The Lords Spiritual and Civil Partnerships Legislation
The following is a timeline that summarises the speeches and votes of bishops in the
House of Lords on civil partnership legislation from 2002 - when a Private Member’s
Bill was first brought before the House by Lord Lester of Herne Hill - to the passing
of the Government’s Civil Partnership Act in November 2004.
The bishops, consistent with their place as independent and non-whipped members
neither spoke nor voted as a bloc on these issues when they were before the House.
The Government’s 2004 legislation that resulted in the introduction of civil
partnerships was welcomed at Second Reading by the Bishop of Oxford and with
more qualification, by the Bishop of Peterborough. More critical speeches followed
from the Bishops’ Bench during the Bill’s subsequent stages. Six bishops voted in
favour of (and one against) what was widely considered to be a ‘wrecking
amendment’ to the Bill at Report stage; however when the Commons removed the
amendment and returned the Bill to the Lords in November 2004, eight bishops voted
in support of the decision taken by the Commons (two voted against). Extracts from
speeches by the Lords Spiritual and links to the parliamentary record of the speeches
and votes are below.
Richard Chapman
Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs
richard.chapman@churchofengland.org
Lord Lester’s Bill, 2002
On 25th January 2002 the House of Lords debated the ‘Civil Partnerships Bill’– a
Private Members Bill that had been introduced by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The Bill
sought to offer a legal framework of recognition to opposite-sex cohabitees
(excluding ‘close relatives’) as well as those in same-sex relationships.
Introducing the debate, Lord Lester said “the Bill seeks to achieve a law which gives
full partnership rights and responsibilities to all mature adults, whether same sex or
opposite sex, who wish to enter into a binding legal compact to organise their
common life together.”
In the debate, speeches were made by both the then Bishop of Winchester, Rt Rev
Michael Scott-Joynt, and by the then Bishop of Guildford, Rt Rev John Gladwin.
The Bishop of Winchester spoke against the Bill and urged Peers not to give it a
Second Reading. He said “the Bill before us today enumerates all, or nearly all, of the
civil obligations and rights resulting from marriage….I take the Bill's basic premise
to be that those living in partnerships short of marriage should have the same rights
as those who are married. I believe that that premise is mistaken because it is not
comparing like with like.”
He outlined the positive benefits of marriage for society, and why it would be wrong
to conclude that it was somehow inappropriate for public policy to ‘discriminate in
favour of marriage’. He proposed a more limited set of measures to address the
problems of possible hardship and disadvantage suffered by those in unmarried but
1
long term relationships on the ending of those relationships. He also raised questions
about pension liability, about the possible applicability of legislation to those in
family or friendly (non-sexual) relationships, and about the qualifying time period for
forming or dissolving a civil partnership, which he felt was too short to foster the
creation of long-term and stable relationships.
The Bishop of Guildford acknowledged that “those who legislate have a duty to seek
ways and means of ending such unjust discrimination for the benefit of all”.
“My concern is for gay and lesbian people who are, both by the nature of their
relationship and the nature of marriage, unable to avail themselves of their
understandable needs for financial and other personal arrangements that are nondiscriminatory.”
He went on to say “I have no great concerns with a civil registration of partnerships,
per se. It is in what might follow therefrom that the thorns and thistles grow up”. The
test of the legislation was whether it offered a fair, practical and proportional response
to the problem it intended to resolve and he urged caution that those legislating “in
seeking to offer a good to a few, not end up undermining the greatest strength for the
many…Whether we are gay or straight, whatever is done to address the injustices of
same sex and cohabiting couples we must not undermine the central place of
marriage and its essential role and normative place in our society and family life
today.”
Recognising the value of public declarations to those in relationships he said “If there
is a need for appropriate secular or spiritual declarations these can and should be
made.”
He said that, whilst most cohabitees saw that arrangement as a staging post to
marriage, it would be important not to give the privileges of marriage to those who
have chosen not to marry and urged Government to ensure that they had explored all
existing avenues to make remedies (such as on public sector pension provision)
outside the need for new legislation.
The motion to give the Bill a Second Reading was passed without a Division of the
House, though it did not proceed further because of the advance of the Government’s
own proposals.
Government Consultation on Civil Partnerships, 2003
In June 2003 the Government issued a consultation document entitled: 'Civil
Partnership: A framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples'. As the name
suggested, the proposals within the consultation marked a departure from Lord
Lester’s in that they applied solely to same-sex couples.
The Archbishops’ Council submitted a response, dated 30th September 2003, which
can be viewed here.
Queen’s Speech, 2003
In November 2003 the Government announced in the Queen’s Speech its intention to
introduce a Civil Partnerships Bill.
2
Giving a speech on climate change during the Lords debate on the Queen’s Speech on
27th November, the then Bishop of Hereford, Rt Rev John Oliver, said
“I shall digress just for a moment to express a warm welcome to the announcement in
the gracious Speech of ..the promise of legislation for civil partnerships, particularly
in its helpfulness in terms of inheritance and pension issues.”
The Government’s Civil Partnership Bill, 2004
Lords Second Reading
The Civil Partnership Bill was debated at Second Reading in the Lords on 22nd April
2004. During the Second Reading debate the then Bishops of Oxford, Rt Rev Richard
Harries, and Peterborough, Rt Rev Ian Cundy, made speeches.
The Bishop of Oxford welcomed the Bill and said “More important than my personal
view, however, is the fact that the Church of England, through its official
pronouncements, has recognised that at the moment same-sex partnerships are
treated very unfairly in a number of ways and that this Bill will rectify a range of
injustices in relation to inheritance, pensions, hospital visiting rights and so on.”
He drew attention to a recent vote in Synod that had both affirmed marriage and
suggested that new legal rights were required to address issues of hardship and
vulnerability for people whose relationships are not based on marriage; and quoted at
length from the consultation response from the Archbishops’ Council before
concluding “There we can see very strong support from the official announcements of
the Church of England to rectify a range of unfair anomalies.”
He said that “there are fears that the Bill could undermine the institution of marriage
and its special place in the law of this country. I state those views because they are
widely shared in Church circles, and the Government will need to address them…
However, my own conviction is that, properly understood, this Bill could very well
support and strengthen the institution of marriage in our society, rather than weaken
it.”
He also raised concerns, on religious liberty grounds, about the clauses that prevented
registration taking place in religious premises. The lack of definition of the
commitment being entered into through a civil partnership (“a commitment of two
human beings to one another through all the vicissitudes of human existence”) was,
he said, also a concern
The Bishop of Peterborough gave “a cautious welcome” to the Bill and “what the
Minister has called the measured response to a recognised need. It has, as she said,
been shaped by consultation, including with the Church, and it offers a secular
solution and does not seek to weaken the importance of marriage.”
He acknowledged and explained the differences of opinion within the Church and,
noting that “Government have made it clear that they do not see the introduction of
3
civil partnerships as undermining marriage”, with several parts of the proposals (such
as the prohibition on religious ceremonies) making that distinction deliberately clear,
went on to explain the reservations many in the Church still held.
“Since the publication of the Bill, some have argued that by accepting same-sex
unions in legislation that mirrors to a great extent the legal protection given to
marriage, thereby creating equality in law, will at least cause confusion about the
essence of marriage, and would therefore not be consistent with the desire expressed
by the [Archbishops’] Council and by the Government….Those who feel that the move
will undermine the unique status of marriage acknowledge that law shapes people's
understandings and behaviour. In their view, creating equality in law with marriage
gives a signal to society that marriage and civil partnerships are equally important to
the well-being of society. My brother bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
Oxford, has argued the contrary view, and I, personally, have some sympathy with it.
However, if a bishop may admit to such a failing, I find myself to be slightly agnostic
on the matter.”
He also called for clarity on the purposes of a civil partnership – in order to ensure a
balance of rights and responsibilities - and on the nature of the “unreasonable
behaviour” that might lead to dissolution.
The Bill was granted a Second Reading without a Division of the House and
progressed to the Committee stage.
Lords Grand Committee
By the rules of the House, no votes were taken during the Grand Committee stage,
though a number of amendments were put, to be debated then withdrawn and returned
to at later stages.
On day one of the Grand Committee stage, 10th May 2004 the Bishop of Oxford
returned to the concern he had voiced at Second Reading, about the absence of
prescribed words to accompany the registration of a civil partnership “indicating that
this is a profound commitment of two people”. The intervention was made during
debate on amendments from Baroness O’Cathain to expand the categories of person
who could enter into a civil partnership, to include those in caring, platonic or sibling
relationships. The Bishop said “If there were some prescribed words, however
simple—and not necessarily the same as those in the marriage service—, it would get
over the question of whether this is a sexual relationship that we are talking about”
On day two of Grand Committee, 12th May, the Bishop of Peterborough spoke
during debate on clause 6, which prohibited the registration of civil partnerships on
religious premises, and a probing amendment from Baroness Wilcox to remove the
prohibition. He said “while I cannot speak for other religious groups, I believe that I
speak for many of my colleagues and others in the Church of England who take the
view that the Government's proposals are appropriate… The Government are not
legislating for what religious groups may or may not do subsequent to registration.
That is up to the religious group concerned and if it wishes to add a religious
ceremony it is free to do so.”
4
The Bishop of Peterborough also spoke briefly during debate on an amendment from
Lord Higgins about special procedures for contracting a civil partnership in
circumstances where one party may be terminally ill and close to death.
On day three of Grand Committee, 13th May, the Bishop of Chester, Rt Rev Peter
Forster, spoke during the debate on an amendment from Baroness O’Cathain to delay
the implementation of civil partnership legislation in Northern Ireland. He said “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… 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 We [the Lords] are trying all the time simply to shadow the
provisions for marriage and are not coming clean about what we are doing.”
Lords Report Stage
The Bill progressed to its Report Stage, on the floor of the House, on 24th June 2004.
On Report, the then Bishop of Worcester, Rt Rev Peter Selby, spoke in support of
amendments from Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, which (quoting Lord Goodhart):
“make it clear that a civil partnership involves a commitment akin to that entered into
by marrying heterosexual couples, and is therefore not appropriate to be extended to
the relationship of home sharers or close relatives, who—under the amendments
tabled at this stage—are of different sexes.” The amendments were withdrawn after
debate, as the Government committed to tabling its own to a similar end. In the debate
the Bishop said that one of the purposes of the legislation was “to recognise the moral
seriousness of what the couples are undertaking…I therefore think it preferable that
the word "commitment" and some words of commitment be on the face of the Bill,
because that is one of the things which people are looking to Parliament to provide
for them. I think that it is a proper thing to look to a Parliament to do. I say that, of
course, without derogating from the seriousness of the debate that goes on
particularly in religious communities, and particularly in my own Church, about
whether it is proper for people to enter into such commitments.”
The Bishop of Winchester co-sponsored a series of amendments with Baroness
O’Cathain and others that would (quoting Baroness O’Cathain): “extend the benefits
of the Bill to family members who have lived together on a long-term basis...Two
sisters or any two close relations who have lived together for 12 years would be able
to register a partnership and take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. These are
benefits which are currently unique to married couples and under the Government's
Bill will be extended only to one other group; namely, those in same-sex
relationships.”
The then Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the then Bishop of
Southwell, Rt Rev George Cassidy and the Bishop of Winchester spoke in support of
these amendments. The Bishop of Worcester spoke against.
The Bishop of Rochester said “I applaud the stated purpose in bringing the Bill
forward, which is to remove injustice in a variety of matters—tenancy, pensions,
5
inheritance and other areas suffered by people who choose to live together…[but]…
could not the social justice and compassionate aspect of the Bill have been achievable
through legislation that does not look so much like marriage?...If the Bill is about
dealing with the difficulties faced by those in long-term relationships, then how can it
be just to ignore the case of two sisters living together for support and protection? If
we are addressing injustice, can we overlook the plight of the daughter who dedicates
her life to caring for an elderly parent? What is the status of vulnerable adults who
live with a parent or another relative?”
The Bishop of Southwell said: “Some argue that it is perfectly legitimate to debate the
defects in inheritance law, landlord and tenant law and so on, but that the proposed
Bill remedies those problems only for a select group of people—those who become
civil partners under the Bill. In other words, the new legislation is, to my layman's
mind, partial, discriminatory and perverse if it stands unamended…I hope these
amendments succeed in gaining the support of the House. Is the Minister prepared to
give a categorical assurance that the Government will speedily follow up with
legislation that benefits other categories of relationship?”
The Bishop of Worcester said: “I find it difficult to accept the notion—and I speak out
of a long theological tradition here—that one should have to register in order to have
the privileges that come from being a family member. It seems to me that I am a
member of the family of which I am a member not from any choice, registration, or
covenant, but by virtue of a given relationship that I have. In the amendment as she
has now drawn it, there is the confusion of two different objectives; one to support the
family, and I wholly support that, and the other to support and honour caring
relationships, and I wholly support that. If you are going to do the second, it seems to
me that a far wider group of people should he included, as in the initial Committee
amendments. If you are going to support the family, it should precisely not be
necessary for people to register partnerships in order to achieve the benefits of family
membership…I say all this to try to look at this amendment, at this late stage in the
Bill, in a detailed and rational way, and not simply to engage in the fundamental
debate, which of course goes on all the time under the surface.”
A vote was taken on the amendments:
Six bishops voted content (for the Baroness O’Cathain / Bishop of Winchester
amendments): the Bishops of Coventry, Liverpool, Peterborough, Rochester,
Southwell, Winchester.
One bishop voted not content (against the amendments): the Bishop of Worcester.
The Contents won the vote, by a margin of 18: 148 to 130.
The acceptance of the amendments was the cause of some procedural confusion on
the part of the Government and other benches and the Bishop of Winchester spoke
during these exchanges. The House resolved to continue with its consideration of the
Bill.
The then Bishop of Chelmsford, Rt Rev John Gladwin, spoke supportively to an
Opposition amendment on early reconciliation processes for civil partners (which was
withdrawn after debate). He said “the clause that we are debating is a very interesting
6
piece of legislation. I am delighted to see it, and I have some sympathy with the
amendment because it also has an implication for matrimonial law and practice.”
The Bishop of Winchester made a minor intervention during a debate on amendments
relating to procedures in Scotland. And again, on an amendment from Lord Lester
relating to recognition of foreign same-sex partnership arrangements, namely in the
US state of Massachusetts.
Both the Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop of Chelmsford then spoke during the
debate on the final group of amendments, as the House reflected on that day’s
business. The Bishop of Winchester said that the Government had been wrong to
bring forward legislation so close in appearance to marriage, the reason for their
losing the crucial vote:
“The Bill has become enormous and spread because of the intention—perhaps as a
result of a particular element of human rights legislation—to replicate painstakingly
everything there might be concerning marriage. The position in which the
Government have found themselves largely stems from that astonishing
exhaustiveness of the Bill…Might there not be a question of remembering the advice
that some of us gave two and a half years ago—that the Government might more
easily get a much more straightforward Bill through, one that addresses some of the
most critically and obviously distressing, disadvantaging and, frankly, wrong
elements of the present system?”
The Bishop of Chelmsford expressed concern that the principle underlying the
purpose of the Bill (that it be legislation to create same-sex civil partnerships alone)
had been lost as a result of the vote. He said “we have to have legislation that is
rooted in principle. All those in positions of political responsibility need to consider
that, whatever their point of view. There is a variety of points of view on these
Benches as well as elsewhere in the House. Given the damage that has been done
today there has to be coherence in terms of principle. We have lost that today. I hope
that those that are here every day through negotiation will help us to recover the
situation.”
Consideration of House of Commons Amendments
The Civil Partnerships Bill was sent by the Lords to the Commons in September
2004, including the amendments made in the name of Baroness O’Cathain and the
Bishop of Winchester, which had broadened the categories of people beyond samesex couples who could enter into a civil partnership.
By a large majority the Commons removed those Lords amendments and the Bill
returned to the Lords.
The Lords were invited to agree the action of the Commons – and so, to pass the Bill
with its original principle restored - on November 17th 2004.
During the debate, Baroness O’Cathain moved a further amendment to once again
extend the categories of people who could contract a civil partnership, specifically to
family members. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke against the amendment, whilst the
7
Bishop of Chester spoke for it, on the basis of his continuing concern about the impact
the Bill would be likely to have on marriage.
The Bishop of Chelmsford said “the Bill is not the vehicle within which to achieve her
aim… The clarity of principle of this Bill is that it deals with relationships between
people of the same sex. That is the central principle of it. It is different from marriage
but it has this parallel. One of the reasons people in my office and the clergy
encourage people who are living together to enter into marriage, recognising that
marriage is a relationship between the two of them and not just a statement in the
law, is in order that the community as a whole should be clear about the relationship
that they are in. The Bill achieves that for people of long-term relationships of the
same sex. It is not just about gay couples; it is about people of the same sex. That is
very important because a whole variety of relationships are covered under this
matter. I believe that it is important that we hold to the integrity of the Bill… the noble
Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would be better served by dealing separately with the
complex matters of law that surround family relationships. There is a sense in which
this amendment does not achieve all that needs to be achieved in that area. I think
that we would be helped if the Government were a little more upfront in saying that
they recognise that a whole field of relationships and consequences in human rights
needs to be addressed….I am not happy to see is our losing the Bill around this issue.
It is important that we do not lose the Bill at this stage in the Parliament.”
The Bishop of Chester said “the difficulty is that the details of the Bill as it stands so
closely parallel the arrangements for marriage that there is a real danger of a de
facto introduction of same-sex marriage by that process. The history of social
legislation in this country is often that the consequences are not quite those that are
stated as intended. One sees that in all sorts of areas, including divorce and abortion
in family law. In some ways, that makes it difficult to accept the amendment before
us….However, if the Bill is left standing alone, without any other measures being
introduced at some point, paralleling so closely the provisions for marriage, de facto
we will have a perception of same-sex marriage. If that situation simply continues
without the other provisions pressed for by noble Lords, it will look very anomalous
and even more unjust than many noble Lords have suggested.”
A vote was taken on the amendment
Two bishops voted Content (with Baroness O’Cathain’s amendment): the Bishops of
Chester and Southwell.
Eight bishops voted Not Content: the Bishops of Chelmsford, Manchester, Norwich,
Oxford, Peterborough, St Albans, St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, Truro.
The Not-Contents won the vote by a margin of 115: 136 - 251
Royal Assent
The Civil Partnership Act received Royal Assent on 18th November 2004
8