Local Government Bill — Prohibition on promotion of homosexuality: bullying — 25 Jul 2000

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 10: No. 2, in page 16, line 21, at beginning insert--

("Subject to section ( Alternative arrangements in case of certain local authorities ),").

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15 and 17.

Commons amendment No. 10 goes to the heart of the Bill.

increased efficiency, transparency and accountability.

in total opposition to a main plank of the Bill.

The amendments open the possibility that for certain councils the options for new constitutions from which local people can choose will, in addition to the range of executive constitutions, include constitutions based on a modernised committee system.

delivering the increased efficiency, transparency and accountability which the Government . . . wish to see.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 21-22.]

If councils like the models proposed by the Government, they can . . . move in that direction, but the structures should not be imposed on them.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A , 16 May 2000; c. 158.]

savaged by a dead sheep.--[ Official Report , 14 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1027.]

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15, and 17 agreed to.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 120: No. 19, in page 26, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 5A") and insert ("paragraphs 5B to 5I")

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 35 add several modifications to the schedule that was introduced into the Bill in the Commons on Report. That schedule sweeps up a number of amendments to the Local Government Act 1972, which are consequential upon the establishment of executives and elected mayors under part II.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23, and 25 agreed to.

Lords Reason:

The Lords disagree to Commons amendment No. 377 for the following Reason:

Because the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality contained in section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by Clause 91 of the Bill, should remain in force.

I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 and 39 to 41.

will be legal to promote gay rights in citizenship lessons, which, I understand, are shortly to become compulsory.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 102.]

It is bizarre that any Government I lead should be seen as anti-family.

I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.

objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.--[ Official Report , 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]

I regard Section 28 as bad legislation. If it is not repealed today, what effect will that have? Reference has already been made to the certificate attached to the Bill. Will the Bill, when enacted, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? Will it contravene our own Human Rights Act, which comes into force into October?--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 118.]

with (a) Childline, (b) the NSPCC and (c) Barnardos about the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.

The Government have had no discussions with Childline, the NSPCC or Barnardos about the repeal of section 28. I understand that the organisations do not hold official positions on the repeal.--[ Official Report , 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 5W.]

I would suggest that there are fewer guidelines to censure bullying when it's over the issue of sexuality.

Section 28 is a major stumbling block to discussing sexual orientation and homophobic bullying.

The research evidence therefore suggests something that Conservative Members will not accept: section 28 helps homophobic bullying. They can ignore the scientific research, but they must recognise that they are doing so.

Question put, That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 377, to which the Lords have disagreed:--

The House divided: Ayes 381, Noes 36.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con117 0073.1%
Lab263 (+2 tell) 3 (+1 tell)064.7%
LDem0 32 (+1 tell)070.2%
PC0 1025.0%
UUP1 0011.1%
Total:381 36066.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Miss Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLabno
Mr Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabno
Mr John McAllionDundee EastLabno
Mr John McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabtellno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive