|
Mr. Chope: A brief question. How can the Minister be sure that people seeking to enter civil partnerships who are subject to immigration control will comply with the provisions of the new schedule, and what will happen if they do not?
Jacqui Smith: First, it will be very clear that the responsibility falls on those who want to enter a civil partnership, and it will also be the case that there will be designated authorities in the same way as there are for sham marriages. I shall get guidance as to what would happen if someone entered a civil partnership without going through those procedures, but the very fact that the procedures are in the Bill will be a considerable strengthening, as it is with marriage, over the current situation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, even if there is a way around it, that is an appropriate way for the Government to restrict in such circumstances.
Mr. Chope: It seems from what the Minister says that this is a wing and a prayer exercise. For example, as I understand it, there is no requirement for someone who is subject to immigration control to produce a passport document that will indicate to the registrar that they are subject to immigration control. Indeed, there is no requirement at all that someone who is a foreign national should have to produce any documentation at all or that documentation showing nationality or status in the country has to be produced before such a ceremony can take place.
Jacqui Smith: Actually, as is the case with marriage, notice requires certain pieces of evidence of status to be given. That might include a birth certificate or passport. If that evidence has to be given, it will
Column Number: 097
quickly become evident whether there is at least the possibility that the person in question is open to immigration control. The situation is far from what the hon. Gentleman accused it of being, which is a wing and a prayer. I return to what I said, which is that I hope that he will recognise the provisions as an important step forward in preventing the opportunity of evading immigration control through sham civil partnerships.
Mr. Duncan: I am sure that the Minister would not want me to use the dreaded words ''primary purpose'', or want such a parallel to be drawn. However, is she now saying that if the proper immigration procedures have been circumvented, resulting in a civil partnership, that could be sufficient grounds subsequently for annulment?
Jacqui Smith: I think that I am saying that. Had the requirements laid down in legislation for notice not been given validly, that would be grounds for annulment.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I seek clarification in the opposite direction from the hon. Member for Christchurch. Many of us will have dealt with immigration cases involving non-British nationals wanting to marry British nationals and seeking entry. We can all make our own judgments about how the immigration authorities determine who is or is not a proper person. Can the Minister clarify the procedure whereby a homosexual couple could persuade the immigration authorities that they have a bona fide reason for one of them who is not a UK citizen to contract a civil partnership?
Reading the Bill as it stands—and I have been drafting an amendment, which may or may not be necessary, on exactly this issue—the best comparison that I can make is the fiancé visa for heterosexual couples. That gives permission to enter the country with a view to marrying a British national, subject to a time limit—usually a booked marriage date—as a condition. Am I to interpret that such a requirement would also be available to same-sex couples? Or, as in the amendment that I have been drafting, would there need to be an express direction in the Bill to allow that? The status of same-sex couples in such a situation is not clear.
Jacqui Smith: I think that I made it clear that in order to enter a civil partnership, the partners would need to fulfil one of three qualifying conditions, which mirror the relevant provisions for marriage. They would satisfy conditions if they have an entry clearance for the purpose of forming a civil partnership. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 098
Clause 7
Place of registration
Chris Bryant: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, at end insert 'and'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 19, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 20, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 15, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, leave out paragraph (a).
Chris Bryant: As Members will know, subsection (1)(b) states that registrations may not take place in religious premises, while subsection (2) defines ''religious premises'' as premises that are
''designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes, or . . . in use solely or mainly for religious purposes.''
There are some problems of precision. Primarily, the difficult part of defining religious premises is defining not premises but religion. I will not go into this at great length, but premises used ''for religious purposes'' could include a church hall, a youth club run by the YMCA or YWCA, or the Christian Aid operation across the river. It could include a series of different buildings that I am sure it is not the aim of the Bill to catch.
4 pm
Moreover, many smaller churches do not meet in what we would recognise as traditional church buildings or buildings that were exclusively designed to be used as church buildings. Such a church may meet on a Sunday morning in a youth club, which is used as such for the rest of the week, a gym or any building that is large enough to accommodate it. Some of these churches are profoundly evangelical or fundamentalist and are unlikely to want to allow such registrations. However, the Metropolitan Community Church for instance, which is a largely gay and lesbian Church, operates around the country not in traditional church buildings but in venues of the sort that I have mentioned. The Bill would not allow a civil partnership registration service to be held in a Church of England building, but it might allow one in the Metropolitan Community Church. That imprecision must be ironed out.
The other point is that we should allow churches to do what they want. If they want to offer their premises to be used for such events, we should permit them to do so. It is up to the registration authority to decide precisely what premises can and cannot be used, but we should not preclude it from allowing religious premises to be used, particularly those that want to do so.
As an addendum, in case there is not a stand part debate, I note that subsection (5) states:
''A registration authority may provide a place in its area for the registration of civil partnerships.''
What happens if a registration authority chooses not to do so or to make somewhere available that is wholly inappropriate according to almost everybody who
Column Number: 099
wants to register a civil partnership in that area? What powers would local people have to insist that a decent and proper place is made available?
Mr. Duncan: What the hon. Gentleman said illustrates the fact that defining a religious building or religious premises is increasingly difficult. The days have gone when such premises were consecrated ground with a steeple or tower and bells ringing on a Sunday morning. All sorts of religious services take place in multi-purpose buildings and their change of use is frequent.
This is a perilous clause to draft. Buildings that are consecrated under the established or any other traditional Church are easy to define. Buildings used by evangelical or other religions or denominations are far more difficult to define, and one might find that a gymnasium or hall is deemed to be in use mainly for religious purposes, which may or may not be fair. The whole area is fraught with difficulty.
I understand what the hon. Member for Rhondda is saying, but I shall speak principally to amendment No. 15, which is straightforward, as I hope the Minister will agree. Clause 7(2) states:
'' 'Religious premises' means premises:
(a) designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) in use solely or mainly for religious purposes.''
In practical terms, only paragraph (b) is necessary to achieve what the Bill sets out to achieve. A building that was designed as a church may since have been deconsecrated and now have no religious purpose whatsoever. The word ''designed'' is highly inappropriate and utterly inaccurate, and it must be removed. For instance, many deconsecrated Methodist churches in many villages around the country are now private houses. On the Charing Cross road, there is a former church that is a gay club. The building was designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes, but it is not in use for or mainly for such purposes. There is another place called The Sanctuary that has never had anything to do with the Church. The point is that this is bad drafting and unnecessary. It is utterly superfluous. This is quite a simple amendment of logic to remove the difficulty. I do not accept what is in the mind of those who drafted the Bill when they used the phrase ''designed for use''. That should be removed, and the provision should simply read ''in use''.
Andrew Selous: Would my hon. Friend's amendment have any effect on chapels at ease? I understand that they are church buildings that are not currently in use as such, but which have not been deconsecrated. There is the hope and probably the expectation that they will be brought into religious use at some point.
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Chapels at ease are essentially those that are facing desuetude. They are not in active use. However they are not used for any other purpose. In my belief, while they remain consecrated, even though they are not in active use, they would be covered by paragraph (b) because they will not have been used for any other purpose. A chapel of ease would fit within the
Column Number: 100
definition that I think would suffice for the purpose that the clause is intended to achieve.
| 
