Policy #826: "Homosexuality — Equal rights"

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The majority of MPs voted to insert a new clause into the Crime and Disorder Bill^[1] which read:^[2]

• In Sexual Offences Act 1956,^[3] substitute "sixteen" for the word "eighteen".
• In Sexual Offences Act 1967,^[4] substitute "sixteen" for the word "eighteen".
• In Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995,^[5] substitute "sixteen" for the word "eighteen".
• In Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), substitute "18" with "17".

The last part was to equalize the age of consent between homosexual and heterosexual acts which at the time was set at 17 in Northern Ireland.

This clause did not survive into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,^[6] and finally appeared in Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000.

• [1] Crime and Disorder Bill, House of Lords, 1 April 1998
• [2] Ann Keen MP, House of Commons, 22 June 1998
• [3] Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 12, buggery
• [4] Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 1, amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private
• [5] Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 13, homosexual offences
• [6] Crime and Disorder Act 1998, OPSI

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time:--

A majority of MPs voted for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to be read a second time, thus moving it closer to becoming law.

The bill sought to reduce the age at which buggery was legal from 18 to 16. ("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) It also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 130.

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age at which buggery, indecency between men, and homosexual acts in private is legal from 18 to 16.

MPs were considering the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That the clause stand part of the Bill

The clause in question was Clause 1^[1] titled: Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful.

("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) The clause also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

• [1] Clause 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Third time

A majority of MPs voted for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to be read a third time, thus moving it closer to becoming law.

The bill sought to reduce the age at which buggery was legal from 18 to 16. ("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) It also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

This looks like the vote on S1M-430.1

The description in the bulletin on 2000-01-19 is:

*S1M-430.1 Phil Gallie: Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill—As an amendment to motion (S1M-430) in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, leave out from "endorses" to end and insert "considers that the principles of equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity and creating a new criminal offence of breach of trust as set out in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill considered by the UK Parliament in the 1998-99 parliamentary session fall entirely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and on that basis agrees that these matters be judged only after full consultation with the Scottish people."  

You can search for this motion (S1M-430.1) on TheyWorkForYou

Text Introducing Division:

The first question is, that amendment S1M-430.1, in the name of Phil Gallie, which seeks to amend motion S1M-430, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

No.

There will be a division. Those who wish to support Phil Gallie's amendment should press the yes button now.

This looks like the vote on S1M-430

The description in the bulletin on 2000-01-18 is:

*S1M-430 Mr Jim Wallace: Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill—That the Parliament endorses the principles of equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity and creating a new criminal offence of breach of trust as set out in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill considered by the UK Parliament in the 1998-99 parliamentary session and agrees that the UK Parliament should consider any Bill introduced in the same terms in the current session.  

You can search for this motion (S1M-430) on TheyWorkForYou

Text Introducing Division:

The second question is, that motion S1M-430, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

No.

There will be a division. Those who wish to support Mr Wallace's motion should press the yes button now.

Wikipedia has plenty of information and history on Section 28 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Clause 68 of the Bill being debated stated "Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material) ceases to have effect."

Baroness Young proposed an amendment that would delete this clause and replace it with one that added to section 2A some text that the clause did not "prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying".

This amendment was voted on and carried, and so section 28 was not repealed at this time.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The Bill is based on the principle of equality before the law. It also provides added protection for the vulnerable. I am deeply committed to the Bill, although the Government and, I believe, the Opposition regard it entirely as a matter for a free vote according to individual conscience, rather than a matter for the party Whips.

I am saddened that yet another year has passed without this reform on the statute book. The House has endorsed the principle of equality not once but twice. We included child protection measures as part of the Bill last year and asked the other place to agree. Regrettably, it has rejected the Bill. It has opposed equality and failed to support--indeed, even properly to consider--the child protection measures.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

rose --

and women. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, the Bill will lead us towards a more tolerant, less bigoted society in which all people, after centuries of struggle, will at last be treated as equals. The measure is a small step in that direction. Please let us not put up barriers of bigotry now; let us move on to a more enabling and refreshing agenda.

The report also stated that, last year, of the 1,070 heterosexual people living in Britain who contracted human immune deficiency virus--many of whom underwent HIV testing because of increased concern among women about the disease--only 62 contracted the disease in this country. When I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) that the great majority of the women in that group came from the sub-continent, she jumped on the statement and said that it simply showed that heterosexual populations in other countries are severely affected by the disease.

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

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 102.

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

(b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying.'.-- [Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Madam Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.

a proper statement on what should be the role of local authorities.--[ Official Report , 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 990.]

It is not right for pupils to be taught, in any school, that homosexuality is the norm.

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

In the Government's view, 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 have a view about young people being able to sort out their own ideas in a supportive environment in which they are not subject or vulnerable to bullying because they are unsure about themselves. That is what the measure is about.

The repeal will remove discriminatory and confusing legislation from the statute book.

I think that I am quoting the right hon. Lady fairly. She also said:

People have suffered far too much fear and intimidation . . .--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A , 20 June 2000; c. 541-2.]

we don't have any concrete evidence . . .

My own experience is that there is no evidence that section 28 has had a negative effect on teachers' ability to deal with bullying. No head teacher has raised it with me in all the school visits I have made.

Jointly, we can say to you that bullying goes on in every school . . . whatever its causes, Eastbourne Schools, in common with other institutions, are not prepared to accept it . . . In our experience, there is no single, major root cause of bullying, however, we do work hard through social and moral education to eradicate prejudice.

Matters of bullying are about demanding dignity and respect for the individual as a human right.

If I deal with a pupil who has bullied a boy because he is wearing a turban, there is no suggestion that in doing so I am promoting Sikhism . . . The claim that Section 28 prevents schools from dealing effectively with bullying arising from homophobia says more about a school's policy on bullying than it does about Section 28.

We believe . . . in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life.--[ Official Report , 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 840.]

there has been enormous confusion about how the section applies in schools.

of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship,

This prohibition applies to the activities of local authorities themselves, as distinct from the activities of governing bodies and staff of schools.

A local authority shall not--

(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.

Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

Try experimenting--

with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

They are just part of life, as common as colds and flu.

Sexually transmitted infections don't just go away, they are not like colds.

Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

local government that listens to what people really want--how they want to be governed and how they want their services to be delivered.

the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

learning the value of family life, marriage and stable and loving relationships for the nurture of children.

The second is

learning to make choices based on an understanding of difference and with an absence of prejudice.

learning the reasons for delaying sexual activity, the benefits to be gained from such delay, avoidance of unplanned pregnancy.

no-one shall be enslaved by conformity.

The climate was such that homosexuality was a taboo subject and so there was no support system for me to turn to when I was raped at 13 by a "heterosexual" man of 30. When I confided in another

pupil, I was then repeatedly seriously assaulted by gangs of older pupils and no help, guidance or support was offered by the staff. I also felt unable to involve my family, due to the general hostility and ignorance which prevailed in society at that time.

resources which advocate monogamy or marriage as a solution to HIV.

I can never forget as a Jew that homosexuals were sent to Auschwitz just as Jews were. Therefore if our society has become more tolerant that is a good thing. However, the current proposal is based on a fundamental confusion between tolerance and moral

judgment. There is a real danger that the abolition of section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage.

Our objection is that a small and unrepresentative pressure group appears to have seized control of the government and is attempting to change the law in order to thrust on our children--and on the children of the rest of society--lifestyles and values which most people reject.

seeks to prevent the promotion of a gay lifestyle as a moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. It recognises that education is a formative experience and has a unique role in the development of not just individual pupils but of society as a whole.

Governments, both Conservative and New Labour, put the family at the heart of a stable society. Section 28 is the logical out-working of that policy in the education system.

I do have a little knowledge of the subject.

a lifelong supporter of the Labour party . . . a parent, a doctor and a Christian.

I have seen a variety of leaflets and promotional literature originating from gay rights groups, some of which are in receipt of grants from their local authorities, which have already been issued to schools despite the existence of Section 28 as it stands at present. This material not only encourages children very frankly to experiment with a homosexual lifestyle to "determine their sexual orientation" at a time when they are very vulnerable and impressionable.

Repeal would open the door, not just to the very proper factual and unbiased teaching about homosexuality which should form part of a sex education programme, but to this very overt encouragement--

More importantly still, has the likelihood of this access to children being used by covert paedophiles been fully thought through? I ask this as someone who has spent time working in prison with sex offenders. Surely we would all wish to protect our children from this kind of risk?

I doubt very much whether adequate procedures to prevent such exploitation could ever be guaranteed.

We should be very wary of using public funds to promote any kind of ideology, whatever its origin, but especially one where the targeted group is so young and vulnerable.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.-- [Mr. Waterson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 305.

Clause 2 [Defences available to persons who are under age]:

moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 16:

Page 2, line 11, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").

Page 2, line 22, leave out (""a homosexual act"") and insert (""an act of buggery in private with another man"").

Page 2, line 25, leave out ("a homosexual act") and insert ("an act of buggery with another man or commission of an act of buggery").

Page 2, line 26, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").

Page 2, line 27, at end insert--

("(3A) In subsection (1A) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (as inserted by section 1)--

(a) the words from "an act of gross indecency" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and

(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words, "and

(b) an act of gross indecency with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of sixteen and the other party has attained that age.".").

Page 2, line 29, leave out second ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").

Page 2, line 30, leave out ("(8A)") and insert ("(8B)").

Page 2, line 30, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").

Page 2, line 32, leave out ("a homosexual act") and insert ("an act of sodomy").

Page 2, line 33, at end insert--

("(8C) A person under the age of sixteen years does not commit an offence under subsection (5A)(a) or (c) above if he commits or is party to the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency with a person who has attained that age.").

Page 2, line 36, leave out (""a homosexual act"") and insert (""an act of buggery in private by a man with another man"").

Page 2, line 39, leave out ("a homosexual act by any person") and insert ("an act of buggery by a man with another man or commission of an act of buggery by a man with another man").

Page 2, line 40, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").

Page 2, line 41, at end insert--

("(6) In paragraph (1A) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (as inserted by section 1)--

(a) the words from "an act of gross indecency" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and

(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and

(b) an act of gross indecency or commission of an act of gross indecency by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of seventeen and the other party has attained that age.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Abuse of position of trust]:

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 3, line 2, at end insert (", including preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage,").

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 124.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):-

Those voting Aye in this division were in favour of bringing a bill before parliament that gave additional rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 59.

4.-(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

(2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.-<[i>Mr. Sutcliffe.]

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 70.

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill allowed unmarried couples (both heterosexual and homosexual) to adopt children. Those voting aye were for the amendment.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 28, line 41, leave out "married".-[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 133.

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill would have allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children. (Homosexual couples were specifically excluded.) The no-voters defeated this amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 301.

The majority voted to state that, with respect to adoption by couples, only married couples would be allowed to adopt (single adoption was unaffected). It did this by adding the word "married" in various places throughout the Bill (this amendment was the first, and there were later consequential amendments agreed without vote as this one had been agreed with a vote).

Whilst in the commons for the first time, the Adoption and Children bill was amended to allow unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt children. However, when the bill went to the Lords, they rejected the amendment and reinstated the original "married couples only" rule. Back in the commons, the aye voters in this division sought to reject the modification in the Lords and allow umarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt.

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 145.

The majority voted to allow non-married couples to adopt. It did this by accepting the Commons disagreement to a previous Lords Amendment (made in the vote on 16th October 2002), by rejecting an amendment that would have insisted on the previous amendment.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring reports on the impact of repealing a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986 and stated:

• 'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within 24 months of the coming into force of section 119 and at intervals of 24 months thereafter a report containing information on the effect of the operation of that section on—
• (a) the adherence to guidance issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 96);
• (b) the operation of the provisions of section 404 of that Act; and
• (c) the numbers of parents withdrawing their children from sex education pursuant to section 405 of that Act.'.

Clause 119 of the Bill became clause 122 in the Act^[1] and stated:

• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

==

• [1] Clause 122 of the Local Government Act 2003
• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

The majority of MPs voted to repeal a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The Majority of MPs voted to keep a clause in the Local Government Bill^[1] designed to repeal the section in the Local Government Act 1986 that says:^[2]

A local authority shall not

• intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
• promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

The insertion of this section into the law had been as a result of the controversial Section 28 which was part of the Local Government Act 1988.^[3]

The amendment which was rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• Amendment: No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.

Clause 119 of the Bill became clause 122 in the Act^[4] and stated:

• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

==

• [1] Local Government Bill, Clause 119, 13 February 2003
• [2] Local Government Act 1986, Clause 2A, Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
• [3] Local Government Act 1988, Section 28
• [4] Clause 122 of the Local Government Act 2003

Baroness Blatch introduced an amendment that said section 28 would only be repealed "Subject to the terms of section 127(2A)," which are given on http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/082/amend/ml082-iii.htm - this amendment was defeated.

The majority of MPs voted against allowing mixed sex marriages which become a same sex marriage to remain valid as long as neither party objected.

MPs were considering the Gender Recognition Bill.

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Successful applications: married couples and stated:

• 'If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person under section 4(3) an application may be made to the Secretary of State to award a full gender recognition certificate without the provisions of Schedule 2 or section 5 having effect if—
• (a) neither party to the marriage wish the marriage to be dissolved or annulled,
• (b) both parties to the marriage can show they intend to continue living together, and
• (c) the marriage took place before the date of Royal Assent of this Act.

Clause 4 of the Bill was titled Successful applications and began:

• (1) If a Gender Recognition Panel grants an application under section 1(1) it must issue a gender recognition certificate to the applicant.
• (2) Unless the applicant is married, the certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate.
• (3) If the applicant is married, the certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate.

Schedule 2 of the Bill allowed for a marriage to be voided on the grounds of an interim gender recognition certificate being issued to either party (with similar provisions allowing for divorce in Scotland).

Section 5 provided for the subsequent issue of full gender recognition certificate after a marriage involving a party with a interim gender recognition certificate is voided or ended by divorce or the death of a party to the marriage.

Had the rejected new clause become part of the Bill it would have enabled two people legally recognised to be of the same sex to remain married, if they had been previously married as a mixed sex couple.

At the time of the vote same sex marriage was not legal in the United Kingdom

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.

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

The clause in question is as follows.

'(1) Two siblings, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.

(2) In this section "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister.

(3) Chapter 2 of Part 2, Chapter 5 of Part 3 and Chapter 2 of Part 4 shall not apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.

(4) Section [Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples] shall apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

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

The Civil Partnership Bill sought to give homosexual couples the equivalent rights to those of married couples. This clause sought to additionally give those rights to brothers and sisters who were living together. Those voting Aye in this division were voting for the clause.

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 381.

The majority voted to pass the Civil Partnerships Bill, completing its stages in the Commons.

No.

There will be a division.

While the vote is proceeding, I advise members that, in view of the number of extensions to individual time limits this morning, the Presiding Officers are likely, with the agreement of business managers, to be inclined to invite a motion from the floor this afternoon to extend the overall time available for today's business by 30 minutes, if necessary. That would mean that the debate on whether the bill be passed would start at around 4.30 pm, with decision time at 5.30 pm.

The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

The Contents were voting against prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in provision of goods and services in Northern Ireland. The vote was moved by Democratic Unionist Lord Morrow to annul the Equality Act (sexual orientation) regulations (Northern Ireland)

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 199.

The majority of MPs voted to approve a set of regulations^[1] that were made under the Equality Act 2006.^[2]

This Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation, create criminal offences, and provide for exceptions.^[2]

The Regulations define discrimination by a person A against a person B, on grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances).

According to the Regulations it is unlawful for a person A concerned with the provision of goods and services to the public to discriminate against a person B who seeks to obtain goods and services by refusing to provide B with goods and services of a quality which is similar to the quality of goods, facilities or services that A normally provides to the public.

The exceptions include matters concerning a person's home and family relations,^[3] insurance,^[4] blood donation,^[5] Parliament and anything to do with GCHQ.^[6]

As stipulated in the Act, the House of Lords also had to debate and pass the Regulations before they could come into force.^[7]

• [1] Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, 17 April 2007
• [2] Equality Act 2006, Clause 81
• [3] Exceptions to regulations 4 and 5, Clause 6
• [4] Insurance, Clause 27
• [5] Blood donation, Clause 28
• [6] Bodies to which regulation 8 does not apply, Schedule 1, Part 1
• [7] Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, House of Lords, 21 March 2007

• Fears that religious teachers and preachers could be prosecuted for homophobia
• Fears that Catholic adoption agencies and old people's homes would have to cater for gay couples or close
• Arguments that preventing religions discriminating against homosexuals constitutes discrimination against religions
• Arguments that there was not enough scope for debate and the topic was important enough that it ought to be presented as primary legislation with greater opportunities for amendment, rather than as regulations
• and the fact that equivalent regulations in Northern Ireland were currently being contested in the courts and their legality had not been established.

moved Amendment No. 108:

Clause 14, page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert-

"(2) In subsection (5)-

(a) omit ", other than basic partner treatment services," , and(b) for "a father" substitute "supportive parenting"."

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 108, Amendment No. 108A:

Clause 14, line 4, leave out "supportive parenting" and insert "support by a father and a mother"

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108A) shall be agreed to?

*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 165.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the need for both a father and a mother to be considered when taking account of the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of fertility treatment. Instead, the law will stipulate the need for "supportive parenting".

The current text in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 says:^[1]

• A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill under discussion will substitute "a father" for "supportive parenting".^[2]

The vote, which was lost, would have instead changed "a father" to "a father and a mother" as it was written in the 1990 law.^[3]

• [1] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Clause 13(5)
• [2] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Clause 14(2)(b), 6 February 2008
• [3] Iain Duncan Smith MP, House of Commons, 20 May 2008

The majority of MPs voted against requiring a father or male role model to be part of what the law interprets as "supporting parenting" for a child who is born as a result of fertility treatment.

The current text in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 says:^[1]

• A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill under discussion will substitute "a father" for "supportive parenting".^[2]

The vote, which was lost, would have instead changed "a father" to "supportive parenting and a father or male role model".^[3]

A previous vote to change "a father" to "a father and a mother" instead of "supportive parenting" was also lost.^[4]

• [1] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Clause 13(5)
• [2] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Clause 14(2)(b), 6 February 2008
• [3] Mark Simmonds MP, House of Commons, 20 May 2008
• [4] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - Fertility treatment requires father and mother - rejected, Division 197, House of Commons, 20 May 2008

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

Under the law as it was at the time of this vote marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Same sex couples (and only same sex couples) could register a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004^[1]

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[2] ought be given its second reading; i.e.. if they approved the core principle of the Bill and wished to see it proceed towards becoming law.

Key elements of the Bill (from the explanatory notes^[1]):

• provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;·
• provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
• permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
• permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages and on religious premises where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
• provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples in their churches if they wish to do so;
• provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;·provide protection under equality law for organisations and individual ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same sex couples.

Religious organisations and their representatives who do not wish to marry same sex couples are protected from being compelled to do so through a series of religious protections.

• [1] Explanatory notes to the Bill as introduced on 24 January 2013
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted to approve a proposed timetable^[1] for the consideration of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[2].

It is not possible to determine if an MP supports or opposes the substance of the Bill from their vote in this division.

• [1] Official Report, House of Commons, 5 February 2013
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

MPs were technically voting to approve spending arising as a result of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[1].

The text of the approved motion was:

• That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
• (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
• (a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a person holding office under Her Majesty or by a government department, and
• (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and
• (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill ought continue in the next Session of Parliament if its consideration was not concluded.

The text of the motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

Under the law as it was at the time of this vote marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Same sex couples (and only same sex couples) could register a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004^[1]

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[2] ought be given its third reading; i.e.. to approve the Bill as it stood and support it becoming law.

Key elements of the Bill (from the explanatory notes^[1]):

• provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;·
• provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
• permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
• permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages and on religious premises where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
• provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples in their churches if they wish to do so;
• provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;
• provide protection under equality law for organisations and individual ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same sex couples.

Religious organisations and their representatives who do not wish to marry same sex couples are protected from being compelled to do so through a series of religious protections.

• [1] Explanatory notes to the Bill - 9 May 2013
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted to enable the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. The majority of MPs also voted to allow the courts to make decisions in relation to the recognition of judgements in respect of a marriage made in other European Union states.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

The majority of MPs voted to approve detailed procedures for the provision of consent for the registration of, and cancellation of the registration of, formally shared places of religious worship for the purposes of same sex marriage.

The majority of MPs approved the motion:

• That the draft Marriage of Same Sex couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

The majority of MPs voted to require the Secretary of State for Defence have regard to the views of religious organisations which make significant use of an armed forces chapel before deciding if to register the chapel for marriage of same sex couples, or if to cancel such a registration.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Use of Armed Forces’ Chapels) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

The regulations state registrations cannot be made without a certificate stating the chapel in question is not consecrated according to the rites of the Church of England.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of updating the law on marriages outside the UK in the presence of a consular official (Consular Marriages) following the introduction of same sex marriages in England and Wales. The arrangement applies where at least one member of the couple is a UK national, the marriage would have been legal in at least part of the UK, the authorities in the country or territory where the marriage is proposed to take place don't object and insufficient facilities exist for them to enter into a marriage under the law of that place.^[1]

Consular marriages already existed; the proposed new laws follow the introduction of same sex marriage in England and Wales.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the draft Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

==

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the The Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014

The majority of MPs voted in favour of various amendments to acts of Parliament in light of the introduction of same sex marriage.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

Key elements include:

• Requiring those in a same sex marriage be treated under the law of Scotland for the time being as if they were in a civil partnership (as same sex marriage is not lawful in Scotland, though there is legislation to bring it in going through the Scottish Parliament.)
• Consequential amendments to many acts of Parliament following the introduction of same sex marriages.
• Many exceptions to the principle in Section 11 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 which states: "In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples" are made, including some relating to royal titles, rights to peerages and associated titles, EU laws, some pensions regulations, and the defence of marital coercion.

The majority of MPs voted to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.

The motion approved in the vote was:

• That the draft Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.

Key elements of the proposed law^[1]:

• The law enables members of the UK armed forces serving overseas, and relevant civilians, to marry in the presence of an authorised person. This includes marriage of both opposite and same sex couples.
• The law applies to armed services personnel, civilians who are subject to service discipline, as well as dependents of those people.
• The law limits same sex marriages to taking place in those countries or territories which have notified the Secretary of State in writing that there is no objection to such marriages.
• The regulations replace existing provisions so apply to the marriage of both opposite and same sex couples.
• There is a requirement to nominate a part of the UK in which the marriage is to be registered (Marriage of same sex couples is not lawful in Scotland, though there are proposals to introduce it going through the Scottish Parliament, and there are no plans to introduce it in Northern Ireland.)

==

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014

The majority of MPs voted to permit same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland, with a proviso that if a Northern Ireland Executive is formed by 21 October 2019 the new law would cease to have effect.

MPs were considering the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was titled: Marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland and stated:

• (1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the law relating to marriage in Northern Ireland to provide that marriage between same-sex couples is lawful.
• (2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
• (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
• (a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
• (b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
• (4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.

An explanatory note accompanying this proposed new clause stated:

• This new clause would require UK secondary legislation to extend same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland unless a Northern Ireland Executive is formed by 21 October 2019.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (which later became the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation Etc)) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted to legalise abortion in certain circumstances in Northern Ireland as soon as the act comes into force, to enable two persons who are not of the same sex to be eligible to form a civil partnership in Northern Ireland and make a wide variety of other amendments to the Bill.

MPs were considering the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House agrees with Lords amendments 2 to 18.

Lords amendments 2-18^[2][3] require:

reports provided for in the Bill to cover

• *progress made towards transparency of political donations and loans
• *improvement of higher education provision in Northern Ireland
• *establishment of a university whose principal campus is based in Derry/Londonderry
• *regulatory alignment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to gambling
• *establishment of a Renewable Heat Incentive Hardship Unit
• *alignment of Northern Ireland legislation on libel legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom
• *implementation of the Protect Life 2 – Strategy for Suicide Prevention in Northern Ireland
• *Health matters including demand for elective care services and health and social care waiting times
• *mitigation arrangements relating to changes in the welfare system

and provide for:

• *two persons who are not of the same sex to be eligible to form a civil partnership in Northern Ireland, and for regulations related to the changes in the law on marriage and civil partnership to be made, including regulations to in order to "protect the ability to act in accordance with religious or other belief or opinion in relation to marriage or civil partnership".
• *to immediately act to legalise abortion in Northern Ireland in some circumstances but to delay the general deadline for changes to the law on abortion and ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health services from 21 October 2019 to 31 March 2020.
• *the establishment of a scheme of payments for individuals injured in the Troubles
• *a broad power to make "different provision for different purposes" which the explanatory notes state is "a standard provision".
• *changes to the procedure for Parliament to consider certain changes to Northern Ireland's abortion law and sexual and reproductive health services.
• *to change the Bill's title from "Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill" to "Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill" and to add text to the "long title"
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill 2019 (Now the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019), Parliament.uk
• [2] Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, 18 July 2019, Parliament.uk
• [3] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, 18 July 2019, Parliament.uk