What is the pressing social need for legislation of this kind? English law gives full effect to the bond between couples if they are lawfully married, but not if they are unmarried. Whether people living together are of the same sex or of both sexes, the law treats them much less favourably than married couples, even if they have close and long-standing relationships. Cohabiting partners, unlike married ones, do not enjoy a standard set of legal rights. In several ways their legal position is either inferior or not recognised as a family status at all.

Gay and lesbian couples suffer especially from this ancient source of injustice. As Justice Ackermann recently stated for a unanimous Constitutional Court of South Africa National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs, 2000 (2) SA 1) same-sex partners are as capable as heterosexual spouses "of forming intimate, permanent, committed, monogamous, loyal and enduring relationships, of furnishing emotional and spiritual support; and of providing physical care, financial support and assistance in running the common household". Justice Ackermann also rightly observed that the message of the denial of equal rights to same-sex as to opposite-sex partners "is that gays and lesbians lack the inherent humanity to have their families É respected or protected. It serves in addition to perpetuate and reinforce existing prejudices and stereotypes."

The problems tackled by the Bill stem from the lack of a proper legal framework recognising the status of unmarried cohabiting couples. English law lags well behind many European and Commonwealth countries in this respect, countries such as France and Germany, as well as the Nordic countries, and Australia and Canada. When it comes to important questions of inheritance, pensions, next-of-kin entitlements and social security, cohabitants cannot obtain full recognition of their relationship. To take one recent and well-publicised example, Anna Homsi was the long-term partner of an SAS member killed in Sierra Leone. Because they were not married, Anna was refused a war widow's pension by the Ministry of Defence, and although she eventually received an ex gratia payment, the Government scheme continues to discriminate against unmarried couples.

Unmarried couples face immense and distressing difficulties in securing legal recognition of their caring and enduring family lives. Cohabiting couples, unlike married couples, have no automatic next-of-kin rights, or property or pension rights. They remain subject to inheritance tax on the death of their partner and have no access to the courts if their relationship breaks down. There have been tragic cases where same-sex or opposite-sex partners have been excluded from decisions as to whether to maintain or withdraw life-support from their terminally ill partners. Cohabitees cannot benefit from an estate when a partner dies without having made a will, unless they were dependent on the deceased partner.

Even where a partner has made a valid will, the surviving partner will not enjoy the benefit of inheritance tax allowances which are available to married couples. Pension schemes make no provision for survivor benefits for same-sex couples. The Fatal Accidents Act 1975 does not allow same-sex or opposite sex partners to claim bereavement damages for the wrongful death of a partner. The Law Commission, in its report Claims for Wrongful Death, 1999, Law Com 263, recommended that this injustice should be removed. An opposite-sex partner cannot even register her partner's death or sign for his funeral.

The time is over-ripe for legislation to create a legally recognised civil partnership system. The law needs to do more than to equalise the position between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because of the inadequate nature of the rights conferred on unmarried couples generally. What the Bill seeks to achieve is a law which gives full partnership rights to all mature adults, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, who wish to enter into a legal compact to organise their common life together.

English marriage law consists of a centuries-old accumulation of legislation and common law precedents. For those who choose to marry, whether from religious conviction or otherwise, the institution of marriage will always remain and will always be fully protected. Indeed, a civil partnership may lead to a full religious or civil marriage. But many heterosexual couples no longer wish to organise their common life in this way, and same-sex couples cannot choose to do so.

The Bill creates a code which consenting unrelated adults can choose to adopt. It is a reform that works for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples who want to support and care for each other by entering into a civil partnership.

I turn briefly to the Bill's main provisions.

Part 1 deals with the formation of a civil partnership. It provides for the registration of a relationship between two individuals. It sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the relationship can be registered, and outlines the procedure to be followed to secure registration. Some details relating to the registration are to be kept on a record available for public inspection. Civil partnerships will be formed voluntarily be means of a simple procedure recorded by a Registrar.

Part 2 deals with the effect of a civil partnership. It sets out the legal framework within which civil partnerships will function. It provides for some fundamental protection for partners in the face of adverse circumstances (such as ill health, domestic violence or death). It extends to civil partners the circumstances in which joint assessment is to be made for means-tested benefits. It also makes provision for equal shares to be held in the partners' home in the absence of an agreement between them.

Part 3 deals with the ending of a civil partnership. The partnership will be able to be dissolved by mutual consent or by court order. Couples will be able to make their own arrangements for separation before entering into a partnership. Where they do not do so, a standard procedure will apply. And the court will be able to make appropriate orders to protect the partners' respective interests if they wish the partnership to end.

Part 4 is supplemental. It contains provisions dealing with interpretation, commencement and territorial scope.

The Bill is not a threat to marriage. Moreover, as the authors of the recent British Social Attitudes Survey observe, "cohabitation is widely accepted both as a prelude to marriage and as an alternative, even where there are children involvedŠ. This conclusion has important policy implications, suggesting that supporting marriage above and beyond other arrangements does not chime with people's opinions about the practicalities of everyday life as a partner and as a parent."

Civil partnership provides the means of allowing couples who cannot or would not marry to base their common life on a firm legal foundation. The Bill enables men and women to come together to form a caring relationship of mutual support protected by law. It provides fair and appropriate remedies for different family situations.

The Bill does not attempt to tackle every anomaly in the law. But it tackles many of them. We hope that it will be a catalyst for much-needed reform to secure the equal protection of the law for unmarried couples.

back to top

back to Civil Partnerships Bill Introduction

Lord Lester said,

"I am enormously grateful for those who have expressed support for the Bill. There has been a very constructive public discussion that was reflected in the House of Lords debate. I am also encouraged by the work that the government is now undertaking, led by Barbara Roche and her team at the Cabinet Office, who are looking in detail at all the issues.

I want to build on that support and take my proposals for civil partnerships registration forward in the most helpful way possible. I believe that the most appropriate way forward would be for a broad-based Select Committee of the House of Lords to have the opportunity of looking widely at all the issues, both of principle and detail. Such a committee could also consider the work the government is now undertaking which I understand is likely to be completed by the autumn.

The wisdom of returning to the issue of civil partnerships when the necessary work has been done in Whitehall later in the year is widely recognised."

Angela Mason, Executive Director of Stonewall, who are campaigning for a Civil Partnership Bill, said:

"We have always recognised that the introduction of civil partnership registration will take a lot of discussion and detailed consideration of all the issues. We believe that Lord Lester's proposal is a helpful way of moving forward and again we pay tribute to the work he has done in so effectively putting the case for civil partnerships in the public domain."

Jane Griffiths, Labour MP for Reading East, has also introduced to the House of Commons a ten-minute rule bill on civil partnerships. Speaking of her bill, she said:

"I am very pleased that Lord Lester has shown that a bill to introduce civil partnership registration for people who live together can get the support of the House of Lords. My bill has its second reading in the Commons in May and in the meantime a group of MPs are continuing to raise that issues tabling questions to ministers regarding the consequences of such a change."

Speaking in support of the principles of civil partnership, leader of the Liberal Democrats Charles Kennedy said:

"Anthony Lester has done a wonderful job in promoting the Civil Partnership Bill and the cause of equality. I know that his Bill received widespread support and I am delighted that he is to push for it to be considered by a Select Committee in the future. The Liberal Democrats support this Bill and I wish it every success in the future."

back to top

back to Civil Partnerships Bill Introduction