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.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of university tuition fees increasing from £1125 per year to up to £3000 per year, and to make other changes to higher education funding and regulation arrangements.

The majority of MPs voted to allow the Higher Education Bill 2004 to move to its Second reading, and continue its path to becoming law.

The main provisions of the bill were:

• To allow University tuition fees to increase from the fixed £1125 per year to up to £3000 per year.
• To create the Office for Fair Access to regulation higher education institution's charging of fees.
• To create the Office of the Adjudicator in Higher Education - a complaints body - higher education institutions became legally bound to deal with.
• To create the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

==

• [1] Wikipedia article on the Higher Education Act 2004

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill represents a historic step on what has been a long journey to respect and dignity for lesbians and gay men in Britain. It is a natural progression in our vision to build an inclusive society. As such, it builds on reforms that began back in 1967 with Leo Abse's private Member's Bill, backed by the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins. The Government's commitment to equality has been strong and unequivocal. We have equalised the age of consent, outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation, secured protection from homophobic hate crimes and supported the abolition of section 28.

In creating a new legal relationship for same-sex couples, this Bill is a sign of the Government's commitment to social justice and equality. It is also a recognition of the realities of modern Britain. Across this country today thousands of same-sex couples have made the decision to share their lives, their home, their finances and the care of their children or of older relatives. They may have loved and cared for each other for many years, yet their relationship is invisible in the eyes of the law. The Bill sends a clear message about the importance of stable and committed same-sex relationships.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-

Those voting Aye in this division voted to move to Bill for recognising same-sex partnerships to the next stage.

The House divided: Ayes 426, Noes 49.

Those voting Aye agreed that the Education and Inspections Bill be read a Second Time. This means it now goes on to the Committee Stage, the next part of the Parliamentary procedure.

Although there were enough Labour Party rebels to reject the Bill for its Second Reading the Tories backed the Bill and enabled it to proceed.

The main provision of the Bill was to allow schools to achieve 'Foundation' and/or 'Trust' status. Foundation schools enable their governing bodies to directly employ the school staff, become the admissions authority for the school and take on ownership of the school's assets. Trust schools have foundation status with a charitable foundation to support the school.

More information about this can be found on the Supporting Trust and Foundation Schools website.

Other aims of the Bill were to^[1]:

• Reaffirm the existing ban on selection by ability and proposes a ban on interviewing.
• Give local authorities greater scope to intervene more quickly in failing schools.
• Ensure local authorities provide free school transport for the poorest families.
• Enable nutritional standards to be applied to all food and drink on school premises.
• Allow staff to discipline children for bad behaviour even outside of school.
• Ensure parents are held responsible for excluded pupils.

----

• [1] BBC Summary of the Education and Inspections Bill, 8 March 2006

The House of Commons agreed with the Lords amendments to give people, until 2010, the option of not being given an ID card when they renew their "designated document" (passport), though they will still be entered in the National Identity Register. Baroness Scotland sums up the motion

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.