Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Michelle Donelan

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I echo the support that has been expressed for the Bill, which will ensure the registration of stillbirths before 24 weeks and give coroners the power to investigate stillbirths.

I will concentrate on the clauses that address civil partnerships. I stress that I understand the case that hon. Members have made today, and I applaud the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for this topic. Although I welcome a report and a review to find more evidence, I think that rolling out civil partnerships to everyone is not the right approach, as I am confident such a review would highlight.

It is time to refresh our minds as to why civil partnerships were invented. They were invented because same-sex marriage was not legal. Civil partnerships were not intended to be a permanent alternative to marriage. They were created to allow same-sex couples access to rights, responsibilities and protections equivalent to those afforded to married couples. That is no longer the case.

I appreciate and empathise with the argument that the current situation is unequal because opposite-sex civil partnerships are not available, but the answer is not necessarily to expand civil partnerships. In fact, I would rather see civil partnerships cease altogether. Today everyone in the UK can get married. We finally have equality, which is what people have campaigned for and fought for. Expanding civil partnerships to all would serve to add an extra tier, which would confuse and complicate commitment, rather than encouraging it.

Let us also be clear that there is no legal difference between marriage and civil partnership. The differences are in the names, in the ceremonies and the fact that women are, of course, named on their children’s civil partnership certificates, but we can address that separately—I passionately believe in naming women on their children’s marriage certificates.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Lady has spoiled my tweet: I have just tweeted that there is unanimous support in the House today for extending civil partnerships. Does she take the point that this is about extending choice? It will not affect her or other people adversely; it will simply give other people the chance to do something that they want to do.

[Michelle Donelan]

I apologise for spoiling the hon. Gentleman’s tweet, but I do not agree with him. Other Members have yet to speak, so I will make the case in the rest of my speech. I am sure I will answer him in full. Marriage is ended by divorce, whereas civil partnerships are ended by a dissolution, which is just as lengthy a process. We need to be clear about that, because some assume that it is easy to dissolve a civil partnership—it is not. There is no difference, other than that adultery cannot be cited as a reason for civil partnerships to dissolve—that is not a case for expanding them further. They both offer legal recognition of a relationship, they are symbolic, they are acts of union, and one does not have financial benefit over the other. Civil partnerships do not act as a form of additional co-habitation rights; they are legally the same as marriage.

Some say that civil partnerships are a modern alternative to marriage, and I recognise that argument, yet they are basically the same. It is important that we educate people about that and do not mis-sell the point. I have spoken to a number of people who have a civil partnership and they find it offensive to suggest these things are not the same. Nor are civil partnerships a stepping stone for couples who are not ready to marry; they are marriage but with a different name. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding that we need to address in the review.

Another point to make is that civil partnerships are not cheaper. That argument has not been made in today’s debate but I have heard it before. Weddings and civil partnerships can cost as much as people make them cost. Another argument used for the Bill is the claim that people can be put off by the word “marriage” and the connotations, social pressures and expectations of what it represents. Do we really believe that a significant number of people choose not to marry because of the word “marriage”, but are absolutely fine to make all the same legal and financial commitments when the name is different? The connotations, social pressures and expectations around marriage often exist because it is seen as something permanent and something that can end badly, but that is equally true of a civil partnership. As time progresses and more and more people have them, that will become known. So in a few years’ time will we offer a third option and then a fourth? It is also important to note that amending the eligibility criteria for entering a civil partnership would cost at least £3.3 million to £4.4 million, so the option on the table is not exactly cheap.

Another key aspect we must consider is the level of demand. That is particularly pertinent and the review will highlight it, which is why I strongly support having a review and a consultation. As lots of Members have said, two consultations have already taken place, but on the whole there was very little input from people. That suggests that there is potentially a lack of demand in this area, but we need a further review to examine that. In addition, no clear consensus was established.

Since the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples, the number of civil partnerships has fallen dramatically, and there were just over 1,000 formed in the UK in 2016. Between 29 March 2014 and 30 June 2015, 7,732 couples converted their civil partnership into marriage. A key aspect for us to consider in enabling opposite-sex civil partnerships is—

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Michelle Donelan

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy Slaughter]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to be factual, at least according to my own experience, and my experience is not uncharacteristic. I saw nods from members on both sides of the Committee when I described what Members have to deal with as a consequence of local authorities not dealing with issues and of advice simply not being available.

It is an issue that local authorities have not been doing what they should have been doing, but the reason for that is that they do not want to resource the service. Therefore, they either resource the advice inadequately through insufficient training, or they deliberately do not resource it in order to avoid incurring the additional expenses that result from accepting people as homeless, giving them proper advice and providing a solution to their housing problems. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has to be a change in mindset, but we cannot just wish for that and think it will happen.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a postcode lottery in terms of the service that people get? If someone is homeless in one area, they might get a completely different service from that available in another. We need more than a change in mindset; we need a change in the legislation, which is perhaps why we are all here today.

[Andy Slaughter]

Yes, there are different attitudes in different areas. Some of it may be policy-driven, but some may be resource-driven or demand-driven in the way that authorities respond. Well motivated though the Bill is, I am not sure that simply enacting it will resolve that issue. It will take not just funding, but careful policing, both by Government and the homelessness charities, which will no doubt monitor the Bill’s implementation —just as they monitor the current problems—to ensure that local authorities live up to their duties.

I do not want to talk for too long, so let me exemplify what I mean by the difficulties arising from the clause. What it proposes is materially different from the existing situation, because the clause is far more specific and onerous in its description of the categories of people who should be given advice and what type of advice should be given. Let me mention a point from each side of the argument, namely what Shelter and the Association of Housing Advice Services told us in their briefings. I am grateful, as I am sure are other hon. Members, for all the briefings we have had. Although local authorities and charities have different views, I do not think that any of the bodies involved disagree on the need to improve how these issues are dealt with, and the fact that the concerns being raised by local authorities are legitimate. Had I known of Shelter’s concerns earlier, I may well have tabled an amendment to that effect.

Shelter is concerned that although groups were rightly specified relatively recently in legislation—under the previous Labour Government—as being a particular concern, such as persons leaving prison, persons leaving hospital, victims of domestic abuse and care leavers, we should not forget the categories of priority homeless: pregnant women, children and older people. I raise this with the Minister because the Government may consider amendments in the other place as well, and it would be sensible to consider whether the list, which is obviously not closed, should include those categories as well.

Let me mention what AHAS said: is specifying the needs of groups with complex or specific problems—perhaps people with mental health problems or those leaving custody—placing a particularly onerous burden on local authorities? In other words, instead of being asked to provide general advice on how to deal with homelessness and what is available in the area, will they be asked to cater for the needs of people in those circumstances, which would better be dealt with by specialist agencies? AHAS raised the possibility of a legal challenge, which might say, “Yes, a perfectly adequate degree of advice was provided for somebody who doesn’t have those needs, but the local authority should have gone further. It should have spent more time, more money and been more concerned about dealing with these people because of their specific needs.” I would be interested to know whether, on those two points, the Government share the concerns that I and local authorities have.

I make one final, general point. I have not attempted to deal with this; it is beyond my drafting skills. There is something slightly odd about the Bill: it applies to England and Wales, but most of the duties it imposes are on housing authorities in England. There are areas of legislation that are now different in Wales—for example, NHS legislation or the Children Act 2004. That might mean that, say, care leavers who have been in the care of Welsh authorities will now come under the purview of English housing authorities, but will still be owed a duty in that way. I ask the Minister and the Bill’s promoter to go away and look at whether we have covered those angles in their entirety.