Grand Committee Report of 13 May 2004

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
  (Third Day)
  The Committee met at quarter past three of the clock.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
  Clause 41 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Wilcox: Clause 41 is concerned with attempts at reconciliation as civil partners. It would allow the court to adjourn an application for a dissolution or separation order if it appears that the civil partners have a reasonable possibility of achieving reconciliation. Clause 41 states that rules of court must make provision for the applicant's solicitors to certify whether they have discussed with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and to provide the applicant with details of persons qualified to help the civil partners effect reconciliation.
  We have a few points to raise regarding this clause. First, while reconciliation is welcome at any time in a relationship breakdown, the courtroom seems to be rather a last-chance saloon. There does not seem to be any guarantee as to when the solicitor will discuss with the applicant the possibility of reconciliation. Such a requirement will not be very useful if it is dealt with at the courtroom door. Is there any way of introducing a measure to ensure that this matter is dealt with in a timely way?
  Secondly, can the Minister clarify which organisations will be put forward as helpful to the estranged civil partners? Do they have any organisations in mind? I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her interesting and important probing amendment. I totally agree with her on the central thrust. However, as we see civil partnerships as a new legal status and believe that they have meaning and value, we do not want them lightly abandoned if, on further reflection or with further help, the parties could be helped to sustain them. The noble Baroness is right. The principle of trying to encourage parties to reflect on mediation applies as much here as in other circumstances. I am foursquare with her on that.
  As to whether solicitors can and should discuss the issues earlier, I undoubtedly share the noble Baroness's view. One would hope and expect good family solicitors to do that and not simply to file court
  GC 182
  papers. They should have a discussion with their client about whether it is a reaction to some unfortunate sudden event or whether it is the product of a long-term worsening of the relationship—and therefore, without the solicitor making a judgment, whether there is a case for reflecting on whether the matter needs to be brought to court in order to seek to end the relationship.
  As to whether anything can be done to reinforce what is generally seen by a solicitor or family lawyer as good practice in that respect, I should like to reflect rather than speak off the cuff, to see whether anything in current court or legal aid practice reinforces that. I shall reflect, write to the noble Baroness and copy it to the rest of the Committee, because it is relevant. Relate is the obvious organisation that comes to mind; it could give relationship support but there may also be others. Since I am writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and copying it to the rest of the Committee, if I can add further thoughts on that I shall do so.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. I do not remember the actual Bill, but about seven or eight years ago—I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern dealt with it—there was a suggestion concerning mediation in cases of marriage breakdown. If my memory is right, the whole idea was to do more or less as my noble friend has said—to make the process not so brutal and not so in-your-face in the courtroom, in order to try to overcome the problem and see whether there is a way through in terms of dissolution. Is my recollection correct? If so, could this be used as something that would meet my noble friend's requirement?
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness's recollection is correct, and I hope that mine is reasonably accurate, too, in what I am about to say. From memory, the previous government, with good intent. brought in the Family Law Act 1996 which had two main objectives: first, to bring in no-fault divorce to reduce some of the adversarialism of divorce; and, secondly, to try to minimise the likelihood that divorces did not needlessly take place. Therefore, it had as Part II Of that Act, measures to refer people to mediation before the courts would finally dispose of the cases. I do not believe that there was much disagreement about the intent or the worthiness of that; the problem was that it did not work when it was piloted in practice. The problem—although I was not engaged in these issues at that time—was essentially that most people, when they started to file court papers, had usually already made their decision. Therefore, being taken off to go through a compulsory process of mediation was seen by most as a frustrating irritant, when they knew that they wanted to end the relationship.
  That does not take away from the merit of the argument of the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Wilcox, that if, at an appropriate time. one can obtain advice and try mediation, that is worth

  GC 183
  doing. The Family Law Act 1996 seemed to show that it was often too late to try to do that when court papers are being filed.
  Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his most useful answers to those questions. He did not have the privilege of being with us for most of yesterday, when almost every question that I asked was referred back to the Marriage Act. It is nice to start today without the word "marriage" coming up. I am grateful for that. I am happy to hear the Minister say that people are likely to use Relate; it is an organisation with good credentials in this area.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Consideration by the court of certain agreements or arrangements]:
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 [Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably]:
  [Amendment No. 49A not moved]
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clauses 44 to 51 agreed.
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 50:
  After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
  "POWER TO VALIDATE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
  (1) Where two people have registered as civil partners of each other in England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor may by order validate the civil partnership if it appears to him that it is or may be void under section 48(b).
  (2) An order under subsection (1) may include provisions for relieving a person from any liability under section 31(2), 32(2) or 33(5) or (7).
  (3) The draft of an order under subsection (1) must be advertised, in such manner as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit, not less than one month before the order is made.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor must—

  (a) consider all objections to the order sent to him in writing during that month, and

  (b) if it appears to him necessary, direct a local inquiry into the validity of any such objections.

  (5) An order under subsection (1) is subject to special parliamentary procedure."
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this government amendment is to create a mechanism whereby serious errors in the registration of civil partnerships may be rectified—as similar errors in the solemnisation of marriages may already be rectified—and officiating registrars may be relieved from liability.
  Because the procedure is so closely modelled upon that which the Lord Chancellor exercises in respect of marriage, the amendment confers the power on the Lord Chancellor. This mechanism will only come into play where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that a civil partnership is, or may be, void because both parties to the civil partnership knew, or may have known, when it was registered that one or more of the defects listed in Clause 48(b) had occurred. The defects listed in Clause 48(b) are that due notice of proposed
  GC 184
  civil partnership has not been given; that the civil partnership document has not been duly issued; that the civil partnership document is void under Section 17(3) or Section 27(2); that the place of registration is a place other than that specified in the notices of proposed civil partnership and the civil partnership document, or that a civil partnership registrar is not present.
  In these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor may cause the draft of an order validating the civil partnership to be prepared. The draft order must be advertised for at least one month in such manner as the Lord Chancellor sees fit. The draft order may provide for the person who acted as registrar to be relieved from any liability to which he or she is subject by virtue of Clauses 31(2), 32(2), 33(5) or 33(7).
  The Lord Chancellor must consider any objections received during the month and, if he thinks it necessary, direct a local enquiry into their validity. Finally, the order may be made under the special parliamentary procedure laid down in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945.
  We expect this mechanism to be used rarely, as is the case for marriage. Even serious technical errors of this nature are not usually apparent to both parties when they marry. But where that has happened, we see no justification why a similar remedy should not be made available to civil partners as is already available to spouses. That is why I have tabled this amendment which I hope you will accept. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: Out of interest, what is the special parliamentary procedure under the 1945 Act?
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I can let the noble Lord know that when we have the information available in the Box.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what a local inquiry is. Is it an inquisition or is it just somebody making inquiries, for example a policeman going to find out something? What does it involve?
  Baroness Crawley: The local inquiry would he in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I do not have the details of what he would want to go into. Because these cases are so very rare, I imagine that it would depend on the circumstances of the individual case that has come before him. If a procedure is laid down, I will let the noble Baroness know.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not have the marriage equivalent in my head, of course, but it seems to me that this is a sensible, well-designed proposal that does natural justice to any interested parties, as one would expect—indeed it must, because of the Human Rights Act. I take it that it matches the procedure for heterosexual married couples and we therefore support it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Separation orders]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Henley: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Higgins. who, sadly, cannot be here today, I wanted to make an inquiry or two about the separation orders as set out in Clause 54: to ask, first, why the Government see the need for a separation order rather than an order for dissolution; secondly, to exactly what facts the court will have to have regard when it makes the separation order under the clause; and, thirdly, why it is irrelevant whether the partnership has broken down irretrievably. My knowledge of family law is extremely rusty and there have been many further Acts of Parliament since I last studied it. is this an order that in effect treats those who benefit from the Bill in much the same way as the various Acts deal with marriage?
  Baroness Crawley: Yes, the order deals in much the same way as orders dealing with the benefits of marriage. The noble Lord asked why civil partners might want a separation order as opposed to a dissolution order—why the Bill would assume that. It is likely that separation orders may be desired by civil partners whose relationship has broken down but who wish to retain the recognised status of civil partner. That may appeal to people who wish to retain their status despite the fact that they no longer have a relationship—elderly people, for example, who will have had to wait a long time to attain the status of civil partner, should the Bill be passed. Such a person would be able to reach a binding financial settlement on the making of the separation order, which would provide some security.
  The facts before the court would be the same as those for dissolution; there would not be a need to prove irretrievable breakdown, because the status of civil partnership would remain. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's questions.
  Lord Henley: I think that that answers all my questions. I have only one further inquiry. From what the noble Baroness said, I take it that those who sought and were granted a separation order by the court would continue to benefit from any tax advantages that the Bill might give them, in exactly the same way as would a married couple following a separation, rather than the dissolution, of their marriage.
  Baroness Crawley: I understand that that is not the case; they would not continue to benefit from the same tax advantages as would a married couple.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The reason why my party and the official Opposition rejected the Government's suggestion that there be pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill is that we anticipated that the Bill would not prove to be controversial and thought that the sooner we enacted it the better, for the sake of the victim groups that we want to protect. Although the Bill is drafted with necessary prolixity, because it covers the different legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and provides the necessary
  GC 186
  detail to achieve legal certainty, in fact, most of the provisions match what applies under the code for marriage.
  The separation order provisions in Clause 54 are very well explained in the Explanatory Notes, which I commend to the Committee. I shall not take time to repeat what is in paragraph 113, but in paragraph 114, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is dealt with, to some extent. It explains the effect of the separation order: Clause 55 provides that when a civil partner dies without making a will, intestate, and a separation order is in force, and the separation is continuing—there not having been a dissolution but only a separation—the rules in respect of the passing of intestate estates shall be applied as if his or her civil partner were dead. In dealing at least with intestacy, that is made absolutely clear. Again, it seems to me that these provisions on separation orders and their effect perfectly match the position for people like myself, who are married. We obviously support the clause.
  Lord Henley: I am a tiny bit more confused by that and I do not know whether the Government or the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. can help me. He says that if a separation order is in effect, the usual rules of intestacy for married couples or for those joined in civil partnership would not apply. Am I not right in thinking that where a separation order is in effect, when people who are married are separated but not divorced, the intestacy law would still apply? Secondly, I asked about tax principally in relation to inheritance tax. Where the parties are separated, would there be any inheritance tax advantages, or does the noble Baroness's original answer still hold?
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The tax advantages would be lost in the same way as for married people. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 [Declarations]:
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 56 agreed to.
  Clauses 57 to 62 agreed to.
  Clause 63 [Contribution by civil partner to property improvement]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51 A:
  Page 30, line 6, leave out "or personal property"
  The noble Lord said: We now come to the first amendments that I have tabled. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that these are purely probing amendments—I can refresh some of my very limited knowledge about property matters and he can give some assurances about how the Bill works in this respect. I have put down these amendments really to ask the Minister questions that relate to all of Chapters 3 and 4.
  I must confess to a pretty large ignorance of the law in this matter, but I am sure the noble Lord will be able to assist me. May I say how impressed I was at the extraordinary detail into which the Government seem to have gone in trying to deal with all the various ramifications? That might explain why, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, the Bill is somewhat prolix.
  Schedules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are attached to Chapters 3 and 4, even contain details relating to transfers of dwelling houses—those are in Schedule 7. There is even a measure that I remember well, although I was not in the House at the time. The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 was an extraordinary piece of legislation for a Labour government to introduce: it entrenched the hereditary principle into agricultural holdings, although I should not have thought that it applies to many agricultural holdings nowadays. But again I congratulate the Government on remembering to include the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. I shall ask my farming friends in Cumberland how many people they think will benefit from that. However, I am, I suspect, getting beyond myself.
  I return to Clause 63. As I said, these are merely a pair of probing amendments. I am simply trying to find out what the Government's intentions are. The first of these amendments refers to personal property. I simply ask again, as I did earlier, is the measure in the Bill trying to replicate exactly what is done in the case of married couples? The second amendment relates to the whole question of a contribution of a substantial nature. Does the measure in the Bill again merely replicate the provisions for married couples? If that is the case, will the noble Lord say what is meant by "a substantial nature" and how it will be interpreted?
  I do not know whether the noble Lord will want to give a slightly fuller answer, but, as I said, the point I am trying to get at is to discover to what extent the Government are trying to replicate provisions that already exist for married couples so that those who will benefit from the Bill will benefit in exactly the same way as married couples. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will want to assure me that that is the case, but on this occasion I should like that assurance from the Government. No doubt it can be backed up in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We thought that they probably were probing amendments but you never know in Committee. I also thank the noble Lord for his compliments on the care that officials have taken to try to think about all the consequences. I had not spotted the one about hereditary Peer land holdings but I note it with interest.
  Lord Henley: It was not a case of hereditary Peer landowners but the fact that the Government brought the hereditary principle into the inheritance of
  GC 188
  tenancies. Back in 1976 many of us thought that was rather an odd thing for a government committed to the abolition of the hereditary principle to do.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Lord knows how much we respect them as individuals even though we do not want them as legislators.
  I turn to the specific questions about what the measure means in practice. The aim of Clause 63 is to stop civil partners who have made a significant contribution, in either money or time and trouble and skill, to the improvement of property. whether it is an interest in land or in other types of property. from losing out. The legal definition of property, which is used most frequently in wills, is of two types: real property, which is land, houses, buildings; and personal property, which comprises goods, money, shares, interest in a business and all other types of property. Clearly, before the ending of such a relationship one wants the courts to be able to look at both types of property.
  As to the word "substantial", in a sense that is a measure designed to avoid trivial issues coming before the courts, for example, if one partner had given another a gift of token, but not any great financial, value. The courts would not hold that that was a substantial interest justifying a court action. As regards who decides these matters, in the way of these things it is for the courts to judge whether a matter is substantial or not.
  I believe that the noble Lord was trying to provoke me into using the "m" word and the "d" words again to try to upset the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. But he is absolutely right, of course, the provisions that we are discussing mirror the provisions under marriage and divorce law.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, should never underestimate my ignorance. If he thinks that I am an expert on family and property law, I am sorry to tell him that he is seriously in error. This chapter as a whole, of which Clause 63 is the first clause, is doing some very sensible things with regard to property and financial arrangements between civil partners of the kind that one would have between spouses. What it is seeking to do is to provide equity and to give protection.
  As has been explained, and is explained in the Explanatory Notes, the measure concerns what happens when one partner makes a substantial contribution, in money terms or otherwise, to property and then one has to allocate the property rights and duties between the partners. Clause 64 deals with disputes between civil partners about property. All of that, to the best of my memory, is exactly the same kind of protection that is given to married persons. One needs to give that protection to same-sex couples. This is one of the great benefits of the Bill: once they enter into the registered relationship, disputes of this kind can be dealt with in an orderly way, either by agreement or by the independent courts, which is as it should be, rather than being dealt with by self-help or, sometimes, criminal activity. We greatly welcome this clause as part of the chapter.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the response he gave to that, which I will certainly read carefully in due course. It might be that other questions will arise that we might want to come back to on Report. For the moment, I am happy that what I thought was happening, is happening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 51B not moved.]
  Clause 63 agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Disputes between civil partners about property]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51C:
  Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) In any matter referred to the courts under subsection (1), it shall be open to the court to refer the parties to mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
  The noble Lord said: I declare an interest in mediation but I have never been involved in mediation in matrimonial disputes. I do not think that whatever talent I have in this field would necessarily be appropriate for the harder role of mediation in that line although I understand that mediation has been fairly successful in the past. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is not here. Some months ago, when she was still attached to the Lord Chancellor's Department, I had some discussions with her about the use of mediation in all forms of disputes. I mentioned the success of mediation in resolving disputes. keeping the lawyers out—although many lawyers are involved in mediation—and resolving disputes speedily with less acrimony than normal. I know that the noble Lord's department and the former department of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, have been active in promoting mediation. That is a good thing and we are happy that it is the case.
  We had a brief mention of mediation earlier on, when my noble friend discussed Clause 41 stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that mediation in what we can loosely call family disputes sometimes had problems, particularly if it started late. I assure him that mediation can work at very late stages indeed. For example, he might know of the Court of Appeal mediation scheme, which is a form of mediation that comes in after the case has been through the court and before it goes to appeal. I have been involved in a mediation that was at that stage and at the 59th minute of the 11th hour we managed to get a settlement to the dispute which, no doubt, saved many people a great deal of money and probably put many lawyers out of business for a while, as the case did not go on to the court in due course.
  I tabled this amendment, which is, I imagine, distinctly badly drafted, as a means of probing whether the Government think that here, or in other parts of the Bill, or perhaps in a great many parts of the Bill, there might be a process whereby the concept of mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution could be brought in. I know how keen the ex-Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord
  GC 190
  Irvine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, are on it and I imagine that the current Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord are also keen on it. Such provision would allow them to match their words with their action. They could include in legislation, possibly for the first time, measures that might encourage the courts and others to encourage mediation, thereby saving money and perhaps expediting the resolution of disputes, which can be difficult. As I said, that would help to keep the lawyers out of it. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Oddly enough, this is a subject on which I know a little, partly because I have been counsel acting in an alternative dispute resolution for the head of my chambers, Presiley Baxendale QC, who is an expert. I can say how beneficial the process is in cutting down adversarial activity by members of my profession and in bringing the parties together.
  Additionally, I was acting for the Law Society of England and Wales before the Court of Appeal a couple of weeks ago. The Court of Appeal gave judgment, I think on Tuesday—in a case called Halsey which I am sure the Government ought to study—in which it laid down some comprehensive guidance about what the court should do and not do in promoting alternative dispute resolution, not only in this type of context but generally, and in drawing a line between what is coercive and placing unacceptable burdens on parties, and what on the other hand is there to promote alternative dispute resolution of the proper kind, including mediation.
  I certainly support the object of Amendment No. 51C. I just ask myself, and I do not know the answer, whether the amendment is necessary. I will have to go back to look at the civil procedure rules of the Supreme Court to see what they say about alternative dispute resolution—the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court—and, for that matter, the other civil courts.
  My guess—although I am usually wrong—is that there is now a wide jurisdiction in the courts generally and that that would apply to married couples and indeed to every litigant in all classes of dispute. Certainly it applies to commercial cases. It applies to public law cases. As far as I am aware, it applies to property cases and family law cases right across the board. If that is right, then it will not be necessary to have a specific provision of this kind and to amend the Marriage Act, or whatever it is, to achieve that purpose because it has been done by the Supreme Court Act, I guess, read with the civil procedure rules.
  That is a purely technical matter. However, the object of the amendment is clearly sensible, if I may say so. I am sure that the Government would be willing to accept that the amendment, in some form, needs to be embodied in the code of law.
  Lord Filkin: Speaking first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I agree with him on both the principle of his comments on mediation and the specifics of what his amendment seeks to do: to ensure that the provision is available in such issues. Now is not the time, but I would genuinely welcome at some

  GC 191
  stage a debate in our House—because we are well fitted for that—about alternative dispute resolution or what we are increasingly calling proportionate dispute resolution, which has a very wide ambit and some very wide principles. It is a central plank of our forward thinking about how one increases access to justice. I emphasise that that is the thrust of it, rather than being beastly to lawyers.
  Our view, and it is only a view at this stage, is—as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, signalled—that we think that the courts have an inherent power to adjourn cases to allow parties to attempt mediation and are keen to use it where cases appear to merit it. I should add that I am aware of the Court of Appeal judgment in Halsey, although I have not yet read it. However, we are not absolutely categorically certain of this.
  Therefore, I think that I will give at least a half-hit to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Clearly, as we are in Grand Committee, the issue cannot be pressed now. However, I should like to take the issue away and reflect on whether it needs to be put beyond doubt, in which case we would be pleased to do so and bring back a suitable amendment. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge the helpfulness of his contribution in this respect.
  Lord Henley: I am very grateful indeed for the Minister's remarks. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right and that the provision is probably unnecessary. He referred to the case of Halsey, which I have not read, but I understand that in that case, the winning party, who had refused to indulge in mediation, suffered no costs penalty, whereas, in an earlier case two or three years ago called Dunnett v Railtrack, the winning party suffered considerable disadvantage in costs because they had refused to involve themselves in mediation.
  However, as I said, I am exceedingly grateful for what the Minister said. I drafted the amendment— very badly—as a means to get the matter discussed and encourage the Government, who have already made some hopeful noises about mediation, to say a little more—as it were, to edge them on in favour of greater use of mediation. Should we have another debate on mediation—the noble Lord suggested that it might be appropriate to seek one in the House—I will try not to indulge in any of my low attacks on lawyers, but sometimes one cannot resist it. We all agree that mediation can be a good way to resolve disputes speedily and without the bitterness that can sometimes be involved in a more adversarial approach. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for his answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Applications under section 64 where property not in possession etc.]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Henley: This Question was grouped with an earlier amendment and I should have spoken briefly to
  GC 192
  it then. It was purely a probing amendment dealing with applications under Clause 64 where the property was not in possession. What I would like from the noble Lord—he could write to me—is some sort of explanation of exactly what Clause 65 will do, because it is beyond my limited powers of comprehension. I am sure that the noble Lord can do somewhat better.
  Lord Filkin: Perhaps I can save the noble Lord the pain of reading a letter by saying what I should have covered in response to the whole group. Clause 65 provides additional protection to civil partners in property disputes. It allows one civil partner to make an application under Clause 64 where the other civil partner no longer has the money or property concerned or where it is unknown whether the other partner still has the money or property. The court is given power to order payment of a sum of money or to make any other order that it can make under Clause 64. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will find that answer helpful. It is quite a complex issue but no doubt we can talk further if that would be helpful.
  Lord Henley: I am most grateful for what the Minister said.
  Clause 65 agreed to.
  Clauses 66 to 68 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 69 agreed to.
  4 p.m.
  Schedule 5 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.]:
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 52:
  age 127, line 32, leave out paragraphs 31 to 37.
  The noble Baroness said: The two amendments in this group relate to the provisions in the Bill that relate to financial provisions and maintenance. Amendment No. 52 would leave out paragraph 31 of Schedule 5, Part 8. It allows either civil partner to apply to the court on the grounds that the other civil partner has failed to maintain adequately, provide for or make a proper contribution towards, the welfare of any child of the family.
  The court can make a range of orders. Amendment No. 54 would leave out paragraph 15 of Schedule 6, Part 3, which details the provisions regarding the courts' powers where civil partners are living apart by agreement and there is a question of child maintenance. An order can be made by the court where civil partners have been living separately for more than three months.
  At this stage, these are probing amendments. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that these sections of the Bill mirror the provisions for marriage and that this is why they have been drafted so. I have got so used to hearing that explanation in the past days of Committee.
  I am told again and again, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that this is a relationship Bill; that this is not a financial Bill; that this is not a property Bill; and that this is not a Bill in that way. I have been married twice. The first time that I got married, which was a very long time ago, I was not allowed to sign the hire purchase agreement for my hoover. As a woman, I was not regarded as reliable enough to make the payments. Nor was I allowed to sign the mortgage agreement for my house because, as a woman, I was unreliable in that I might get pregnant or I might not be able to hold my job down: I might have the vapours or whatever else I might do.
  Having gone through two marriages and, God-willing, if I am fortunate enough to be chosen by some nice man I might have a third marriage, I might find myself rather inclined to worry a little about my pension and my financial status, as well as falling madly in love. When we say, "This is only a relationship Bill", I would like to remind noble Lords that marriage is, of course, a wonderful, loving relationship, but there are other things within marriage that apply. So I do not want to be constantly told that this is nothing to do with money or that sort of support.
  To go back from my deviation, this is a probing amendment. Such sections as I have already noted make a civil partnership a serious undertaking because there are financial implications that stretch beyond the break-up of a relationship. I am keen to hear the Government's thinking on those clauses. Why the period of three months before an order can be made? Do they feel that it is right that someone with no blood ties to a child should have to maintain that child financially? I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred in the earlier part of her life have happily been dealt with by Parliament in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, to which I contributed. Her wider personal revelations, which I much enjoyed listening to, will be heard by many noble Lords of eligible age. I am not sure that it is safe to make that kind of declaration.
  However, as regards the serious point about money, I do not think that anything that I have said would indicate that I ever suggested that the Bill had nothing to do with money. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Alli. and I were determined to try to get across was that this is not a tax avoidance or a tax reduction Bill. It is about relationships. Of course, the particular clause that we are looking at in the schedule is concerned with ensuring that the relationship is viable and that the relationship between the partners is fairly dealt with by the law to ensure, for example, that there is reasonable maintenance, as happens with married couples. Clearly, that is a very important incident in giving legal recognition to subsisting civil partnership.
  Just as when the vows of a marriage fail to provide reasonable maintenance for the other spouse or to make a proper contribution to any child of the family, so the same should apply to a same-sex couple. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is not
  GC 194
  suggesting the contrary; she is simply probing to see how this operates. Clearly, this is a necessary part of the overall scheme. It is not that money does not come into it—it clearly does—it is just that it demeans the whole Bill to suggest that the cash nexus is its main purpose.
  Lord Alli: I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had to say. The point I have been trying to make over the past two Committee days is that if this Bill were seen as primarily a financial bit of engineering, that would be wrong. The starting point is people who want to commit to a relationship from which a whole range of other measures then follow, some of them financial and some of them not.
  These provisions are particularly important as they stand in the Bill because after separation couples will want to reflect and decide their future. Where there is an imbalance in income, it would be regrettable if we forced people into a dissolution stage in order to obtain maintenance rather than allowing the courts to make some interim arrangement which would give them a little more time and space to consider what they are doing. Such arrangements work very successfully with married couples. To mirror them for civil partnerships seems eminently sensible.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was clear that these are probing amendments. They are important because they clearly touch on how parties—should a relationship look as if it has to end—carry out the responsibilities consequent on that relationship to each other.
  Part 8 of Schedule 5 provides for a civil partner to apply to the court for financial provision where their civil partner has not provided adequate maintenance either for the applicant or for any child of the family. The court has power under Part 8 to make the same type of orders as for other cases under Schedule 5. such as orders for periodical payments or lump sums. Part 8 makes provision for similar financial protection to be available in the High Court and in the county court as is available in magistrates' courts under the provisions of Schedule 6.
  It is important that civil partners should be able to apply for financial provision in all levels of court and have access to the widest range of orders, for self-evident reasons. This part of the schedule complements the rest of Schedule 5, which deals with financial provision for civil partners and children of the family, by making available financial orders where there has been a failure to maintain. Any such failure may cause hardship and in such a case it would be in the public interest for that failure to be addressed against the civil partner concerned rather than fall to the state.
  The noble Baroness asked why the civil partner should be so burdened. In essence, that goes to the spirit of the Bill which is that civil partnerships confer significant rights and responsibilities on both partners. If, as a consequence of the partnership, they have taken on responsibility for a child of that relationship—we discussed previously that it is

  GC 195
  perfectly possible through adoption for such a child to be in that position—it seems right to the Government that they should carry the responsibility of maintaining that child into the future, and hopefully maintaining an emotional and a supportive relationship as well as a financial one. Removal of Part 8 from Schedule 5 would reduce the facilities for civil partners to apply for financial provision that exist for married people. We do not see a justification for that.
  Amendment No. 54, although necessary, is perhaps slightly less likely to be used in a large number of cases. It would remove all paragraphs of Part 3 of Schedule 6. Schedule 6 allows civil partners to apply for financial relief in the magistrates' courts, and Part 3 is an integral part, as it enables the court to make orders for financial provision for a civil partner or a child of the family where civil partners are living apart by agreement. While I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, spoke clearly about why it is desirable to have such a provision, we would not pretend that this is a large-scale event. At least in the context of divorce or marriage breakdown, people usually opt for a divorce rather than financial relief after they have separated. Nevertheless, he is right in the sense that if people have separated but have not yet decided that they wish to end the relationship permanently, it is good that the law allows them to get financial support so that they are not forced as a consequence of not having financial support to end the relationship prematurely if that was not necessary.
  Civil partners will be under a duty to maintain each other and any children of the family. It is important that they should be able to make application for financial provision when they are living apart by agreement because that goes to the heart of the agreement into which they entered. It would be in the public interest for civil partners to have such a continuing duty when living apart by agreement, otherwise it could fall to the state to support them. But perhaps more importantly, it was part of the responsibilities that they undertook when entering into that relationship. Again, we wish to reduce acrimony between people in situations where relationships are in difficulties. These provisions correspond to those available for partners to a marriage.
  I think I was also asked why the period is three months. I am afraid it is the same answer that the noble Baroness has grown used to: it mirrors what is currently the law on divorce and marriage in that respect. I hope that, with those explanations, I have given a satisfactory response to these probing amendments.
  Baroness Wilcox: As the Minister said, these are probing amendments. I will read carefully what he has said in Hansard and see if there is any reason for me to come back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 130, line 39, after second "the" insert "civil"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Financial relief in magistrates' courts etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.
  Clauses 70 to 78 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Schedule 9 agreed to.
  Clause 80 agreed to.
  Clause 81 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
  [Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
  Clause 81 agreed to.
  Clause 82 [Eligibility]:
  [Amendment No. 54 B not moved.]
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 55:
  Page 38, line 1, leave out "Subsection (1) does not apply to"
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 55, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 56 to 60. Clause 82 sets out the eligibility of a couple to form a civil partnership in Scotland. It prevents a couple from forming a civil partnership if they are not of the same sex; either is under 16; either is already in a subsisting marriage or civil partnership; either is incapable of understanding the nature of a civil partnership; or they are connected with the prohibited degrees of relationship as set out in Schedule 10 to the Bill.
  Subsections (3) and (4) explain certain exceptions depending on the degree of affinity. Subsections (5) to (7) apply this section and Schedule 10 to the case of a person wishing to form a civil partnership in his acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Bill.
  4.15 p.m.
  Anyone wishing to form a civil partnership must satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in subsection (1). The drafting of subsections (3) and (4) is presently misleading. It would mean that the eligibility criteria set out in subsection (1) would not apply in some cases. This is clearly not our intention. These minor amendments simply rephrase the wording of subsections (3) and (4) to correct this error and mirror our policy intention. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: In the absence of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who is in Scotland, I intervene briefly to thank the noble Lord for introducing these amendments. They are some distance away from his native Wales, but, no doubt, he is learning fast about Scotland. I congratulate the Scotland Office for at least tabling their amendments in time and I repeat yesterday's comments by my noble friend Lord Tebbit

  GC 197
  about the somewhat excessive number of amendments that came in rather late. I appreciate that we had an explanation yesterday from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, mostly relating to Northern Ireland,
  In all my years here I have never known a Bill that has effectively doubled in size in this way or has had to be completely rewritten at this stage. When one considers the long gestation of the Bill it is a sad reflection on the efficiency of the Government—and I exempt the Scottish Office—that they should have to introduce such a selection of amendments at such a late stage. No doubt, others will wish to comment on that later when we reach those amendments.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. In fact, yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, dealt in considerable detail with the reason for these amendments, but I join him in congratulating the Scotland Office and officials who have come down from the Scottish Parliament for the quality of the work that they have done for us on the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Amendments Nos. 56 to 60 agreed to.
  Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Clauses 83 to 121 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 122 to 127 agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 61:
  After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
  "COUNCIL TAX: LIABILITY OF CIVIL PARTNERS
  After section 77 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14), insert —
  "77A LIABILITY OF CIVIL PARTNERS
  (1) Where—

  (a) a person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day is in civil partnership with another person or living with another person in a relationship which has the characteristics of the relationship between civil partners; and

  (b) that other person is also a resident of the dwelling on that day but would not, apart from this section, be so liable,

  those persons shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax payable in respect of that dwelling and that day.
  (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount—

  (a) by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired); or

  (b) being a student, by virtue of paragraph 4 of that Schedule."."

  The noble Lord said: I bring to the Committee a further amendment relating to the Scottish provisions in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that civil partners be jointly and severally liable for payment of council tax on a property in the same way as spouses. The requirement for spouses in Scotland is made in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The
  GC 198
  amendment seeks to include provision in that Act to take account of the new legal status of civil partners. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 128 to 130 agreed to.
  Clause 131 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) moved Amendment No. 61A:
  Page 65, line 29, after "witnesses" insert "both of whom profess to be 16 or over"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 61A and 61 B make technical adjustments to Clause 131. The first amendment places on the face of the Bill a provision that witnesses to a civil partnership registration must be 16 or over. This corresponds to a provision in the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and ensures consistency of approach to the age at which a person may act as witness.
  The second amendment makes clear that. following the registration of a civil partnership, the fact of registration is to be recorded by the registrar rather than registered in the official register of civil partnerships which each registrar and the Registrar General will keep. The current wording may have appeared confusing as to the point in time at which the registration formally took place.
  These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Leader of the House, to the Grand Committee. I hope that she finds it interesting. I also hope that she realises the very difficult circumstances and awful working conditions; but we have gone through that so many times that I suppose I had better not repeat it.
  Although this particular amendment is uncontroversial, following the debate on Northern Ireland in Grand Committee on 10 May, I wish to set out my stall and reiterate why I feel that Northern Ireland should not be included in the Bill.
  On the first day of Grand Committee, last Monday, I moved an amendment to leave Northern Ireland out of the Bill entirely; that is at col. GC44 of Hansard for 10 May. Although my amendment was rejected, it seemed to be agreed that there is a very different religious and political culture in Northern Ireland. The Minister admitted that the majority of ordinary men and women who responded to the consultation in the Province were opposed to civil partnerships. But the Government's view is that the Government are right; the people who responded to the consultation are wrong; and they are going to impose civil partnerships upon them anyway.
  Lord Alli: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness quite so early in her speech. As I think I said in Grand Committee yesterday, I have very carefully read her comments. I, too, was quite worried about the distortion in Northern Ireland. I think she is right that part of that is probably due to different cultural factors.

  GC 199
  Nevertheless, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, to ask whether, based on respondent numbers, she or her civil servants could identify any concerted letter-writing campaign in the consultation process. I was surprised at the low number of responses—462—to the consultation. The Minister has replied to my letter—I have just been handed a copy—and I am more than happy to copy that to the noble Baroness. It states that there is evidence of repeat replies and a large number of letter-writing campaigns that may have influenced the result.
  So I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. I think that an organised letter-writing campaign involving repeat replies is not quite the same as genuine responses to consultation. I will certainly ask the Minister to copy her letter to the noble Baroness. Perhaps she will be able to study it before Report stage.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alli, very much for his intervention, and I look forward to seeing the reply. However, I would also point out that I referred in yesterday's debate to the campaign that was certainly launched in England and Wales. That consultation was mainly with organisations known to be in support of the Bill. Two wrongs do not make a right. However, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
  I am bound to point out that when we debated the issue on 10 May, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, did not give us a full picture about the nature of responses to the consultation. She said:
  "The majority of responses from individuals were opposed to the introduction of civil partnerships but, on the other hand, most groups or organisations who responded … were supportive".—[Official Report, 10/5/04; col. GC 46.]
  She did not say, but it is apparent from the document that the Women and Equality Unit posted to us on 11 May, that of 462 responses, 416—that is, 90 per cent—were from individuals. Only 46—that is, 10 per cent—were from organisations. In fact, 40 per cent of those organisations oppose civil partnerships. Overall, 86 per cent of respondents were against the plans.
  As I pointed out yesterday, responses to a consultation are not the same as a representative sample. We would all agree with that. That certainly tallies with what I was saying on the first day in Committee about the very high level of opposition that I assumed there would be in Northern Ireland to civil partnerships.
  Interestingly, 87 per cent of those who objected were concerned about the impact on marriage. They were right to be concerned because, as the deliberations on this Bill have progressed in Grand Committee, it has become overwhelmingly clear that this is a form of civil marriage for homosexuals. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, is not in his place. Yesterday, he said that he did not regard that as being the case. I know that he believes what he says.
  GC 200
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester—I am very sorry that he is not in his place—was correct when he said that the Bill is intended to,
  "mirror marriage without using that label".—[Official Report. 12/ 5/04; col. GC 178.]
  Legally speaking, by far the biggest difference between civil partnership and marriage is in the nomenclature. The rest is just detail. I am firmly of the view that we should not be imposing gay marriage on Northern Ireland against the wishes of the population. Nor do I think that we should be sneaking it through while the Northern Ireland Assembly is sadly suspended. If the Government are so convinced of their case, they should be willing to wait until the Assembly is reestablished and try to persuade it to adopt it.
  I also do not think that the procedure for imposing civil partnerships on Northern Ireland is appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Tebbit pointed out yesterday, we had some 120 pages of Government amendments dropped on us on Tuesday. We are expected to have been able to scrutinise them and are now expected to agree them on Thursday. That would be absolutely impossible even if I had a team of advisers similar to those available to the Minister. For us humble Back Benchers that is totally out of the question.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, yesterday reminded us, at column GC 127 of the Official Report, of her remarks at Second Reading, in anticipation of the arrival of these amendments. She said on Second Reading:
  "Part 4 of the Bill deals with provisions relating to Northern Ireland. As yet, these are incomplete. We intend to add further provisions by amendment".—[Official Report, 22/4/04; col. 390.]
  I am sorry to say that those remarks gave no indication of the extent of the changes. Nothing in those remarks indicated that we should expect 120 pages of amendments to a 260-page Bill. There was also no suggestion that we would be given just two days to contemplate them before we were asked to agree to their inclusion in the Bill.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was open about the problems of timing yesterday when we came to the first of the enormous batch of amendments, which were tabled on 10 May. She said that these government amendments were not expected to be considered before Monday 17 May, which would be seven days after they were tabled. Why were they not tabled earlier? Why were proceedings on this Bill not delayed until after the officials had looked at the consultation responses and finalised the amendments?
  I do not know what has gone wrong within the department, but the timing of the tabling of those amendments is totally unacceptable. This Committee and the process of proper scrutiny of legislation should not be forced to pay the price for bungling.
  My noble friend Lord Higgins hinted at his displeasure at this yesterday. I think that we should do more than that: we should not agree to these amendments becoming part of the Bill at this stage. The Minister should move them and explain them, but then withdraw them to allow us time to consider whether to agree to them.

  GC 201
  I do not have time to look at the details. No one has. But even a brief inspection shows that the amendments touch on highly controversial matters. For example, Amendment No. 61C in the next group concerns the place of registration for civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. Astonishingly, it does not replicate the ban in Clause 6 on the use of religious premises in England and Wales and in Clause 89 for those in Scotland. I guess the answer will be that it will be in regulations, but regulations arc not acceptable. In England and Wales and Scotland there is a ban in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring them into line with England. Wales and Scotland.
  4.30 p.m.
  Amendment No. 61 BH concerns the highly sensitive area of adoption. Civil partnership is to be recognised as marriage for many purposes regarding adoption law in Northern Ireland. That is despite the fact that adoption by homosexual couples is not allowed in Northern Ireland. I am sure that there are many other issues, but we must have time to discover them. I know that the Government said yesterday in column GC 158 of Hansard that they intend no discourtesy by the timing. But I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise the extremely difficult position in which the Committee is being placed and will not move the amendment formally today so that we can all have time to work out what on earth these amendments are for.
  I know that it will be said that the amendments mirror provisions for England and Wales. But at Second Reading on 22 April, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, also said, at column 391 of Hansard, that there were differences reflecting the Northern Ireland law, and it is those differences that concern me.
  Finally. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House, particularly the Members of this Grand Committee do not regard me as a wrecker. I do not wish to sabotage the Bill as, I am told, I could by signalling "not content" to all the Government amendments on Northern Ireland. I will not do so. However, I give notice of my intention to scrutinise all those amendments between now and Report; and it will come as no surprise for those who have been here for the last two and a half days that I intend to return to them on Report or Third Reading if I feel that it is necessary.
  Lord Alli: I do not think that I or anyone else who has sat in the Committee would ever suggest that the noble Baroness is trying to wreck the Bill procedurally. In fact. I believe that she just opposes parts of it. That is a principled position to take and I understand that.
  However, the case that she made for depriving the people of Northern Ireland from the protection opportunities of the Bill was unconvincing. The least convincing argument put by the noble Baroness on Monday was that—I think she said—there were very
  GC 202
  few homosexuals in Northern Ireland and she added that the census had uncovered only 288 same-sex couples in the Province.
  Baroness O'Cathain: No, no. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I must read the debate again, but I was saying that in the census it was either 268 or 288 homosexual couples who are house-sharing, home-sharing or living together. I was not saying that there are only 268 homosexuals in the whole of Northern Ireland—I do not know how many homosexual couples there are in Northern Ireland, but I was talking about home-sharing or house-sharing.
  Lord Alli: I believe that the insinuation of the noble Baroness in that part of her speech was that only a small number of people would be affected by the Bill and as a result we should not have it applying to Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Baroness would agree with me that if one extended that logic and used the formula that she uses about there being few homosexuals, then the provisions that we have made in this House for war widows would fall under her definition, because there are very few war widows—45,000, who make up 0.000075 per cent of the population. There was no good reason why they should not be protected and I believe that the number of people being protected or being given that opportunity in legislation should not be the most important factor.
  I draw the noble Baroness' attention to some hard facts about the Province. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has just committed itself to a significant programme of work to protect the lesbian and gay population after acknowledging last month that the level of violent crime against gay people in the Province had recently doubled. A survey released by the Youthnet group in January this year found that nearly a third of young lesbian and gay people in Northern Ireland had attempted suicide as a result of persecution and bullying. As many as 50 per cent said that they had suffered some bullying due to their sexuality.
  Those are figures which make Northern Ireland special, but hardly deserving of exemption from this legislation, which will send a clear message that young lesbians and gay men can in future grow up knowing that one day they will be entitled to the same protection in law as their heterosexual counterparts. There might be as many as 60,000 to 80.000 gay people in Northern Ireland; in Belfast itself there is some evidence of a significant gay community. An entrepreneur has recently taken 9,000 square feet of retail space in the heart of Belfast to open a new gay club. According to a range of reports there is an active and vibrant gay community in Belfast and if the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would ever like to accompany me I could show her around.
  Central to my concern over the noble Baroness is that excluding Northern Ireland from these provisions would reinforce the prejudice that I have talked about and we should be in the business of opposing that

  GC 203
  prejudice and educating the people that hold those views, rather than penalising the victims of the prejudice.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I shall not weary the Committee any more on this matter, but wish to put a few facts straight for the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I did say:
  "As a matter of fact, there are very few homosexuals. A recent census found that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of the Province. The reference for that is the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Online-Census 2001".—[Official Report. 10/5/04, col. GC44.]
  The second point that the noble Lord made was about the level of violence doubling. That is pretty appalling but we all know that the monitoring commission report issued just a few weeks ago sadly indicated that violence generally is increasing in the Province. So, I do not know where the noble Lord's figures came from but the situation is unfortunately so sad for those of us who are closely involved with and feel deeply about Northern Ireland—my father was from Northern Ireland so I know something about the Province. I would not wish to base my arguments on just that, but I want to put the record straight—I never said that there were only 288 homosexuals in the Province.
  Lord Alli: I do not think that I misquoted the noble Baroness. What I said was what she just quoted:
  "As a matter of fact there are very few homosexuals",
  in Northern Ireland. That is what she said.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I apologise for not being here for the earlier discussion on this matter, but I know exactly what it is about, so I want to raise a couple of points.
  As someone who has been a holiday resident of west Cork for 32 years and goes frequently to Northern Ireland to argue difficult cases on moral and other questions, I am well aware of the difference of opinion between Ireland west of the Irish Sea and Britain east of the Irish Sea on some of these questions, and I fully respect that difference of feeling among the general population. That is why Britain was taken before the European Court of Human Rights, as was Ireland, in relation to homosexuality in the Dudgeon case and the Norris case, because we had the antiquated Victorian law that criminalised adult homosexual conduct between consenting males.
  We kept that law in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to appease majority opinion and it took the ECHR to establish equal protection for gay men across the whole of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The happy position now prevails so that in both our countries, including Northern Ireland, there is equal protection against the use of criminal law to criminalise private consenting male homosexual conduct.
  I believe that the Government are right to introduce into this code matching provisions in Northern Ireland to ensure that the basic rights of citizenship that are
  GC 204
  our birthright by being born and bred as British citizens should not vary according to the particular part of the United Kingdom in which we happen to live. There must be genuinely equal protection on basic issues. If we were to discriminate against gay or lesbian couples in their treatment by our legal system in Northern Ireland, although there would be some argument for saying that that was justified by having a different legal system, it would be a difficult matter to justify in the circumstances of this issue.
  In any event, it is the function of Parliament to protect vulnerable minorities against the tyranny of majorities. I have always sought to do that, whether the minority is popular or unpopular. I have never regarded the majoritarian principle as one that should guide the legislator on matters of basic human rights.
  Therefore, I strongly support the inclusion of the Northern Ireland provisions. I believe that there has been appropriate consultation. I realise that that consultation has shown that the majority of organisations in Northern Ireland supported these provisions and the majority of individuals who responded did not. However, I do not believe that one can take policy decisions of this kind by counting heads or depending upon majorities. Therefore, since I do not accept the tyranny of majorities when it comes to basic human rights—and I am a follower of John Stuart Mill in that respect—I strongly support what the Government are seeking to do.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I have not had an opportunity to speak on the Bill before, but I rise now to support wholeheartedly the point of view that has been so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I come from Northern Ireland and I know that community a great deal better than the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for example, however knowledgeable he might consider himself to be. It surprised me that, in presenting his defence of his position, he suggested that the opposition to the Bill, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was somehow orchestrated.
  Northern Ireland is a parochial community of small towns and villages, of country people coming together as a community. It is not unusual that what appears to be a campaign arises from that. But it is not a campaign on the same level as we have seen campaigns, for example, from the gay and lesbian communities throughout the United Kingdom. This is a campaign—if I dare call it that—or a movement based on common understanding and support, with one family backing another within our small parochial set-up. It also noticeably crosses the two main traditional divides in Northern Ireland.
  4.45 p.m.
  In more than 20 years in this place and the other place, I have so often heard it said that Northern Ireland should be considered in a way that enables two traditions to find common cause. On this issue, two traditions have found common cause. I believe

  GC 205
  that the speed with which the Bill has been foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland is quite inappropriate. I t will cause huge offence.
  Only in one area would I have any sympathy with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and I think that that is well known. I am totally opposed to violence or any sort of intimidation towards any minority section within our society. But if we are to ensure that the unfortunate increase in violence to which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has referred is not to escalate, we must try to ensure that unacceptable changes to our society as a whole are not foisted upon the community in what appears to be an aggressive and precipitate manner.
  We should not treat Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom when it suits and as a part that needs to be treated differently when it suits otherwise. That is what I have experienced, I am sorry to say, in my 20 years or so here. Northern Ireland does not want the Bill foisted upon it in this form at this time; it has not had time to consider it or to begin to understand.
  In conclusion, I hope that the point of view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will be heeded by the Government.
  Lord Alli: Before the noble Lord sits down, I was not saying that I had evidence of an orchestrated campaign. I said that I had written to the Minister and asked whether there was evidence of such a campaign in the response from the correspondents. Her reply was that there was evidence of repeat returns.
  I do not think that I have to come from Northern Ireland to identify prejudice. I am quite good at spotting prejudice and, where it exists, we should seek to remedy it. That really does transcend borders.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, sits down, I wonder whether he could help me. I made the point that it was exactly because the two communities in Northern Ireland and, for that matter, in the Republic of Ireland, had the strongly held view that they did—which some might call prejudice and others might call strongly held feelings—that both countries were taken before the European Court of Human Rights and found wanting because they were discriminating in the criminal law against homosexual couples and singles.
  I do not understand, given where the noble Lord is coming from, whether he regards that as an affront to the people of Northern Ireland and would have opposed it. I think that on the basis of what he has said, he probably would have. Does he accept that, whether from the point of view of a Unionist or a republican, it is very important that common standards should prevail on both sides of the Irish Sea, and north and south, on basic fundamental human rights, and that if a vulnerable minority of any kind is not able to enjoy the same rights, on a discriminatory basis, they should be entitled to effective remedy?
  That is what the Bill, as I understand it, seeks to do. It seeks to place homosexual couples who volunteer to do so under the same code of rights and obligations that they would have had if they were not gay but
  GC 206
  heterosexual. The Bill is simply seeking to do justice to them. Is the noble Lord's position that that concern should be overborne by a majoritarian sentiment? That is what I do not understand from his speech.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has posed a rather lengthy question and I do not think that I am in a position to answer it in detail in the time that the Committee will accord me. Suffice it to say, when the question, "When did you stop beating your wife" is asked, we all know that the answer is bound to catch you out. That is the sort of question I have been asked.
  The noble Lord referred to prejudice or strongly held feeling. What if I referred, on behalf of the people I represent, to moral standards? I do not want to—and am trying not to—enter into a debate on moral judgment. None the less, it is a common feeling or opinion throughout Northern Ireland that a level of moral standards should be maintained.
  I answer the noble Lord, Lord Lester, by saying no, I am not happy with much of the legislation that comes from Europe. I am content to say that whatever minority I may meet or contend with in my community, I will protect them. I will protect them against violence, but let me make it clear that I will not enhance the minority opinion if I believe it goes against the welfare or the moral standards expected within my community. That is as fair as I can be on this issue.
  I am sorry if I have not responded fully to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I am not suggesting that he does not know Northern Ireland, nor that he does not have a knowledge of it. But the inner feeling within Northern Ireland is being grievously injured by this legislation. For that reason, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
  Earl Ferrers: I have listened to this debate for about the last half an hour and I venture to suggest that we may have become slightly off beam. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, as I understood it, that one of the objections was that 125 pages of amendments had been put down on Tuesday which we were supposed to digest and comment upon on Thursday. That is a fairly substantial objection.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alli, answered the main substance of the amendments, but I think he missed the main point. Whatever these amendments contain, neither the Government nor the Opposition, nor anyone in the Committee has had enough chance to read them. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, says he thinks that it is quite right for the rights of Northern Ireland to be incorporated into the Bill. That may be perfectly true. He also said that common standards should prevail. That also may be perfectly true. But if it is so simple, why does it take 125 pages? If incorporating these provisions in the Bill is so obvious, why did the Government not incorporate them in the first place?
  The fact is that one has these 125 pages, presumably all of which mean something—and something fairly substantial—because otherwise one might just as well put down an amendment saying that this Bill applies to Northern Ireland. But if it is not as simple as that,

  GC 207
  people really must be given the opportunity to consider what is being put forward. That is the onus of the amendments of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain as opposed to the detail to which many Members of the Committee referred.
  Lord Alli: I did not comment on the noble Baroness's assertion about the lateness of the amendments because those of us who have been sitting here for three days have had the explanation six times. We have had that discussion time and time again with every successive Minister who comes to the Front Bench.
  Lord Henley: If the noble Lord will give way, we have not actually had a terribly good explanation of why these measures have come forward. The point that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is making is a good one. Here we are in Grand Committee, in which to some extent things should go forward by agreement. We are presented with a Bill that has any number of clauses on Northern Ireland. We are then presented—and given an explanation for it—with a whole redraft of every single Northern Ireland amendment. I do not have a clue whether the original draft is as good as the new draft or whether the thing needs redoing. However, it seems to me that what we ought to be doing is sending this away and bringing it back later.
  Lord Alli: The point I was going to make before the noble Lord intervened was that I would have a lot more sympathy with the complaint of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, regarding the tabling of these amendments if her principal position was not that she does not wish to see this Bill apply to Northern Ireland in any way, shape or form, and therefore any amendment, however drafted, is unacceptable to her. That is my point—that any amendment would be unacceptable to the noble Baroness, no matter how it was drafted.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am sorry, but I really must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on this. I never said that. Much legislation goes through with which I am not comfortable that has nothing to do with the Civil Partnership Bill. In principle I object to that legislation. The noble Lord will be aware of several Bills to which I have objected in principle. However, I realise that this is a democratic process. This is a government Bill and we have to accept that it is likely to be enacted.
  We also have to accept that as Members of your Lordships' House we have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation and to put aside our prejudices although we should state them. The first thing my university economics professor said was that one should always declare one's bias. I have always been honest about stating my prejudices. Then one should try to arrive at some sort of modus vivendi and improve the legislation, always accepting that in principle one does not like it. But we have to accept that that is the case with many Bills. I repeat that I am not a wrecker. I do not want to sabotage this Bill. I want to ensure
  GC 208
  that the legislation that we get through this Bill is as good as is possible under the circumstances, no matter what my starting point is. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, takes that point on board.
  The Lord Bishop of Chester: The Episcopal Members of the House have a not entirely undeserved reputation for trying to sit on the fence when they should not. On this issue I find myself drawn in both directions. The fundamental issue is one of justice, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. The thought that this Bill could be enacted and not apply to part of the United Kingdom is inherently difficult to contemplate, and I imagine very difficult to contemplate from a legal point of view because of the pressure of the European courts.
  However, the form in which the measure is presented—this is where I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and others—seems to me an absolute mess. The sheer size of the Bill and its complexity suggest to me that something is wrong. The basic problem is—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the measure has been driven too much by an attempt to shadow the provisions for marriage. It is a provision for gay marriage. It is an absolute fig leaf to pretend otherwise. Once you get into shadowing the provisions for marriage, you enter the slightly anomalous situation we have that different legal provisions apply to marriage in different parts of the United Kingdom.
  Might the Bill not have been much better if it had been distanced somewhat from marriage? I know that it might be too late to go back over that territory, but if the Bill was distanced somewhat from marriage as such, and focused upon the basic issues of justice—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on that point—legal protection for people, children and so forth, we would be in a much better situation and we would not be in this strange position where we are hearing different statements about whether ceremonies can take place on religious premises in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is an issue that ought to be addressed on its own terms.
  We are where we are, but we are getting into a very complex situation with this huge set of amendments, tabled at two days' notice. I have sympathy with the thrust of this particular amendment, but I also have sympathy with what I think is the source of the complaint. We are trying all the time simply to shadow the provisions for marriage and are not coming clean about what we are doing.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Unwittingly, we are getting into territory which is not quite fair to the Government. The starting point is that the reason that they have used the marriage code as a benchmark is because it provides the comparator—the comparison for the treatment of same-sex couples. The question one has to ask is if married couples can have X, why should not same-sex couples have X? That provides the benchmark, and that is why the Government have done it that way.

  GC 209
  Every time the Government deviate from that which is given to married couples, gay and lesbian couples could quite rightly ask them how that could be justified because the Government would be perpetuating a difference of treatment that was not justified. On that, I think the Government have acted sensibly. However, it means that once one has the England and Wales provisions, which we are going through in some detail, and because we live in a devolved system that has different legal systems, one has to look at what adjustments should be made to the provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. If those adjustments are not appropriate in legal terms, that must concern us. No one has yet suggested that that is the case.
  So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will recall that when she and I were consulted by the usual channels about whether there should be pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill, which we both opposed, we were told by the Minister—at least, I certainly was—that one strong argument for pre-legislative scrutiny was the need to consult in Northern Ireland. I said, as I am sure did the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that that was not a good reason for not going ahead with the Bill because of the urgency of getting it through to protect these vulnerable groups. Therefore, it is not quite fair to the Government, given that we rejected pre-legislative scrutiny, to complain now that they have consulted, for which they are to be commended, and have produced amendments after the Bill was published. I was certainly told that they would be doing that. Those amendments are standard in the sense that they copy over for Northern Ireland that which is applicable to England, Wales and Scotland, making changes to respect the Northern Ireland legal system.
  That seems to be a perfectly proper process, and we have ample time in the passage of the Bill, guided by the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Bar, NGOs and Churches to take account of any special Northern Ireland legal or other issues that have not been properly accommodated.
  Given the conduct of the two Opposition parties in rejecting pre-legislative scrutiny, it does not lie in our mouths now to complain when the Government do what we ask them and warn us that we would get these amendments late. I am not a member of the Labour Party and I am not a member of the Government, but I think, in fairness, I ought to say that.
  Earl Ferrers: the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is one to whom one always listens with great interest. However, I think he has shot the ground from underneath his feet completely this afternoon by what he has just said.
  The noble Lord said it was right that marriage should be regarded as the benchmark—what happens in religious or civil marriage should be the benchmark for what happens in a civil partnership. If you do that, you are equating a civil partnership with marriage, as the right reverend Prelate says. Whatever one says about the arguments, the two are not equatable. In marriage, two people join together with the idea of procreating children and in civil partnerships they do not You start off by saying that the two are not
  GC 210
  equatable. If you then say that we will try to make them similar, you run into the problems that we have at the moment. To say that it is quite right to mirror marriage is saying, as the right reverend Prelate said. that this is a Bill for civil marriage as opposed to civil partnership.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, went on to say that the Government said that they would introduce amendments and we understood this, therefore it is quite all right to have all these amendments. There is a common tendency for governments to introduce Bills and then say that they are going to amend them. I think this is a bad thing on the whole. A Bill ought to be introduced with the Government saying, "This is what we intend" as opposed to saying, "This is what we intend at the moment but we will alter it later". Nevertheless, the Government have said that they will do that, and that has satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
  The noble Lord is a man of words and a man of letters. You cannot say that to introduce 125 pages is simply filling up holes—of course it is not. What is written is very important. That is why we have simple amendments like leaving out "and" and inserting "or". How do you incorporate 125 pages without discussing or considering them?
  I feel that this is quite the wrong approach. I can understand the reason for it but I think the Government ought to give people time to consider what they are proposing.
  Baroness Amos: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her welcome to my addition to the team working on the Civil Partnership Bill. Let me begin by dealing with the point about timing—it has been raised by many noble Lords and it causes me a degree of concern.
  Of course I apologise if members of the Committee feel that they have had insufficient time. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was quite right—the Government made it absolutely clear last year that we were prepared to offer the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny; we wanted to consult in Northern Ireland and to have the results of that consultation before moving to draft the part of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland.
  The proposal for PLS was rejected and it was agreed that we could go ahead and publish the Bill. However, it was absolutely clear at that point that a significant number of amendments would then have to be made at a much later stage.
  I repeat what has been said many times before. These amendments mirror the provisions for England and Wales. They differ in that they relate to differences that exist in the legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. So with respect to the principles underpinning the Bill, there is no difference between what the Government are trying to do in Northern Ireland and what we are seeking to do with regard to England and Wales.
  I totally understand that Members of the Committee are trying to be helpful. Perhaps I can go back to those first principles again and underline what

  GC 211
  I know my colleagues have already said. Same-sex couples are unable to marry. Their relationships are invisible in law and they face unnecessary problems as a result. That is what civil partnership is designed to address. The Government have no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. These proposals are for an entirely new legal status of civil partnership. For reasons of equality and social justice, we are convinced of the need to offer same-sex couples the opportunity to gain a legal status for their relationship, with an associated package of rights and responsibilities.
  I have listened very carefully to the points that were made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, regarding the concerns expressed in the consultation with respect to these proposals being applied in Northern Ireland. There are some areas in which the Government have to take a lead. I particularly consider that that is the case in areas where we are pushing forward with respect to equality, social justice and humanity. That is what we are doing through this legislation.
  There are two key arguments for proceeding with civil partnership in Northern Ireland. The first concerns social justice, fairness and equality. The second is that once the decision to proceed with civil partnership in Great Britain is taken, the need to ensure that same-sex couples in Northern Ireland are treated in the same way is overwhelming. In that sense I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. There are strong practical and legal reasons for ensuring that the creation of a new status of civil partnership is applied consistently across the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. That is the basis on which we are introducing these proposals which will relate to Northern Ireland.
  I turn to the specific questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the census data. We have to recognise that there is still a significant degree of homophobia in Northern Ireland. We have to look at the probability that a lot of same-sex couples would not want to declare their status or their relationship through a public census because of that homophobia. In terms of what I have already said with respect to the issues of fairness, equality and social justice, it is important that we move ahead with these amendments.
  As regards the wider issue of the inclusion of Northern Ireland in this legislation, we need to have these amendments so that we have a full range of provisions to set up a system of registration and dissolution, including financial arrangements, in Northern Ireland. As with the English provisions, the law on marriage is replicated.
  I turn to the question of religious premises, that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The provision is not on the face of the order for marriage in Northern Ireland. That is why it is not in this Bill. In Northern Ireland comparable provision is made in the regulations, and the same will apply here.
  GC 212
  This has been a wide-ranging and general debate. Very little of it related to Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B which I moved originally. But I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have given, these amendments can be agreed.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her very gracious way of dealing with what has been quite a tendentious issue. However, I wish to make a few points briefly. First, I refer to pre-legislative scrutiny. I want to make a general point that has nothing at all to do with the Bill. The Committee ought to bear in mind that a significant number of Back-Benchers do not get involved in decisions about whether measures should be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In order to make the workings of the House more democratic and more amenable to all of us—particularly as the Minister as Leader of the House has it in her gift, I suspect, to deal with this issue—perhaps some way should be formulated whereby it is made more generally known whether or not a Bill should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and not just known by one or two Members of the usual channels. Some of us have strong views about this. I put that suggestion forward. I would not go to the gallows on it, but there we are.
  Secondly, I noted that the noble Baroness said that the Government have no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry and I was very interested to note that that is not exactly what we heard last night. Perhaps she can look back on the exchanges in Grand Committee on 12 May.
  Thirdly, I said that the Government's view is that the Government are right and the people who responded to the consultation are wrong and they are going to impose civil partnerships on them anyway. I thought that I was utterly vindicated when the noble Baroness said that the Government have to take the lead and that they are going to do it. That is fine. That is what the Government will do.
  The fourth point is a very minor point about the census. I always thought that the census was secret. I do not know about the matter of homophobia and people not being prepared to state their status on the census. Maybe the noble Baroness will write to me about it as I do not want to take any more of the Committee's time.
  The big issue, which I used as an example, is that in the case of Northern Ireland there are regulations about religious matters that are on the face of the Bill for England and Wales and Scotland. I cannot understand why, if we have 120 pages of Amendments—not 125 pages as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—they are supposed to replicate everything in England and Wales and Scotland. Surely it is an opportunity to make a change.
  That is all. I thank the noble Baroness for being very measured about my points and I hope that she feels that I too have been measured. However, there are issues that deeply concern me.
  Baroness Wilcox: I have listened very carefully to the debate this afternoon. I have heard the noble Lord,

  GC 213
  Lord Lester, say that we talked about pre-legislative scrutiny in our meetings. But the trouble with this room is that it is very difficult to work out who is from the Front Bench, who is from the Cross Benches and who is from the Back Benches. At one stage I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was more than likely running the Front Bench for the Government because we seem to have heard more from him than from anybody else today. He speaks extremely well and I can think of nobody better to speak in the cause of the Bill over the past few days that we have been in Committee than the noble Lord, Lord Alli. However, I have listened to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester who says that he, like most of the bishops of the Church of England, is said to try to sit on the fence. But even he has found it very difficult to try to look at the more than 100 amendments that have been presented so quickly.
  My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has spoken wonderfully, both yesterday and today, in the cause of Northern Ireland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, should have gone home yesterday. He had his plane organised and meetings arranged but he has come here today especially to plead that this is too fast. Northern Ireland is a special part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have lived there myself and I know the people. I know how they feel. If we railroad something over Northern Ireland it will cause us nothing but trouble in the future.
  We have waited so long to get this Bill, the Bill that the leader of my party and I support and want to see on the statute book. We have waited a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, famously introduced his Bill and spoke wonderfully to it. I supported him in that Bill and here we are. I think it would be a mistake for us to rush through the Bill today, expecting noble Lords to go through 100 amendments. We have the time. We have Monday. We have no rush. Why do we not rise soon and debate the amendments next week?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she not think that it is slightly curious that she should now take the position that the Government are in some way acting improperly when she and I both consented to precisely this approach? Does she not agree with me that it would be possible that when the matter goes back to the House as a whole on Report, if there are any defects in the Northern Ireland provisions, there would still be time for those to be considered? I am quite sure that the Government will then be generous and allow us to go into those matters if they arise.
  Baroness Wilcox: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say, gracious me, is Grand Committee in the Moses Room to be reduced to not being worth anything?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: No.
  Baroness Wilcox: These are very important discussions.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would—
  Baroness Wilcox: I feel that this is the moment for us to discuss them. I am in no way saying that I go back
  GC 214
  on anything that he and I agreed, but we have Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers here who are very concerned at this stage. As we are here for what I pray for on a daily basis in this House—that is, the common good—this is the moment to allow us to take a breather from 100 amendments that people have not had any time at all to consider. I would ask the Minister to give Members of the Committee the opportunity to study the amendments and to come back on this most important Bill.
  Baroness Amos: Perhaps I may, first, thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her comments about the way in which I addressed the points that have been made. I am very conscious of the fact that one of the reasons that we have Bills in Grand Committee is precisely to allow the kind of debate and discussion that we have just had. It is very important that we continue to do that.
  I entirely take the noble Baroness's point about pre-legislative scrutiny; namely, that perhaps we could give some thought to the House being able to take a view. I shall take that away and give some thought to it. The noble Baroness is quite right about the census: it is secret. However, in small communities, even where there is an issue that is secret, there is very often a concern that individuals can be identified in any event because of the way in which data are printed and broken down with respect to particular areas.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made a point about the number of amendments. Yes, there are a large number of amendments. However, perhaps I may repeat that those amendments mirror provisions that already exist in the Bill. We are not going through and opening up new discussions on the principles behind the Bill. We are seeking to ensure that the provisions that exist for England and Wales apply equally in Northern Ireland. There are some areas where there are differences because there is simply already a different part to the legal system in Northern Ireland.
  While I recognise the concerns that are being expressed around the Committee, I am very happy to go through each amendment in some detail with Members of the Committee. When we do that, if concerns are expressed about specific amendments, perhaps we could put those to one side. The concerns that are being expressed about the speed at which we move are not quite mirrored by what we are trying to do through the amendments.
  I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. If there are issues that we feel we need to come back to, that can be done at Report. However, I entirely take the point being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, which is that this is the place where we should go through these amendments in some detail. Of course, I am very happy to do that.
  I think that the concerns being expressed that somehow Members of the Committee will not have a sense of what we are trying to do are, in a way, unfounded. Noble Lords have had many hours already on this Bill and understand the principles. From my reading of Hansard—in and out, backwards

  GC 215
  and forwards, and sideways as well—I would be very surprised if noble Lords, on hearing my explanation of each group of amendments, did not feel that they were actually able to say that they agreed with them.
  Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Baroness sits down, she has graciously answered the debate. We are very grateful to her for what she has said. I know that this is terribly important and we want to get the Bill through, but does she not think that it might be advisable to extend this stage and bring it up at the beginning of next week? It is an important matter and whatever people say about it just mirroring England and Wales, the fact is that if it does, it might have been in the Bill in the first place and everyone would have known what was what. If it is being put in as a result of consultation, how do we know that that is so? What is the point of the consultation if in the end the words are exactly the same as for England and Wales?
  When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, says that if there is anything wrong we can come back to it on Report and Third Reading, it minimises the value of Grand Committee. We must be able to discuss the amendments and at least understand them. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to allow this to be brought up at the beginning of next week when noble Lords have had time to have a look at it.
  Baroness Amos: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has completely misunderstood me. I was in no way suggesting that we minimise discussion in Grand Committee. In fact, I was suggesting the opposite. I was proposing to the Committee that it gives me a little space and allows me to take it through the amendments. If Members of the Committee then feel that, even with the explanations, they are unable to agree the amendments, we could look at whether the Committee needed to adjourn. I feel that, on the basis of the explanations that I will give about each group of amendments, Members of the Committee will feel able to decide whether to go ahead or not. That is my proposal to the Committee.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness. I now feel quite guilty that I started this hare running. But at the end of my intervention I said that we need an assurance that we will be able to return to the amendments—that there will be enough time on Report, if we do not agree with them, to tease them out. There may well be no problems with some of the amendments, but a problem with others, and I gave a couple of explanations. We may not understand some of the issues. Well, I do not understand them, I cannot speak for anybody else, and I need to spend a lot of time delving into them. One way of doing this is to adjourn the Grand Committee. The other way is to have us go through them, but we need the assurance that we have all the time in the world to deal with them properly. We cannot abuse our membership of the House of Lords by not scrutinising the amendments correctly.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to say that I greatly value the Grand
  GC 216
  Committee procedure. It is a huge improvement on what we used to have and I greatly value the detailed part of parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome what the Leader of the House said about what will happen, which I had assumed would happen anyway—that we would be given an introduction to these new amendments to enable us to understand any differences. When she is doing that, it would help the Committee if she drew attention to any problem areas. In other words, if there have been areas in the consultation where there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland that we need to know about, it is important that that be made visible so that we can give proper justice to the legal system in Northern Ireland.
  Baroness Amos: Perhaps I should repeat what I am proposing. I am by no means suggesting that discussion in this Committee should be curtailed in any way or that it should be put on hold for Report. I am suggesting that we begin the process, that I begin to take the Committee through the amendments. If the Committee then feels that the explanation are not sufficient to enable them to understand what we are proposing, then I am happy to take the temperature again, adjourn the Committee and come back again on Monday. But I feel that we can begin this process. The next group, Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B, is relatively straightforward. If I then take the Committee through Clause 131 stand part and the Members of the Committee feel that the explanation still leaves a great many questions in their minds, we can take the temperature again at that point. That is what I am proposing. I am not suggesting that we curtail debate in this Committee and push everything to Report.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61B:
  Page 65, line 38, leave out "civil partnership to be registered" and insert "registration of the civil partnership to be recorded"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 131 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Amos: Clause 131 sets out very clearly what we are trying to do in this legislation. It sets out the point at which a civil partnership is formed, who is to be present at the registration and the administrative procedure to be completed after the registration. A civil partnership is formed between two people after each of them has signed the civil partnership document at the invitation of, and in the presence of, a civil partnership registrar and in the presence of two witnesses. The civil partnership registrar and the two witnesses must sign the civil partnership document in the presence of each other and the civil partners. After the signing is complete, the registration authority in whose area the signing takes place must ensure that the civil partnership registration is recorded. That is the process that would be gone through in Northern Ireland to register a civil partnership. I hope that noble Lords understand it.
  Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 132 agreed to.
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  Clauses 133 to 137 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61C:
  After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
  "PLACE OF REGISTRATION
  (1) The place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other must be—

  (a) a registration office, or

  (b) a place approved under subsection (3).

  (2) Subsection (1) is subject to subsections (5) and (7).
  (3) A local registration authority may, in accordance with regulations under subsection (4), approve places where civil partnerships may be registered in its district.
  (4) Regulations under section 138 may make provision for or in connection with the approval of places under subsection (3), including provision as to—

  (a) the kinds of place in respect of which approvals may be granted,

  (b) the procedure to be followed in relation to applications for approval,

  (c) the considerations to be taken into account in determining whether to approve any places,

  (d) the duration and renewal of approvals (whether for one occasion or for a period),

  (e) the conditions that must or may be imposed on granting or renewing an approval,

  (f) the determination and charging of fees in respect of—

  (i) applications for the approval of places,

  (ii) the renewal of approvals, and

  (iii) the attendance by registrars at places approved under the regulations,

  (g) the circumstances in which a local registration authority must or may revoke or suspend an approval or vary any of the conditions imposed in relation to an approval,

  (h ) the renewal of decisions made by virtue of the regulations,

  (i) appeals to a county court from decisions made by virtue of the regulations,

  (j) the notification to the Registrar General of all approvals granted, renewed, revoked, suspended or varied,

  (k) the notification to the registrar for the district in which a place approved under the regulations is situated of all approvals relating to such a place which are granted, renewed, revoked, suspended or varied,

  (l) the keeping by the Registrar General, registrars and local registration authorities of registers of places approved under the regulations, and

  (m) the issue by the Registrar General of guidance supplementing the provision made by the regulations.

  (5) If either of the parties to a proposed civil partnership gives the registrar a medical statement, the civil partnership may, with the approval of the Registrar General, be registered at any place where that party is.
  (6) In subsection (5) "medical statement", in relation to any person, means a statement made in the prescribed form by a registered medical practitioner that in his opinion at the time the statement is made—

  (a) by reason of serious illness or serious bodily injury, that person ought not to move or be moved from the place where he is at that time, and

  (b) it is likely that it will be the case for at least the following 3 months that by reason of illness or disability the person ought not to move or be moved from that place.

  (7) If the Registrar General so directs, a registrar must register a civil partnership in a place specified in the direction.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 61C to 61S make further provision for the registration of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 61D, 61E, 61R and 61S are technical adjustments to Clauses 138 and 143 to take account of the insertion of this new registration material for Northern Ireland.
  Amendment No. 61C is a new clause that outlines where the registration of a civil partnership may take place. It mirrors the law in relation to civil marriage venues and the associated requirements that must be taken into account. The Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 has widened the scope of venues where a civil marriage may take place, and local registration authorities now have powers to consider alternative venues to the registration office. I see no reason why venues for the registration of civil partnerships should not follow this new system. Regulations will in due course outline the detail as regards the mechanics, and guidance will be given to local registration authorities by the Registrar General.
  Amendment No. 61J outlines the procedure that must be undertaken where a civil partnership is intended to be registered in a hospital, prison or such other venue where a person is effectively detained. Again, that mirrors a counterpart provision in the Marriage (NI) Order 2003 and it is important that the same opportunity is extended to civil partners.
  Amendments Nos. 61F to 61H, together with Amendments Nos. 61K to 61N are supplementary additional provisions for the registration of civil partnerships. They deal with a number of issues that are a straight read-across from Northern Ireland marriage legislation and cover such matters as corrections and cancellations, searches, the need to present an annual report relating to civil partnerships and records and documents to be sent to the Registrar General. They are largely administrative in nature.
  Amendment No. 61P reads in conjunction with some of the technical adjustments at Amendments Nos. 61D, 61R and 61S. The effect is to allow the Department of Finance and Personnel to set fees in relation to civil partnership registration. Any fee so set by the department will be the subject of an order that must be laid in draft and approved by resolution in the Assembly. Amendment No. 61Q sets out comparable criminal offences relating to the registration of civil partnerships as currently exist in relation to civil marriages.
  The overall effect of this group of amendments is the addition of provisions relating to civil partnership registration that are very similar to those that exist for

  GC 219
  civil marriages in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Committee is persuaded that these are technical amendments that set up the registration system and the administration in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Lord Alli: It might be helpful for my noble friend the Leader of the House if I say that I understood her explanations very clearly. I have had a chance to read those amendments. They seem to be identical and mirror Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, in particular the identical clauses relating to registration and those relating to detained persons and provisions on fees.
  I am sure that my noble friend has read Hansard, but I thought that it would also reassure her to know that we had a huge discussion in Committee on the issues of registration, dissolution and prohibition degrees. I think that she can be reassured that the provisions she is moving by amendment have been well discussed by the Committee and we have rehearsed the arguments many times. So, on her test of whether these amendments are new and therefore require more time, I suspect that they do not.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 138 [Regulations]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61D and 61E:
  Page 68, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
  Transpose Clause 138 to before Clause 143.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 139 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61F to 61J:
  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—
  "VALIDITY OF REGISTRATION
  (1) This section applies to any legal proceedings commenced at any time after the registration of a civil partnership is recorded under section 131.
  (2) The validity of the civil partnership must not be questioned in any such proceedings on the ground of any contravention of a provision of, or made under, this Act."
  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—
  "CORRECTIONS AND CANCELLATIONS
  (1) Regulations under section 138 may make provision for the making of corrections by the Registrar General or any registrar.
  (2) The Registrar General must cancel the registration of a void civil partnership or direct the registrar to do so."
  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—"
  INTERPRETERS
  (1) If the registrar considers it necessary or desirable, he may use the services of an interpreter (not being one of the civil partners or a witness).
  (2) The interpreter must—

  (a) before the registration of the civil partnership, sign a statement in English that he understands, and is able to converse in, any language in respect of which he is to act as an interpreter, and

  GC 220

  (b) immediately after the registration of the civil partnership, give the registrar a certificate written in English and signed by the interpreter that he has faithfully acted as the interpreter."

  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—
  "DETAINED PERSONS
  (1) If—

  (a) one of the parties to a proposed civil partnership is detained in a prison or as a patient in a hospital, and

  (b) the civil partnership is to be registered in that prison or hospital,

  the civil partnership notice given by that party must be accompanied by a statement to which subsection (2) applies.
  (2) This subsection applies to a statement which—

  (a) is made in the prescribed form by the responsible authority not more than 21 days before the date on which the civil partnership notice is given,

  (b) identifies the establishment where the person is detained, and

  (c) states that the responsible authority has no objection to that establishment being the place of registration for that civil partnership.

  (3) In subsection (2) "responsible authority" means—

  (a) if the person named in the statement is detained in a prison, the governor or other officer in charge of that prison;

  (b) if the person named in the statement is detained in a hospital or special accommodation, the Health and Social Services Board administering that hospital or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, respectively;

  (c) if the person named in the statement is detained in a private hospital, the person in charge of that hospital.

  (4) After the registrar receives a civil partnership notice accompanied by a statement to which subsection (2) applies, he must notify the Registrar General and not complete a civil partnership schedule unless the Registrar General directs him to proceed under section 137.
  (5) In this section—

  (a) "prison" includes a remand centre and a young offenders centre, and

  (b) "hospital", "patient", "private hospital" and "special accommodation" have the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4))."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clauses 140 to 142 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61K to 61Q:
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SENT TO REGISTRAR GENERAL
  If the Registrar General directs him to do so, a person must send to the Registrar General any record or document relating to civil partnerships in accordance with the Registrar General's directions."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "ANNUAL REPORT
  (1) The Registrar General must send to the Department of Finance and Personnel an annual report of the number of civil partnerships registered during each year, together with such other information as he considers it appropriate to include.
  (2) The Department of Finance and Personnel must lay the report before the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "SEARCHES
  (1) The Registrar General must provide indexes to civil partnership registration records in his custody for inspection by the public.
  (2) A registrar must provide indexes to civil partnership registration records in his custody for inspection by the public.
  (3) Any person may, on payment of the prescribed fee—

  (a) search any index mentioned in subsection (1) or (2), and

  (b) require the Registrar General or, as the case may be, the registrar to give him a document in the prescribed form relating to the registration of a civil partnership.

  (4) The Registrar General must cause any document given by him under this section or section (Proof of civil partnership for purposes of certain statutory provisions) to be stamped with the seal of the General Register Office.
  (5) Judicial notice shall be taken of any document so stamped."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "PROOF OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN STATUTORY PROVISIONS
  (1) Where the civil partnership of a person is required to be proved for the purposes of any prescribed statutory provision, any person,—

  (a) on application to the Registrar General, and

  (b) on payment of the prescribed fee

  is entitled to a document in the prescribed form relating to the registration of the civil partnership of that person.
  (2) An application under subsection (1) must be in such form and accompanied by such particulars as the Registrar General may require.
  (3) The Registrar General or any registrar may, on payment of the prescribed fee, issue such information (including a document as mentioned in subsection (1)) as may be required for the purposes of any prescribed statutory provision."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "FEES
  (1) The Department of Finance and Personnel may by order prescribe—

  (a) any fee which is required to be prescribed for the purposes of this Chapter;

  (b) fees for such other matters as that Department considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Chapter.

  (2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
  (3) An order under subsection (1) may only be made if a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "OFFENCES
  (1) Any registrar who signs a civil partnership schedule in the absence of the civil partners is guilty of an offence.
  (2) Any person who is not a registrar but officiates at the signing of a civil partnership schedule in such a way as to lead the civil partners to believe that he is a registrar is guilty of an offence.
  (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
  (4) Notwithstanding anything in Article 19(1) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/ 1675 (N.I. 26)) (limitation of time for taking proceedings), proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted at any time within 3 years after the commission of the offence."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 143 [Interpretation]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61R and 61S:
  Page 70, line 24, after "prescribed" insert ", except in relation to a fee,"
  Page 70, line 24, at end insert "and, in relation to a fee, means prescribed by order under section (Fees)"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 143 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61T:
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "POWERS TO MAKE ORDERS AND EFFECT OF ORDERS
  (1) The court may, in accordance with this Chapter—

  (a) make an order (a "dissolution order") which dissolves a civil partnership on the ground that it has broken down irretrievably;

  (b) make an order (a "nullity order") which annuls a civil partnership which is void or voidable;

  (c) make an order (a "presumption of death order") which dissolves a civil partnership on the ground that one of the civil partners is presumed to be dead;

  (d) make an order (a "separation order") which provides for the separation of the civil partners.

  (2) Every dissolution, nullity or presumption of death order—

  (a) is, in the first instance, a conditional order, and

  (b) may not be made final before the end of the prescribed period (see section (The period before conditional orders may be made final));

  and any reference in this Chapter to a conditional order is to be read accordingly.
  (3) A nullity order made where a civil partnership is voidable annuls the civil partnership only as respects any time after the order has been made final, and the civil partnership is to be treated (despite the order) as if it had existed up to that time.
  (4) In this Chapter "the court" means—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) if a county court has jurisdiction under this Part, a county court.

  (5) This Chapter is subject to section 159 and sections (Meaning of "the court') to (Applications for declarations as to validity etc.) (jurisdiction of the court)."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment Nos. 61T to 61AB make new provision in Part 4 for the dissolution of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. These amendments mainly mirror those contained in Part 2, which apply to England and Wales.
  The main aim of the amendments is to provide the legislative framework for terminating relationships which have broken down. They also contain provisions which allow civil partners remedies when their relationship suffers from a flaw from its very inception. There is also a provision to allow civil partners to apply for presumption of death orders in limited circumstances.
  The amendments therefore allow the court to have the power to hear applications from civil partners who are wishing to dissolve their relationship separate from their civil partner, have the relationship annulled or apply for a presumption of death order.
  Safeguards have been built into the amendments to ensure that parties are given exit routes throughout the proceedings. For example, there is a cooling-off period of six weeks before an order for dissolution or nullity can be made final, so that civil partners who want to change their minds about ending the relationship are afforded an opportunity to do so.
  There is also a time bar put in place for dissolution. No civil partner can apply for a dissolution within two years of the registration of the relationship. The Committee asked me to make it clear where there were differences from England and Wales, and this is one such area. This differs from the one-year time bar adopted for England and Wales and reflects the position as regards the time bar for divorcing spouses. It is considered that it is important to ensure that similar protections exist for civil partners as for spouses whose relationship is breaking down.
  The ground for the dissolution of a civil partnership is that the relationship has broken down irretrievably. In order to ensure that this is the case, the court is given a power to adjourn the case for attempts for reconciliation to be made.
  5.45 p.m.
  Additionally, if the parties reconcile for a short period, that period will not be counted for the purposes of showing a fact to prove the ground for dissolution in certain circumstances. The grounds for separation and the facts that prove that the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the civil partnership have taken place are four: first, that a respondent has behaved so unreasonably that the applicant cannot be expected to live with him or her; secondly, that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of two years; thirdly, that the parties have lived apart for two years and the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made; and, fourthly, that the parties have lived apart for five years.
  As in Part 2, there is no equivalent fact of adultery, because adultery has a specific legal meaning in the context of a heterosexual relationship and it is considered inappropriate to replicate that fact for same-sex relationships.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that there is a legal interpretation of adultery, because he was flailing about on the matter yesterday.
  Baroness Amos: I will pass the message on.
  As stated, the amendments allow for annulment of civil partnerships. A civil partnership will be void if there is a defect with the formation of the partnership that is so fundamental that civil partnership cannot be said to exist in law. A civil partnership will be voidable if there is a defect that is not fundamental to the formation of civil partnership.
  GC 224
  The amendments also provide necessary protection for children. The court will not make a final order for dissolution, separation or nullity unless it is sure that arrangements for the children are satisfactory or are the best that they can be in the circumstances.
  Presumption of death orders allow civil partners to apply for an order from the court that will presume their civil partner to be dead if their civil partner has been absent for seven years and the applicant has no reason to believe that their civil partner is alive. The amendment also makes provision for the designation of the court, appeals and transfers of proceedings to ensure the smooth running of the court and provides powers to make court rules.
  Amendments Nos. 61AN and 61AP make technical adjustments to Clauses 144 and 146 in Part 4 and are consequential to the inclusion of the additional substantive material for Northern Ireland on dissolution of civil partnerships. The definitions contained in Clauses 144 and 146 will now be inserted by the amendments and are therefore no longer needed in the clauses. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, looks confused. Once the amendments have been passed, their implications for previous clauses must be taken into account. The noble Baroness continues to look confused.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Baroness is absolutely right: I am confused. My brain cannot cope with all this. The reality is that we are going from one place to another and it is very difficult, but I guess that when we read the Bill as amended on Report, we will have more of an opportunity to go through it. But, frankly, it seems to be a complete dog's breakfast.
  Baroness Amos: I think that that applies only to Amendments Nos. 61AN and 61AP. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and to copy the letter to all Members of the Committee, so that the Committee can be clear exactly what the implications are. I know that I may be suggesting something that is a little unusual in Committee procedure, but if the noble Baroness wants to return to those amendments at any point during our consideration in Grand Committee, I would be happy to give a further explanation.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may make a further practical suggestion to help. In the old days, before we had Explanatory Notes, we used to get notes on clauses and there was a big issue about whether or not they would be published. Eventually, the previous government adopted a sensible policy of publishing notes on clauses. Normally, that made parliamentary scrutiny much better. I wonder whether the notes on these Northern Ireland amendments with which the Minister has been provided could themselves be circulated. We have the Explanatory Notes on the original Bill. If those further notes were circulated, rather than—or in addition to—a letter, we would then be in a good position to see all the provisions in context.
  Baroness Amos: I am happy to agree to do that. On that basis, I propose to move Amendments Nos. 61P

  GC 225
  to 61 AB, but make it clear to the Committee that, once I have circulated the notes on clauses, if it wants me to return at any point to answer further questions, I shall be happy to do so. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61U to 62AM:
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "THE PERIOD BEFORE CONDITIONAL ORDERS MAY BE MADE FINAL
  (1) Subject to subsection (2), the prescribed period for the purposes of section (Powers to make orders and effect of orders)(2)(b) is 6 weeks from the making of the conditional order.
  (2) In a particular case the court dealing with the case may by order shorten the prescribed period."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "INTERVENTION BY THE CROWN SOLICITOR
  (1) This section applies if an application has been made for a dissolution, nullity or presumption of death order.
  (2) The court may, if it thinks fit, direct that all necessary papers in the matter arc to be sent to the Crown Solicitor who must under the directions of the Attorney General instruct counsel to argue before the court any question in relation to the matter which the court considers it necessary or expedient to have fully argued.
  (3) If any person at any time—

  (a) during the progress of the proceedings, or

  (b) before the conditional order is made final,

  gives information to the Crown Solicitor on any matter material to the due decision of the case, the Crown Solicitor may take such steps as the Attorney General considers necessary or expedient.
  (4) If the Crown Solicitor intervenes or shows cause against the making of the conditional order in any proceedings relating to its making, the court may make such order as may be just as to—

  (a) the payment by other parties to the proceedings of the costs incurred by him in doing so, or

  (b) the payment by the Crown Solicitor of any costs incurred by any of those parties because of his doing so.

  (5) In this Chapter—
  "the Attorney General" means the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; and
  "the Crown Solicitor" means the Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ORDER HAS BEEN MADE FINAL
  (1) This section applies if—.

  (a) a conditional order has been made, and

  (b) the Crown Solicitor, or any person who has not been a party to proceedings in which the order was made, shows cause why the order should not be made final on the ground that material facts have not been brought before the court.

  (2) This section also applies if—

  (a) a conditional order has been made,

  (b) 3 months have elapsed since the earliest date on which an application could have been made for the order to be made final,

  (c) no such application has been made by the civil partner who applied for the conditional order, and

  (d) the other civil partner makes an application to the court under this subsection.

  (3) The court may—

  (a) make the order final,

  (b) rescind the order.

  GC 226

  (c) require further inquiry, or

  (d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit.

  (4) Subsection (3)(a)—

  (a) applies despite section (Powers to make orders and effect of orders)(2) (period before conditional orders may be made final), but

  (b) is subject to section (Proceedings before order made final: protection for respondent in separation cases)(4) (protection for respondent in separation cases) and section (Restrictions on making of orders affecting children) (restrictions on making of orders affecting children)."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "TIME BAR ON APPLICATIONS FOR DISSOLU'T'ION ORDERS
  (1) No application for a dissolution order may he made to the court before the end of the period of 2 years from the date of the formation of the civil partnership.
  (2) Nothing in this section prevents the making of an application based on matters which occurred before the end of the 2 year period."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "ATTEMPTS AT RECONCILIATION OF CIVIL PARTNERS
  (1) This section applies in relation to cases where an application is made for a dissolution or separation order.
  (2) If at any stage of proceedings for the order it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the civil partners, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect a reconciliation between them.
  (3) If during any such adjournment the parties resume living with other in the same household, no account is to be taken of the fact for the purposes of the proceedings.
  (4) The power to adjourn under subsection (2) is additional to any other power of adjournment."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS OR ARRANGEMENTS
  (1) This section applies to cases where—

  (a) proceedings for a dissolution or separation order are contemplated or have begun, and

  (b) an agreement or arrangement is made or proposed to be made between the civil partners which relates to, arises out of, or is connected with, the proceedings.

  (2) Rules of court may make provision for enabling—

  (a) the civil partners, or either of them, on application made either before or after the making of the application for a dissolution or separation order, to refer the agreement or arrangement to the court, and

  (b) the court—

  (i) to express an opinion, if it thinks it desirable to do so, as to the reasonableness of the agreement or arrangement, and

  (ii) to give such directions, if any, in the matter as it thinks fit."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "DISSOLUTION OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP WHICH HAS BROKEN DOWN IRRETRIEVABLY
  (1) Subject to section ( Time bar on applications for dissolution orders), an application for a dissolution order may be made to the court by either civil partner on the ground that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably.

  GC 227
  (2) On an application for a dissolution order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into—

  (a) the facts alleged by the applicant, and

  (b) any facts alleged by the respondent.

  (3) The court hearing an application for a dissolution order must not hold that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably unless the applicant satisfies the court of one or more of the facts described in subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) or (d).
  (4) But if the court is satisfied of any of those facts, it must make a dissolution order unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the civil partnership has not broken down irretrievably.
  (5) The facts referred to in subsections (3) and (4) are—

  (a) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

  (b) that—

  (i) the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application ("2 years' separation"), and

  (ii) the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made;

  (c) that the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately preceding the making of the application ("5 years' separation");

  (d) that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application.

  (6) The court must not make a dissolution order without considering the oral testimony of the applicant unless for special reasons it orders that such testimony be dispensed with."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO FACTS RAISING PRESUMPTION OF BREAKDOWN
  (1) Subsection (2) applies if—

  (a) in any proceedings for a dissolution order the applicant alleges, in reliance on section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, but

  (b) after the date of the occurrence of the final incident relied on by the applicant and held by the court to support his allegation, the applicant and the respondent have lived together for a period (or periods) which does not, or which taken together do not, exceed 6 months.

  (2) The fact that the applicant and respondent have lived together as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) must be disregarded in determining, for the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), whether the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
  (3) Subsection (4) applies in relation to cases where the applicant alleges, in reliance on section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(b), that the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made.
  (4) Rules of court must make provision for the purpose of ensuring that the respondent has been given such information as will enable him to understand—

  (a) the consequences to him of consenting to the order, and

  (b) the steps which he must take to indicate his consent.

  (5) For the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(d) the court may treat a period of desertion as having continued at a time when the
  GC 228
  deserting civil partner was incapable of continuing the necessary intention, if the evidence before the court is such that, had he not been so incapable, the court would have inferred that the desertion continued at that time.
  (6) In considering for the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5) whether the period for which the civil partners have lived apart or the period for which the respondent has deserted the applicant has been continuous, no account is to be taken of—

  (a) any one period not exceeding 6 months, or

  (b) any two or more periods not exceeding 6 months in all,

  during which the civil partners resumed living together.
  (7) But no period during which the civil partners have lived with each other counts as part of the period which the civil partners have lived apart or as part of the period of desertion.
  (8) For the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(b) and (c) and this section civil partners are to be treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same household, and references in this section to civil partners living with each other are to be read as references to their living with each other in the same household."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "DISSOLUTION ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY PREVIOUS SEPARATION ORDER ETC.
  (1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply if any of the following orders has been made in relation to a civil partnership—

  (a) a separation order:

  (b) an order under Schedule (Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland) (financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.);

  (c) an occupation order under Article 11 of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6) (occupation orders));

  (d) an order under Article 15 of that Order (orders where neither civil partner entitled to occupy the home).

  (2) Nothing prevents—

  (a) either civil partner from applying for a dissolution order, or

  (b) the court from making a dissolution order,

  on the same facts, or substantially the same facts, as those proved in support of the making of the order referred to in subsection ( 1 ).
  (3) On the application for the dissolution order, the court —

  (a) may treat the order referred to in subsection (1) as sufficient proof of any desertion or other fact by reference to which it was made, but

  (b) must not make the dissolution order without receiving evidence from the applicant.

  (4) If—

  (a) the application for the dissolution order follows a separation order or any order requiring the civil partners to live apart,

  (b) there was a period of desertion immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings for the separation order, and

  (c) the civil partners have not resumed living together and the separation order has been continuously in force since it was made,

  the period of desertion is to be treated for the purposes of the application for the dissolution order as if it had immediately preceded the making of the application.

  GC 229
  (5) For the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(d) the court may treat as a period during which the respondent has deserted the applicant any period during which there is in force—

  (a) an injunction granted by the High Court or a county court which excludes the respondent from the civil partnership home, or

  (b) an order under Article 11 or 15 of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 which prohibits the respondent from occupying a dwelling-house in which the applicant and the respondent have, or at any time have had, a civil partnership home."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "REFUSAL OF DISSOLUTION IN 5 YEAR SEPARATION CASES ON GROUND OF GRAVE HARDSHIP
  (1) The respondent to an application for a dissolution order in which the applicant alleges 5 years' separation may oppose the making of an order on the ground that—

  (a) the dissolution of the civil partnership will result in grave financial or other hardship to him, and

  (b) it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the civil partnership.

  (2) Subsection (3) applies if—

  (a) the making of a dissolution order is opposed under this section.

  (b) the court finds that the applicant is entitled to rely in support of his application on the fact of 5 years' separation and makes no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5), and

  (c) apart from this section, the court would make a dissolution order.

  (3) The court must—

  (a) consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the civil partners and the interests of the civil partners and of any children or other persons concerned, and

  (b) if it is of the opinion that the ground mentioned in subsection (1) is made out, dismiss the application for the dissolution order.

  (4) "Hardship" includes the loss of the chance of acquiring any benefit which the respondent might acquire if the civil partnership were not dissolved."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ORDER MADE FINAL: PROTECTION FOR RESPONDENT IN SEPARATION CASES
  (1) The court may, on an application made by the respondent, rescind a conditional dissolution order if—

  (a) it made the order on the basis of a finding that the applicant was entitled to rely on the fact of 2 years' separation coupled with the respondent's consent to a dissolution order being made,

  (b) it made no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5), and

  (c) it is satisfied that the applicant misled the respondent (whether intentionally or unintentionally) about any matter which the respondent took into account in deciding to give his consent.

  GC 230
  (2) Subsections (3) to (5) apply if—

  (a) the respondent to an application for a dissolution order in which the applicant alleged—

  (i) 2 years' separation coupled with the respondent's consent to a dissolution order being made, or

  (ii) 5 years' separation,

  has applied to the court for consideration under subsection (3) of his financial position after the dissolution of the civil partnership, and

  (b) the court—

  (i) has made a conditional dissolution order on the basis of a finding that the applicant was entitled to rely in support of his application on the fact of 2 years' or 5 years' separation, and

  (ii) has made no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5).

  (3) The court hearing an application by the respondent under subsection (2) must consider all the circumstances, including—

  (a) the age, health, conduct, earning capacity. financial resources and financial obligations of each of the parties, and

  (b) the financial position of the respondent as, having regard to the dissolution, it is likely to be after the death of the applicant should the applicant die first.

  (4) The court must not make the order final unless it has, by order, declared that it is satisfied that—

  (a) the applicant should not be required to make any financial provision for the respondent,

  (b) the financial provision made by the applicant for the respondent is—

  (i) reasonable and fair, or

  (ii) the best that can be made in the circumstances, or

  (c) there are circumstances making it desirable that the order should be made final without delay.

  (5) The court must not make an order declaring that it is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4)(c) unless it has obtained a satisfactory undertaking from the applicant that he will bring the question of financial provision for the respondent before the court within a specified time.
  (6) Subsection (7) applies if, following an application under subsection (2) which is not withdrawn, the court makes the order final without making an order under subsection (4).
  (7) The final order is voidable at the instance of the respondent or of the court but no person is entitled to challenge the validity of the order after it is made final on the ground that subsections (4) and (5) were not satisfied.
  (8) If the court refuses to make an order under subsection (4), it must, on an application by the applicant, make an order declaring that it is not satisfied as mentioned in that subsection."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "GROUNDS ON WHICH CIVIL PARTNERSHIP IS VOID
  Where two people register as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland, the civil partnership is void if—

  (a) at the time when they do so, they are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other under Chapter 1 (see section 132), or

  GC 231

  (b) at the time when they do so they both know—

  (i) that due notice of proposed civil partnership has not been given,

  (ii) that the civil partnership schedule has not been duly issued,

  (iii) that the place of registration is a place other than that specified in the civil partnership schedule, or

  (iv) that a registrar is not present."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "BARS TO RELIEF WHERE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP IS VOIDABLE
  (1) The court must not make a nullity order on the ground that a civil partnership is voidable if the respondent satisfies the court—

  (a) that the applicant, with knowledge that it was open to him to obtain a nullity order, conducted himself in relation to the respondent in such a way as to lead the respondent reasonably to believe that he would not seek to do so, and

  (b) that it would be unjust to the respondent to make the order.

  (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the court must not make a nullity order by virtue of section (Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable)( 1 )(a), (b), (c) or (e) unless—

  (a) it is satisfied that proceedings were instituted within 3 years from the date of the formation of the civil partnership, or

  (b) leave for the institution of proceedings after the end of that 3 year period has been granted under subsection (3).

  (3) A judge of the court may, on an application made to him, grant leave for the institution of proceedings if he—

  (a) is satisfied that the applicant has at some time during the 3 year period suffered from mental disorder, and

  (b) considers that in all the circumstances of the case it would be just to grant leave for the institution of proceedings.

  (4) An application for leave under subsection (3) may be made after the end of the 3 year period.
  (5) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the court must not make a nullity order by virtue of section (Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable)(l)(d) unless it is satisfied that proceedings were instituted within the period of 6 months from the date of issue of the interim gender recognition certificate.
  (6) Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2), the court must not make a nullity order by virtue of section (Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable)(1)(c) or (e) unless it is satisfied that the applicant was at the time of the formation of the civil partnership ignorant of the facts alleged."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PROOF OF CERTAIN MATTERS NOT NECESSARY TO VALIDITY OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
  Where two people have registered as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland, it is not necessary in support of the civil partnership to give any proof—

  (a) that any person whose consent to the civil partnership was required by section 139 (parental etc. consent) had given his consent;

  (b) that the registrar was properly appointed under section 142;

  and no evidence is to be given to prove the contrary in any proceedings touching the validity of the civil partnership."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PRESUMPTION OF DEATH ORDERS
  (1) The High Court may, on an application made by a civil partner, make a presumption of death order if it is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for supposing that the other civil partner is dead.
  (2) In any proceedings under this section the fact that—

  (a) for a period of 7 years or more the other civil partner has been continually absent from the applicant, and

  (b) the applicant has no reason to believe that the other civil partner has been living within that time,

  is evidence that the other civil partner is dead until the contrary is proved."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "SEPARATION ORDERS
  (1) An application for a separation order may be made to the court by either civil partner on the ground that any such fact as is mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) exists.
  (2) On an application for a separation order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into—

  (a) the facts alleged by the applicant, and

  (b) any facts alleged by the respondent,

  but whether the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably is irrelevant.
  (3) If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any such fact as is mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) it must, subject to section (Restrictions on making orders affecting children), make a separation order.
  (4) Section (Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown) (supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown) applies for the purposes of an application for a separation order alleging any such fact as it applies in relation to an application for a dissolution order alleging that fact."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "EFFECT OF SEPARATION ORDER
  If either civil partner dies intestate as respects all or any of his or her real or personal property while—

  (a) a separation order is in force, and

  (b) the separation order is continuing,

  the property as respects which he or she died intestate devolves as if the other civil partner had then been dead.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 144 agreed to.
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Clause 146 [The Attorney General and proceedings for declarations]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61AP:
  Page 72, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clause 147 agreed to.
  Clause 148 [Parties to proceedings under this Chapter]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 148 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Amos: This is the point at which I shall thoroughly confuse the Committee because I oppose

  GC 233
  the Question that Clause 148 stand part of the Bill, but I hope that my explanation will clear up that point. It relates to an amendment that we have just discussed.
  Clause 148 ensures that family proceedings rules in Northern Ireland may make provision with respect to the persons who are parties to proceedings for declarations in relation to civil partnerships. The clause further provides that the court may allow a person who is not a party to the proceedings to intervene in the proceedings on such terms as the court thinks just.
  Amendment No. 61AS would add a new clause to Part 4—we have not discussed this yet, but we will come to it—which would deal with the same issues as arise under Clause 148 as drafted. Amendment No. 61AS is drafted in a wider context and now relates to rules of court being made to joinder of parties to proceedings in dissolution proceedings as well as in the declaration proceedings to which they are currently confined under Clause 148. So Clause 148 as drafted is narrower then Amendment No. 61AS, so I seek to strike down Clause 148. We will then discuss Amendment No. 61AS, to which I hope the committee will agree, which takes the issue in its broader context. It is for that reason that Clause 148 as drafted serves no useful purpose and I would therefore like to remove it from the Bill and make fresh provision for those issues through Amendment No. 61AS.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Am I right in thinking that one of the great improvements in what the Minister has just suggested is that Clause 148 is framed in general terms and that the advantage of Amendment No. 61AS is that it will write into the Bill the necessary detail for the citizen to know where she or he stands?
  Baroness Amos: That is absolutely correct.
  Clause 148 negatived.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61AQ and 61AR:
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "RELIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN DISSOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
  (1) If in any proceedings for a dissolution or separation order the respondent alleges and proves any such fact as is mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) the court may give to the respondent the relief to which he would have been entitled if he had made an application seeking that relief.
  (2) When applying subsection (1), treat—

  (a) the respondent as the applicant, and

  (b) the applicant as the respondent,

  for the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)."
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "RESTRICTIONS ON MAKING ORDERS AFFECTING CHILDREN
  (1) In any proceedings for a dissolution, nullity or separation order, the court must consider—

  (a) whether there are any children of the family to whom this section applies, and

  GC 234

  (b) if there are any such children, whether tin the light of the arrangements which have been, or are proposed to be, made for their upbringing and welfare) it should exercise any of its powers under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) with respect to any of them.

  (2) If, in any case to which this section applies, it appears to the court that—

  (a) the circumstances of the case require it, or are likely to require it, to exercise any of its powers under the 1995 Order with respect to any such child,

  (b) it is not in a position to exercise the power or (as the case may be) those powers without giving further consideration to the case, and

  (c) there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of the child that the court should give a direction under this section,

  it may direct that the order is not to be made final, or (in the case of a separation order) is not to be made, until the court orders otherwise.
  (3) This section applies to—

  (a) any child of the family who has not reached 16 a t the date when the court considers the case in accordance with the requirements of this section, and

  (b) any child of the family who has reached 16 at that date and in relation to whom the court directs that this section shall apply."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61AS:
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER
  (1) Rules of court may make provision with respect to—

  (a) the joinder as parties to proceedings under sections (Powers to make orders and effect of orders) to (Separation orders) of persons involved in allegations of improper conduct made in those proceedings,

  (b) the dismissal from such proceedings of any parties so joined, and

  (c) the persons who are to be parties to proceedings on an application under section 144.

  (2) Rules of court made under this section may make different provision for different cases.
  (3) In every case in which the court considers, in the interest of a person not already a party to the proceedings, that the person should be made a party, the court may if it thinks fit allow the person to intervene upon such terms, if any, as the court thinks just."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment would insert the new clause to replace Clause 148. I hope that that is clear to the Committee. On that basis, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61AT to 61AV:
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "THE COURT
  (1) In this Chapter "the court" means—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) where an order made by the Lord Chancellor is in force designating a county court sitting for any division as a civil partnership proceedings county court, a county court sitting for that division.

  GC 235
  (2) Subsection (1) is subject to the following provisions of this section.
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply where the context shows that "the court" means some particular court.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor may make an order such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
  (5) In this Part "civil partnership proceedings county court" means, where an order made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (4) is in force designating a county court sitting for any division as a civil partnership proceedings county court, a county court sitting for that division.
  (6) Except to the extent that rules of court otherwise provide, the jurisdiction conferred by virtue of this section and section (Transfer of proceedings) on a civil partnership proceedings county court is exercisable throughout Northern Ireland, but rules of court may provide for a civil partnership cause (within the meaning of section ( Transfer of proceedings)) pending in one such court to be heard and determined—

  (a) partly in that court and partly in another, or

  (b) in another.

  (7) Any jurisdiction conferred on a civil partnership proceedings county court is exercisable even though by reason of any amount claimed the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
  (8) The jurisdiction of a civil partnership proceedings county court to exercise any power under Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (except a power under Part 7 of or paragraph 54 of that Schedule or a power under paragraph 49, 50 or 58 of that Schedule which is exercisable by county courts generally) shall, except to the extent that rules of court otherwise permit and, in particular, without prejudice to section (Transfer of proceedings)(4) and (6), be exercisable only in connection with an application or order pending in or made by such a court.
  (9) The power to make an order under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12))."
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "APPEALS
  (1) Rules of court shall make provision for an appeal upon a point of law, a question of fact or the admission or rejection of any evidence to the Court of Appeal from—

  (a) any order made by a judge of a civil partnership proceedings county court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by a relevant provision, or

  (b) the dismissal by a judge of a civil partnership proceedings county court of any application under a relevant provision.

  (2) "Relevant provision" means any provision of—

  (a) this Chapter or Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (except paragraphs 48 to 50 and 58);

  (b) the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/ 755 (N.I. 2)).

  (3) A person dissatisfied with—

  (a) an order made by any county court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by paragraph 49, 50 or 58 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or

  (b) with the dismissal of any application made by him under any of those paragraphs,

  is entitled to appeal from the order or dismissal as if the order or dismissal had been made in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Part 3 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/397 (N.I. 3)) and the appeal brought under Part 6 of that Order and Articles 61 (cases stated by county court judge) and 62 (cases stated by High Court on appeal from county court) of that Order apply accordingly."
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS
  (1) This section applies if an order is made under section (The court).
  (2) Rules of court—

  (a) must provide for the transfer to the High Court—

  (i) of any civil partnership cause pending in a civil partnership proceedings county court which ceases to be undefended. and

  (ii) of any civil partnership cause so pending, where the transfer appears to the civil partnership proceedings county court to be desirable;

  (b) may provide for the transfer to the High Court of any civil partnership cause which remains undefended;

  (c) may provide for the transfer or retransfer from the High Court to a civil partnership proceedings county court of any civil partnership cause which is, or again becomes, undefended;

  (d) must define the circumstances in which any civil partnership cause is to be treated for the purposes of this subsection as undefended.

  (3) "Civil partnership cause" means an action for the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership or for the legal separation of civil partners.
  (4) Rules of court may provide for the transfer or retransfer—

  (a) from a civil partnership proceedings county court to the High Court, or

  (b) from the High Court to a civil partnership proceedings county court,

  of any proceedings for the exercise of a power under this Chapter or Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (except proceedings on an application under paragraph 49, 50 or 58).
  (5) The power conferred by subsections (2) and (3) includes power to provide for the removal of proceedings at the direction of the High Court; but nothing in this section affects—

  (a) any other power of the High Court to remove proceedings to that court from a county court, or

  (b) any power to remit proceedings from that court to a county court.

  (6) A court has jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings transferred to the court by virtue of rules made in pursuance of subsection (4)."
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 61AW:
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "DISPUTES BETWEEN CIVIL PARTNERS ABOUT PROPERTY
  (1) In any question between the civil partners in a civil partnership as to title to or possession of property, either civil partner may apply by summons or otherwise in a summary way to—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) a county court.

  (2) On such an application, the court may make such order with respect to the property as it thinks fit (including an order for the sale of the property).
  (3) Rules of court made for the purposes of this section may confer jurisdiction on county courts whatever the situation or value of the property in dispute."
  The noble Baroness said: This group of nine amendments make provision in Northern Ireland in connection with civil partnership which is comparable

  GC 237
  to the provision made for England and Wales by Chapter 3 of Part 2, as well as Schedules 4 to 7. They cover a wide range of legislative provision which deal with civil partners during a civil partnership, on its dissolution and after the death of one of the partners.
  Amendments Nos. 61AW and 61AX enable civil partners to refer disputes over property to court using a summary procedure. They allow those disputes to be resolved in the High Court or county court. The second amendment extends the availability of that jurisdiction of the court to the situation where the civil partner no longer has the money or property in possession. In these cases the court has the same powers to make orders regarding the property or money in question, including the power to order one civil partner to pay to the other a sum of money as appropriate.
  6 p.m.
  Amendment No. 61 AY extends to civil partners and their children the protections under Northern Ireland law currently available to spouses and children in respect of the proceeds of life assurance policies.
  Amendments Nos. 61AZ and 63A are concerned with the disposition of the estate of civil partners who have died. It amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland in relation to the effect of the formation or dissolution of a civil partnership on the will of a civil partner. It also deals comprehensively with the rights of surviving civil partners to a share of the deceased's estate under the intestacy rules and under inheritance legislation.
  Amendments Nos. 61BA, 63B, 63C and 63D establish a system of financial relief in Northern Ireland for civil partners and children of their family following the breakdown of the civil partnership.
  Baroness O'Cathain: It would be extremely helpful if, when running through these amendments at a great rate of knots, the noble Baroness could tell us what page they are on so that we can flick through the Marshalled List. We are going from Amendment No. 61 to Amendment No. 63 and then back again. It would be most helpful because we do have a problem.
  Baroness Amos: I am sorry. Amendment No. 61 BA is on page 29; Amendment No. 63B on page 43; Amendment No. 63C on page 78; Amendment No. 63D is, I think, on page 100.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: While we are trying to find the page, perhaps I can make another practical suggestion as an aid. This is a rather radical idea, but is there any reason why parliamentary counsel could not print out for us on a word processor the Bill in its original form and then put in all this stuff as it will come back to us on Report, so that when we return to this on Monday we will have not an official print-out, but a print-out we can use that will let us see the jigsaw
  GC 238
  puzzle put together as though the Bill had been published in this form originally? We would be able to see it in an informal way. It is just a matter of someone skilful with a word processor doing that.
  Baroness Amos: That is a very good suggestion. I was slightly concerned about the time frame, but I have checked and we will do our very best to do that for the Committee. I absolutely recognise the assistance that that would give to the Committee. We will try to do that.
  The four amendments I just mentioned—Amendments Nos. 61 BA, 63B, 63C and 63D—are the ones that establish a system of financial relief for Northern Ireland for civil partners and children following the breakdown of a civil partnership. If Members of the Committee feel that this is one of the groups of amendments that have become too complicated, then I am quite happy to stop.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was suggesting—
  Baroness Amos: I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who I know is particularly concerned and wants to understand this. As the amendments are dotted through different pages, I recognise that they are quite difficult to follow. The Committee has been very generous in allowing me to go through a number of amendments already. We have more groups relating to Northern Ireland, but if the Committee feels that this is getting too complicated, I am quite happy to stop now and start again on Monday.
  Lord Alli: If the amendments are incorporated into a word-processed version of the Bill, will the amendments that have not yet been moved be included? That would assist greatly. It would he easier if we included the whole lot rather than just the half we have reached—which is, I suspect, the source of the confusion.
  Baroness Amos: We could do that, and perhaps find a way of indicating those that have been moved and those that have not.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If the Explanatory Notes are tied to them as well, we can go through it much more easily.
  Baroness Amos: We will do our best. I propose not to move the group of amendments led by Amendment No. 61AW but, if the Committee agrees, to adjourn the Committee until Monday. The first group we will deal with then will be that led by Amendment No. 61AW.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 17 May at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at six minutes past six o'clock.