Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Official Report 217KB pdf

---

Civil Partnership Registration

Item 5 is on civil partnership registration, on which members will have received a paper. The Minister for Justice is to provide the committee with further details on the consultation in the near future.

In the last paragraph of her letter, the Minister for Justice says that the Executive plans to refresh thinking on family law reform at the end of the year. If there is to be a Sewel motion on the legislation for same-sex partners, we must ensure that similar legislation comes forward for mixed-sex co-habiting couples, because that is an important issue.

The press statement that was released states:

"the pillar around which such families are built is marriage."

When the Parliament considered section 2A a few years ago, we had a definition of family life. I wonder why similar wording is not being used, given that the definition was agreed to after a lot of consultation. It would be helpful to have the wording that we used previously.

I hope that members will indulge me, as I want to make several points. I echo the point that Elaine Smith just made. Those of us who lived through the section 2A debate will know that a number of people were concerned about the issue. Many of us thought that we were doing the right thing, but a lot of important negotiations and discussions took place with parents, educational groups and church groups to find a form of words about the importance of stable family life or stable family units. Although marriage is an important stable family unit, it is not the only such unit in which children are being brought up.

Given that we had a form of words that had church and Executive backing, I was dismayed to see in the press statement that policy was somehow being rewritten. A lot of hard work was done to get agreement on a form or words that would reflect Scottish society, rather than what someone would like it to be or what it was 50 years ago.

The Executive and the UK Government are to be applauded for addressing civil partnerships. What they are doing will make a real difference to people's lives. It will make a real difference in terms of people's pension rights. It will make a real difference in terms of people's tenancy rights. It will mean that people will be able to register the death of someone with whom they may have lived for 20 years. We are talking about basic human rights.

Although it is important that we do the right thing, it is also important that we say the right thing. I want to put on the record the fact that, over the two pages in which the press briefing discusses civil partnerships, it is stated five times that the measure is not a priority for the Executive. No one round this table does not appreciate that we have a tight legislative programme, but all that was required was the statement, "We believe this is the right thing to do. This is about basic human rights. We have a way in which we can do it, which will not impose a problem on us in terms of a tight legislative programme, but at the same time we are doing the right thing." We did not require to be told five times that the measure was not a priority.

The press release stated:

"While I accept that for same-sex couples this is a very important issue—it is not an immediate priority for the overwhelming majority of Scotland's people."

The point that I made to the minister was that if the words "same-sex couples" were substituted with the words "disabled people", "coloured people" or "women", she would not have put the statement out. I do not think that a statement would have been issued that said, "This is very important for the ethnic communities in Scotland, but it's not a priority for the Executive," or, "This is important for women, but it's not important for the Executive."

We have to be careful about the mood music and the words that we use. The Executive is doing the right thing—something that will enhance people's lives—but we all know that equal opportunities are not just about changing the law, but about changing attitudes and changing the culture. It was wrong for the Executive to send out a statement that said, "This isn't important to us. It may be important to a small group of individuals, but it isn't important to us." I have not publicly said that so far, but the issue is raised in our papers today; we have been presented with the issue by the minister's office. I am therefore duty bound to say that this was an opportunity missed and that the Executive has presented the issue in the wrong way.

On the tactic of going down the Sewel route, I sought assurances from and was given them by the ministerial team and the civil servants involved that the Scottish element would be drafted by Scottish civil servants and that, if significant changes were made to the legislation as it passed through the House of Commons—or, more probably, as it passed through the House of Lords—we would have the right to bring the matter back to the Scottish Parliament to look at it properly and scrutinise it again. That precedent is already being set with the Criminal Justice Bill.

On the tactics, I was slightly unhappy that a predominantly devolved piece of legislation was being handed to Westminster, but I appreciate that there are reasons for doing that, such as the desire for consistency and access to a time slot. However, with those two provisos, I believe that we must ensure that we properly scrutinise what is largely a devolved issue.

Do other members have views before we decide how to proceed? I am hearing that members accept the way forward, but that the press briefing has caused concern. Do members want me to write to the minister on behalf of the committee, expressing the concerns that have been raised, or is it enough that they are now on record?

I am still not convinced that the issue should be dealt with by a Sewel motion. The changes are to family law. We should discuss the matter. Perhaps we should invite Patrick Harvie to the committee and discuss enacting the legislation in the Scottish Parliament as a progressive parliament.

We have agreed to have an inquiry on the issue.

So we are not agreeing to the procedure in the minister's response.

We will begin an inquiry. I will ask you which organisations you feel that we should take evidence from. The inquiry will then form the basis of our response to the Executive.

I think that the Executive is running scared because of its experience with the repeal of section 2A. How can we challenge these ideas from a non-party political viewpoint? As Margaret Smith says, it is about changing attitudes. I wonder about the role of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Should we agree that the bill should be dealt with as a piece of legislation that extends rights to different-sex couples as well? I am thinking about the long-term presentation. One party should not take all the flak.

The Equal Opportunities Committee is making the matter public. I do not know whether we could hold a press conference—I raised that issue at the away day—but we should do so, and every member who is in favour of this type of equality should attend. I think that most committee members are in favour of it, although we have not discussed the matter yet. I am wondering how we can use the Parliament. Does the debate always break down along Executive lines? Can we progress legislation in that way, or will we just back off again?

I agree with your suggestion, convener. We can at least write to the minister. That would be really helpful. Elaine Smith and Margaret Smith have talked about the definition of family units. If we are concerned with ensuring equal opportunities for children in all different family units, we must be careful about the way in which we word things. The minister's statement certainly is not careful.

Would we be able to invite the minister and Patrick Harvie to explore these issues with us?

I am going to ask the committee who it wants to invite along. We are going to take evidence, and that evidence will influence the way in which we take the matter forward. Frances Curran's point is valid. If the committee decides that its view is different from the Executive's, that is what we will say after we have taken evidence.

Let us deal with the press release first. Are members happy that the matter has been aired this morning, or does the committee want to send a letter to the minister, expressing its concerns about the change to the definition of a family unit?

If you do not mind, convener, I would like the committee's letter to refer back to the previous definition of a family unit and ask why it was changed after it had been agreed.

I go along with the views that have been expressed so far. However, there is a difficulty from the Conservative viewpoint with regard to heterosexual partnerships, as we feel that marriage is the underpinning factor in those partnerships. I fail to see that there is a great deal of difference between going to a registrar to be married and going to a register to engage in a civil partnership. With regard to same-sex couples, I am happy with what has been said.

I am concerned that the letter to the convener was headed

"CIVIL PARTNERSHIP REGISTRATION FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES".

That implies the minister's narrowing view of what we are looking at. It is a much wider issue. I am concerned that the subject is being limited by the way in which the minister is approaching it and that that is colouring her whole attitude towards it.

What we have in front of us is the Executive's proposal under the proposed family law bill, which we will want to come before us. That bill will cover mixed-sex partnerships and so on. We have an opportunity now to decide whom we want to take evidence from to try to get a balanced view to inform our discussion and our input into the Executive's consultation process. Can we go down that line now?

The clerk says that two evidence sessions plus a meeting with the minister will probably allow us to do what we need to do. I hope that members will agree that we will probably have to meet every Tuesday in November to ensure that we can take that evidence in time to feed into the Executive's consultation. It would be remiss of the committee just to say, "Sorry, we've no time." It is an important issue. I invite suggestions as to whom we invite to give evidence.

I do not have its details with me, but I wonder whether the clerks might approach the Glasgow Women's Library, which now has partnership status. It has some quite good information. For example, it has a young person's peer support group, which it might be interesting to hear about.

Without wishing to go through the usual suspects, I think it that would be helpful to hear from representatives of the Equality Network. They might wish to come along together with Outright Scotland, although the community can, of course, make its own decisions. I know that, more than the Equality Network, which deals more with the Scottish Parliament, Stonewall tends to handle the Westminster end of things. However, given the complexity and cross-cutting nature of the issue, it would be useful for us to hear from Stonewall, too.

We should ensure that, even if the people from whom we take evidence do not represent a rural area, they should try to take the rural dimension into account in an overarching way. What they say should come from the perspective of the whole of Scotland. There might not be a specific difference between urban and rural Scotland in this case, but it would still be useful if we could encourage that approach.

There might be an alternative view from the churches and other organisations. Would it be our normal practice to put out a notice calling for input or written evidence from organisations?

Yes.

If the clerks receive a good piece of written evidence, we could decide to take oral evidence from the people who had sent it as well as from those whom we invite at the outset to appear as witnesses.

Yes. This morning we can identify people from whom we wish to take evidence, and a note can go out to organisations on an extensive mailing list to say that we are seeking written evidence. That gives us an opportunity to gauge what people are saying about the proposals. There may be pieces of written evidence that encourage us to hear a bit more from particular organisations.

We need to consider the legal aspects. I am not sure which other committees are to examine the proposals, but there are issues of family law to consider, and I wonder whether we might need representatives from the Law Society of Scotland to come along and present their perspective.

Yes—we can look into that possibility. That makes sense.

I think that we should take evidence from as wide a range of organisations as possible. The churches are important in that regard. I was speaking to representatives of Couple Counselling Scotland about issues of family law recently, and it has concerns about the impact of the proposals on family law. Such organisations might provide a valuable input.

We will include faith organisations, Couple Counselling Scotland, equality groups and Stonewall.

I am not sure where we stand in relation to issues that are not devolved, such as pensions. Are we allowed to hear how the proposals might impact on them?

Our remit is to examine the equality issues, and pensions do not necessarily come under our remit.

This is why there should be an Executive bill on the matter. The committee is to take a lot of evidence on a big issue, but just for a member's bill. However, we cannot help that.

We are taking evidence in relation to an Executive Sewel motion and the relevant proposals.

But the subject is so vast—to deal with it under a Sewel motion is just madness.

I just wanted to make it clear that we are not taking evidence for the purposes of the member's bill.

Okay—I am sorry. I was referring to the issues surrounding the member's bill and wanted to highlight the organisations that deal with the issue day in, day out, and which handle appeals to the Department for Work and Pensions on pension rights, for example. People also contact citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other organisations that have to deal with the legal mess that arises from couples' not having any legal rights.

Does that include voluntary organisations?

I am not sure which, but such organisations are involved.

We have a fairly extensive list there. I ask the clerks to draft an approach paper, dealing with how we can take this work forward. I ask that we agree that paper by correspondence, given the short time scale before our meetings in November. We need to know when the Scottish Executive's consultation document will be published and the time scale to which the Executive is working.

We do not know the exact time scale as yet. We are taking the matter up with Executive officials, and we are content that the committee should have enough time to take evidence and respond to the consultation.

I remind members to make a note in their diaries about Tuesday mornings in November.

It is important that we consult on the proposals. In response to Margaret Smith's query, we do not know at this stage whether any other committee plans to work on the matter, but we need in any case to continue with our work, which I think is the right decision.

I thank everyone for their contributions.

Meeting closed at 11:55.