Plenary, 03 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, June 3, 2004

Official Report 771KB pdf

---

Civil Partnership Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1202, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Civil Partnership Bill, which is UK legislation, and one amendment to the motion.

The issue of civil partnerships has provoked strong reactions and considerable debate on both sides of the argument. Some people would prefer not to provide legal recognition for same-sex couples at all, while other people would want to go much further than the Civil Partnership Bill and extend marriage to same-sex couples. Many commentators have paused over the details of the bill, and major and minor points have been the subject of much discussion. However, it would be unfortunate if the irreconcilable push-and-pull factors that have been evident in public debate thus far were to overshadow what the bill is about and why the Executive believes strongly that Scottish provisions should be contained in a comprehensive UK bill.

The Civil Partnership Bill will provide the means for same-sex couples to register their commitment to each other, gain legal recognition for their relationship and secure a package of rights and responsibilities that are relevant to people who seek to organise their lives jointly. The fact that the rights and responsibilities straddle devolved and reserved policy areas means that a UK bill is the most sensible way forward and any other approach would give rise to unduly complex and unwieldy legislation that would be understood by few in our society, particularly among those whom the legislation is supposed to help. I recognise that it would be conceivable for Scotland to legislate separately on the devolved areas, but that would not be in the best interests of consistency or clarity, and doing so could lead to problematic cross-border issues.

Has the minister heard what Lord Sewel—whose name is attached to such motions—has been quoted as saying on the subject recently? He said:

"the Convention had been set up to deal with ‘minor, non-controversial issues', not for many of the major bills, including a recent bill on same-sex civil registrations."

Does the minister think that Lord Sewel is correct and does he agree that Sewel motions should be used for minor and infrequent matters rather than for major matters, such as those that we are discussing?

I recognise Lord Sewel's significant contribution to Scotland's developing legal and political relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, that contribution does not mean that Lord Sewel is the final arbiter or the only person who can have a view on what should, or should not, be included in Sewel motions. As I have argued in respect of the bill that we are discussing, which involves a range of issues that are reserved as well as devolved, what we have proposed is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the matter. We believe strongly that a Sewel motion is the best way forward and we are pleased that our consultation found significant support for that view. Some 86 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposal legally to recognise same-sex couples and 74 per cent agreed with the proposed use of a Sewel motion.

The Civil Partnership Bill has just completed the committee stage in the House of Lords and I am pleased to say that there has been a welcome level of consensus for the principles behind the bill. Some people might think that the House of Lords did not scrutinise the specifically Scottish parts of the bill in sufficient detail, but the principles that underpin the Scottish clauses mirror those that apply to England and Wales—the only difference is that the Scottish clauses are, rightly, based on Scots law. In the debate on the clauses for England and Wales, the House of Lords considered at some length the underlying principles of civil registration for same-sex couples. There was no reason to go back over those arguments of principle when the equivalent Scottish clauses were reached.

There has, of course, been detailed scrutiny of our proposals for civil partnership registration by the Scottish Parliament. In response to the Executive's consultation, the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence from a wide range of equalities organisations, church representatives and legal experts. We welcomed the committee's strong support for our proposals to take forward civil partnership registration for same-sex couples and we have taken on board the committee's recommendations.

More recently, the Justice 1 Committee examined the Civil Partnership Bill, paying particular attention to the need for the Scottish clauses to adhere to Scots law and considering the extent to which the bill mirrors legislation on marriage. The committee received written submissions from several bodies as well as taking oral evidence. Members will have received a copy of the Justice 1 Committee's report. I welcome that report, which has helped to define some of the finer legal details. We have already responded to most of the points that it raises, and I have written to the convener in response to the committee's report. As a result of the welcome input from the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Justice 1 Committee, the Executive is confident that the Civil Partnership Bill is a sound bill that is appropriate to the needs of same-sex couples in Scotland.

Today's debate is about the broad principles of the bill and ensuring that same-sex couples in Scotland can secure the same legal protection as same-sex couples in other parts of the UK. I hope that the Parliament shares my commitment to ensuring a comprehensive and consistent approach throughout the UK. I hope that members, despite some reservations that they may have about the use of a Sewel motion, can rise above the differences of semantics and mechanics and vote to endorse an important principle. I hope that Parliament will agree that including Scottish provisions in a UK bill is the only way in which to achieve that, and I urge members who believe in the principles that are set out in the bill to support the Sewel motion.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle of giving same sex couples in Scotland the opportunity to form a civil partnership and agrees that the provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill that relate to devolved matters should be based on Scots law and considered by the UK Parliament.

My amendment does not deal with the substantive issue but, once again, draws the Parliament's attention to the very real dangers that are attached to endorsing Sewel motions without adequate debate. The Scotland Act 1998 is quite specific about what is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and what powers are retained at Westminster. It is worth restating that there are dangers in seeking to blur that distinction and in departing from the principle that the Parliament simply agrees that Westminster should legislate on our behalf. I fully accept the fact that the Scottish National Party is ever eager to stretch the parameters of the Parliament's authority. That is quite understandable, given its stance. However, I think that we must look much more closely at such matters in the future.

Will Bill Aitken take an intervention?

I do not have time because of the strict timing of the debate.

The problem that faces many members is the fact that there is not adequate debating time for us to consider the matter in depth, as it should be considered. The Justice 1 Committee, which inquired into the bill, had reservations over certain aspects of it. It seems quite wrong to endorse something as a Parliament if we have not had the opportunity to examine it in the necessary depth.

There are, of course, sound arguments in favour of the bill. Equally, however, the bill appears at first sight to be defective in a number of respects, the most obvious of which is the situation that arises for non-sexual partnerships or cohabiting heterosexual couples. Is it right that they should be denied rights that are given to gay couples and married couples? If it is the Executive's wish that the provisions of the Westminster legislation should apply in general terms to Scotland—and there are arguments for that—why did not the Executive produce its own legislative proposals? That would have enabled the parliamentary committees and the Parliament as a whole to examine the legislation in much greater depth than is being allowed at the moment. The fact of the matter is that, because of the section 28 fiasco, the Executive has bottled it.

If Bill Aitken's criticism of the motion is that the bill may be defective, why does his amendment seek to remove the endorsement of the principle of civil partnership rather than the reference to the bill?

Because, quite simply, all such matters that are dealt with under Sewel motions should be remitted simpliciter to Westminster to be determined there. Westminster will have a much greater opportunity than we have to consider the situation in depth.

Cognisant of the fact that my amendment will probably fall, I recognise that we need to consider what we will do at that stage. For my part, I will vote in favour of the bill; for perfectly principled reasons, others will oppose it. I can fully understand why they will do that. However, the point remains that unless we are able to consider such matters in a far wider way than is permitted under the restricted timetable into which Sewel motions have to be fitted, difficulties will arise.

As I said, I will vote for the bill; others will vote against it. The Conservative group has a free vote on the motion and I think that that is the correct approach. The way in which the matter is being handled today is certainly not correct. There is a wider issue about how such matters should be debated and dealt with.

I move amendment S2M-1202.1, to leave out from "endorses" to first "and".

The first thing to say is that I believe in the right of same-sex couples to register their relationships if they want to do so; that is arguably the most important point in this debate. Same-sex couples should be able to obtain the same rights and protections and be under the same obligations as married couples. Unlike Bill Aitken, I have no objection to endorsing that principle.

It has never seemed to me to be fair or right, or consistent with human rights, that a gay man who has lived in a stable, happy, committed relationship with his partner for years should have no right of inheritance when his partner dies or have no right to protection if his partner who owns their house is violent or suddenly decides that the relationship is at an end.

In my view, those who say that giving gay couples legal rights akin to the rights of those who are married somehow threatens the institution of marriage are—I say this with the greatest of respect—totally wrong. It strikes me that those who believe in marriage and in what that commitment that two people make to each other signifies should welcome the fact that others want to make similar long-term commitments. That is a vote of confidence in, rather than a threat to, the institution of marriage.

It is because I feel so strongly about the issue that I am so disappointed that we are being asked to hand over our responsibility to Westminster even though the bill will have a huge impact on devolved matters. The Executive will deny this—it has the right to do so—but I think that there is every sign that it is ducking controversial moral issues. I believe that it is wrong to do that.

Adopting the Sewel procedure on an issue such as civil partnerships raises some important issues of principle. People do not send us here to Edinburgh, and pay us pretty well for the privilege, so that we can pick and choose what bits of the job we want to do. Provisions in the bill deal with family law, succession and property law and the law governing the procedures for registering civil partnerships, all of which are devolved to this Parliament. Those matters, which are not marginal to the bill but central to it, are our responsibility.

The practical issues must be considered. Hugh Henry perhaps made a valid point when he asked why members should vote against a motion, the substance of which they agree with, just because they disagree with the procedure. That argument might have held some sway if we had a faultless bill that would do everything that we wanted it to do, but that is not the case. The Justice 1 Committee identified a number of deficiencies with the bill. The procedure to which we are asked to agree today will deny us the opportunity that we would have had with any Scottish Parliament bill to put right those defects.

The bill's policy intention is to give same-sex couples who register a relationship the same rights as married couples. In many respects, the bill will do that but it will not do so in all respects. For example, the bill will not give same-sex couples the same inheritance rights or the same rights over children. If the bill is passed and the Executive's family law consultation proceeds as it is likely to do, we will face the bizarre situation that it will be easier to get divorced in this country than it will be to dissolve a civil partnership. The bill will not even give same-sex couples the right to determine where they will have the ceremony to register their partnership, although couples who marry have the right to determine where they will have their wedding. The list goes on.

I accept that the minister has given a commitment to propose amendments to deal with certain areas and I welcome that. I also welcome the minister's commitment to come back to Parliament if the bill changes substantially before it is passed.

However, a much bigger question arises about those issues over which the Justice 1 Committee expressed concerns and on which the minister has not given a commitment to lodge amendments. If we were dealing with a Scottish Parliament bill, back-bench Opposition MSPs would have the right to lodge amendments and to ask Parliament to vote on the issues. However, if we agree to a Sewel motion, we hand away that right to Westminster. If we agree to the bill by means of a Sewel motion, we will fail in our duty as legislators, but, worse than that, we will also fail the many thousands of people in Scotland who stand to benefit from the reform. It is up to us to ensure that the bill that is passed lives up to their expectations, and if we do not take responsibility for it, we hand away the right and the obligation on us to do that.

I very much welcome the debate and the Civil Partnership Bill. It is a good bill and it will be made better because the Executive, to a large extent, is paying attention to many of the points that the Justice 1 Committee raised in its report.

The bill will bring to an end much of the institutionalised discrimination that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face every day of our lives. It will not on its own stamp out homophobia, but it will be a catalyst for change in that it will build a more equal Scotland where diversity is embraced not feared, encouraged not denied. The bill will confer rights and responsibilities, but crucially, for couples, it will mean that their commitment to one another will be recognised legally and financially by the state.

I cannot overstate the importance of the bill—and of Parliament's support for the bill today—to LGBT people in Scotland. That is why the Equality Network is urging all MSPs to support the Sewel motion. It is not that the Equality Network, I or many others do not have a sense of disappointment that we are not considering the bill in a more in-depth way—we all share that disappointment, but we are being pragmatic. I do not want the bill to be delayed by a single day, because that would mean one more day of discrimination against people in the LGBT community in Scotland. I urge SNP members and others to put to one side justifiable constitutional concerns and to actively support Scotland's gay people by voting for the motion today.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I have a lot to get through.

Civil partnership is not marriage, but it is a new legal state that shares many of the aims of marriage. Therefore, it is not surprising—indeed, it is only right—that it should mirror the legal and financial attributes of marriage to a large extent. I agree with Michael Howard that it should not be the role of the state to discourage loving, committed relationships of any kind. By giving same-sex couples the option of civil partnerships, we are not undermining marriage between a man and a woman in any way—in fact, we are showing confidence in their commitment to one another.

There is clear consensus that the present arrangements are unfair. A gay couple might have lived together for 20 years, but the law still regards them as strangers. Currently, they suffer discrimination in a number of areas—pensions, tax, benefits, tenancy, succession rights and recognition as next of kin, to name but a few. Many of those problems surface at times of great stress when a partner dies or is ill, or when a long-term relationship ends. That is why 86 per cent of people who responded to the consultation supported the proposals. We should consider mixed-sex cohabiting couples and whether we can extend greater rights to them in the forthcoming bill on family law. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is also doing that.

The Civil Partnership Bill is a complex piece of legislation and I pay tribute to the Executive civil servants who have been working on it. However, I believe that the bill is flawed and the minister would be surprised if I did not mention a couple of reasons why I think that. Two major prejudices that give me cause for concern remain in the bill. The first of those is the point that was raised by the Holy Trinity Metropolitan Community Church in its recent petition on the religious aspects of the solemnisation of ceremonies and on registration. My second concern is about a reserved matter—the retrospection of pension rights.

The Justice 1 Committee report asked the Executive to address a number of other issues and I am pleased to see in the minister's letter to us today that the Executive will lodge amendments on registration and consent, to join those that it has already lodged on the law of succession and forbidden degrees. The Executive will continue to consider whether amendments need to be lodged on right of appeal, validity and provisions for children. That is very important.

Although I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Holy Trinity Metropolitan Community Church's views on religion, I will not dwell on that matter. However, I will say that it would have been much better to deal with the related issue of the place of registration in regulations instead of in the bill itself, because that would have allowed time to find out whether the churches would have been happy for such registrations to take place in their establishments. I note that the Executive has lodged an amendment to that clause of the bill. As with many other issues, we simply seek parity. I therefore welcome the fact that we will achieve such parity with the amendments to the civil marriage regulations.

I said earlier that, despite the fact that the bill is good legislation, two great prejudices remain. Our Westminster colleagues will have to deal with the greater prejudice, which is the way in which civil partners will be dealt with in pension schemes. The fact is that pension rights will not be retrospective. I will return to the issue of the Sewel motion when I wind up.

I have supported the introduction of legislation for same-sex couples for 20 years and no technical or other issue will stand in the way of that principle today. I know that the bill is not perfect—indeed, no one expects a bill to be perfect at this stage—but I believe that the Justice 1 Committee has made a major contribution to its overall consideration.

In addressing Cathy Jamieson's motion, I almost find it hard to believe that the day has come that a Labour Government at Westminster has made it a priority in its legislative programme to give same-sex couples equality under the law. As a result, I cannot share other members' cynicism about the use of a Sewel motion. I accept the SNP's legitimate right to comment on the Sewel mechanism, but if the nationalists are genuinely behind the important principle that is embodied in the bill—which, after all, has been the subject of campaigns for decades—they should make that principle the focus of today's debate. They should also acknowledge that a Labour Government at Westminster has made this issue a legislative priority.

Civil partnership legislation is long overdue and many witnesses told the Justice 1 Committee that the bill is a remarkable piece of work. That said, we have debated a number of technical and legal issues with the Executive, and I commend the Executive's genuinely responsive attitude to the issues that our report raises. I should add that the members of the Justice 1 Committee made space in the timetable, because we thought that it was very important to comment on the report.

As Margaret Smith pointed out, by giving same-sex couples the same rights as mixed-sex couples, we are creating a new legal institution. Nicola Sturgeon raised the question of why the law cannot recognise and legitimise the relationship between two men or two women who have lived together and are committed to one another and allow them to have the same legal protection as those who are married. By seeking to allow such recognition, the bill will correct a clear injustice.

I want to comment on a couple of technical matters, the first of which is the issue of consent. The legislation implies that people would enter a civil partnership freely in the same way that mixed-sex couples freely enter a marriage. However, unlike the legal provisions for marriage, the bill does not explicitly mention consent. I welcome the Executive's response on that point; it was important to clarify the matter, because any undue pressure that might be apparent in such a relationship would certainly invalidate it.

The committee raised the question of a relationship that is made void because of a failure to comply with procedural requirements. In marriage, such a failure can be corrected very simply. The committee felt that the proposed legislation had to address the matter, particularly given that members believed that civil partnerships are more likely to be challenged under the law of succession. For example, a blood relative might wish to challenge their rights under a will. Moreover, although the debate about cohabitation rights continues, it is important to note that we are also equalising the law for same-sex cohabitees.

The law of succession is fundamental to the civil partnership, and there has been some discussion about the need to ensure that the bill addresses the important question of legal rights. Common law affords those who are married certain legal rights to protect them if there is no will and it is not clear who will succeed to someone's property. The committee was clear that those rights should be extended to same-sex relationships—another point to which the Executive has responded positively.

The grounds for dissolution should be looked at on their own, to ensure that there is no prejudice. There has to be a simple way of ensuring that, when a partnership breaks down, there is a legitimate way of getting out of it.

The committee felt, generally, that there was no importing of English law into the legislation. We acknowledge that the Executive bill team and the ministers have worked very hard with people at Westminster to ensure that the Scottish provisions of the bill are genuinely Scottish. This is an excellent piece of equality legislation. Let us get behind it at decision time tonight.

This is not a mere constitutional objection by the SNP; civil partnerships are an equality issue and we do not feel that the Westminster legislation addresses equality as it should do. Pauline McNeill said that the Labour Government had made the issue a priority, but it is clear from the way in which the issue has been handled in Scotland that the Scottish Executive has not made it a priority.

A specific equality issue came to the attention of the Public Petitions Committee and I was horrified to learn about the discrimination that will continue because of this bill. We could stop that discrimination, here in Scotland, if we chose to go for real equality.

I asked the minister a parliamentary question on whether the Civil Partnership Bill, if enacted in the form that is currently proposed, would be contrary to the European convention on human rights. The answer I received was:

"The Scottish Executive is satisfied that the devolved provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill comply with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 May 2004; S2W-8246.]

I am concerned about the non-devolved provisions as well.

If that is the case, will Linda Fabiani explain how separate Scottish considerations could deal with the non-devolved provisions, given that the responsibility lies elsewhere? If the Parliament were to take her advice and that of her colleagues—who support the principles but will vote against the motion today—how long would the SNP be prepared to wait for measures to be enacted? How would the SNP deal with the reserved provisions?

Mr Henry's party has been in power for five years in this Parliament but has chosen not to act on this issue.

Another very worrying aspect is that this Parliament has to take cognisance of ECHR, but Westminster does not. It seems that we are opening the door for an unscrupulous Executive—I do not necessarily mean the present Executive—to decide, quite calculatedly, to use a Sewel motion if it does not want to face the big issues and does not want to be challenged under ECHR in this country. Such an Executive could just let Westminster do the work. That would not be a good way to work on legislation; we are elected to guarantee the equal rights of all people in this country. This bill does not do that.

Same-sex couples will not be allowed to have their ceremony solemnised by a minister of religion, even if that minister is happy to carry out the ceremony. That is just not fair. How can anyone sit here and say that it is equality if same-sex couples are not allowed to manifest their faith in the same way that mixed-sex couples can? Basically and simply, that is not equality.

Does the member accept that what we are considering is a legal contract and not a marriage? The religious aspect should not concern us today; we are considering a purely legal contract.

What about civil marriage?

Another difference between Scotland and England is that, in England, a minister of religion can have himself declared a registrar and can carry out the ceremony, but that cannot happen here. We are talking about equalising things across the border, but things are not equal across the border. We heard Mary Mulligan say earlier that property law is very specific in Scotland. Well, the laws that govern this issue are specific in Scotland, too.

The way to ensure equality for all—an issue that we keep bumping our gums about—is to fast-track legislation on this subject through this Parliament and to consider what was said by the this Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee, which was that the bill, as it stands, is not fair.

I support strongly the principles of the bill that is going through Westminster and I will support the Sewel motion, although I feel that it is a mistake to deal with the matter in this way—it is a Sewel motion too far.

Every time people like me express concern about a Sewel motion we are told that we will, if we vote against it, be stopping the progress of a very desirable reform. On that basis, we will have more Sewel motions for ever and ever, amen. We really must address that issue by keeping Sewel motions for the minor matters for which they were intended. It is wrong to use a Sewel motion for matters such as that which we are considering today. However, to my mind, the principle of supporting the principle of a bill comes above the principle of opposing Sewel motions. To address the issue of Sewel motions, we might have to spend more time in Parliament or in committees to consider more of our own legislation more thoroughly.

As has been said, it looks as though the Civil Partnership Bill will be far from perfect. The minister said that we are voting on whether the bill is an appropriate vehicle. It might be an appropriate vehicle—it is a nice motor car, but where is that motor car going? We have no idea whatever. It might go to John o' Groats when we want to go to Land's End, or vice versa. We have been given various promises about seeing how the process of amending the bill goes, but—to change my metaphor—once a Sewel motion on a bill has been launched, we wave goodbye to the bill; it goes away and does its own thing.

Such bills do not go off to do their own thing—they go into another democratic structure in the United Kingdom. In the House of Lords and, in particular, in the House of Commons, such bills can be scrutinised by people who were elected in Scotland to consider such matters. They do not just disappear.

I wish I shared Johann Lamont's confidence.

We are also being asked to endorse the principle behind the bill. That is fine—I endorse it. However, we are being asked to endorse the details which are as yet uncertain. There is a serious issue about the nature of the bill. We must obtain some system whereby we can put things right if they go wrong.

I am quite happy to give Donald Gorrie the assurance that I gave to the Justice 1 Committee. If there are any significant changes to the bill that impact on this Parliament's legislative responsibilities, they will be brought back here for consideration.

Thank you very much; I appreciate that.

I will make two other points. It is very important that we address as soon as possible the issue of cohabiting mixed-sex couples through the family law bill, or whatever vehicle is appropriate. It is an affront that such couples will be denied rights that everyone else—whether married couples or same-sex couples in civil partnerships—will have.

The issue of not being allowed to register a civil partnership in a church is fundamental. In the 17th century, people killed each other in large numbers over such matters. I thought that the system in this country was that the church did its thing and the state did its thing. It is quite wrong for the state to tell the church what it may or may not do. We should not impose anything on it, nor should we prevent things from happening using blanket provisions. That the bill will do that is a very serious error.

I am happy to support the Executive on this matter. I would go further than to endorse the principle of giving same-sex couples in Scotland the opportunity to form civil partnerships; I warmly welcome it. I suppose that I am one of the people the minister said would be happy if the bill went much further.

The objections that we have heard today seem to fall into two categories. The objections in the first category are consistent with the SNP's position that the Parliament should legislate rather than use Sewel motions. That is a position of principle, which I respect. I suppose that that would enable us to have a longer and much wider debate on the subject and to scrutinise fully certain aspects of the proposals, but I also agree with the minister that it would be more complicated and take much more time.

Given that many of the substantive issues that will be resolved in the bill are reserved to Westminster, a Sewel motion seems on this occasion to be the most sensible and speedy way to start to address the disgraceful discrimination that same-sex couples experience in Scotland. The Equality Network supported the use of a Sewel motion with certain provisos, which the minister has gone a long way to fulfil. If use of a Sewel motion is good enough for the Equality Network, it is good enough for me and it should be good enough for the rest of the members of Parliament.

The other objection, which is implied in the Tory amendment—to which Bill Aitken did not really speak—is based on discrimination and a willingness to allow a significant minority of the population to be discriminated against because of others' so-called moral and personal objections. Although the Tories did not get round to saying that, it is what their amendment is all about.

Will Kate Maclean give way?

No—I do not have much time.

Kate Maclean can dish it out, but she cannot take it.

I can take it if it is worth listening to.

I will not give way. Bill Aitken will find that, when I say that I will not give way, he should sit down again.

The bill is not about deciding on people's morals. Although morality and legislation are not mutually exclusive, they are two different things for the purpose of what we should be doing in the Scottish Parliament. However, if we are talking about morals, I think that it is immoral to discriminate—on a wide range of issues such as pensions, benefits and succession to homes—against adults who are in committed relationships. We should think about that.

Any member's objecting to the use of a Sewel motion is a legitimate position to take; it is only a matter of opinion about the best way to legislate to end such discrimination. I support the Scottish Executive and the Equality Network on the use of a Sewel motion. As MSPs, we all have constituents who suffer severe discrimination because of their sexual orientation and because they are in same-sex partnerships. We all have in our constituencies same-sex couples who are denied rights on a wide range of issues, and any members who do not support the bill for personal reasons should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Shortly after the election last year, I was warned that I should remain silent on issues of sexuality for fear of pigeonholing myself—I was told that I would become known as "the gay one". I considered the scenario of a black MSP being warned, "Don't talk about racism: you'll just been seen as ‘the black one'," and I did not think that such advice would even have been offered, so I rejected the advice that I was given.

I was proud to get involved in the issue and to argue for real debate on it in the Scottish Parliament. Debate is needed because of the strong feelings on both sides of the issue and because of the weak scrutiny that is offered by the Sewel convention, which looked likely to be used. I opposed the use of a Sewel motion, but I have come to accept it out of necessity, albeit with reservations. The Scottish Parliament should have legislated for itself on the devolved aspects of the issue, not only to ensure full scrutiny, but to make it clear that equality in Scotland is a priority and that homophobia in Scotland is unacceptable to us. However, we now have a Sewel motion and I am not prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water.

A common criticism of the idea of civil partnerships is that they are anti-family, but that is a gross misunderstanding. The introduction of civil partnerships is a significant pro-family measure because it is about supporting same-sex families, many of which have parenting responsibilities. To be pro-family does not mean to impose one family model on all and to denigrate those who differ; it means supporting and meeting the needs of all families in our diverse society.

Unfortunately, the bill creates a separate-but-equal arrangement—civil partnerships for same-sex couples and marriage for mixed-sex couples—and implies a moral value judgment between the two options. That is one reason why some people are suspicious of the Executive's use of the Sewel motion, which can be perceived as buck passing.

Three things are necessary to address the problem. First, we should agree to the motion unamended. Secondly, the minister's commitment to our having a second debate, if there are changes to the bill, is welcome. Thirdly, we must endorse explicitly the principle of equality that underlies the motion and we must do so with pride.

Before we move to wind-up speeches, I apologise to the three members whom I have been unable to call. This was a very tight debate and I tried to get you all in, but that was impossible.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I raise the issue of the balance of the debate. First, this is a six-party Parliament. Secondly, the Equal Opportunities Committee took extensive evidence on the issue, but no member of that committee has been allowed to participate in the open part of the debate. Margaret Smith spoke, but she did so as a representative of the Liberal Democrats. I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I was not called to speak in the debate.

The member will find that I tried to get in every member who pressed their request-to-speak button and notified us that they wanted to speak. We knew from the beginning that the debate would be very tight. When the member examines the Official Report, she will see that I have treated members as equally as I could.

It is noticeable that more members wanted to speak than were given the chance to do so, that everyone who spoke did not have enough time, that issues are unresolved and that Parliament has not examined the subject in the way it can. Some months ago, the Equal Opportunities Committee took it upon itself to examine the matter, so that evidence could be on the record and we could come back to the matter if there were not enough time to debate the bill in Parliament. The Justice 1 Committee also took it upon itself to devote time to the bill.

Like Donald Gorrie, I will vote for the Sewel motion tonight, but I will do so under a certain amount of duress. This is a Sewel motion too far. Part of the bill should have been considered here, as part of an examination of family law. I heard what Johann Lamont said about scrutiny at Westminster, but the House of Lords Grand Committee on the Civil Partnership Bill did not table amendments to, or scrutinise, the Scottish clauses of the bill. It has been left to the Justice 1 Committee to do that job. When I asked whether the Justice 1 Committee's report could be laid before the relevant parts of the House of Commons and House of Lords, I was told that there was no mechanism for us to do that.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I cannot. I have only a few minutes.

It is absolutely right that we should re-examine the mechanism for and development of Sewel motions.

My final point concerns equality. Several speakers picked up on an issue that I raised in my opening speech. It is wholly wrong in terms both of equality and of the religious freedom that I thought we enjoyed in this country that people of faith—albeit gay people of faith—should be excluded from churches when they want to celebrate what will be the most important day in their lives. Such discrimination will be unique in Scots law.

We must re-examine the use of Sewel motions, but I call on members to support the motion that is before us today. If they do not, discrimination will continue. I hope that Parliament will reject the Tory amendment whole-heartedly and endorse the principles of the bill, which are principles of fairness, equality and justice. I hope that we can all support those principles, irrespective of our views on whether the matter should have been handled procedurally in this way.

As the minister and others have acknowledged, the question of civil partnerships for same-sex couples is one of the most controversial issues that Parliament has debated. I appreciate that there are strong opinions on all sides about whether such partnerships are the right way forward; I have severe reservations about whether the introduction of civil partnerships exclusively for same-sex couples is the right way in which to approach the problem.

I have listened with great interest to the debate and to the comments that have been made, and I have no doubt that there are areas of genuine social concern relating to cohabiting same-sex couples. Issues such as the law of succession, inheritance tax law and the lack of hospital visiting rights are often cited. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are affected by those issues.

Some social conservatives—in this instance, the word conservative has a small "c"—believe that the law should be used like a dam to hold back changes to society, but I do not share that view. We must accept that society changes, albeit that there will always be some people who are uncomfortable with the way in which that happens. When society changes it is important that the law reflect those changes in order to avoid the development of anomalies. My view is, therefore, that matters such as the rules of succession, inheritance tax rules or rules on hospital visiting rights not allowing for same-sex cohabiting couples should be addressed by changes in the law.

That is not to say that I accept the principle—at least as currently proposed—of civil partnerships. It seems to me that the current proposal will, in effect, create a shadow of marriage that is exclusively for same-sex couples. However, other family relationships face the same problems as same-sex couples. What about cohabiting heterosexual couples for whom marriage is not an option? What about people who are in loving non-sexual family relationships that are characterised by interdependent support, such as unmarried siblings who share the same house and elderly parent who lives with a single caring child?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Should not people in such circumstances be given the protection of the law and the same rights as are currently being proposed for cohabiting same-sex couples? The Civil Partnership Bill is therefore a missed opportunity at best and for that reason, I do not think that it deserves our support.

What we are discussing today is a Sewel motion that both endorses the principle of civil partnerships and seeks to pass to Westminster responsibility for the legislation. It is a sad day when the Scottish Parliament is not considered to be mature enough properly to discuss such issues and legislation on it in so far as it is devolved.

It looks as though the Scottish Executive is running scared of public opinion on the issue, which is deeply regrettable. Surely Parliament is capable of debating the issues maturely and responsibly and of avoiding the calls on the one hand of sin and darkness and, on the other hand, of bigotry and homophobia. That Parliament seems to be unable to do that must be a matter of regret for us all.

Whether members support or oppose the general proposals within the Civil Partnership Bill, the fact is that by using the Sewel convention the Scottish Executive is denying members of Parliament an opportunity to consider the matter in detail.

I am a member of the Justice 1 Committee. We had, in effect, one oral evidence session on the bill and very limited written evidence was submitted to us. Our ability to consider the provisions in this complex bill was severely curtailed because of the limited time that was available to us. When we were drafting the committee's report, I found that I had more questions than answers because time had been so limited.

Ministers have said that they will bring the matter back to Parliament if the bill is substantially changed. That begs the question: what if it is not substantially changed? Given the bill's defects, it needs to be substantially changed—a number of areas must be addressed. However, if the minister brings it back to Parliament, what would that be for? What could we do? The bill is being dealt with at Westminster—primarily by the House of Lords. There is no point in the minister kidding on that he will bring the matter back to the Scottish Parliament and that we will start to address the issues: we have no power on the matter, so to all intents and purposes it is futile for the minister to say that he will bring the matter back to the Scottish Parliament later.

Now that ministers have stated that they will bring the matter back if the bill is substantially changed at Westminster, can we accept that the new convention on dealing with all Sewel motions will be that if the bills are substantially changed later at Westminster, they will be brought back? Is that now the agreed convention throughout the Scottish Executive? That has not been the case until recent times—in the past the Executive has forced bills through and ignored what has been changed at Westminster.

Margaret Smith highlighted the fact that although we have a full committee report on the matter, there is no clear mechanism for that to be fed into the Westminster system for consideration. If the Executive were serious about the issue, it would ensure that there was in place a proper procedure for that. Perhaps the Minister for Parliamentary Business will turn her attention to that.

It is simply not true to say that we must support the Sewel motion because if we do not support it we will delay consideration of the bill at Westminster and thereby delay addressing a matter that has needed to be addressed for a long time. The Sewel convention is nothing more than a simple convention. Westminster remains sovereign in legislating on the matter and can continue to proceed with the issue if it chooses to do so, whether or not the Scottish Parliament agrees to the motion. Members should not kid themselves that we have any more power than we actually have. We should not agree to the Sewel motion because we should have the right to consider the proposals and the issues in detail, rather than pass them off to Westminster.

I thank members for their contributions to this very short debate. Perhaps the fact that time has been short has focused people's attention more sharply, because good points have been made concisely and clearly on all sides of the argument.

I fear that Michael Matheson is under a misapprehension about the Sewel process. It is clear that Westminster will not legislate on devolved matters without our consent. He suggested that there is a new convention on how we deal with Sewel motions, but it has always been the case that significant changes to proposed legislation are brought back to this Parliament. Other ministers and I have given the Parliament that assurance on a number of occasions.

Does the minister accept that Michael Matheson was making the point that the Sewel convention is just a convention. The Scotland Act 1998—I suggest that the minister reads it—says that Westminster can legislate on whatever matter it likes, whenever it likes.

Yes. In theory, Westminster could vote to abolish this Parliament if it wanted to do so. However, the Sewel convention has never been broken.

I suspect that, once again, SNP members are crying wolf. They are using the debate not to further the interests of the people whom we seek to support and who will benefit from the bill, but to introduce constitutional niceties and to advance their own political point of view. I regret that.

During the debate, we have recognised that same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to have their long-term, committed relationships recognised in law. Same-sex couples should be allowed legal recognition and they should be able to access basic rights that are available to opposite-sex couples who marry. The bill fulfils that intention comprehensively and consistently through our relationship with the United Kingdom.

Does the minister agree that someone's right to manifest their faith is a basic right?

That is a separate issue. People who want to marry in a religious ceremony may do so, but I am not aware that any minister of religion who is authorised to conduct religious services has asked for that right to be extended. I do not see Linda Fabiani's point.

A number of issues have been raised during the debate.

Does the minister agree that there has been no consultation of churches since the bill was published and that the issue of registering a partnership in church was not trailed in the consultation? It would be useful to remove the relevant clause from the bill and deal with the matter through regulations. That would enable us to consult churches about whether they want to be involved.

Whatever we did, we would still have the argument. Churches have been well aware of the debate for a considerable time. No church other than the Metropolitan community church, which one member identified, has raised the issue as a concern. I am not sure that making such a change at this late stage would make any considerable difference.

Nicola Sturgeon talked about the interaction with the proposed family law bill. We would be criticised if we attempted to pre-empt the provisions of future bills. Passing a Sewel motion does not preclude the Parliament from returning to the issue in the future. Michael Matheson suggested that the evidence on the bill has been limited. However, we set out a comprehensive and extensive Sewel memorandum and we gave formal letters and informal briefings to the Justice 1 Committee. Extensive contact and discussion have taken place.

Bill Aitken's point about home sharers is a red herring; that is a different issue and it should not distract us from the important issue of legal protection for same-sex couples. Linda Fabiani talked about English ministers being appointed as registrars but, to the best of my knowledge, that is not correct. Ministers of the Anglican church, as authorised persons, can record a marriage in a register that they keep for the purpose, but they are not appointed as registrars of births, deaths and marriages.

Will the minister give way?

I am sorry, but I am running out of time and I have already taken a number of interventions.

Linda Fabiani also mentioned ECHR compliance. Westminster must take cognisance of the ECHR and the bill has been given a certificate under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which means that it is compliant with the ECHR. Donald Gorrie, echoing Michael Matheson, said that the details of the bill were vague, but they have been fully set out and there has been consultation. I dispute fundamentally the point that there is vagueness in the discussions that we have had so far.

Patrick Harvie talked about a missed opportunity to signal support for equality. I put on record yet again that the Executive firmly believes that Scotland has no place for homophobic prejudice or discrimination. There are many examples of the work that the Executive is doing to promote equality in all its forms but, unfortunately, I do not have time to specify them.

I thank the Parliament for a constructive and positive debate. I understand some of the concerns that have been expressed, but I argue yet again that the procedure that we are following is the best and most comprehensive way of dealing with this complex bill. I hope that, even at this late stage, all those in the Parliament who say that they believe in equality and argue that same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as others to have long-term relationships recognised will put aside their constitutional prejudices and vote for the motion.