top stories

Comments from ACCA
September 2003

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) is pleased to comment on the above consultation paper. Our comments on this matter concentrate on the financial consequences of the Government�s proposals.

We agree that, if the proposed status is introduced, the law should impose on  partners in registered homosexual partnerships responsibilities as well as rights. This would be in keeping with the law as it applies to married couples and with the formal nature of the proposed process.  

As a general point, though, we would say that the range of legal rules which currently apply to various aspects of married life are based on the understanding that marriage is an institution which is entered into when two people wish to make a serious, exclusive, permanent and public commitment to each other. The legal rights and responsibilities which the law affords to husbands and wives all flow from the substantial character of the parties� demonstration of commitment to each other through marriage.

If the Government is committed to affording to registered homosexual partnerships the same legal rights as currently apply to married couples, the detailed proposals in the consultative document are quite straightforward. But the document does not give the clear impression that, in return for the specified rights and responsibilities, the process of entering into a civil partnership will be of a similar magnitude to entering into marriage. On page 30 of the document, it is asserted that same-sex couples would be �making a very strong commitment to each other� and that �they would be agreeing to support each other financially and emotionally throughout their lives.� In the absence of any explanation of how this level of commitment would be expressed by the partners concerned or assessed via the process of registration, there will appear to be an imbalance between the process of registration and the rights and obligations which flow from it. We would therefore recommend that the proposed rules regarding the process of registration be reviewed in order to minimise the scope for abuse of the process.

We comment below on individual aspects of the proposals.

1. It is proposed that couples who intend to register a civil partnership would only need to be resident in England or Wales for 7 days before being able to file notice of their intention to register their partnership. Given the benefits which would accrue from the acquisition of partnership status, and the costs to both the state and the private sector, this seems to be an unreasonably short qualification period.
   
   
2. The term used throughout in the document is �same sex� couples. We understand that the intention of the policy is to encompass only relationships of a homosexual nature, but if the legislation does not make this clear then, conceivably, the new status could be adopted by persons of the same sex for material or other gain. This is not to say that marriage can not be entered into by platonic friends of the opposite sex, or indeed for fraudulent or criminal purposes, but a marriage can be avoided if it is not consummated. There needs, therefore, to be some recognition of this implied condition attached to the awarding of civil partnership status.
   
   
3. We agree that, if the new status is to be introduced, registered partners should be given the same state pension rights as married couples once entitlement rights for husbands and wives have been equalised.
   
   
4. We see no problem with the proposal to make it a condition of contracting-out that a private pension scheme provides for survivor benefits to be paid to registered partners. We understand that many occupational schemes are already prepared to recognise same-sex partners for this purpose. Although this change would be reasonable in the context of the Government�s policy, the obligation for schemes to provide survivor benefits to surviving partners and dependent children will amount to a potentially substantial cost, particularly for those schemes which currently recognise only the rights of spouses, at a time when the finances of private schemes are under substantial strain.
   
   
5. On page 50, the paper discusses the division of property on dissolution of a civil partnership. If the analogy to marriage is to be followed in this respect, then there will need to be express provision for the courts to order the sharing of pension rights as at the date of dissolution. We do not see any technical problem with this but, given the sensitive nature of the issue of pension rights on divorce, the situation should be clarified.  
   
   
6. We welcome the proposals regarding intestacy and inheritance on pages 62 and 63. We would, however, wish to see all areas of tax law applied to same-sex partnerships in the same way as they apply to married relationships. The full range of rights of tax-free transfers of assets under Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax should apply.

Back to top