| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Warner: My Lords, if only the noble Earl's father had been alive during the time of this Government, we could have advised him of the dangers of his behaviour.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not dangerous to follow the noble Earl's argument that it is simply an issue of the liberty of those who want to smoke and damage their own health? The crucial point about a ban on smoking in public places is the protection of non-smokers, whose health can be harmed by others who choose to harm themselves.
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Survey after survey has shown that a large number of people, including smokers, think that there should be restrictions on their exposure to second-hand smoke in public places. The Government want to hear what people have to say in the consultation that is in progress. We await the public's opinion.
Midwives
11.29 a.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What actions are being taken to ensure more student midwives qualify and enter the profession in view of the decline in the number of registered midwives.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the number of registered midwives is not in decline. The Nursing & Midwifery Council figures showing that there are fewer practising midwives in the UK are wrong and have been withdrawn. There are 1,300 more midwives working in the NHS now than in 2000. The Government are increasing midwifery training places. In 2002–03, 2,110 students entered midwifery training; that is, 28 per cent more than in 1996–97.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is he aware that although the figures are being readjusted by the NMC, they will still show that there is a sharp reduction in the number of midwives taking up posts? What is being done to stop some students—I believe about one-fifth—dropping out of their courses due to inadequacies of support, particularly in
respect of childcare arrangements and the low level of the bursary that they receive? That creates a risk for the maternity services and urgent action is needed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept my noble friend's position regarding numbers. The advice that I have received is that the NMC data—for example, in London alone—understated the numbers intending to practise by about 3,000 people. The council is working with the department, but I am advised that those figures are wrong and the number of midwives is increasing.
As regards student attrition rates, there are always some students who do not complete their courses, whether in midwifery or otherwise. If they are not qualified to do the job and have not satisfied those who verify their performance, it is appropriate that they should not qualify. The Government have substantially increased the money for NHS bursaries following action by the Chancellor in 2000.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at birth centres and midwife-led units there are waiting lists for midwives who want to work there because they can give a quality of care that they cannot give elsewhere? As a result, there are fewer interventions and there is less anguish for mothers and less morbidity for babies. Is the Minister further aware that those units are under threat of closure and that some have recently closed? Indeed, a Labour Secretary of State and the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, intervened to stop those closures. Will the Minister work with his colleagues to do likewise?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we want to have a wide range of different models of care and place of birth. We do not champion one model over another. Choice is important for all women. The birth rate has been falling substantially for 13 years. It has fallen from about 650,000 births per year to 540,000. In itself, that will mean that some adjustments of services may be necessary.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the figures there is certainly a perception in the health service that too few midwives are being trained? If we are to move to a more patient-centred form of treatment during pregnancy, we must ensure that we have enough trained people. Given those circumstances and the fact that most people undergoing midwifery training are mature students, will the Government please look long and hard at their training policy and at giving sufficient support to people who are also involved in raising their own families?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I stand by what I said in my Answer about the increase in the number of midwives since 2000. The Department of Health has also funded 500 return-to-practice places. In March, we launched the 2004 recruitment campaign with television advertising. Of course, we want to generate
more applications for midwifery, but the numbers of student places are increasing. Again, I make the point that the birth rate is going down.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister know how many midwives come from abroad?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the shortage of midwives is evidenced by the vacancy rate which, in London and the south-east in particular, is acute? The vacancy percentage across the UK is around 5.4 per cent of funded establishment, but in London it is 18.3 per cent. Is there anything that the Government can do to ameliorate the situation, particularly in London and the south-east, where the cost of living is very high?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we accept that across the country vacancy rates rose marginally in 2003. In part, that was because we increased the number of funded posts ahead of their being filled. Vacancy rates can be cut by cutting the number of posts, just as train punctuality can be increased by saying that journeys should take longer. We can play statistical games in that area. We accept that there is a shortage of midwives in some parts of London. Agenda for Change will give more flexibility for local PCTs and trusts to offer higher rates.
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
11.36 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the instruction of 30 March to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill has been committed be varied so that the Committee consider Clause 14, and Schedules 1 and 2, after Clause 35.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Higher Education Bill
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Higher Education Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 47 to 50.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Civil Partnership Bill [HL]
11.37 a.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
As this House is aware, same-sex couples are unable to marry and cannot gain legal recognition of their relationships. The lack of legal recognition means that same-sex couples face many difficult issues as they seek to organise their lives together.
Two years ago, this House discussed a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to whom I pay tribute today—although I see that, for some unfortunate reason, he is not in his place. During a full and constructive debate, this House acknowledged the difficulties experienced by same-sex couples. We touched on areas as diverse as hospital visiting, intestacy and pension rights.
The Government made a commitment to explore how those inequalities could best be addressed, which, since that debate, we have endeavoured to do. The Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of the law and how it applies to same-sex couples. Over the past two years, considerable hard work has gone into that endeavour. We have considered the specific problems faced by same-sex couples as a result of the failure to give legal recognition to their relationships.
We found that problems can arise in a wider range of areas than might immediately first spring to mind. For example, where an accident causes the death of a person in a same-sex relationship, the other person in that relationship may find that he or she faces specific difficulties in obtaining access to the body, information about circumstances leading to or surrounding the death, or, indeed, compensation. Following a partner's death, they may find themselves unable to stay in the home they have shared with that partner for many years. Sometimes there have even been difficulties about attending events as intimate as funerals.
We have put together what we consider to be a measured and proportionate response to those problems. Civil partnership would allow those same-sex couples who wish to do so to gain legal recognition for their relationship. This legal recognition would be accompanied by a set of rights and responsibilities to reflect the commitment that the couple had made to each other.
In June 2003, we released our proposals for public consultation in England and Wales. Since then, separate consultation exercises have followed for Scotland and Northern Ireland. This consultation has been accompanied by informed and constructive debate in the public sphere over the question of recognition of same-sex couples.
We have, then, a Bill that is the product of two years' serious and intensive work by the Government and which has been shaped by consultation with stakeholders and the public at large, and informed by debate in this House and elsewhere. We are confident that the Bill places civil partnership firmly in the civil sphere of our national life. The strength of the Bill is that it offers a secular solution to the disadvantages which same-sex couples face in the way they are treated by our laws.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the issues that have been widely debated over the past two years. Noble Lords will recall that when the civil partnership Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, sought to include opposite-sex couples, there was a great deal of debate. The debate in this House focused heavily on that element of his Bill and many felt that this would undermine marriage. This Bill does not undermine or weaken the importance of marriage and we do not propose to open civil partnership to opposite-sex couples. Civil partnership is aimed at same-sex couples who cannot marry.
However, it is important for us to be clear that we continue to support marriage and recognise that it is the surest foundation for opposite-sex couples raising children. We also recognise, as did many in this House, that a number of people face difficulties on the breakdown of a relationship or upon the death of one partner when the couple are not married. Many of these difficulties come as a complete surprise to couples who believe in the myth of so-called "common-law marriage". The Department for Constitutional Affairs is currently doing work that will address this myth, pointing out the differences in rights and responsibilities between married and unmarried couples, and suggesting ways that unmarried couples can protect themselves if things go wrong.
Then there is the issue of other home-sharers. Some people have discussed the position of family members, siblings, and people who share homes. This is a quite separate issue from that which the Bill seeks to address. Family members, be they parent and child or siblings, have a legally recognised relationship to each other. These relationships, which already afford certain rights, are widely acknowledged and accepted in society. A same-sex couple who have shared a relationship over many years can still be treated as complete strangers by the law.
While home-sharers may be concerned about financial issues, the full range of issues faced by same-sex couples is something entirely different. This Bill seeks to address issues for one group of people, namely
same-sex couples. It is not a cure-all for the financial problems of those outside marriage. Noble Lords may know that other distinguished minds in the Law Commission have long wrestled with this issue. Having looked at it in great detail, they have concluded that the solution in every case depended on the nature of the relationship. That is why this Bill is specifically designed to look simply at same-sex couple relationships. That is its clear purpose and that is its clear content.Having set out the context of our proposals, I turn now to the provisions of the Bill itself. I intend, if I may, to outline these in some detail so that noble Lords have a clear understanding of the framework that we seek to put in place.
Part 1 defines a civil partnership and the time at which it is formed and when it ends. Eligible same-sex couples will be able to register as civil partners in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland under the relevant part of the Bill. Provision will also be made by Order in Council for registration outside the United Kingdom at British consulates or by Armed Forces personnel serving overseas in circumstances similar to those where marriage can take place. In addition, same-sex relationships registered overseas that meet specific criteria would be treated as civil partnerships under our law. A civil partnership would come to an end only on the death of a partner, dissolution or annulment.
Part 2 sets out the procedures for forming or dissolving a civil partnership in England and Wales, and the rights and responsibilities that would flow from the relationship. Chapter 1 sets out the procedures for registering as civil partners and the eligibility criteria that must be met before two people may do so. Two people of the same sex would be able to register as civil partners of each other, provided that both were either over 18 years old, or over 16 with the necessary consent from, for example, a parent or guardian; that neither was in an existing civil partnership or marriage; and that they were not within the prohibited degrees of relationship. Schedule 1 gives details of these prohibited degrees, which include the relationships between siblings and those between parents and children. So forming a civil partnership would be a secular process and Chapter 1 gives details of this.
Having given notice to the registration authority of their intention to register, a same-sex couple would need to wait at least 15 days while the necessary checks were made on their eligibility. After this, at a time and in a place agreed between the couple and the local authority, the couple would sign the civil partnership document in the presence of a civil partnership registrar and two witnesses. In keeping with the secular nature of the process, registration could not take place in religious premises.
A ceremony would not form part of the statutory process. Responses to the England and Wales consultation suggested that while some same-sex couples would welcome a ceremony, others would not. The local authority would be free to offer the option of
a ceremony in addition if it wished. Whether or not a ceremony were to take place would be a decision for the couple and the local authority concerned.Chapter 2 contains provisions relating to dissolution, nullity and other proceedings. It is proposed that civil partnerships could be ended only by a formal, court-based process. This is in keeping with the serious nature of the responsibilities that civil partners would have towards each other. The person applying for a dissolution would need to provide evidence that the civil partnership had broken down irretrievably. The court would inquire as far as possible into the facts alleged by the applicant and any facts alleged by their partner. If the court was satisfied on the evidence that the civil partnership had broken down irretrievably, a dissolution order would be granted. Chapter 2 sets out the facts that have to be proved to show the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership. It also makes provision for annulment of void or voidable civil partnerships, and for the legal separation of civil partners.
Chapter 3 gives details of the property and financial arrangements applying to civil partnerships, while Chapter 4 concerns the position where two people have agreed to form a civil partnership.
There are already same-sex couples in the UK who are raising children together. Chapter 5 proposes a series of measures to ensure that the provisions relating to children will apply to the rights of children of these families in the same way as to children of a marriage.
Chapter 6 deals with miscellaneous issues including the making of false statements and the rights of civil partners in relation to housing and tenancies, family homes and domestic violence, and fatal accidents claims.
Part 3 deals with provisions relating to Scotland. Chapter 1 deals with formation and eligibility; Chapter 2 with registration; Chapter 3 with occupancy rights and tenancies; Chapter 4 with interdicts; Chapter 5 with dissolution, separation and nullity; and Chapter 6 with miscellaneous issues and interpretation.
There are some differences between the provisions for civil partnership outlined for Scotland and those for England and Wales. Most of these differences are minor and of a procedural nature and reflect the distinctive character of Scots law.
In accordance with the Sewel convention, the Scottish Executive has informed the Government that it intends to place a Motion before the Scottish Parliament, seeking its agreement that the provisions of the Bill may extend to Scotland in relation to devolved matters.
Part 4 of the Bill deals with provisions relating to Northern Ireland. As yet, these are incomplete. We intend to add further provisions by amendment. As is the case with Scotland, there will be some differences between the provisions for civil partnership for Northern Ireland and England and Wales. Most of these differences are minor and of a procedural nature, and reflect the distinct legal system in Northern Ireland.
Part 5 of the Bill is concerned with the treatment of relationships formed or dissolved abroad. Chapter 1 allows provision to be made by Order in Council for registration at British consulates, and in the case of Armed Forces personnel serving overseas, in circumstances similar to those where marriage can take place.
There is no common concept of same-sex registered partnership in other countries across the world. As regards relationships formed in other jurisdictions, Chapter 2 of the Bill therefore defines the overseas relationships which can be treated as a civil partnership in the United Kingdom, and the requirements which have to be met for this to take place. Chapter 3 concerns the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts to hear applications for dissolution, annulment or separation, and also provides for the circumstances in which overseas dissolutions, and so on, can be recognised in the United Kingdom.
Part 6 of the Bill provides that references to certain familial relationships in legislation will be interpreted to include relationships arising through civil partnership. Parts 7 and 8 deal with a number of discrete areas of legislation which would need to be amended to reflect the existence of the new legal relationship of civil partner.
Clause 186 introduces Schedule 17 which amends child support, social security and tax credits legislation so as to enable same-sex partners to receive similar treatment to opposite-sex couples. This schedule also amends the provisions relating to the state pension system. Those state pension benefits equally available to husbands and wives will be extended to civil partners from commencement. Other state pension benefits will be extended to civil partners as the Government begin to equalise the state pension system from 2010.
Clause 187 provides a power to amend legislation relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities for the purpose of or in connection with making provisions with respect to pensions for surviving civil partners or other dependants of deceased civil partners. The intention is to use this power in relation to pension rights accrued after commencement of the Civil Partnership Bill.
Your Lordships should be aware that the Government will be tabling a number of amendments to the Bill during its passage through this House, in addition to those already mentioned in relation to Part 4 which deals with Northern Ireland. However, these are mostly minor amendments to other legislation, reflecting the introduction of civil partnership. Some additional provisions on dissolution will be moved by amendment, as well as the provisions on pension sharing on dissolution.
There will be some minor amendments to Part 5, covering recognition of partnerships entered into overseas. The inclusion of additional Northern Ireland provisions in Part 4 will have a knock-on impact on the need for amendments. The Government will also be moving some outstanding consequential provisions. I hope I will be able to write to your Lordships shortly setting out in further detail the intended amendments and their content.
I am very pleased to bring the Bill to the House. It is a Bill that signals clearly that same-sex couple relationships should be treated with fairness and dignity. Stable relationships are valuable both to the individuals in them and to the society that benefits from them. Whether people should look to the Government for a lead in their personal lives is perhaps a debate for another day. On this issue, however, there is a clear gap between our current legal provisions and our social reality and it is a gap that needs—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page