civil partnership act 2004

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004. It will come into force on 5 December 2005. For the first time in UK statutory law, Parliament has fully recognised same-sex couples as on a par with married couples. The only significant differences relate to the registration process and to the omission of a duty to consummate the relationship. There is also room for equalising the way the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act deals with authomatic recognition of parentage, which can be done when that Act is revised. The Civil Partnership Act extends to the whole of the UK including Northern Ireland and Scotland. There will now have to be secondary legislation to provide for the detail of procedures, which is likely to take a year. The Act is expected to come into force at the end of 2005 or the beginning of 2006.

LAGLA lobbied on this Bill and were successful in convincing the government to make changes to the Bill.

history of the bill

"Gay marriage will ruin society" 3 lonely Christians demonstrating outside the House of Lords

At Lords Report Stage on 24 June 2004 the Civil Partnership Bill received wrecking amendments, mainly supported by Conservatives, Crossbenchers and Bishops, which would extend the provisions to two close relatives such as siblings, parents, children uncles and aunts and nephews and nieces. The amendments were tabled by Baroness O’Cathain (Conservative, 66), the Bishop of Winchester, Lord (Bruce) Weatherill (a Crossbencher and former Tory MP, 84) and Lord (Ken) Maginnis of Drumglass (an Ulster Unionist, 66) were passed by the House of Lords by 148 to 130 votes extending civil partnership to two close relatives who have lived together as adults for 12 years or more. Lord Alli called it a “wrecking amendment [which] is a fig leaf to disguise […] opposition to the Bill in total”; Lord Lester of Herne Hill called it “a torpedoing of the Bill in the guise of noble motives.” The only thing that peers agreed on after the amendments were passed was that the Bill was in a mess.

The supporters of the amendment could not find a single real case. One constituent Lord Maginnis mentioned could not conceivable have benefited from the amendment. In order to prevent abuse the amendment provides that the two parties have had to be living together for 12 years before they can register. Baroness O’Cathain imagined a daughter who was caring for her father, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s, and would be able to save Inheritance Tax on the family home when the father died. She did not explain how the father could provide valid consent to the registration of the civil partnership 12 years into his Alzheimer’s disease. Nor did she explain how the daughter could get out of the civil partnership if she met a man and wanted to get married. As drafted, she would have to prove to a court that the relationship with her father had broken down, by applying for a dissolution either on the basis of the father’s unreasonable behaviour or on the basis of separation from the father for 2 or 5 years. If she (as is likely) wants to continue to care for her father and their relationship continues, she will never be able to get married. This is only one aspect of why the amendment is unworkable.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Tory Lord Chancellor, declared an interest as vice-president of the Princess Royal’s Trust for Carers, but the Trust does not publicly support the amendment. Age Concern opposes it. We have no information about any carer or family organisations who support the amendment or any people who would be prepared to enter into it and who would be helped by it.

The Third Reading in the Lords on 1 July 2004 was generally more civil and no amendments were put to a division. Lord (Ken) Maginnis of Drumglass was a rather sole voice in favour to give the (suspended) Northern Ireland Assembly a veto on the Bill. He did himself no favours by arguing: "Northern Ireland has had to grapple with systematic abuse of children, and I have seen a degree of organised abuse by homosexual elements." Even those who had advocated a similar amendment previously, like Baroness O'Cathain, did not support him.

1. that civil partnerships will not be open to opposite-sex couples. The Committee asks the government to justify the discrimination. However, they have written to the government asking what further reform it proposes on the law of unmarried couples. This implies that plans to create a de-facto regime for all couples may justify such discrimination.
2. that dependants pensions in final salary schemes will only be measured on future contributions. We have continuously criticised this area and maintain that this is blatant discrimination. The Committee does not agree that the argument that pension law cannot be retrospective justifies discrimination in this area.

The full Report can be found here in html-form or as

We found a limited number of issues where the Bill leaves inequality and we are lobbying for amendments in this area. On the international part of the Bill, which deals with recognising overseas registered partnership regimes and dissolutions, we thought that the Bill needed improvement. A large number of our suggestions were accepted by the Government and found their way into the Amendments tabled at Commons Committee Stage.