I would like to thank the Members who took part in the debate. I would like to reiterate how pleased I am that, from its inception to today`s final vote, there has been a bipartisan consensus and agreement on the intent of the bill. This consensus is clear proof of the value of the House for rights, fairness and equality in our country. Civil partnerships will certainly be attractive in protecting vulnerable couples. They will be popular in England and Wales – we will probably have an increase in demand – but they will not eliminate the urgent need for a wider, national safety net for all couples. The bill will extend civil partnerships to mixed couples, rather than restricting it to same-sex couples, as the law currently does. This is true and in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Couples may not want to get married for a number of reasons – symbolic, cultural or emotional. Ultimately, marriage is a deeply personal life choice. I understand that some view marriage as a patriarchal baggage and that civil partnerships, while offering the same legal benefits as marriage, are perceived differently.
We heard that clearly when we heard testimony in committee. With the adoption of legislation on same-sex marriage, people in same-sex relations rightly have the choice between marriage or civil partnership, and it was decided that the same options should be available for mixed couples in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have heard before the committee and in correspondence with the government that the bill is not necessary because there are relatively few differences between marriage and civil partnership. I do not agree with that, and I know that I am not the only one in this case, given the many contributions that have been made today on this subject. In his written testimony on the bill, Engender said: While civil partnership may not be recognized in other countries that do not have this legal option, the bill allows us to continue to pave the way for a more progressive future where there are greater opportunities for all and a legal system that recognizes the changing needs and preferences of our citizens. Public support for civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples is 65%, with only 7% opposing. Given that the public is so strongly on the side of the bill, it is time to move it forward. Information on the costs associated with registering a civil partnership is available on the National Records of Scotland website. I can understand what Fraser Sutherland said earlier about marriage tourism. I don`t see that there is much reception in the Jewish community in Scotland, but that leads me to correct something I said at the beginning of the meeting. I was talking about couples where one person is from outside Scotland, but we should actually think of couples where both people come from outside Scotland.
The main difference between Scottish marriage or civil partnership and English marriage or civil partnership is that we allow individuals, which is why we have the relationship we have with the NRS while they allow locals in England. So if a couple, for whatever reason, decides they want to get married or have a civil partnership ceremony at the ben Nevis summit, they can. Since they probably can`t have a civil partnership at home if they have emotional or philosophical reasons for wanting a civil partnership instead of marriage, Scotland is a very nice place to do so, but not necessarily at its time of year. By law, an occupational pension plan must offer a life partner the same rights as a spouse. With the introduction of same-sex marriage, many countries either abolished civil partnership or maintained it as an old union and removed it as an option. I firmly believe that having the choice of marriage or civil partnership for same-sex and mixed couples is the right approach – and around two-thirds of those surveyed in the UK Social Attitude Survey think so too. As Fulton MacGregor mentioned, there is broad support for the bill. This is not an insurmountable problem. The British Government is proposing a solution that will allow the conversion of marriage to civil partnership, at least for a while, and has proposed three options to solve the problem I have just described.
The most logical option is to treat the couple as if they had been since the 5th century. December 2005 in civil partnership and before that – from 1990, if it was the beginning of their marriage – until December 5, 2005 in marriage. Some small pieces of legislation are needed to ensure the continuity of these relationships, so that, for example, if they later dissolve their civil partnership, civil partnership property – the equivalent of matrimonial property – would also include assets they had accumulated between 1990 and 2005. Secondly, I was pleased to support the amendments tabled by Alex Cole-Hamilton on the interim system for the recognition of mixed civilian partnerships. The system will allow mixed partnerships to be temporarily recognised as marriages in Scotland until the mixed partnerships are available here. Concerns were raised during Phase 1 because marriage is not the relationship chosen by couples recognized under the interim system. The amendments tabled by Mr Cole-Hamilton strikes the right balance between addressing concerns and addressing the conclusion of the Stage 1 report on the bill that the period leading up to the registration of a civil partnership is an exciting time, but it can also be stressful because there is a lot to do and many moving parts to consider. Wright & Crawford`s Civil Partnership Agreement service can help ease the pressure by putting your mutual finances on the right track. In the unfortunate event that you decide to break up later, a civil partnership agreement can help you do so with minimal stress so that you can keep the best memories of your time together. The Equal Civil Partnerships campaign spoke eloquently about the symbolic, cultural and emotional reasons why some people are against marriage but still want a legally recognized relationship. For some women, marriage is indeed a patriarchal institution, and it is hard to deny that marriage comes with what has been described as a baggage of history, culture and expectation, since the civil and legal premise that a woman is the property of her husband is unfortunately not limited to ancient history.
Joan McAlpine took advantage of the feeling that opening up civil partnerships to mixed couples will in many ways address some of the unfinished issues that I have also heard Alex Cole-Hamilton think about. I can`t say I thought about it. .