Equal Opportunities Committee, 09 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Official Report 106KB pdf

---

Civil Partnership Registration Legislation

We move to civil partnership registration legislation. A paper has been circulated to members, who will also have noted the response from the Minister for Justice to Patrick Harvie MSP's question on civil partnerships at question time last Thursday. Members will also be aware that Michael Matheson has submitted a written question—S2W-2419—which appeared in yesterday's business bulletin. The question is:

"To ask the Scottish Executive when it will start consultation on civil partnership registration."

Do members agree that the convener should invite the Minister for Justice to clarify whether the Executive intends to consult on the proposals for a civil partnership bill and, if it does, what the likely time scale would be?

I agree with that, but we will also have to consider some other issues, depending on the Executive's response. However the Executive intends to proceed—whether by way of particular Scottish legislation or a Sewel motion—it is hugely important that this committee take evidence on the matter. I am not a great fan of Sewel motions, but a Sewel motion may be the best way to proceed. However, some issues will arise—to do with age considerations, for example—that are particularly Scottish.

The bill that is being proposed at Westminster is different from Patrick Harvie's proposal, which also refers to cohabiting different-sex couples. It would be slightly incongruous if we were to have a change of the law in Scotland that did not cover that. Whatever the Executive does, this committee should take evidence.

I support what Elaine Smith has said—either way, this committee should take evidence. The Minister for Justice has said that she wants to proceed in due course with appropriate consultations in Scotland. We are a little behind what is happening down south, but if we have a Sewel motion, it will be important to have proper Scottish parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish dimensions of the bill. Some of the key issues are reserved—issues such as pensions and benefits—but an awful lot of things such as rights of succession and family law are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament can bring to bear the expertise and the views of the people of Scotland on civil and family law.

I think that I am right in saying that this would be the most substantive Sewel motion that the Parliament has dealt with. We therefore need to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny so that people can raise issues. We will also need assurances from the minister that the Scottish aspects of this bill will be drafted by Scottish Executive civil servants. If we allow things to be done at Westminster, we will have a problem if substantive amendments are made to the bill that we had consulted on.

Elaine Smith is right to point out that Patrick Harvie's proposals are different from the Westminster bill on the issue of mixed-sex cohabitees. The law contains a number of grey areas for such individuals. We have to ask what we are trying to do. We are trying to get the state to recognise the stable situations that people live in—whether as individuals in a couple or, increasingly, as family units. A number of children live in mixed-sex cohabiting family units. We have to ensure that rights that may improve the stability of their lives are not lost because the Westminster Government does not consider such issues. If information comes up during our consultations, we should at least consider the possibility of its informing what we do with the draft Family Law (Scotland) Bill next year. It will be tactically complex to ensure that we scrutinise those issues properly and, if we want to make changes that will affect mixed-sex cohabitees, that we do not tie ourselves to what Westminster wants to do. We must allow ourselves the opportunity to see whether improvements can be made in Scotland. That could be done through the draft Family Law (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome Patrick Harvie to the meeting. Please feel free to participate, Patrick.

I am concerned about the time scale. The UK consultation period finishes at the end of this month but I am not sure how that relates to our position. Do we have to stick to that time scale? I am worried that the issue will get pushed through in Westminster and become a fait accompli without our having had an opportunity to make any decisions on it.

I understand that the UK time scale does not affect us, so that should not be an issue.

I agree that you should write to the Executive for clarification, because the two pieces of proposed legislation are completely different from one another. I do not think that a Sewel motion could deal adequately with the Scottish dimension of the issue and the intricacies that are involved. I think that Patrick Harvie's proposal is better than that which is being suggested in Westminster and that, whatever happens, we need to take evidence on the right way to deal with what Patrick suggests. We also need to ascertain what the Executive intends to do.

I did not come to the meeting with the intention to participate. I am here because I take an interest in the committee's discussions. I apologise for having missed the start of your discussion of this issue—you are obviously getting through your agenda quickly today.

I would like to place on record the fact that I appreciate that the committee is taking an interest in the subject.

Thank you.

Are we agreed that, regardless of the decision of the Executive about how to proceed—whether it be by Sewel motion or whatever—we will take evidence on the issue, and that I should write to the Executive asking for clarification of whether the Executive intends to consult on the proposed civil registered partnerships bill and, if so, what the likely time scale for that would be?

Members indicated agreement.

We should also ask the Executive what action it intends to take and whether it intends to use a Sewel motion to progress the matter.

Yes.

I remind members that we have booked this room for next Tuesday for a briefing from the Commission for Racial Equality Scotland. I hope that members can attend that meeting.

I also remind members that disability awareness training has been planned for September or October. Dates for that have been circulated.

Meeting closed at 10:32.