Hansard

The starting point when considering the extension of civil partnerships to include different-sex couples is that the status quo is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The UK Supreme Court ruling of 27 June 2018 applied to England and Wales but was nonetheless a clarion call to us that our current situation is discriminatory and time limited. As Ruth Maguire, the convener of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, and other members have said, Scotland is the only country in the world where same-sex couples have a choice between civil partnership and marriage but mixed-sex couples have only the option of marriage if they do not want to cohabit. It is only right, therefore, that we address and progress that matter today. Other progressive European countries and the rest of the UK have taken that step forward, so we now need to catch up with them.

Yes, this is indeed about equality of choice and opportunity, but it is also about securing the same legal rights: a levelling up, as some members have reflected. There is little legal difference between marriage and civil partnership, although some pension providers will deliver fewer survivor benefits to a civil partner than to a spouse, which is, frankly, outrageous. I am glad that the cabinet secretary will issue guidance around some of the difficulties with respect to international recognition of mixed-sex civil partnership, as that might be important to some individuals.

The biggest anomaly is around the legal rights of cohabitees compared to those of married couples. With regard to death or separation, cohabitees rely on the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006; whereas, for married people, the protections around pension succession, alimony and financial provision are much clearer and stronger. Some people might say—wrongly—that, in order to maximise legal protection for when a relationship ends due to divorce or death, people should get married. However, that misses two very important points. The first is a very simple point: why should there be a different position for any couple, whether they are mixed sex or same sex?

The second point is perhaps harder to understand if we come from a position of believing in marriage as an institution, which many of us do, and that the only impediment to marriage is not meeting the right person. However, we have to understand and respect that some people have real ideological and very legitimate personal objections to the concept of marriage but nonetheless form long-term, committed and loving relationships that should not be viewed as second rate. Those couples deserve access to the law and should be able to access the same legal rights as married couples to protect and plan their future.

The Equal Civil Partnerships campaign has spoken eloquently about the symbolic, cultural and emotional reasons why some people object to marriage but nonetheless want a legally recognised 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 baggage of history, culture and expectation, given that the civil and legal premise of a woman being the property of her husband is, sadly, not confined to ancient history. Joan McAlpine tapped into the feeling that opening up civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples will, in many ways, address some unfinished business, which is something that I heard Alex Cole-Hamilton reflect on, too.

With the introduction of same-sex marriage, many countries have either abolished civil partnerships or retained them as a legacy union and have withdrawn them as an option. I firmly believe that, on balance, our having the option of either marriage or civil partnership for same-sex and mixed couples is the right approach—and some two thirds of those questioned in the British social attitudes survey think so, too. As Fulton MacGregor mentioned, the bill has widespread stakeholder support.

Those of us who serve on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee have discovered that there are complexities to unravel and address, and other members, including the cabinet secretary, have touched on those. In particular, the committee has sought to explore with the Government the notion of converting marriages into civil partnerships on the basis of the evidence that we heard. The cabinet secretary’s written response walks us through some of the complexities. In essence, the issue is about how not to disrupt legal rights when people change a marriage into a civil partnership. New Zealand and Austria have introduced the ability to do that, so perhaps we can learn from those countries. I am sure that we all very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to explore the issue in more depth with the committee.

This is a small but purposeful bill, and I am glad to have the opportunity to support it today.