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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

*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.