership. If that provision is to come in immediately, what will happen with examples such as that which I gave of a company where the directors or shareholders are in a same-sex relationship?

Will the Minister explain in simple language how the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will impact on the Bill? If a partner to a same-sex partnership changes sex, will it then be open to the parties to that partnership to continue to have that partnership registered, or will there be a requirement for it to be annulled, so that if the two wished to stay together thereafter they would have to enter a civil marriage, instead of a civil partnership? Or—this is my understanding of what the Minister said—would that be optional, meaning that if one partner changed gender there would not be a requirement for the partnership to be annulled? Perhaps she could clarify that.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In the hope that you will call my amendment No. 232, Mr. Cook, I shall be brief. The consequence of the Minister's amendments will be that the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland will determine, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the commencement order and its timing. That is the same Department that conducted the consultation process in Northern Ireland prior to the Bill being introduced in Parliament. That consultation process was highly unsatisfactory and the response received during the process was not reflected in any way in the Bill that is before the Committee. The Minister should reflect on what she is suggesting in her amendments and consider my amendment No. 232 that the elected representatives in Northern Ireland should have the final say on the matter, not an unelected Government Department.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for Christchurch was right. First, as I identified at length on schedule 24, in many areas of benefit provision, cohabiting same-sex couples will be treated in the same way as couples who live together as husband and wife. Those provisions will come into effect on commencement of the legislation and not, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, before Parliament has finished its consideration.

Secondly, on the hon. Gentleman's point about company law, I do not take my briefing about the impact of company law from the financial pages of newspapers, nor even from his ministrations, so I shall consider in more detail his suggestions about the Inland Revenue's current practice and will write to him about the extent to which there will be an equivalence with cohabiting same-sex couples. As we have suggested throughout our discussions today, on the whole we have attempted in the Bill to replicate within a wide variety of legislative areas the provisions for married couples for civil partners and the provisions for opposite-sex cohabiting couples with same-sex cohabiting couples.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

As an ex-Minister at the then Department of Social Security, I know that considerable sensitivities are involved in the regulations covering people living together as husband and wife and the way in which they are put into effect by Jobcentre Plus employees of the Department for Work and Pensions. That has always been a sensitive but important area. Will the Minister assure me that as the provisions are rightly extended to same-sex couples, who must bear the burdens of the change in legislation as well as receiving the benefits, there will be adequate training covering some of the sensitivities surrounding this matter—it is obviously sensitive, whatever one's sexuality—so that the employees of the Department for Work and Pensions, who generally do a very good job, are aware of how best to approach the issues before them when considering whether people who live in the same house are presenting as living together as husband and wife, be it in a gay or lesbian relationship or a heterosexual cohabiting relationship?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I think that I can reassure her. Not only will there be training, but there is already consideration and some modelling of the impact of using the current living-together husband-and-wife test in the context of same-sex couples to ensure that it is appropriate, achieves the right result and models the sort of training and guidance that will be necessary, both for DWP employees and for Inland Revenue employees where they apply a similar test with respect to tax credits, for example, or in other areas. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

I was about to come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch on gender recognition. I thought that I had spelled that out quite clearly in my introduction to the new clause. However, I will go through it again. If two people are in a civil partnership and one of them wishes to change their gender, he or she would first get an interim gender recognition certificate. The policy intention is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said. The policy intention is that they will be required to annul or, if it is in Scotland, to dissolve their civil partnership if one of the partners changes gender, just as they will be required to annul or dissolve a marriage if one of the partners changes gender.

The person changing gender will receive an interim gender recognition certificate. That enables the court to annul or dissolve the civil partnership and a final gender recognition certificate is then granted. At no point, having received the full gender recognition certificate, will a person go from one relationship to the other. If a person who had changed gender subsequently wanted to re-enter a legal relationship with their partner they would need to enter a civil marriage.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for explaining that. My only residual point was, if someone has an interim gender recognition certificate, must they go on to get the full certificate or can they keep an interim certificate and keep that in play within the subsisting partnership?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Of course it is up to the parties, but an interim gender recognition certificate is precisely designed to enable the person to get the annulment or the dissolution. To a certain extent it would not be an awful lot of use. It is not the final gender recognition certificate. A person cannot live in the acquired gender with only an interim gender recognition certificate.

I turn now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. He asked whether elected Members, as opposed to the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, should decide on the commencement. All subordinate powers are exercised by Departments, subject to ministerial control. That is not an unusual situation. He backed up his argument by suggesting that the consultation carried out by that Department had been unsatisfactory, so I am rather surprised that he prays it in aid as the reason why the provisions in the Bill should not be extended to Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My dissatisfaction is not with the response to the consultation, but with the fact that only 25 days after the consultation closed the Government inserted Northern Ireland into the Bill, completely ignoring the response to the consultation exercise.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I suspect we shall be discussing in a few minutes, the consultation was important, but it was not a referendum. We will now move on to a discussion about why the Government and I believe, and many others believe, that the provisions should extend across the whole of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 119, in clause 253, page 124, line 31, leave out 'and 14' and insert 'to 20'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in clause 253, page 124, line 33, at end insert

'but such an order must not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The amendment is supported by the hon. Member for Christchurch. I was astonished that on Tuesday last week the Minister should assert that the Government had received at every stage approbation and support from the majority of those who have responded to the Government's consultations on the proposals. I was astonished because, as the Minister knows, 86 per cent. of the respondents to the consultation in Northern Ireland opposed the plans in the Bill. On Second Reading the leader of my party drew attention to that fact, and it was raised many times in debates in the other place.

From the Minister's statement on Tuesday last that at every point consultation respondents gave their approbation, I can assume only that she feels that the responses of people in Northern Ireland do not count. Her comments a few moments ago point to that. The Government do not care that much about what people genuinely expressed in their responses. If she is suggesting that the responses do not accurately reflect the view in Northern Ireland, I must challenge that. Right across the community in Northern Ireland,

there is concern about the imposition of the Bill on the part of the United Kingdom that I represent.

Earlier in the debate today, the Minister acknowledged that Northern Ireland has a different history of applying law. As a Unionist I believe that, where appropriate, laws should apply across the United Kingdom. The Government support the concept of devolution, and in supporting that, they recognise that there are regional variations; otherwise, why have regional assemblies and Parliaments? Yet, by ignoring the consultation responses, the Government ignore the regional variation in Northern Ireland and the strong feelings held about this issue in that part of the United Kingdom.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman could remind the Committee of those provisions that would be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly were it functioning today.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Clearly many issues in the Bill would be devolved and come under the remit of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I accept that some consequential and accepted matters would be reserved. When the Assembly has considered legislation in the past, it has enacted reserved matters with the consent of the Secretary of State. It would not have been difficult for the Assembly to consider this matter. If the hon. Gentleman is implying in his question that it would, I am not sure that that is true.

My amendment requires only that the Assembly considers whether the Bill should commence. I am not suggesting that the Assembly take the Bill and amend it. The amendment relates to the commencement order and whether the Assembly feels that this legislation is relevant to Northern Ireland and should be applied. It is best placed to do that. As a Member of the Assembly, I believe that devolution in that sense is appropriate. I accept that the Assembly is suspended. My party is involved in discussions as we speak, which I hope will result in the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. The Assembly ought to have the final say about the commencement of the legislation.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

Just for the record, does the hon. Gentleman envisage any circumstances in which he personally would vote for the commencement of this Bill?

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I would not vote for the Bill. That does not mean that no other Assembly Member would vote for it. At the end of the day, the local elected representatives should be given the final say, particularly given the real concerns raised during the consultation process by people who actually live in Northern Ireland.

Imposing civil partnerships on the Province regardless of the views of its people shows that their moral and religious convictions are of little or no interest to the Government. I make no apology for saying that I am an evangelical Christian and that I have concerns about the Bill and what it means in terms of my faith and my beliefs. I know that that view is shared by many people in Northern Ireland.

Earlier, the Minister repeated her claim made on Second Reading that she had received 400 letters of support from people in Northern Ireland since the consultation had ended. I cannot think of any previous occasion on which an official Government consultation has been regarded as less important than a folder full of letters produced by a letter-writing campaign. It does not obviate the reality that the consultation generated 86 per cent. of respondents against what the Government are seeking to impose on the people of Northern Ireland.

Ironically, that attempt to manufacture a fig leaf of public support for the plans implies that the Government's public consultation was faulty and failed to reach all sections of society or elicit responses that were truly indicative of the views of the people in Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, I am sure that a figure of 86 per cent. is about right for the level of opposition to what is effectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has repeatedly stated in Committee, a pseudo gay marriage Bill. If anything, it underestimates the views of people in Northern Ireland. All that is just another example of the Government's selective use of statistics. If the consultation favours what they want to do—as in England and Wales—they issue a press release boasting about the result, but if it does not favour their plans, they simply ignore its results.

The 2001 Labour party manifesto, in a section on Northern Ireland, said that

''we will bring about the key reforms in the civil and criminal justice system which secure the respect and trust of both traditions.''

I wonder whether the Government really think that the Bill is a legal reform that has the respect and trust of both Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. All evidence points to the fact that both sides are opposed to the Bill, not because they hate people who are of a homosexual disposition, but because they have a high view of Christian ethics and, in particular, marriage.

In fact, the Government have achieved the remarkable feat of creating a cause around which both Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland have united. All of the main Churches in the Province have come out against the Bill. I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks that that level and scale of opposition meets the Labour party's commitment to secure changes to the civil and criminal justice system that have the respect and trust of both traditions.

The Government have been riding roughshod over the people of Northern Ireland, including in how they introduced the Bill. Its first imprint was produced on 30 March this year, only 25 days after the consultation in Northern Ireland closed. Provisions applying civil partnership to Northern Ireland were already included, although incomplete. Clearly, the Government had already decided to impose civil partnership on the Province, whatever the outcome of the consultation. There is no way that the responses could have been properly considered in 25 days. In fact, the report on them was not produced until 10 May. Given that the Bill was published on

30 March, that gives us some indication of the Government's real agenda for Northern Ireland.

The Government needed the report because they wanted to table 52 clauses and six schedules on 11 May to attempt to fix the holes in the Northern Ireland provisions. In fact, a total of 120 pages of amendments relating to Northern Ireland were passed in the other House with virtually no scrutiny. When asked whether the consultation in Northern Ireland had made any difference whatsoever to the drafting of the Bill, the Minister in the other place, Baroness Scotland, could not answer.

I turn now to my amendment, which would give the Northern Ireland Assembly the final say on whether civil partnership would apply fully to Northern Ireland. Part 4 of the Bill, which contains the Northern Ireland provisions for registration, dissolution and so on, would come into effect only if approved by a resolution of the Assembly. I understand that the Province would still have to give limited recognition to civil partnerships registered in the rest of the UK, but the Assembly should be allowed to take a view on whether Northern Ireland itself grants marriage-like status to homosexual relationships.

The Scottish Parliament has had its own debate and vote on the provisions. In Northern Ireland, where the issue is much more controversial, we should, at the very least, have the same opportunity. It seems particularly egregious that the Government should railroad the proposals through while the devolved Assembly for the one part of the UK where there is the most opposition to civil partnerships is out of action.

Some hon. Members will argue that it is a new departure to put a sunrise clause on the Northern Ireland provisions of a Westminster Bill. It is true that that has not happened on other legislation passed during the suspension of the Assembly, but there has not been another issue on which there is quite as much opposition from almost every shade of political and religious opinion in the Province. There has not been another issue on which nine out of 10 people who responded to the Government consultation rejected the proposals.

As my party leader pointed out on Second Reading, the 2001 census found that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Government say that, at most, only 5 per cent. of same-sex couples will commit to civil partnerships. As I pointed out earlier, 5 per cent. of 288 households in Northern Ireland is 14. On their own statistics, the Government are destroying the basis of family law in Northern Ireland and riding roughshod over the convictions of nine out 10 people who responded to their consultation, all for the sake of 14 same-sex couples. [Laughter.] Well, those are the Government's statistics. As usual in such matters, if the facts and figures do not suit the Government's argument, they say that they do not count.

In the case of the census, they say that homosexual couples sharing a home would have been fearful of declaring the fact on the census because of homophobia. I will not comment on the implicit

accusation that the entire population of the Province either hates or fears homosexual people, other than to say that it is absolute rubbish. Quite frankly, in Northern Ireland we are more worried about Semtex than same-sex.

The census is confidential. Why should anyone fear any comeback from answers that they put down on a census form? Are the Government telling us that their system has leaks and that confidential census data can get into the hands of people outside the system? Besides, if two people live together as a same-sex couple, it will probably be obvious to their neighbours. What difference does it make if they say so on the census?

I know that my amendment was tabled twice before, and it was twice rejected by the Government in the other place, but the reasoning of Ministers there has not convinced me, nor has it convinced the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland. I raise the issue again today to determine whether gay rights are still more important to the Government than devolution. That is the question that they must address. It is and ought to be for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to have the final say on the commencement of this legislation, and the Government ought to give careful consideration to that. The collective rights of the people of Northern Ireland ought to be taken into account.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I commend much of what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said. I have a couple of questions that I hope the Minister will answer when she responds to the debate. First, if the Government proceed to implement the Bill as drafted will they allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to revisit the matter when it is reconvened, as we all hope that it will be? I reiterate the argument used by the hon. Gentleman, that it seems a perverse use of the devolutionary settlement that the Government constructed in the United Kingdom to let the Scottish Parliament debate these matters but to deny the Northern Ireland Assembly that opportunity.

Secondly, will the Minister tell the Committee the purpose of the Government's consultation exercise in Northern Ireland? I am highly sceptical about consultation exercises undertaken by local or central Government, and so are many of my constituents. There is a growing feeling among members of the public that although Governments and local authorities may undertake consultations, they merely proceed to do exactly what they were going to do anyway. That appears to have been the case in respect of the consultation in Northern Ireland.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The previous two speakers will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with a single word that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, which is as predictable as the hon. Member for Christchurch has been in earlier debates. I have several reasons for disagreeing with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, not least because he presented the most anti-Unionist argument I have yet heard, which struck me as rather curious. I cannot think of any nation state in the world where the rights that are accorded to people in one part of the country are completely denied in another

part of the country. The suggestion, which the hon. Gentleman let out of the bag, that he would not only want the Assembly to have the right to say yea or nay to whether any of the provisions were brought into force in Northern Ireland, but that he would seek to ensure that they did not come to pass, is therefore an argument for the dissolution of the Union.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is not inconsistent with being a Unionist to support the concept of devolution. Northern Ireland had its own devolved Parliament for 50 years, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. In the United States of America, there are many examples of laws being enacted at state level that confer on the citizens of the state rights that do not apply in other states. Therefore, it is wrong to say that there is not another country in the world where there is a right in one region or area that does not apply in another. There are many examples of regional variations throughout the world.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I think what the hon. Gentleman wants is a united states of Britain, where there is a supreme court that decides on a national constitution.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Devolution.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman says ''devolution'' from a chuntering, sedentary position. But the point about devolution is that it is decided that certain responsibilities should be devolved to the lowest level at which people are most directly affected, and some things are reserved to the nation state. It seems extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman could argue that individual human rights, which is what the Bill is about, and the right of people to live with and inherit from one another, should be devolved. Why do not local councils decide? It seems self-evident that if matters were to be devolved to that degree, with completely different rules governing people's ability to form a stable relationship and inherit tenancies, pensions and so on from one another, it would mean dismantling devolution and moving towards a completely different system, which would not be in keeping with the Unionist cause that I thought the hon. Gentleman espoused.

Secondly, I wholly disagree with the way that the hon. Gentleman has presented the statistics. I am glad that his mathematic was better than that of the leader of his party, who on Second Reading stated that 5 per cent. of 288 was 12, and that he has been able to work out that it is 14. Like others before, I submit to him—I know that he dismisses this argument—that if 86 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland are, as he attests, wholly opposed to people being able to form civil partnerships or display their love for one another because they are homosexual, it is likely that people would be reluctant, either on paper or in public, to declare their homosexuality.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Will my hon. Friend explain to me why, even if the statistics are correct, such a lot of worry is created by the prospect of 28 people in Northern Ireland being able to live together with proper protections and in harmony? It seems an awful over-reaction.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Indeed. The argument falls both ways against the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. Either there are so few people involved that it will hardly rock the whole of society, the church and the foundation of marriage, or there are more than he presumes. I suspect that the latter is true because I have had letters and e-mails from a lot of people urging me to ensure that this legislation applies in Northern Ireland. The number of couples who have written to me is almost up to 14, so I suspect that, by the end of Third Reading, I may be able to prove his statistics wrong.

The third point is that when one is trying to right an injustice—I know that the hon. Gentleman will not accept that that is what the legislation is trying to do—it is not enough to say that only 14, 15 or 16 people are affected. If there is only one person—[Interruption.] One good man. Indeed, it is a profoundly biblical point. If there is one good man, woman or couple, I believe that we should change the law, because we are righting an injustice.

The amendment would delay the process. It is an unfair amendment regardless of what position one adopts about the morality or ethics of homosexuality. Almost inevitably, as the peace negotiations continue in Northern Ireland—one hopes leading to the setting up again of a Northern Ireland Assembly—the issue of gay rights will be entangled in the process of setting up the Assembly. That would be invidious to the position of lesbians and gay men in Northern Ireland. It would also not exactly help the peace process and therefore it is a poor amendment.

I would not call myself a born-again Christian, except in the sense that all Christians maintain that they are born again in baptism. However, I believe that it is perfectly possible to hold as a Christian that homosexuality is not necessarily a sin—it may be lived in sinfully or as part of a good life. Many Christians in the world sincerely believe that God created them as homosexuals and that the best that they can do to live a holy and spiritual life is to do so under God and with God's blessing in a committed relationship, which the Bill allows.

Even more importantly, I do not believe that we should create a theocracy in this country. In Matthew chapter VII, Jesus said:

''Judge not, that ye be not judged.''

It is equally important that one can argue some things to be immoral and wrong, but that does not necessarily mean that the law should make them illegal. I happen to believe—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is trying to bring hunting into this issue because he is a little ferret really. He should be dismembered for trying to bring in other issues, which I am sure you would not want to be introduced, Mr. Cook.

The point that I am making is simply that I believe that this is a moral and ethical Bill because it allows people to establish their relationship on the basis of a commitment—one to another. It is not a commitment that will be entered into lightly. I think that many Christians can support the Bill and I hope that, in the fullness of time, there will be many Christians in Northern Ireland—perhaps even members of the

Church of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley—who one day will respect the rights of gays and lesbians.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The afternoon gets better as it goes on. Earlier we had pre-emptive gratification; now we have the vision of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton being dismembered for his views. That sounds a little Old Testament to me.

In Committees in this place, I have often been able to make common cause with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. We have argued that it is appropriate that provisions relating to Northern Ireland should be dealt with in primary legislation, such as the Bill that we have before us. We have often argued that it is highly unsatisfactory that provisions relating to Northern Ireland—a whole Bill effectively—are dealt with in an hour-and-a-half sitting on the basis of secondary legislation. On some occasions, we have been able to incorporate Northern Ireland provisions into primary legislation, as we are doing today. Together with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, I have been privileged to serve on some of those Committees.

However, before now, I have never come across an instance in which a Member from Northern Ireland has sought to make a commencement provision such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the Committee. If I am wrong about that, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley can correct me. I have never seen it before, and that makes me ask why he is doing it. That comes back to comments made earlier in the debate—he probably was not here for them—relating to honesty of motivation. I commend him to read Hansard in that regard, because, sadly, those comments might apply to him as they do to others in the Committee.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my only motivation in tabling the amendment was to give the Assembly, the devolved body in Northern Ireland, the final say in respect of part 4, which is the only aspect that relates specifically to Northern Ireland—it is the aspect dealing with devolved matters. There is a range of views in the Assembly. I do not have a monopoly on those views and, in that sense, although I accept the principle that generally Northern Ireland should be legislated for in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom for as long as there is not a fully functioning devolved Assembly, on this issue I make an exception.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

We are hearing from the hon. Gentleman what I would call pick-and-mix Unionism. He wants to have his cake and eat it. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was rather harsh on him when he said that his argument was inconsistent with his Unionism, but clearly he wants to pick and mix those occasions when the Union is important.

If the Assembly were up and running, I would be prepared to entertain the arguments that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley brings before the Committee. In fact, in that case, we would not be discussing devolved matters unless it had been decided by the Assembly—presumably—that they were to be discussed in this place, in much the same way as the

Scottish Parliament discussed the issue in relation to the Sewel motion that brought the Scottish provisions to the Floor of the House here. However, we do not have a functioning Assembly and, at the moment, there is not even a prospect of having one. If there were some date even tentatively set for the commencement of a functioning Assembly, I might have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's amendments, but there is not, so I do not.

I see this simply as a wrecking amendment in relation to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman questions the relevance of the measure to Northern Ireland. Those are his exact words. Well, I have to say—and I have had the privilege during the past two years of spending considerable time in Northern Ireland—that I consider equality of opportunity and of outcome to be as relevant to people in same-sex relationships in Northern Ireland as to those in this part of the country.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I rise briefly to put to the hon. Gentleman the point that I put to the Minister earlier. Given that the Assembly is currently suspended, does he think that when it is reconvened—as we all hope that it soon will be—it should have the opportunity to revisit this matter?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Assembly will have the opportunity to revisit those sections of the Bill in respect of which it has legislative competence. Just because the Bill is passed here does not mean that it cannot be meddled with later by the legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, any more than that would mean that the Scottish Parliament were somehow prohibited from dealing with it.

The final point that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley made, as an evangelical Christian—I am never quite sure what a non-evangelical Christian is, but he clearly feels it necessary to differentiate himself from other Christians in that way—was that the main Churches were opposed to the measure. If that is the case, I profoundly regret it because as a Christian myself, I think that supporting the Bill is not only compatible with my Christianity but my Christian duty. It is about offering to people in same-sex relationships the same opportunities that others have, and I do not believe that discrimination is something that is in any way Christian.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Cook, for your indulgence on the scope of this particular debate. I shall test your patience a little further, because I think that it is worth making the point that a number of us, including I, accept that there are injustices and inequalities, recognise that those need to be dealt with and want to see them dealt with, piecemeal or case by case. However, the fact is that a legal structure is being set up that sits uneasily with many Christians throughout the country. It is quite possible as a Christian to want to remedy individual injustices—I would put myself firmly in that camp—but it is the means by which that is being done that is causing some unease among many people of faith.

Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, but that makes even less sense. If it is necessary to have a legal framework in order to cure a system of injustices, then we should have a legal framework. I cannot think of anything in Church doctrine or teaching that tells us that it is wrong to create legal frameworks to cure injustices.

Finally, the Rainbow project has made a valid point, which I want to put on the record, about homophobic hate crimes in Northern Ireland. Those have significantly increased in the past few years, and even doubled in 2003. The one thought on Northern Ireland that I want to leave with the Committee is what signal it sends to the wider community and to gay and lesbian people in Northern Ireland if we say that it is important to make provision for equality in Great Britain, but not in Northern Ireland.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.