The Civil Partnerships Bill went through its “second reading” in the House of Lords yesterday (Thursday April 22).  And after three hours of debate, the Bill was sent to the “grand committee” stage without opposition.

Introducing the Bill, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, for the Government said:  “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.”

“We have put together what we consider to be a measured and proportionate response to those problems,” she continued.  “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.”

Baroness Wilcox (Conservative) said that her party supported the Bill and even wished it well on its passage through Parliament.  “This is a Bill which touches on matters of conscience and, as always in such circumstances in our party, there will be a free vote for these Benches,” she said.

“For the Conservative Party, the family remains the most immediate and important group within which people share responsibility for one another's well-being.  But families are changing; not all conform to the traditional pattern.

“We continue to believe that the conventional marriage and family is the best environment in which to bring up children.  But many couples choose not to marry and more and more same-sex couples want to take on the shared responsibility of a committed relationship.

“It is in all our interests to encourage the voluntary acceptance of such shared responsibilities but in some instances the state actively discourages it.  The Bill should help to change that and make some important reforms. Far from undermining marriage the Bill will, we hope, encourage the long-term commitment and mutual support that makes marriage such a benefit to our society.”

Support for the Bill also came from the Liberal Democrats spokesman Lord Goodhart.  “Views in the United Kingdom on homosexuality have changed enormously in our lifetimes,” he said.

“Fewer than 40 years ago sexual activity between consenting adult males was a criminal offence. That law was repealed in 1967, to his eternal credit, by Roy Jenkins. The great majority of people in this country now recognise that sexual orientation towards the same sex is not a crime, nor is it an illness; it is something that, in all probability, people are born with and cannot be changed.

“But we have also moved on from just removing criminal penalties. We have made it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, in employment or in the provision of goods and services. The time has now come to take another big step forward: to acknowledge that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as heterosexuals to enter into a personal relationship recognised by law with the same consequences for taxation, succession to property and pension benefits as marriage. That is what the Bill does in general and why we support it.”

The Bishop of Oxford admitted that in some Church circles there was the conception that the Bill parallels marriage at almost every point - and the Government will need to address this aspect. 

“However, I do not myself share them,” the Bishop said.  “Properly understood, I believe that this Bill, which makes a place in law for committed partnerships, could strengthen rather than undermine the Christian understanding of marriage. I was very glad to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that in her view and the view of her party, in no way does the Bill denigrate or downgrade marriage.”

Openly gay Peer, Lord Alli, unsuprisingly also welcomed the Bill.  “I cannot tell the House what the Bill will mean to many gay men and women, in terms of the relief that at last we might find some kind of recognition by the state, and therefore society as a whole, for our relationships,” Lord Alli said.

“We will no longer have to think of our loved ones being turned out of the houses that they share with us. We will no longer have to suffer the indignity of seeing ourselves removed from hospitals, while relatives who have barely been on speaking terms with our partners make decisions over medical treatment. This is truly a good Bill.”

Lord Alli then went on to inject a little humour into the proceedings.  “I cannot say whether or not I will be a beneficiary of this Bill - after all, a boy does like to be asked.

“I have received no such proposal,” he admitted.

“However, I have been with my partner for 22 years. In fact, next month we celebrate 23 years together. This legislation might allow us to benefit from what straight couples up and down the country can do. We can if we wish register our union, not because of the fiscal benefits, important as they may be, and not only because of the protections that we wish to give each other, but because we want our partnership recognised by the state and elevated above friendships or close acquaintances. We would do it because we loved each other and we wanted, as the right reverend Prelate stressed, a lifelong relationship. The Bill is about that, recognising the special different status of committed, loving same-sex relationships and giving them legal protection on that basis.

A handful of Peers did speak out against the Bill.  Baroness O’Cathian, who admited that she was in “a small minority”, said:   “We are fundamentally rewriting the entire basis of our family law, pension law and taxation law. The reason for doing so is not to benefit deserving people in situations that they cannot get out of, in many cases. If it were, house sharers not in a sexual relationship would be included. The Bill is not inclusive; it creates yet more fragmentation and discrimination. It is wrong.”

The Bill now passes to it’s Grand Committee stage where it will be scrutinised line by line.  It is expected to go to the House of Commons after the summer recess.  The earliest it could become law is early in 2005.

Verbatim text of the House of Lords debate

23 April, 2004