|
Mr. Bercow: Obviously, I am sorry that Lord Tebbit is sorry. Suffice it to say that I have many flaws, which are regularly on display, but I think that I can on the whole claim to have quite a good memory, and I remember very precisely the content of the conversation that I had with my right hon. and noble Friend on 25 March this year.
I put it to my hon. Friend that he is referring to Lord Lester's Bill, but he is also saying that up until now the discussion has been about, on the one hand, gay couples and, on the other, cohabiting heterosexuals. I put it to him also that I have been interested in this particular debate for three years this month—not as long as many people, I accept—and at no time have I thought that the Government were entertaining an idea of legislating for such relationships at 18, and I have certainly never thought that the Government were thinking in terms of having qualifying periods of advanced sexual intercourse or cohabitation. As far as I know that was never in their mind, and neither was it in mine.
Mr. Chope: I cannot be responsible for what my hon. Friend thought, but if he had read the contents of the House of Lords Civil Partnerships Bill, he would have seen that there is provision for a qualifying period—as he would put it—of cohabitation of six months. He might also have read the provisions that state that a partnership should not be entered into until the age of 18. If he had also read the glowing report given in the House of Lords by the Minister responsible at the time, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, and he had addressed his mind to the task, he would have been able to imply from that the impression that many other people got, which is that the Government were interested in setting up a system that is separate and apart from marriage and that civil partnerships would have different qualifications and import compared with marriage, and that was where we were. Many people thought that when the Government said they would ''go away and
Column Number: 093
think about this'', they were still talking about partnerships with the same limitations as set out in the Bill to which I have referred. We now see that the whole situation has moved on. That does not mean, however, that those of us who were more attracted to the previous approach should be vilified for holding that view.
The Government, and those who support people entering into civil partnerships at the age of 16, are storing up trouble for the future. We have brought in other laws to limit the ability of children—that is, people under 18—to take decisions, because we are worried that they may lack maturity and responsibility. Anyone who knows 16 to 18-year-olds knows that some of them are very mature at 16, and some are pretty immature even when they are approaching their 18th birthday. We will not go into the position of those who are over 18, because they are not relevant to my amendment.
Civilised, grown-up men and women can differ on the issue that we are discussing, and I recognise that many members of the Committee have a different view from mine, but it has certainly engendered a useful debate. I hope that we will have a chance to express our opinions in the form of a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 12.
Division No. 8]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Selous, Andrew
NOES
Abbot, Ms Diane
Bercow, Mr. John
Borrow, Mr. David
Bruce, Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Eagle, Angela
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McKechin, Ann
Simon, Mr. Sio n
Smith, Jacqui
Watson, Mr. Tom
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 4, in
clause 4, page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.]
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.
Division No. 9]
AYES
Abbot, Ms Diane
Bercow, Mr. John
Borrow, Mr. David
Bruce, Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Duncan, Mr. Alan
Eagle, Angela
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McKechin, Ann
Simon, Mr. Sio n
Smith, Jacqui
Watson, Mr. Tom
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Selous, Andrew
Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
Column Number: 094
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.
Division No. 10]
AYES
Abbot, Ms Diane
Bercow, Mr. John
Borrow, Mr. David
Bruce, Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Duncan, Mr. Alan
Eagle, Angela
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McKechin, Ann
Simon, Mr. Sio n
Smith, Jacqui
Watson, Mr. Tom
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Selous, Andrew
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Parental etc. consent where proposed civil partner under 18
The Chairman: We are about to embark on clause 5. Considerable reference was made to the clause during the previous debate and I am conscious of the reason for that. As it was linked with the previous clause, I permitted that flexibility. However, I would be unhappy if the same arguments were rehearsed again, and I know that the Committee would not wish me to be unhappy.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.
Division No. 11]
AYES
Abbot, Ms Diane
Bercow, Mr. John
Borrow, Mr. David
Bryant, Chris
Duncan, Mr. Alan
Eagle, Angela
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McKechin, Ann
Selous, Andrew
Simon, Mr. Sio n
Smith, Jacqui
Watson, Mr. Tom
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Types of pre-registration procedure
Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment Nos. 24, 34 and 35.
Jacqui Smith: As I am optimistic, I think that we may get through this group of amendments relatively quickly and uncontroversially.
The amendments are technical and make minor drafting changes to ensure that relevant registration provisions read across accurately to one another. Amendments Nos. 21 and 34 are aimed at simplifying
Column Number: 095
clause 6(3) and clarifying paragraph 7(1) to schedule 4 so that there can be no confusion over which modifications apply to the procedures set out in clause 6 and those in schedule 4. The amendments have the effect that when schedule 4 applies, the modifications in paragraph 7 to schedule 4 apply in place of the modifications set out in clause 21. The modifications in question are those that apply when one of the proposed civil partners lives in England or Wales and the other resides in Scotland or Northern Ireland or is a member of Her Majesty's forces serving overseas.
3.45 pm
Amendment No. 35 to paragraph 7(8) of schedule 4 corrects the calculation of the applicable period when the proposed civil partners were previously married and one of them has changed gender. The amendment also clarifies the application of the offences in clause 32(1)(a) and (2)(c). If two notices of a proposed civil partnership are required by a pre-registration procedure, it will be an offence for the civil partnership schedule to be issued before the end of the waiting period in respect of each notice of a proposed civil partnership. If only one notice is required, it will be an offence for the civil partnership schedule to be issued before the end of the waiting period in respect of that notice of a proposed civil partnership.
Amendment No. 24 corrects an error and amends clause 21(5)(e) so that when the standard procedure is used when one of the proposed civil partners lives in England or Wales and the other lives in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the applicable period is three months. In those circumstances, the applicable period starts from the date that the registration authority in England and Wales recorded the notice of proposed civil partnership. I hope that hon. Members will be able to support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in clause 6, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) This section is also subject to section (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) and Schedule (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) (immigration control and formation of civil partnerships).'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments Nos. 97 and 98.
Government new clause 10—Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships.
Government new schedule 3—Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships.
Jacqui Smith: The amendments relate to clause 6. The amendments, the new clause and the new schedule are intended to prevent people from forming civil partnerships solely in order to circumvent the immigration rules. Similar concerns about marriage are met by sections 19 to 25 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
The new schedule will apply if two people wish to register as civil partners and one of them is subject to immigration control. It contains two new requirements
Column Number: 096
that must be met in order to form a civil partnership. First, the notices must be given at a designated centre. Secondly, the person subject to immigration control must meet the qualifying condition.
Under paragraph 4(1) of the new schedule, each notice of proposed civil partnership may only be given to one of a restricted number of registration authorities, to be specified in regulations. Furthermore, in England and Wales, each notice may only be given to a relevant individual and must be given by both parties to the civil partnership together and in person. The relevant individual is such employee, officer or other person provided by the specified registration authority as is determined in accordance with regulations.
A person subject to immigration control will be able to form a civil partnership only if they satisfy the qualifying condition set out in paragraph 2 of the new schedule. The qualifying condition mirrors that which exists in sections 19, 21 and 23 of the 2004 Act. A person subject to immigration control will satisfy the qualifying condition only if they have an entry clearance for the purpose of forming a civil partnership, if they have the written permission of the Secretary of State or if they fall within a class specified in regulations.
The Government have taken firm and decisive action to counter the abuse of immigration law by sham marriages, and are determined that civil partnership will not be open to similar abuse.
|
