| Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]
|
|
Jacqui Smith: I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that this is one of those cases where one cannot have it both ways. There has to be a particular point at which the civil partnership or civil marriage is formed, and the point that we have chosen is the written point at which the two civil partners sign the schedule or the Registrar General's licence in front of two witnesses. If we are not careful and we make a declaration of words statutory, we will face legal difficulties. I know that hon. Members do not want to focus on this, but it is possible to envisage legal difficulties over determining at precisely what point the civil partnership formed and the change of status occurred. We must be clear about where that point is, and it is more modern and justifiable for it to be when one signs, as opposed to when one declares. Mr. Duncan: We do not disagree with the Minister. We absolutely accept that the point of decision is the signature and not the statement, but her argument does not hold together when she says that, if there were a statement, there might be a point of law arguing that that is the point at which the decision is made and that it has to be part of the contract. It is absolutely clear in the Bill that the decision occurs when the signing takes place. All we are asking for is something permissive, but something that becomes a standard, recognised form. If a permissive form of words is defined by order, and the order can explain that permission, it will in no way conflict with her argument that the clear point of legal contract is the signature. Jacqui Smith: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been rather hounded in the first 14 minutes of this afternoon's sitting, so I have not been Column Number: 079 able to get to the point when I was going to reassure hon. Members about the provision for people to make some sort of declaration.
2.45 pmI was going to say that, furthermore, civil partners shall have the option of exchanging spoken words with each other. That is precisely the intention of Government amendments Nos. 23 and 25, where the proposal or policy intention is that, when we set down conditions for the schedule or Registrar General's licence that will be signed, we also set down the words on that document. Those are the words that could be spoken by the couple and they may well be—although we have not made the decision yet—similar to the words that my hon. Friend is pressing in his two amendments. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): I am encouraged by what the Minister says. She will be delighted to know that I disagree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Apart from those two elements, I do not want the state to determine the words that should be used in every ceremony. The funeral service in this country is much more permissive—people can be buried according to whatever service they want. When there is too much variety, however, people feel uncomfortable about what to choose. Will the Government explore the possibility of providing some variants that different councils could use? Some of us are nervous that councils such as Kent county council, which has declared its hand on the issue, will make it difficult for people to form civil partnership locally with any form of ceremony. Jacqui Smith: I shall address that point later. Local authorities are able to offer couples the option of a ceremony or a celebration to mark the formation of a civil partnership and such an event, as my hon. Friend suggests, would likely include spoken words. Not every couple will want to take that up and it will be a matter for each couple to decide with the local authority and the place where they register as civil partners. Some will choose to do no more than complete the statutory registration requirements. However—this is where I started on the issue of words and a declaration—we listened carefully both to the argument advanced in the other place and to the argument made in the House of Commons that there should be a form of words that the couple will sign when they register. We will be moving our own amendments to augment the registration procedure by extending the powers taken in the Bill that relate to the civil partnership document. That is the document that each party signs to register as the other's civil partner. The extended powers will allow the Registrar General to make provision by regulations for a form of words to be printed on the civil partnership document. When they sign that document, the parties will be acknowledging that form of words. The Bill does not—and, indeed, could not—prevent some people from saying those words as they sign the civil partnership document. Saying the words will not be a requirement of the registration process but it will provide what hon. Members have argued for, which is the opportunity to make a statutory declaration as Column Number: 080 they are signing the registration document, or just before.I am willing to go further than that in attempting to convince the Committee. If necessary, guidance could be issued to civil partnership registrars stating that the verbal expression or declaration of words on the schedule, while not having legal effect, is appropriate. That would not overcome all the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda raised, but it would make clear the status of those words, which will, of course, also be on the document that the civil partners will sign. Chris Bryant: I am somewhat reassured by what my hon. Friend said. Will the partners be able to say, ''I before God''? As I understand it, the Bill will not, at the moment, allow them to do so. Jacqui Smith: No, they would not. I will come on to the issue of the secular nature of the process. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, by allowing words to be included on the document, we have sought to meet their concerns without undermining the written essence of the registration process and causing some of the legal confusion that I outlined. I hope that hon. Members will accept that compromise in the spirit in which we offer it. I now move on to the other issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. Amendments Nos. 16 and 184 would change the provision in clause 3(5) that prevents the use of any religious service while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of the civil partnership document. Amendment No. 16 would remove the prohibition. Amendment No. 184 would extend it with a provision preventing the use of religious service
I shall take the amendments separately. I believe that this point was supported by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). We have always made it clear that civil partnership is a purely secular legal relationship. The administrative procedure therefore reflects that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said—with disapproval, I believe—such a prohibition is also found in the case of civil marriages solemnised by a registrar. It is the job of the Government, through the Bill, to provide a state-sanctioned and secular approach to civil partnership. It really is not the job of the Government—it would cause some difficulty for some people—to extend the approach so that it is no longer secular but can include the sort of religious input for which my hon. Friend seems to be pushing. Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): I wonder whether it is strictly necessary, given what my hon. Friend just said, positively to prohibit a religious element. There are churches in this country that would be happy if same-sex couples were married within their confines, yet the Bill actually prevents that happening rather than saying nothing about it. Must the Bill positively prohibit any sort of religious element, even among the churches that would not have some of the difficulties Column Number: 081 with it that, say, the Anglican Church or Catholic Church would have?Jacqui Smith: It is important that the Bill does that. I am not a Church member. It may well be the case, as my hon. Friend says, that at some time in the future all the churches, dare I say it, may have sorted out their attitudes and would want to go further than the legislation allows. However, there are other people who take a secular view and would want to be reassured that there was a purely secular route for entering a civil partnership or civil marriage. We must recognise that balance, and we have recognised it in the Bill by saying that the legal process of entering a civil partnership should be a secular process. I shall come on to deal with what might happen around that process and, in doing that, address the argument of the hon. Member for Christchurch. Mr. Duncan: This is an opportune moment to make a very quick observation. Essentially, what constitutes a religious service? In extremis, just when the registrar is doing his bit, an over-enthusiastic witness could say, ''Hallelujah! Praise the Lord'', and the whole process would be invalid. Is there not the potential for someone deliberately to foul it up and render the event invalid in law? Jacqui Smith: As far as I am aware, there are not large numbers of people rushing to civil marriages to foul them up on that basis. On the whole, with the exception of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda raised, I do not believe that registrars are taking that approach. Of course there needs to be some flexibility, but it is right that the legislative basis on which we are taking the measure forward should be a secular one and should provide, as I have suggested, some reassurance to those who would insist that the process was secular. Chris Bryant: The point is that I do not think that this provision is secular; it is anti-religious. That is my problem with it. It means that, for example, someone cannot use poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins, many of which are about love, because they have God in them. Much of the poetry about love in this country, and many of the readings that people might want to use at such a ceremony, have references to God. Many registrars will refuse point blank to allow people to have such readings. It seems bizarre in the extreme that the law presently forbids people to have 1 Corinthians XIII, probably the best-known part of the Bible for many people in the country, read at a civil marriage, and it seems curious, too, that it could not be read at a civil partnership ceremony.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 21 October 2004 |
