Passion For Life.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham moved, as an amendment to the Motion, Amendment No. 36A:

at end insert, “but do propose Amendment Nos. 36B and 36C as consequential amendments to the Bill:

Page 52, line 27, at beginning insert “Subject to subsections (3) and (4)”

“(3) No order bringing sections 42 and 43 into force shall be made until after the publication of the results of an 18-month consultation with children and young people on the effects of these sections.

(4) An order under subsection (3) shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, Clauses 42 and 43 of the Bill were not debated on the Floor of the other place because of the shortage of time. In the final minutes of the remaining stages last Wednesday, it was said by the Member who tabled amendments to Clause 42 and 43:

“I am deeply saddened that we have not had a proper debate, and that there has not been a chance for every Member to go through one or other Division Lobby, on the issue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/08; col. 410.]

On Monday, the following letter appeared in the Daily Telegraph, setting down a challenge to this House:

“Sir—It is a sad reflection on the state of democracy in Britain that last Wednesday, without proper debate, the Government pushed through its highly controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (Letters, October 25) ... There was no opportunity to debate the extraordinary proposals for deliberate creation of children with the intention they be denied a father for the duration of their childhood ... we hope the Lords will do all it can to make good these failings”.

Given the lack of opportunity for scrutiny of Clauses 42 and 43, and attendant concerns that questions will be asked about our parliamentary process, I have been more than happy to table the amendment in my name that seeks to provide opportunity for greater scrutiny of these two clauses. I will first outline some of the problems of these provisions before focusing on the consultation proposed in my amendment.

Currently, at the point of conception, every child has a chance of having a father as a parent during their childhood. I stress the word “chance” because there is no right to have a father than the law can guarantee. In this regard, there are at least two scenarios which we need to keep in view. First, disaster might strike; tragically, some fathers are killed before the birth of their children. Secondly, we must have regard

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1635

for women who become pregnant either naturally or by IVF, with no immediate prospect of a present father who can input into the child’s life. At the point of conception, however, both have the chance of having a father because in the first instance, we do not know that the father will die, and in the second, the fact that a woman is not married or living with a partner when she becomes pregnant does not mean that it is intended that she will remain that way for the duration of the child’s childhood. She may marry at a later stage, and then the child would enjoy access to a social father for a period.

While the law cannot guarantee a present father, it would surely be quite wrong, in my view, for the state to put in place a legal framework to allow for the deliberate creation of children with the intention that they should be denied the chance of ever having a father throughout their childhood, yet this is precisely the effect of the clauses before us.

In making this point, I am keenly aware that some will say that with gay adoption legal, the point of principle has been conceded, and Clauses 42 and 43 simply outwork its implications in the context of IVF. This, however, is completely untrue. When a child is conceived who is later adopted by a lesbian couple, they have the chance of being parented by a father and may well have been parented by a father for a period. These children were not deliberately created with official sanction of the intention that they should be denied a father for the duration of childhood. While an argument can be made that despite the evidence suggesting the importance of fathers, it is better for children to be looked after by a loving same-sex family than for them to be in an institution, it is not appropriate—given the balance of research which clearly demonstrates the importance of fathers to the well-being of children as well as the importance of children’s rights— deliberately to create children with the intention that they should be denied a father for the duration of their childhood.

When I was at school, we were told how bad things were for children in the 19th century. We were told how the upper classes suffered under a regime in which they were to be seen and not heard and how the lower classes were sent up chimneys and down mines. Since then, our teachers told us, things have improved, and in many ways they clearly have. But this legislation causes me big concerns. It shows a preoccupation with the rights of adults and would-be parents and loses sight of the importance of the rights of the child. In highlighting this point, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who has prepared a legal opinion on the parenthood implications of the Bill. The opinion concludes that the changes proposed in the legislation,

“introduce an imbalance of human rights protections as between same-sex parents and the child. It is often said that in matters such as adoption, the best interests of the child are paramount. I do not see how the best interests of the child are served by the introduction of these changes”.

Given the problems with Clauses 42 and 43, not least in relation to human rights, it seems only appropriate that we should pause before implementing these extremely controversial proposals. As well as revisiting the human rights arguments in light of the balance of current research about what is in the child’s best interests, I also think it is vital to listen to the views of children

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1636

and young people specifically. It is interesting that the consultation process that went before the Bill—the 2005 review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act—managed to construe some key questions without even mentioning the child directly. Consider the following:

“The Government seeks views on whether the status and legal parenthood provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act should apply to same-sex couples who do not form a civil partnership. If so, how would automatic recognition of parenthood be achieved, given the lack of legal ties between the couple?”.

The provision of an appropriate focused consultation exercise with children and young people would be entirely appropriate given the Government’s commitment to consult with children and young people in the Children’s Plan. Indeed, it seems to me that if the Government are to consult with children and young people on anything, they must surely talk to them about controversial proposals such as these which seek deliberately to create children with the intention that they be denied a father for the duration of their childhood and are vulnerable to the accusation that they have been developed out of regard for the interests of adults rather than children.

I very much look forward to hearing the views of other Members of your Lordships' House on this important issue. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the House will be relieved to hear that I do not look upon this as an opportunity to rehash all the arguments about why, when treatment is being considered, regard should be had to the child’s need for a father. But in view of the fact that there was no debate in the other place of Clauses 42 and 43, I think some brief comments are appropriate.

We often discuss in this place the rights of children, and I find it absolutely astonishing that we are being asked to sanction the deliberate creation of children with the intent that they be denied a father for the duration of their childhood, completely ignoring those children’s rights. That seems so obviously wrong that there is no need for further words of embellishment. But how can it be seriously argued that the right of two women to have a child is so strong that it completely overwhelms and drives out of court other people’s rights, in particular the rights of the child they insist on bringing into the world?

One of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that same-sex couples may produce a child by donor, the arrival of the child being the very object of the exercise. I believe that its human rights are as important, if not more important, than the rights of the same-sex couple. I shall certainly support the right reverend Prelate’s amendment, but must say that I find wholly objectionable the idea that by a legal fiction, a child should find itself with two women as its parents instead of a father and a mother. I do not believe that such a child’s human rights are being properly protected.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I very much welcome and support the right reverend Prelate’s amendment. It is deeply concerning that Clauses 42 and 43, which raise such profound human rights and welfare questions for children, were never debated on

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1637

the Floor of the other place. If we vote for this amendment today, that will at least result in the issue being sent back to the other place and then, I hope, in the provision of a proper debate by the elected Chamber on this far-reaching issue. I believe that that is our responsibility, regardless of what we think of the issues.

As previous speakers have pointed out, there is all the difference in the world, from the perspective of the rights of the child, between allowing a child to be adopted by a same-sex couple in preference to their remaining in an institution and for the state to provide for their deliberate creation with the intention they be denied a father for the duration of their childhood. It is not clear to me how we can sanction this without allowing the rights of the would-be parents to trump the rights and best interests of the child. As the right reverend Prelate noted, to this degree Clauses 42 and 43 invoke the failings of previous ages albeit in new contexts.

We need to pause. The Government need to study carefully the legal opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. We need to at least consider and carefully analyse how children themselves will feel about the future, deliberate creation of children with the intention that they be denied a father. There is an undeniable moral argument that, however powerful a Government may consider themselves to be, they should not embark on such a blatantly unnatural procedure as this Bill proposes. Since moral arguments seem to have less consequence today—not least within the higher echelons of new Labour—let me look briefly at a purely social contradiction.

It is a social requirement—I agree with it—that errant fathers should be pursued and legally obliged to provide for the upbringing of their children. How can that obligation possibly be sustained when the Government are today willing to decree that children can be denied a father? What is the essential difference to a child between its father avoiding the responsibility of fatherhood and the Government nullifying its right to have a father? Both are effectively the same. This Bill will create an absolute paradox as it currently stands. Nor do I hear any cogent case to support this contradiction coming from society in general.

Returning to my original point, it is absolutely clear that we must vote for this Motion and provide the opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the other place on the deliberate creation of children with the intention that they be denied a father. We owe this much to children here in the United Kingdom.

Lord Patten: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass. On this issue I can say to him, “No surrender”. I agree with everything he has brought to your Lordships’ attention. I will not repeat the views I have expressed earlier in Committee and on Report, although it is a sad reflection on the state of participatory democracy that, as the right reverend Prelate said in his splendid introductory remarks, another place did not find the time to discuss something of rather fundamental importance. History will look back sadly and judge this.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1638

That said, I have two points to make. First, I recall not points that I made earlier but the whole drift of debate here in Committee and on Report from those who supported this approach. They have been highly utilitarian about supporting the needs, desires and wants of parents who choose not to include a father; they should have those desires satisfied now. No consideration at all has been given to possible adverse effects on children years or decades down the line. Those arguments were rather brushed aside as not being worthy of consideration in the times we live in now. I think that is sad. I am sure that if this particular provision passes into law, sociologists and others will quite quickly be starting generational studies to see what happens to children brought up in this way and how they turn out in 10, 12 or 15 years. I cannot predict the results of that but there are serious issues of concern in proceeding in this way.

Secondly, I genuinely support the Government’s approach over the past 10 years to wider consultation. It has been good. It is sometimes hard to understand or interpret the results, but that is not the Government’s fault. The Government have been exceptionally good at consulting. There is a lesson there for future Governments. Yet I find it extraordinary that this Government, who are so keen on consultation, should choose not to consult children about this key issue. These are their rights. The children we would consult may not be born under these circumstances but when I have consulted those who are called children—albeit statistically a small group—they cannot believe that this sort of thing is happening without their opinion being sought.

It is extraordinary that the Government do not pause and think again on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, said, we should send this back to another place so that they can look properly at it. They can at least demonstrate that they have given some consideration to something which in future years will be seen to be extraordinarily dismissive of the rights of children in a way that flies in the face of so much else that this Government have done concerning the rights of children.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for not being present when he started moving his amendment.

I do not want to repeat what I said earlier in Committee, but I remind the House that Section 1 of the Children Act says that the welfare of children is paramount. I am well aware that we are discussing something rather less than the rights of children. We are talking about the advice given to would-be parents going through the process.

I have experienced in my previous life extremely good care being exhibited by single-sex parents, both male and female. I also care about the situation in which two men who may exclude women from their lives as I do about two women who may exclude men. We need to bear in mind the fact that if we take out the word “father”, the message that goes out to the public is that fatherhood—and to some extent perhaps motherhood—matters less than I would have thought this Government thought it did.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1639

Baroness Barker: My Lords, it has become apparent over the past 10 months or so, as I have closely followed deliberations at every stage of this Bill both here and in another place, that it is the fate of us in this House to be considered heroes when we disagree with the House of Commons and largely ignored when we do not. I say that to make the point that the amendment of the right reverend Prelate is unnecessary for a number of reasons. His amendment to delay the implementation of these two clauses is effectively a wrecking amendment. It takes away the recognition of a woman who is a civil partner of a woman who had received treatment until there has been an 18-month consultation with young people. I will return to the nature of the consultation. To begin, I point out two things.

First, on 19 and 20 May, the whole of the House of Commons, on the Floor of the House of Commons—before the Bill was debated in Committee—discussed the issue we have come to know as the need for a father. They did so and, happily, reached the same conclusion as Members of this House: this legislation should reflect the fact that we now have civil partnerships in this country and that there are families of same-sex couples with children.

The amendment is unnecessary for another reason: this provision was debated extensively in your Lordships’ House. Many noble Lords took part in debates at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading, where some made Second Reading speeches also. The matter was given a great deal of time. I say that to make the following point. Members of this House decided earlier this year that we should have legislation that acknowledges the existence of those families. It did not do so lightly or without consideration of the best interests of children. Members of this House bothered to read research findings that were presented to them. Some of it, such as the dossier provided by Christian Action Research and Education, turned out not to be research at all but merely anecdotal opinion. The sociological studies that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned have been going on for some considerable time. Professor Susan Golombok and other colleagues at Cambridge, who are the foremost academics on research into families and fatherhood, presented information that was made freely available to all noble Lords. Some of us, who are diligent enough to believe that it is our duty to look after the best interests of children, read that research and arrived at a conclusion.

Some Members of this House do not accept the conclusions that the majority reached and would rather that civil partnerships did not exist. I think that some Members of this House would rather that gay people did not exist, but they do. They do. The whole point of this legislation was to ensure that children born into those families receive the same legal recognition and protection as other children. What will be achieved by doing what the right reverend Prelate asks? It will defer indefinitely protection for a very small group of children who live in families, meaning that they do not have the legal protection of both their parents. They will not be able to inherit property and financial support as other children do.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1640

The right reverend Prelate talks about consultation. Which children and young people would he consult? What would he ask them, and what would he do with the results of the consultation? If we have learned anything over the past 10 months, during which we have looked into all the matters in the Bill, it is that it is very easy for two groups of people to present the same issue completely differently and to elicit from the public diametrically opposite results. I do not believe that that is how we should treat matters of such importance. It is the role of Members of Parliament to consider all the best evidence before them and to come to what they believe is a legislative framework that will look after the rights of children.

We are where we are today in our society. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was right to remind us of Section 1 of the Children Act. The rights of children are paramount, and some of us who disagree with other noble Lords who have already spoken have kept that to the forefront of our mind throughout debates on this legislation. We have come to the conclusion that it would be right to reflect civil partnership in all its implications and to ensure that children who at the moment do not have the opportunity to grow up in stable and secure families can do so. I hope that noble Lords will recall our earlier discussions and resist the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I cannot forbear intervening in this debate, though I will be very brief. I was moved by what the right reverend Prelate said and cannot help thinking that nothing said since has successfully rebutted what he alleged at the very beginning of this debate. I simply cannot understand why it can be right in any circumstances to put the child’s interests last; to my mind, they must be put first, as established in previous legislation. In this case, the legislation does not do that; it puts them in a secondary position. We all know how dangerous it is to break with an acknowledged fact—in this case, for instance, that children are very important and should be considered as such because they often have no voice of their own. Once we have agreed that, how can we go back on it? That is what we are doing.

I wish to make one further small point—it seems a big point to me. Surely we are denying children the right to a father not only during their childhood but throughout their life. I have found on many occasions, and many noble Lords will know this from their own family, how a young person over 18 can have as much need and love for his father as a much younger child. I cannot accept this.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. I will not repeat the arguments I rehearsed at Second Reading and will be as brief as I can. A couple of years ago, I attended a course in child development. After one of the lectures I asked the lecturer his view on the very question that we are debating this evening. He said that he had no view but added that he was treating a young man who had been brought up in a same-sex partnership, by lesbian parents. He was treating the young man because those parents did not like men.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1641

They found men objectionable and considered them violent so this young man was recovering from an experience where his gender, his identity, was seen as objectionable in his own family.

I hope that that is a one-off situation, but it is an interesting coincidence that the one time I asked the therapist that question, he pointed out that he was treating a young man who grew up in a same-sex partnership and had those issues. I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister. There must be a concern that at least some of those same-sex parents will have antipathy to the other sex. Does it not really reinforce the argument for ensuring as far as possible that there is at least a father figure for a son to turn to if he grows up in such a situation. That causes me concern.

I recognise that this is a very complex matter. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, raised the issue of how you implement legislation in this area. Emphasis should be put on the need to struggle with parents to get them to consider what the needs of the child will be if, for instance, a son is born to two mothers. What additional support will that family need in terms of having a male figure to take an interest in the son?

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked how one would consult children on these matters. I understand that these things are difficult to do well, but the Children’s Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green, is well equipped to do that sort of consultation, and Dr Roger Morgan of Ofsted is well used to doing that for young people in care.

I recognise and am grateful for the work of the Cambridge researchers in this area, Professor Susan Golombok foremost. This is clearly important work. However, to the best of my recollection, it was rather a small sample of families and the age range of children examined was only up to the age of 18. I think that it was observed that, within the two groups—the control group with non-same-sex couples and the other group with same-sex couples—incidences of young people having same-sex relations as they were growing up occurred within the group that had same-sex parents, but did not occur in the couples that were a man and a woman together. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, saying some time ago that we can always find a report to support whatever view we wish to put forward. I am sure that intentions here on all parts are of the best. This is a very emotive issue, but we need to be careful not to take just the evidence that suits us best to achieve our objectives.

The Government have achieved so much for young people, in particular for young people in care. It is a very hard struggle to make a change in this area, as they are starting from such a low base, but the achievements of the Acts on children needing care, and schemes such as Quality Protects and Care Matters, are so important for these young people. I hesitate to criticise the Government in this sort of area because of those achievements. I listened this morning to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, giving evidence on the future of children in care and the Government’s strategy on that. The key thing is that there will now be children in care councils, and children who are in the

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1642

care of a public authority will meet regularly with the leaders and other members of local authorities to tell them what their experiences of care have been and what they would like to see change. Her key principle is that the voice of children will be heard in future in this scenario.

The suggestion from the right reverend Prelate that we should take the opportunity to consult children on this matter, which will concern them very much, is a helpful one. This is a vexed and difficult issue, but I hope that the Minister can offer me some reassurance, particularly about the scenario of two women bringing up a son when they do not particularly like men. If the Minister cannot provide me with reassurance on that point, I regret that I shall have to support the right reverend Prelate if he decides to divide on this amendment.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, and particularly the distinction that he makes between the situation on adoption and the situation being created here. It is highly important that the views of children on this matter are taken.

Lord Bates: My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate in his amendment. The amendment does not seek to wreck the provisions, as some noble Lords suggest; it is calling for further reflection and consideration and seems entirely appropriate. The matters that we are debating today I regard as by far the most serious that we have considered. We have spent a lot of time talking about planning and pensions, which are huge matters—but what is at stake here are pure definitions of life, origin and family.

To follow on from what the noble and learned Lord said, a key issue here will be one of coherence. It is worth reflecting for a second on what Clause 45 as currently worded actually states, which the amendment seeks to change. The clause is entitled, “Further provision relating to sections 42 and 43”, and says:

“Where a woman is treated by virtue of section 42 or 43 as a parent of the child, no man is to be treated as the father of the child”.

I may not be a scientist, but as a father I am pretty aware that that cannot be true. There is a father to the child; the question is whether that father should be acknowledged or not. The father will be acknowledged over the age of 18, when the child will be entitled to seek out that person—so at that point he will be there. The question is whether the factual existence of the father is acknowledged.

When this legislation was first introduced, it was as a necessary amendment to the 1990 Act in this area, which stated very clearly that various factors had been taken into account, including the need of that child for a father. I am not sure what has changed since 1990 that would make it necessary to delete that sentiment and that fact from the legislation. On the contrary, much of the legislation that has come forward in the Children Act, as well as the Child Support Agency, puts huge pressure on fathers to take on board their financial and moral obligations to children. So we need to be very careful in all legislation that is passed through this House to ensure that we send out the right message. The message that is encapsulated in the

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1643

amendment as proposed by the right reverend Prelate is that fathers are important—they are a fact and they are essential.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36A, 36B and 36C have been tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham and look to delay significantly the enactment of the clauses of the Bill which enable a child born as a result of assisted reproduction to a same-sex couple to have two legal parents.

The Bill seeks to ensure that civil partners and other same-sex couples are recognised as the legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs, or embryos, in line with married couples and unmarried heterosexual couples. In addition to this, the Bill amends the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to enable the second female parent to be named on the birth certificate. This is consistent with the wider government policy on promoting equality, as evidenced by the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the national legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The provisions relating to the recognition of the female second parent are set out in Clauses 42 and 43, which bring the provisions for female civil partners in line with those for married couples, and the provisions for other same-sex couples with those for heterosexual couples who are not married. These provisions enable a child born to a same-sex couple to have two legal parents, which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, must be in the best interests of the child.

Amendments Nos. 36A, 36B and 36C would significantly delay the enactment of these very important provisions. The idea that we have had no time to debate this issue seems to me nonsense; the principle of same-sex parents was debated at length in the context of the need for a father, from the 1990 Act. This specific issue was debated on the Floor of the House in another place for almost three hours; it was also debated at length in this House and many noble Lords took part in those debates during that period. I remind the right reverend Prelate that this is something that has been subject to considerable valuable debate; the House has voted and made its position quite clear. The issue has been debated and voted on in another place and Members of that House agreed to the position in the Bill as it left this House. Therefore, let us be quite clear that the current position in the Bill on this issue reflects an agreed position between the two Houses. As your Lordships are aware, the purpose of today’s debate is to consider those changes made to the Bill in another place, not those issues on which the House has already decided.

I shall recap what these changes do. Clause 42 brings the provisions for female civil partners into line with those for married couples. The Archbishop’s amendments—sorry, I mean the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate. I am giving him a promotion that I am sure he deserves. His amendments would delay, perhaps significantly, the commencement of the Bill’s provisions, but would enable both members of the same-sex couple to be recognised as the legal parents of a child born to them following assisted reproduction. To delay this would be unfair to the

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1644

couple and also deprive the children of having two parents. I shall turn to some of the studies referred to in a moment, but the Bill protects the interests of the child by ensuring that it has two parents named on its birth certificate. A provision that would not give the child a father is simply removing the child’s second parent. This would not be in the child’s best interest and the Government are content that these provisions are compatible with the convention.

Noble Lords may not approve of same-sex couples being parents but the fact is that they are parents, and they are good parents. The suggestion which has run as an undercurrent through this debate, that same-sex parents are of less value than mixed-sex parents, is quite offensive and incorrect. We have had these discussions many times and we know that opinion on these issues runs high in your Lordships’ House, but it is sad to suggest in this day and age that having two women as loving parents is somehow to deny a human right to a child.

Clause 43 makes parenthood provisions for female couples who are not in a civil partnership where one of the women gives birth to a child following assisted conception treatment at a UK-licensed clinic. If valid female parenthood conditions are in place with the partner at the time of the conception of the child, the other woman will be treated as the parent of that child. The provisions in Clause 43 mirror those for unmarried heterosexual couples where the woman has a child as a result of assisted conception with donor sperm in a UK-licensed clinic.

The effect of the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate would delay the enactment of these important clauses, which have been debated extensively in this House and at length in another place. I encourage the right reverend Prelate to withdraw the amendment, but if he decides to move it, I invite the House to resist it.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. She used the word “offensive” when she was referring to some people who thought it was better for a child to have two parents, a male and a female. What is the Government’s definition of a family?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, we have discussed this at great length. Evidence presented to the Joint Committee of both Houses, for example, demonstrated that the emotional well-being and other aspects of development of children growing up in lesbian families are comparable to those in heterosexual families. Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, have suggested that what is important is that children are brought up in loving, supportive families. It is unrealistic to suggest that that is an undesirable situation when that is what happens. We need to make sure that such children are not disadvantaged by the legal process through not having legitimate parents entered on their birth certificates. That is what the amendment is about.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, I want to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, by keeping moderation as the tone of the debate. He set a good example at the beginning of this Session. I

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1645

am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for the issues they have raised. Now is not the time for an academic seminar. I resist strongly the suggestion that this is intended to be a wrecking amendment. I am conscious that many social lives will be wrecked if we prolong this debate too long, but we are engaging in legitimate due parliamentary process at this time and that is why I am pursuing the matter.

There is a major moral issue here, a major debate. I have heard enough discomfort around the Chamber and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 36A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 121.

Ahmed, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Bates, L. [Teller]
Bew, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Byford, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hylton, L.
Kilclooney, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laird, L.
Listowel, E.
Lyell, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L. [Teller]
Mancroft, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mawson, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Meacher, B.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Neill of Bladen, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Patten, L.
Pendry, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Rogan, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Sharples, B.
Southwell and Nottingham, Bp.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Tombs, L.
Waddington, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.

Adams of Craigielea, B.
Addington, L.
Adonis, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Barnes, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crawley, B.
Darzi of Denham, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Drayson, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dykes, L.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Emerton, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.


29 Oct 2008 : Column 1646

Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Goodhart, L.
Goudie, B.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Joffe, L.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Malloch-Brown, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Myners, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Noakes, B.
Patel, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Prosser, B.
Rea, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rennard, L.
Richard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rooker, L.
Roper, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sandwich, E.
Sawyer, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tonge, B.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Tyler, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Warnock, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.