Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble) (Lab): On the point that the hon. Gentleman made about participation in a stable relationship by same-sex couples below the age of 16, he makes the assumption that they must be having sex. Does he make a similar assumption in the case of couples who enter holy matrimony?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are dealing with this Bill at the moment, and it is unlawful for two people to engage in homosexual practices if one of them is aged under 16. [Hon. Members: ''Or any sexual practices.''] Yes, but I am addressing this issue. In a situation involving two people of different sexes, one of them may be pregnant, for example. That will not arise in a partnership between two people of the same sex.

Since it is the avowed intention of the Government—[Interruption.] I know that some people treat the matter with a frivolous air. It is very serious stuff. We are talking about creating for the first time in English law what will amount to same-sex marriage in all but name. I should have thought that people of a liberal disposition—I am sure most members of the Committee would claim to be of a liberal disposition—would wish to listen to the arguments on both sides with some respect. It is very disappointing and does their cause no good, if they start trying to ridicule those of us who come to this Committee with the confidence that we are speaking for the majority. We know that on this Committee we are not a majority, but that is by the bye; we know that we are speaking for a majority outside. Therefore, it

Column Number: 086

behoves members of the Committee at least to listen to the arguments we put forward and address them on their merits rather than to try and smear us.

Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend has a point when he says that he is concerned that 16 is too young, although those of us who have participated in many of these debates believe that equivalence is important. However, there is a safeguard already written into the Bill in clause 5, which states that parental consent is required for anyone under the age of 18. Does my hon. Friend not think that in the circumstances a sufficient difference between holy matrimony and civil partnership, where two men—two boys if they are aged 16—or girls might wish to enter into a partnership, is already contained in the Bill?

Mr. Chope: I accept that clause 5 is some safeguard, but I do not think it is a sufficient safeguard. I think that I am right in saying that the Government are in the process of ensuring that no one aged under 18 can purchase alcohol in the pub. That would be an absolute prohibition on the behaviour of people under the age of 18, recognising, as the Bill does, that someone under that age is technically a child in law. The Government have placed a lot of restrictions on the activities of people under 18, and yet they seem to be content that one can enter into a stable and committed same-sex relationship at the age of 16. There may be people on the Committee who think that is perfectly reasonable, but I happen to think it is not, which is why I have tabled the amendment.

3.15 pm

Angela Eagle: I oppose the hon. Gentleman's amendment because it again seems to create a difference between heterosexual people and gay and lesbian people, this time with respect to whether they can enter civil partnerships or get married. Although he has not mentioned it, the implications are that the age of consent should somehow be unequalised. We have spent a long time reaching an appropriate situation in which the age of consent has been equalised across the piece and regardless of sexual orientation. His amendment would create a situation in which those who were gay or lesbian would have to wait two years longer before they could enter into a civil partnership.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about parental consent, adequate protection would be provided through such means, and I see no reason why Parliament should legislate to create a completely different age at which gay and lesbian people should be allowed to commit to each other from that at which heterosexual people may do so. For that reason, if not more, I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will realise that, although he has just called for respect from the Committee, he does not really respect those of a gay or lesbian orientation because he believes that they must be older in order to be proved to be responsible. That is a profoundly insulting basis for an amendment, so I hope that the Committee will oppose it.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is quite sensitive about being accused of

Column Number: 087

holding a wrong view or showing prejudice. As the hon. Lady just said, he has demanded that his arguments be treated with respect. I have known him for the best part of two decades, and my answer is that his arguments should indeed be treated with respect, subject to one rather important caveat, which is that he should be honest about his motivation for introducing them. As dishonesty is not permissible in the proceedings of the House, I am sure that he will want to clarify his intentions.

There is a degree of confusion as we debate this matter. Earlier in our deliberations—I shall not dwell on them, otherwise I would get into trouble with you, Mr. Gale; I am merely animadverting to them for the purposes of illustrating my present argument—my hon. Friend complained that, without his amendment to allow registration entitlements for heterosexual partners, the essence of the Bill was discriminatory.

Further to the criticisms of my hon. Friend's amendment made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), he ought at least to acknowledge that his amendment is discriminatory and that it entails and legislates for inequality. It is perfectly open to him to say to the Committee, ''Yes, it is discriminatory. I am applying a different principle to partnerships of people of the same sex from that which I would apply to opposite-sex partnerships, but I believe that there is good reason to do so. I am legislating for inequality, but I believe that it is right.'' However, to try to suggest that the amendment is not about discrimination and inequality flies in the face of the facts.

Mr. Chope: Would my hon. Friend accept that he is labouring under the fallacy—I know that he would wish it to be otherwise—that civil partnership is equivalent to marriage, which it quite clearly is not?

Mr. Bercow: We are treading on old ground. The answer to my hon. Friend is that civil partnership is not the same as marriage, but it is a means by which those who are not eligible for marriage should nevertheless be treated equally before the law. To recall the language used by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton on Second Reading, it is a question of establishing parallel lines, or, as I put it, guaranteeing in the law parity of esteem. It is that equality of recognition and treatment before the law that matters. We can argue for ever and a day about what we choose to call the institution, but what really matters is its status in legal terms and what flows, in legal terms, from what this House chooses to do.

The hon. Member for Wallasey was justified in making her point about the read-across to the age of consent because, in a sense, these matters are inextricably bound up with each other. I do not have the Division list from the Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill on 10 February 2000, but I would certainly wager confidently that if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch were present on that occasion—as he is an assiduous attendee in the House, I have no reason to suppose otherwise—he did not cast his vote in favour of equalisation in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and I did.

Column Number: 088

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has never recanted of his opposition to an equal age of consent. We do have an equal age of consent, however, and I think that it is right and proper that we should. Just as we have an equal age of consent, so we should have equality in the capacity to enter a civil partnership relative to the entitlement to enter civil marriage. His amendment, as he knows, would in effect relegate or even demean the status of civil partnership. He is a very shrewd fellow, and he knows perfectly well that that is what he is attempting to do. He is entitled to try, but he is not entitled to pretend that he is not trying, and I reject the attempt that he is making.

The amendment is thoroughly undesirable. In the league table, it is not as objectionable as some of the others that my hon. Friend has tabled, but—[Interruption.] Well, I am happy to consult the record on that, but this amendment concerns a matter of important principle. There must be equality, and any attempt—of which this amendment is one—to legislate for discrimination and inequality should be rejected. I strongly oppose the amendment.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): I have listened with care to the arguments of the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I have to say that as a parent I am most dismayed that he is so dismissive of the provision allowing for parental permission for those under 18. If he believes in the family, which I sense that he devoutly does, he must believe that the majority of parents carry out their duties conscientiously. I therefore cannot see why he is not satisfied with allowing parents to judge whether someone under 18 is ready to enter the state of civil partnership.

Mr. Carmichael: I am moved to intervene to say that it would be nonsense to change the age to 18. When in every other respect the Bill's aim is to remove discrimination, to legislate for one new piece of discrimination makes no sense at all.

I take issue with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). If she has regard to the provisions relating to Scotland, she will see that there is no equivalent to clause 5, because we have no equivalent requirement for parental consent for civil marriage. I wonder whether, when civil marriage is revisited, that requirement will still be thought necessary, because there is something quite patronising about the idea of someone who is 17 and three quarters having to get parental consent. However, that is really a matter to be determined by colleagues representing constituencies south of the border.

 

---

Prepared 21 October 2004