Adoption right for
unmarried couples backed by Lords
In the House of
Lords on Tuesday 5th November 2002 peers voted by 215 to 184, a majority of 31
to allow unmarried and gay and lesbian couples to adopt children during an
impassioned four-hour debate on the Adoption and Children Bill. In October,
peers rejected the move but were asked to reconsider when MPs on Monday
overturned the previous vote.
Supporters of the clause widening adoption, including junior health minister
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, stressed the issue was about children's rights not
parents' rights. The move to allow unmarried and same sex adoption was added to
the Bill in the Commons by the Health Select Committee chairman David
Hinchliffe, and later supported by the Government.
The result was seen as a blow for family values campaigners led by Tory health
spokesman Earl Howe. Tory peers' leader Lord Strathclyde described the result as
disappointing adding that it was "close, but decisive". He stated:
"I hope that in the fervour to promote more adoption outside marriage the
needs of vulnerable children for a stable, lifelong background will still be
remembered. "When the campaigning caravan moves on to the next issue we
must not forget these children."
Tenancy
ruling endorses gay rights
Also
on 5 November in the Court of Appeal, judges ruled that sexual orientation is no
grounds for discrimination in a ruling endorsing the tenancy rights of gay
couples. The Court of Appeal ruling will give same sex partners equal rights to
heterosexuals to take over tenancies when their spouses die. The decision was
being hailed as a landmark victory for gay rights.
During the case, the first to be decided using human rights legislation, three
judges agreed it would be inappropriate for the court to discriminate against
gays and lesbians. It could mean that many claims by homosexuals involving
inheritance, property and family matters will have to be revisited by the
courts, said lawyers. Sexual orientation is now clearly recognised as an
impermissible ground of discrimination
Russell Conway, a solicitor representing a gay man who faced losing his home
when his partner, the tenant, died, said: "This is a sensational judgment
because the Court of Appeal has put itself above parliament and rewritten an
Act. "This is exactly what the Human Rights Act was designed to do."
Hugh Walwyn-Jones was granted a tenancy on a west London, flat in 1983 and
shared it with his partner Antonio Mendoza. When Mr Walwyn-Jones died, landlord
Ahmad Ghaidan wanted to end the statutory tenancy which is subject to rent rise
restrictions. A west London County Court judge ruled that although Mr Mendoza
was entitled to an assured commercial tenancy at the market rate, he could not
have a statutory one because the Rent Act precludes the succession of same-sex
partners.
Legal
interpretation
Paul
Staddon, representing Mr Mendoza, argued that to give a statutory tenancy to the
survivor of a heterosexual relationship when the survivor of an equivalent
homosexual relationship was limited to the less beneficial assured tenancy,
constituted discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Lord Justice
Buxton, who acknowledged the inconsistency, said: "Sexual orientation is
now clearly recognised as an impermissible ground of discrimination." To
set the record straight on the breach of the Convention in the Rent Act, the
judge said the words "as his or her wife or husband" would also have
to mean "as if they were his or her wife or husband". He stressed that
parliament had already removed the requirement that heterosexual partners must
be married to inherit tenancies.
Lord Justice Keene said that in cases involving discrimination against a
minority group, the courts had to be satisfied that there was a rational
justification for the legislation. "It is indeed a classic role of the
courts to be concerned with the protection of such minority rights," he
said. "That being so, this court is entitled to ask whether there is any
rational and proportionate basis for the distinction. "For my part, I am
not satisfied that any such basis has been established."
|