Justice 1 Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Official Report 244KB pdf

---

Civil Partnership Bill

For item 4, on the Civil Partnership Bill, which is UK legislation, I refer members to the note prepared by the clerk on the written representations that have been received. I ask members to note that we did not put out a call for evidence, but we have received correspondence, which I took the view that members should see. However, I make it absolutely clear that we did not solicit any representations. Members will have a chance to see what those who have written to us had to say.

Further, petition PE737 has been lodged by Stephen Harte, on behalf of Holy Trinity Metropolitan Community Church. I thought that it would be appropriate to take the petition now, so that members could consider it in the context of the report on the Civil Partnership Bill. Members will be aware that normally we group petitions and take them every quarter, but PE737 would be out of sync if we took it at the appropriate point. Members may wish to raise particular issues in relation to the petition, but it would be appropriate to consider it in the context of the Sewel motion and the Civil Partnership Bill. I invite members to comment.

I welcome the fact that you have allowed the petition to be examined now, convener. Given the evidence that we have taken and the discussion that we have had as a committee, clause 89(2) clearly is contentious—in fact, it is probably the most contentious of the devolved provisions in the bill.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the views that are expressed in the petition. There is a wider issue, which was touched on by Michael Matheson in questioning the Deputy Minister for Justice, which is that there has not been widespread consultation with the churches on the issue. My understanding is that in the meetings that the Executive had with faith groups prior to the publication of the bill it did not consult on the issue. There has been no consultation with anybody since the bill was published, but as the provision is on the face of the bill it has become more of an issue. My own point of view is well known: I am quite supportive of the view that is expressed in the petition and do not think that the provision should be in the bill. I would prefer to see it in regulations and for it to be down to individual churches, local authorities, registrars and the individuals concerned to decide, rather than for the state to prescribe on such religious matters.

We can take the petition into account at this stage, but possibly only in a limited way. Yes, this church has exercised its right to petition the Parliament on the matter; however, I would prefer us to take clause 89(2) out of the bill and deal with the matter in regulations in exactly the same way as civil marriage is decided upon. The Executive has told us that the policy intention is for the provisions to be the same as those for civil marriage. If we dealt with the matter through regulations or a statutory instrument, that would allow time for the Executive to consult the churches properly, in a more general sense, on this issue. It is not just the Holy Trinity Metropolitan Community Church that is interested in the matter, but we do not know what the other churches feel about it.

I would prefer the matter to be dealt with in regulations for a number of reasons, one of which is that that would allow the period up to the enactment of the bill for the Executive to consult with Scotland's churches on the matter. It would also allow some parliamentary scrutiny if the matter were dealt with through a Scottish statutory instrument. At this stage, all that we have is the view of one church. Although I am sympathetic to that, it is the view of only one church. It is unfortunate that we are in this situation because the matter is dealt with in the bill, which I believe is far too prescriptive and ties us down too much.

We have the views of a church, Christian Action Research and Education for Scotland, and an individual.

Some of the letters that we have received have followed press interest in the petition that was submitted by the Holy Trinity Metropolitan Community Church. However, my understanding is that, although the church has received correspondence from other churches that support its view, it has also received letters from churches that say that they have not considered the issue and cannot say what their views are.

Let me make the position clear: the committee cannot make up for the fact that there has been no consultation on this point. You have had correspondence on the issue, which the committee should see. I would not want a petition to have any more weight than correspondence on the matter, for the very reason that you have given; however, the alternative was not to put anything on the agenda. Like you, I am concerned that we are not hearing from people who have different views because there has been no invitation. That is the situation with which we are faced.

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not think that we should not have regard to the letters that we have received or to the petition. I am not saying that the petition is any more important than the letters. What we have is only a snapshot of opinion from those people who have chosen to express their views. There is a need for wider consultation, and to allow that we must change the bill. There has been no consultation on the matter in advance of the publication of the bill or, indeed, since its publication.

Okay. We understand. I interrupted you only because you were going on to talk about representations that the Holy Trinity Metropolitan Community Church has received. That is a matter for that church, not for us.

The committee can deal with this only in the light of where we are now in the consideration of the matter. We have taken evidence on the Civil Partnership Bill and we have a draft report. We must decide what will be contained in the final report. On that basis, I do not believe that we have any choice but to go for option b in paragraph 8, which is to note the petition, unless we decide to carry out a full inquiry and call other people to give evidence. I do not see what the petition adds to the evidence that we have already received on the matter—that is my view, given the stage that the committee has reached. If the committee decides to consider the petition in more detail, that will involve opening the matter up and inviting other organisations to submit evidence. That evidence will have to be considered, and that will delay our report. Given what is happening in the House of Lords, I do not think that we can afford to do that. When we write to the petitioner, it might be worth while advising him that he should direct his resources to the House of Lords, where consideration of the bill is taking place. It is, in effect, too late for us to consider the matter in greater depth.

Are you arguing that we should close the petition, but that the point that it makes should be included in our report?

The issue is already rehearsed in the report. The petition should be closed and we should advise the petitioner that, because of the stage that we are at in considering the matter, he might wish to focus resources on the House of Lords, where the bill is being considered in detail.

I agree with Michael Matheson—we should note the petition and close it. We should treat it in the same way as the correspondence that we received from individuals and from CARE, and we should go on to deal with the draft report. Michael Matheson is quite right—we cannot open up the matter from scratch as there is not enough time. Personally, I have sympathy with the petitioner's argument, but that is neither here nor there. We should note the petition, write to the petitioner and move on to the draft report.

Is anyone otherwise minded?

No.

We will take agenda item 5, which is also on the Civil Partnership Bill, in private. We will put together our draft report on the bill but, as members know, there is a tight timescale. I think that our decision on evidence was the right one. Due to the public holiday, the report has to be sent for publishing tomorrow, which means that a revised draft will be sent to members on Wednesday evening for comment by 12 noon on Thursday. We made a good start last time, so we will see how we get on today.

Meeting suspended until 12:27 and thereafter continued in private until 14:15.