HL Deb 24 June 2004 vol 662 cc1438-62

(1) Two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship if one falls within the list below in relation to the other.

(2) In the list "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Registration by former spouses one of whom has changed sex]:

[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]

Clause 41 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:

Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 19, line 3, after "applicant" insert "at the first available opportunity"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns Clause 41 which details provisions on attempts at reconciliation of civil partners. The clause would allow a court hearing an application to dissolve a civil partnership to adjourn proceedings if it appears that the civil partners have a reasonable possibility of achieving reconciliation. The clause states that the court must make provision for the applicant's solicitors to certify that they have discussed with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and to provide the applicant with details of persons qualified to help the civil partners effect reconciliation.

In Grand Committee, I first raised our concerns regarding this clause in a general clause-stand-part debate, but have now drafted an amendment which is more suited to the point we are trying to make. Our amendment would ensure that the applicant's solicitor raises the possibility of a reconciliation with his client, at the first available opportunity".

We are looking for a way of ensuring that reconciliation is raised by the solicitor as early as possible and not at the courtroom door. An early reconciliation will save the applicant money and both the applicant and the court system time. As I have said on many occasions, civil partnerships are not something which should be entered into lightly and they should be given all the chances that can be given to reconcile such a relationship. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, this may be a very decent and well intentioned amendment and, under other circumstances, it may be the kind of amendment that the Government would want to consider. But, as I understand it, it is designed to deal with the situation where a civil partnership between a same-sex couple is breaking up and those involved are going through a process, which, had they been an opposite-sex married couple, would be called divorce.

Given the amendment that was agreed to this morning, it is very difficult to see how one would apply any such vocabulary to the ending or dissolution of a civil partnership between, say, a mother and son or a brother and sister who remain mother and son or brother and sister even after the civil partnership is over.

Therefore, the noble Baroness will understand that I simply cannot engage in this debate, much as I would wish to do so, because the context within which the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, perfectly decently, would otherwise have been discussed is now completely different. Therefore, I am afraid that the Government cannot make any further response.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

My Lords, following the events earlier today, I entirely understand the Government's difficulty. However, on the assumption that Parliament will, by one route or another, get its act together and sort out the confusions that have arisen, perhaps I may say that the clause that we are debating is a very interesting piece of legislation. I am delighted to see it, and I have some sympathy with the amendment because it also has an implication for matrimonial law and practice.

The language of reconciliation is used on the face of the Bill. I know that the noble and learned Lord who was Lord Chancellor, and who introduced a very important Act of Parliament, Part 2 of which the Government decided not to fulfil a while back, made some efforts to get that into matrimonial law.

If we sort out the mess—I believe that we are in a mess with regard to this Bill—and we find a way of proceeding, perhaps I may say to some noble Lords opposite that this is not just about gay and lesbian couples; it is about same-sex partnerships. Can we keep the language clear so that we include all those who may potentially benefit if we get our act together? However, I should like to encourage the Government to "roll on" if we reach that point and to think about the implications for matrimonial practice as well.

Baroness Wilcox

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the Minister's response to me. However, I had written down "civil partnerships, same sex" and I hope, too, that at some stage we shall be able to consider this amendment. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I was a little confused earlier and I hope that he will excuse me as I nearly referred to him as the Bishop of Guildford. He is right. We are talking about same-sex couples here, and I am delighted that we can at least place that on the record in Hansard. I hope that at some point we shall be able to return to the amendment in some form to see whether we can take it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 [Validity of civil partnerships registered outside England and Wales]:

[Amendments Nos. 27 to 33 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Schedule 5 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.]:

[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

Clause 77 [Adoption]:

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Schedule 9 [Family homes and domestic violence]:

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Clause 82 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 38, line 7, after "has" insert— (a) freely agreed to enter a civil partnership, and (b)

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is one of several Scottish amendments which have been put to us by the Scottish Law Society. This amendment ensures that the parties to a civil partnership clearly agree to enter the partnership. The reason given by the Law Society is that the Bill infers that parties agree to enter the civil partnership by, for example, contemporaneous inscription of the civil partnership schedule. However, there is no specific requirement for agreement between the parties. The amendment provides for that agreement. It would also allow for avoidance of the partnership if a party lacked capacity or was induced to enter the partnership through fraud or under duress. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, in view of the changed nature of civil partnership following the earlier amendment, I am unable to contribute to the debate on this amendment at this stage. In common with the rest of the Bill, the Scottish clauses are fundamentally altered.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, in view of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83 [Eligibility]:

Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 40:

Page 38, line 20, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41.

Page 38, line 26, leave out "of understanding the nature of civil partnership" and insert "of—

  1. (i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or
  2. (ii) validly consenting to its formation".

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on this amendment. The Government have tabled amendments that cover some of these Scottish issues, which are very well thought through. In a way, if the opportunity were open to me, I would prefer Amendment No. 41 to my Amendment No. 42. The same would apply to Amendment No. 47 rather than Amendment No. 48, which are in this group. We are in rather difficult territory at the moment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I remind noble Lords—if they need any reminding—that the Scottish clauses in the Civil Partnership Bill achieve the same policy purposes as Part 2, but they have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scots law. In view of the fundamental change in the definition of civil partnership, following the earlier amendment, I shall not be able to move the Scottish amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely it is the case that whatever the disagreement about the character of civil partnership—we could spend a lot of time on that—it is important that it is entered into responsibly. Therefore, it seems to me that, with respect, what the Minister has just said has no logic. How the partnership is entered into is important, whatever its character. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an amendment that can work.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I beg to differ. I believe that there is an absolute logic in the position that I am taking. We are harmonising English law with Scottish law. If the definition of civil partnership has changed in English law as a result of the vote earlier, we are not comparing like with like. Many of the amendments that the Government were to propose came to us as a result of helpful interventions by the Law Society of Scotland. I anticipate that in due course I shall be able to do the job that I had hoped to do this afternoon, which was to make absolutely sure that there was no conflict between English law and Scottish law in this very important matter. This afternoon I am unable to move the government amendments for that reason.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, however the Bill is drawn up, whatever it covers—whether it covers one group or a wider group, as a result of the earlier amendment—it is important that Scottish law, in particular in relation to these amendments, should be properly written into the Bill. The object of the Law Society of Scotland, as I understand it, in making these suggestions both to the Government and to ourselves, was to improve the way in which Scottish law will apply to whomever it applies. Whether it applies to the narrow group that the Government originally intended, or to a rather wider group, as a result of the decision taken by the House earlier, the Scottish law should be right.

When the Minister reflects on this matter, he will consider that the Scottish law should be right in either case. It seems to me that at least some of the amendments should apply, whether to the narrower group or to the wider group of people. That is particularly true of government Amendment No. 41, which my noble friend the Duke of Montrose said he prefers to the earlier version.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope. In the speaking notes for Amendment No. 41 the phrase "civil partnership" is on every other line. Civil partnership now does not mean what it meant when we started at eleven o'clock this morning.

That is not something that I can do anything about; it is a reality that I have to confront at 5.20 this afternoon. If I talk from my notes about civil partnerships in England and compare them to civil partnerships in Scotland and what needs to be done to harmonise the two concepts, I shall get into a terrible muddle. I cannot do so because we are now dealing with two very different terms. I apologise to the House for taking this stance, but I have been put into this position, as have all Ministers, by the amendment moved this morning and carried by the House.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Like my noble friend Lord Cope I am equally puzzled. I understood that the Bill and the legislation we have in front of us about civil partnerships exactly matched the legislation on marriages and that whatever group one is talking about, if one wishes to parallel the legislation on marriages one would use exactly the same phrase.

[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 38, line 26, at end insert— (1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]

Clause 89 [Objections to registration]:

[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved]

Clause 90 [Place of registration]:

[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]

Clause 110 [Civil partners: competency of interdict]:

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 56, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert— (1) It shall be competent for the Court of Session or the Sheriff to entertain an application by one civil partner in a civil partnership for a relevant interdict.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, the amendment rewords Clause 110 to make a more positive statement of competency for interdict proceedings in the Court of Session or sheriff court. The clause is required because Clause 109 follows closely the wording of Section 14 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act, which created the concept of matrimonial interdicts.

The provision currently employs a double negative. The society is of the view that this could be more clearly expressed. There is no logical necessity to follow the earlier statutory provision, which in any event relates to matrimonial law. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I am in exactly the same position as I was on the previous group of amendments. I have nothing to say to the proposed amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, would the noble Lord have been able to accept the amendment if we had not amended the Bill earlier?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I think we will have to await future developments.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114 [Dissolution]:

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 59, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Duke said: My Lords, the amendment deletes the provision for dissolution on the basis of desertion. Clause 113(3)(b) reflects the provisions contained in Section 1(2)(c) of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976.

The Scottish Law Commission has recommended that desertion as a basis for establishing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage should be abolished. Accordingly, it is appropriate in relation to the civil partnership that this thinking is reflected in the law.

The amendment reconstructs the law relating to dissolution and judicial separation. The Scottish Executive has published a consultation paper on family law reform called Family matters: improving fluidly law in Scotland. It contains firm proposals for two years. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, again, I feel unable to contribute to the debate, although I think that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, would be very happy with the answer that I would give him if I was able to.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, may I take that as an implied acceptance of the amendment?

The Lord Bishop of Winchester

My Lords, while the noble Duke is on his feet, is not the logic of that that he should press his amendment?

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]

Clause 117 [Separation]:

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 56: Leave out Clause 117.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this amendment would delete Clause 117. Clause 117 provides for judicial separation in respect of civil partnerships. Until 1861, a judicial separation was the only consistorial remedy for cruelty and it was only in 1938, when cruelty became a ground of divorce, that separation became less common. It is still competent in a marriage context for people who do not wish to be divorced for religious reasons, given the provisions for dissolution that interdict, and there appears to be no good reason why judicial separation should be extended to civil partnerships. The Law Society of Scotland wants to probe the reasons for including that in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, again, I must say that at this stage, I am unable to respond to the noble Duke's amendments.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, surely the Minister could explain why the Government originally proposed to insert that into the Bill?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, perhaps I may explain that this is Report and I have sat down.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, it is obviously difficult to proceed on this basis.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause I18 [Dissolution following on decree of separation]:

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 57: Leave out Clause 118.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this amendment raises the same argument as that in the previous amendment with regard to Clause 118. I beg to move.

5.29 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Ampthill, L. [Teller] Byford, B.
Astor, V. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Blaker, L. Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Bridgeman, V. Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Cope of Berkeley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Cox, B.
Crickhowell, L. Marlesford, L.
Denham, L.[Teller] Montrose, D.
Elton, L. Northesk, E.
Erroll, E. O'Cathain, B.
Freeman, L Park of Monmouth, B.
Higgins, L. Seccombe, B.
Home, E Shrewsbury, E.
Howe, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Kingsland, L. Stewartby, L.
Laird, L. Strathclyde, L.
Lucas, L. Tebbit, L.
Luke, L. Trefgarne, L.
Wakeham, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Wilcox, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Windlesham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Addington, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Alli, L. Hooson, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Andrews, B. Howells of St. Davids, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Avebury, L. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Bach, L. Janner of Braunstone, L.
Barker, B. Joffe, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Kirkhill, L.
Berkeley, L. Lea of Crondall, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Billingham, B. Listowel, E.
Blackstone, B. Ludford, B.
Borrie, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Bragg, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Brookman, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Campbell-Savours, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L. Mitchell, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Northover, B.
Clement-Jones, L. Ouseley, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Pendry, L.
Crawley, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Pitkeathley, B.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Rea, L.
Desai, L. Richard, L.
Drayson, L. Rogers of Riverside, L.
Dubs, L. Roper, L.
Elder, L. Russell, E.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Sandberg, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Simon, V.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Steel, of Aikwood, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Gale, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Gilbert, L. Thornton, B.
Goodhart, L. Tope, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Triesman, L.
Greengross, B. Tunnicliffe, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Turner of Camden, B.
Hamwee, B. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Harris of Haringey, L. Walmsley, B.
Harrison, L. Warner, L.
Hart of Chilton, L. Whitaker, B.
Haskel, L. Wilkins, B.
Hayman, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Henig, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagree to accordingly.

5.40 p.m.

Clause 120 [Nullity]:

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Clause 121 [Validity of civil partnerships registered outside Scotland]:

[Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]

Clause 123 [Regulations]:

Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 63, line 21, at end insert— ( ) Regulations so made may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

Clause 134 [Eligibility]:

Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:

Page 67, line 16, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"

Page 67, line 22, at end insert— (1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 155 [Regulations]:

Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 70:

Page 75, line 14, at end insert— ( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 157 [Powers to make orders and effect of orders]:

[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]

Clause 165 [Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown]:

[Amendments No. 72 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]

Clause 179 [Supplementary provisions as to declarations]:

[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Clause 185 [Transfer of proceedings]:

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]

Schedule 15 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]

Schedule 16 [Financial relief in court of' summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]

Clause 204 [Meaning of "overseas relationships'']:

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Schedule 20 [Meaning of overseas relationship: specified relationships]:

[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 314, line 19, at end insert—

"United States of America: Massachusetts same sex marriage or civil union, as the case may be"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 87 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It is an example of the Gilbert and Sullivan situation which the House has been put into today that the position is now as follows. Had not the Bill been wrecked, making pointless Schedule 20 to it, the Government would have moved Amendment No. 86. I am delighted that they would have done because they have decided to include the two Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia in the schedule because each of the registered partnership schemes satisfies the Bill's criteria.

Amendment No. 87 seeks to include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Schedule 20. Certainly this would not be pleasing to the President of the United States, but it would be pleasing to many other people in Massachusetts and beyond. I shall explain. The Bill contains a power to specify jurisdictions which have schemes that fulfil the requirements to be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK. At present the only United States jurisdiction specified is Vermont. I and others hope to persuade the Government—and certainly when the Bill reaches the other place—that it would be right to include Massachusetts in the specified list. That is because, as the Government fairly concede, its gay marriage provisions fully meet the prescribed criteria in the Bill.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her letter to me of 10 June that was copied to all Peers who spoke in Grand Committee. I do not agree that the law in Massachusetts is subject to what is referred to as, such uncertainty that it would be premature to include Massachusetts same-sex marriage in Schedule 20". As regards the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legal position is clearly set out in the first judgments of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the Goodridge case where Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who I had the pleasure of meeting again the other day, conveniently summarised the relevant provisions for registration of marriages under Massachusetts state law. As the Government concede, it is quite clear that they fully satisfy the general requirements and conditions in the Bill.

I can say with the authority of others that there is no prospect of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court being challenged or reversed between now and the coming into force of the Bill. I understand that in May the Supreme Court of the United States rejected an attempt to prevent gay marriages being registered. To amend the Massachusetts state constitution, there would have to be a referendum in two years' time. Even if that were successful in amending the law, it could not take effect for a further two years. Moreover, if it were successful, it would turn gay marriages into civil unions, which would equally satisfy the matching requirements of the Bill.

I suggest that it is unfair and unnecessary for gay and lesbian partners who have registered lawfully under the prevailing Massachusetts legislation which meets the requirements of the Bill to be left in doubt about what will happen once it comes into force at some point next year, particularly given that the content of the Massachusetts law would not be altered, if at all, for at least two years and, if altered, would still fully meet the requirements of this Bill.

5.45 p.m.

I know that the Government have received representations from the General Court of Massachusetts and from 24 or 25 state senators. Perhaps I may refer to the letter that they sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. They said: We are delighted that the United Kingdom is considering passage of a Civil Partnership Bill. We understand that the Bill specifies particular jurisdictions as having schemes that fulfil the requirements of civil partnerships in the United Kingdom". They then explain that only Vermont is covered in the specified list and hope that the Government will include Massachusetts. The letter continues: We hope that the United Kingdom Government will agree that it is unfair and unnecessary for gay and lesbian partners who have been married lawfully under Massachusetts law to be excluded once the Civil Partnership Bill comes into effect next year, particularly given that the content of the Massachusetts constitution will not be altered (if at all) for at least four years. If the United Kingdom does not recognize these relationships, families will be hurt if they decide to relocate from Massachusetts to the United Kingdom. Thank you for your consideration of our request". The letter is signed by state senator Barrios of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and 24 or 25 other state senators.

Why does it matter? I t matters because there will be, let us say, middle-aged same sex couples who are married now under Massachusetts law. Like everyone everywhere in the world, they know that the law could be changed in Massachusetts. But they are there now and they need to know what their legal position is.

If the Minister were to reply to the amendment—I am not requesting that she should—she would confirm, I am sure, that such people will have no problem because they will satisfy the general conditions in the Bill. But how will they know that on the basis of a Pepper v Hart statement made by the Minister today? They will know it if Massachusetts goes into the schedule.

What possible reason could there be for not putting Massachusetts into the schedule? I am sorry to say that the only one I can think of is entirely political. We have a coalition government in some areas between this Government and the Government of the United States. We do not wish to offend the President of the United States, who went on record as soon as the court in Massachusetts made its decision. While the President was in London, he denounced the decision and said that he would seek to reverse it.

Any reversal using the federal constitution would probably take about 20 years. As the Minister knows—because she and I both had the privilege of a graduate education in the United States—it is extremely difficult to carry a constitutional amendment requiring the approval of all the states. It is ridiculous and unfair for gay and lesbian couples to be left in a position of legal uncertainty for reasons that do not pass muster. For example, in Canada, the law can equally be changed, and it can be changed in any of the other jurisdictions listed in the schedule.

I do not expect the Government to say today that they accept the amendment—I expect them to stick to the line that they have taken—but I have no doubt this issue will be raised in the other place. It might be better to raise the issue in the other place, where parliamentarians who are elected can listen to parliamentarians who are elected in Massachusetts and in the US Congress.

I have sufficient optimism in the Government, who have been splendid in the way in which they have approached the Bill. This is one of my only two rubbing points; otherwise the Bill is extremely welcome in all other respects. It would be very sad if the Government were, in that well-known cliché, to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.

I very much hope that, even though the amendment will not be acceptable today, the mind of the Government will be sufficiently ajar for them to look more closely at the legal situation in Massachusetts. My amendment gives same-sex marriage or civil union as the two alternatives, which would deal with the situation should the law change. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to what I am seeking to do with the object of explaining to the citizens of Massachusetts what the implications would be if they changed residence and came to this country. I beg to move.

Lord Alli

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on this particular amendment. I believe that the Government's position, as outlined in Grand Committee, is wholly inconsistent. If the state of Massachusetts has made gay marriage legal, then until an appeal is successful, those citizens should be treated as having a civil partnership in terms of recognition under the Bill.

I would push the Minister to look at the issue again but I suspect, on a non-party political point, that I will get the same response as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Lester. I suspect that she may not be tempted to go into this matter, even if it is put to her from this side of the House, but at least all parties will suffer.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester

My Lords, while I regret the character of the Massachusetts legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand, that does not seem the point at the moment. What he has proposed seems entirely in line with the Bill as it is, in my view—as it was, in the view of the noble Lord and the Government. I believe the proposal is entirely in line with the Bill as it is, although the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, think that it has been more radically changed than I think it has been. However, that is not the point at issue.

I thought there was not a leaf to be put between the Front Bench and the noble Lord. It is not possible to do business with the Bill now and the Government have been refusing to move their amendments, but the noble Lord has moved his amendment. The craziness of the situation seems a few notches crazier as a result of the noble Lord's latest intervention.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Alli rightly anticipated the Government's response, I am afraid, due not so much to the instability of the situation that arose this morning but to the instability of the situation in the United States. These arguments were addressed much more fully by my noble friend Lady Scotland in Committee, and I do not need to rehearse them. Both my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand where the Government are coming from on this issue.

I also regret that I do not think that at this stage I can sensibly and usefully move the government amendment. But if, on reflection, we feel we can, we will come back to it at Third Reading.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I thought it was sensible to move the amendment because, although it has become a nonsense in that it makes no sense to have a schedule of this kind which deals only with same-sex relationships, if one is concerned about recognising carers across the world in the way that one is recognising homosexuals throughout the world one would need to amend the schedule radically to include wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and others all over the world who would have to be given recognition if they came to live in this country. That is why I began by saying it is a Gilbert and Sullivan situation. My amendment has in any event been wrecked by what the Official Opposition have done.

The only argument that has been put forward is that the situation in Massachusetts is unstable. I must be the most optimistic Member of this House in saying this, but I very much hope that even at this stage officials will look more carefully at exactly what the situation in Massachusetts is, and we can help them to do so. The position is not unstable. The present position is that the marriage code in Massachusetts has been applied verbatim to gay and lesbian couples. I quite understand the right reverend Prelate's objection to the absolutism of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts, which said that civil partnership is not enough—it must be marriage because there must be total equality under the state constitution. I personally understand why many people believe that to be a step too far. I do not agree with them, but I understand.

However, those in the Massachusetts legislature who object to that measure are in favour of civil partnerships. They say that marriage goes too far and civil partnerships are fine and dandy. They are seeking in a referendum in two years' time—which would come into effect in four years' time—to amend the state constitution dealing with marriage to make it clear that marriage, unlike civil partnership, must apply only to men and women and not to same-sex couples. They intend to do that in order to leave in place exactly the same substantial rights for same-sex couples, although it will be civil union or civil partnership instead.

That is why the situation is wholly stable. If I thought that there were a risk of a challenge in an appeal—for example, to the Supreme Court in the United States or some other jurisdiction—or if I thought that what was being threatened was likely to happen before this Bill became law or there was a change to the legislation, that would be a different matter. Having said all of that, I will not press the amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 206 [The general conditions]:

[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]

Clause 208 [The same-sex requirement]:

[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved]

Clause 220 [Meaning of "the court"]:

[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

Clause 222 [Proceedings for presumption of death order]:

[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]

Clause 229 [Supplementary provisions relating to recognition of dissolution etc.]:

[Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]

Clause 243 [Civil partners to have unlimited insurable interest in each other]:

[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]

Schedule 23 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:

Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 103:

Page 318, line 18, leave out paragraphs 1 to 5.

The noble Lord said: We now come to Amendment No. 103 with which we may debate Amendment No. 105. If I do not move subsequent amendments, that means I am carefully considering to what extent we should return to them at Third Reading in the light of the unforthcoming response of the Government on various other amendments.

As far as I can see, this amendment is not affected in any way by the amendments that we carried earlier. Consequently, I hope that we shall get a response from the Minister in reply. Amendment No. 103 is to page 318, line 18 and would leave out paragraphs 1 to 5. More clearly in terms of intention, Amendment No. 105 would insert into the end of line 28 on page 318: The amendments of Child Support Act 1991 … shall not come into effect until all existing cases have been transferred from the old scheme as originally enacted, to the new scheme".

The Minister and I have debated the Child Support Agency for a long time—at least it seems like a very long time. I have always accepted that the introduction of that Act by the previous government was difficult to implement. When the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 was debated in this House, the Minister and I both agreed that the change from the rather complicated scheme that we had before to a simpler flat-rate scheme should be welcomed. We cooperated in getting those matters through the House.

However, since we did that in 2000, the situation has been one of almost unmitigated disaster. The new formula was due to be introduced for all new cases from April 2002. However, in March 2002, Alistair Darling, then the Secretary of State, announced in a Statement that the changes were to be delayed. He pointed to problems of the development of the required computer system. On 27 January 2003, Mr Andrew Smith finally announced that a new system was coming into effect, in March 2003. That system finally went live for all new cases—I stress, for all new cases only—in April 2003. The situation has continued until the present time. From a statement made by Mr Doug Smith in July 2003, it seemed clear that it was not likely to come into effect until the spring of next year.

6 p.m.

The system is still working very badly. The problem is not with the computer system alone but with staff relationships and the ability of the staff to operate the system. As of September 2003—the last date for which I have managed to find figures—there were some 30,000 cases operating on the new formula and 882,000—nearly 883,000—operating on the original formula.

I know only too well from my constituents' experience in another place how concerned and emotional those who have to deal with the Child Support Agency become. It is quite extraordinary that we should have seen delays of the kind with which we are faced at present, with regard to the ability of both the computer and the staff to cope.

I am not suggesting that the inclusion in this arrangement of same-sex couples is going to result in an enormous number of cases. None the less, the situation has not only been bad in the respects that I have mentioned but a huge amount of compensation—something like £12 million—has been paid out as a result of fraud. The whole system, in terms of computers and staff, is obviously under enormous strain. A huge number of those affected by the Child Support Agency have been waiting for a very long time for the matter to be sorted out.

I am not suggesting that an enormous number of people will be involved as a result of this Bill or that the Bill will greatly affect the problem—except that the staff will have to deal with a quite different set of problems. The problems likely to be involved with child support cases with same-sex couples looking after the child are likely to be ones with which the staff, as of now, are totally unfamiliar. More particularly, those who have been waiting so long for the system to be sorted out, in many cases in very emotional circumstances, will not be at all happy—I was going to say "amused", but that is an understatement—at the fact that, instead of giving priority to sorting out the problems from which we have suffered for so long and to which the Government have clearly not managed to find a solution, the Government are putting more load on the system in terms of the type of case and numbers. Those people will not be at all pleased.

The priority should be to sort out the system first and then, when we have done that, to turn our attention to cases that may be affected. After all, this Bill will not be enacted or implemented for a considerable time, so that matter should be sorted out before we extend the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 to those who will be affected by this Bill.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, only those who were originally intended to be affected by the Bill are involved in this matter. The amendments that we carried earlier will not affect the situation that I have described. Therefore I hope that the Minister, if she replies, can accept Amendment No. 105, which seeks to ensure that these matters are introduced on a sensible basis, when the Government have sorted out the horrendous problems with the Child Support Agency. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux)

My Lords, I advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 inclusive.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I do not wish to show any discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who I have always found to be extraordinarily courteous, helpful and informed on all social security debates that we have engaged in over many years. However, 1 do not think that this is the right time to go into a general debate about the performance of the Child Support Agency or the current figures. I entirely accept and deeply regret the problems posed by the inadequacy of the computer system, which is not sufficiently robust, in ministerial eyes, to allow us to bring the existing cases, as opposed to new cases, on to the system. We do not disagree about this. As soon as we can, we will do so. However, I do not think that today is an appropriate time to raise this; maybe an Unstarred Question at some time might be appropriate.

My difficulty is engaging with the noble Lord's amendment because it excludes from child support liability same-sex couples in the way that opposite sex couples would now be liable. The problem is that what counts as a couple for this purpose has been torpedoed by the debate earlier today. We now no longer have a working concept of couple. I must say that I would oppose the amendment anyway, for obvious reasons involving the Child Support Agency. However, I cannot engage in a debate on any aspect of social security that has at its core the concept of a couple because I do not now know whether a couple is, as I understood it, people living together as husband and wife, so to speak, in conventional social security legislation or whether it could be a civil partnership of two brothers or a brother and sister. Given that, I am stuck.

I absolute do not intend any discourtesy to the noble Lord. I could go into a general discussion on the Child Support Agency but I shall not do so at this late hour. I am happy to do so on some other occasion. We will oppose the amendment. There is no point in taking it further, given that the concept of a couple has now been blown out of the water by the debate earlier today.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not understand the point that she is making. As far as the original Bill was concerned, quite clearly the amendment was appropriate. Even if it remains in its amended form, it will still be the case—perhaps even more strongly the case—that the Child Support Agency should not be required to take on the additional burden. If the amendments go through as agreed by your Lordships' House that is even more true. It should not be required to take this on until it has sorted out the other problems. Those who have suffered such long delays feel that they will suffer even longer delays because of the strain put on the CSA. That is not satisfactory. So I do not understand why the noble Baroness was proposing to reject the amendment anyway. Perhaps she can enlighten us in that respect.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am sorry that I do not think I can helpfully add to the answer I have already given.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I do not understand why that is so. The noble Baroness could perfectly well say that in any case the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. But I have heard no reason why that is so.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, this is Report stage and so I do not want to continue this debate. I made it clear that the Government would have been unhappy to accept the amendment even as the Bill stood. Given the complexity of what we now understand by a couple, and therefore responsibility, within social security law, the Government will oppose the amendment if the noble Lord seeks to push it to a Division. But I do not want to continue to elaborate on the points about the concept of a couple and so on, which is at the core of my dilemma in all social security legislation and in all the amendments that we now face.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, we are, as the noble Baroness says, on Report. I will be out of order if I go on jumping up and down any more. I may need to return to this at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 not moved.]

Lord Higgins

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108:

Page 322, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is covered by subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List which have overtaken it. I think that the amendments that replace it are on the supplementary list. So we will come to those in due course.

[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 109 to 125 not moved.]

Clause 245 [Power to amend enactments relating to pensions]:

[Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved]

Schedule 24 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to pensions]:

6.15 p.m.

Lord Higgins

had given his intention to move Amendment No. 129A:

Page 343, line 12, leave out paragraph 1.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the four amendments in this group are the ones to which I referred a moment ago. They cover a series of changes in pension arrangements. It seemed helpful to divide them up rather than to take them en bloc, which would have been the effect of Amendment No. 108 that I did not move.

I am considering very carefully, in the light of the various statements made by the Government, whether it would be fruitful to raise the matter at this stage. I suspect that we will merely get the same stonewalling answer. The noble Baroness has indicated that that is so. So it seems pointless, I regret to say, to go on with this rather strange procedure—which I cannot recall in my entire parliamentary life of some 40 years of experience.

No doubt it will be appropriate to reconsider these points, to see to what extent it is valid for the Government to say they cannot reply. In some of the cases in which they have said that previously, I suspect that it is not the case. So I may well wish to return to the amendments on Third Reading.

[Amendment No. 129A not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 129B to 131 not moved.]

Clause 250 [Community obligations and civil partners]:

[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]

Clause 251 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and revocations]:

[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]

Schedule 26 [Minor and consequential amendments: general]:

[Amendments Nos. 135 to 169 not moved.]

Schedule 27 [Consequential amendments: Scotland]:

[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 171:

Page 373, line 2, at end insert— In section 16(4) (petitions for recall of sequestration), for "section 41(1)(b)" substitute "sections 41(1)(b) and 41A(1)(b)".

The noble Duke said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 171 I should like to speak also to my other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 173, 175 and 178, although we have in some ways gone past that group.

Once again I must express great disappointment that the Government do not feel able to move their amendments. I would like to appreciate the effort that the Government and the Civil Service in Scotland have obviously put in to produce full and totally adequate amendments to this part of the Bill. However, I shall speak to my amendments.

Amendment No. 171 inserts a reference to a new Section 41A(1)(b) into Section 16(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The reason for this is that Paragraph 32 of Schedule 27 to the Bill inserts a new Section 41A into the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. As a result, Section 16(4) of the 1985 Act requires to be amended to refer to the new Section 41A(1)(b).

Amendment No. 173 inserts into Section 34(7) of the 1985 Act a reference to the provisions of Clause 127 of the Bill. The reason why this is required is that Section 34(7) of the 1985 Act states that that section operates, without prejudice to the operation of section 2 of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance Act (Scotland) 1880 (policy of assurance may be effected in trust for spouse, future spouse and children)".

As the provisions contained in Clause 128 of the Bill extend Section 2 of the 1880 Act to cover civil partners, this amendment is intended to insert a reference to those provisions into the 1985 Act.

Amendment No. 176 inserts a reference to civil partners in Section 51(3) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Section 51(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 makes, inter alia, a loan by a debtor's spouse a postponed debt in terms of that Act. This amendment aims to widen that provision to cover also civil partners.

Amendment No. 178 would insert a reference to former civil partners into Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 sets out rules in relation to claims for aliment and periodical allowance on divorce. This amendment would extend these provisions to cover former civil partners following dissolution of that partnership. I beg to move.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments, I do not want to add to what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has just said, but to say that, like my noble friend Lord Higgins, in the 30 years that I have been in Parliament I have never experienced an afternoon like the one we have had today. The Government's response to the defeat, which, admittedly, they clearly did not expect, was highly unsatisfactory. I refer to their refusal even to explain what their amendments meant, even when there was a great deal of sympathy both for the Bill generally—as was known from the earlier stages of the Bill—and for the particular amendment under debate. The fact that they refused even to explain what they were doing on some but not all of the amendments was highly unsatisfactory.

There has been no attempt to filibuster. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, accused us of that a little earlier but I think I am right in saying that he made about the longest speech of anyone in the course of the whole discussion. That is not unusual, but he did so today.

I remind the House that the amendment which was carried earlier was carried entirely on a free vote, at any rate so far as my party was concerned. So far as I know, that applied to other parties. I believe I am right in saying that noble Lords of different parties went through different Lobbies. I have not studied the Division List in detail as yet but there were noble Lords from different parties in different Lobbies.

Lord Alli

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not accept that following what happened this morning with the relevant amendment, on which the House rightly voted as it saw fit, for those of us who sat through Grand Committee the concept of the Civil Partnership Bill had been fundamentally changed? Therefore, all the amendments that we were discussing, and had discussed in Grand Committee, gained wider ramifications that made every single one of them incompatible with the broader scope of the Bill. Does the noble Lord accept that the Government have allowed proceedings to move forward—we have had discussions on a whole range of issues—but that the amendments that the noble Lord was seeking to discuss seem to be inappropriate given the change in circumstances and scope of the Bill?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was intervening in my speech or making his own. However, from the way he expressed himself, I believe that he was intervening in my speech.

Lord Alli

My Lords, for clarity, I was intervening in the noble Lord's speech; I was not making my own.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. I understand the point that the noble Lord made from his own point of view, but I certainly do not think that it applies to anything like all the amendments that we have discussed this afternoon. In any case, I see no reason why the Government could not have explained what various amendments would have meant had the Bill not been amended. That would have been helpful to the House and no doubt to the discussion of the Bill, which will proceed both in this place and in another place.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester

My Lords, in the light of the previous contribution, I am making my own speech. I offer it as we helpfully become reflective on this extraordinary afternoon—or so I thought at the start of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, brought forward his own Civil Partnerships Bill in January two and a half years ago, I made the point that some of us who were not at all happy with it might have been markedly happier had it looked at a much smaller number of people, been a much smaller Bill, and looked at a number of the clearest points where there were manifest injustices and sources of real distress and anxiety. That advice has not been followed by the process that has brought us to this point.

One plank of what the Government and others have said is that responsibility for the position in which we find ourselves lies with those who were in the majority this afternoon. However, a significant element of responsibility seems to lie on those responsible for the character of the Bill. The Bill has become enormous and spread because of the intention—perhaps as a result of a particular element of human rights legislation—to replicate painstakingly everything there might be concerning marriage. The position in which the Government have found themselves largely stems from that astonishing exhaustiveness of the Bill.

Might there not be a question of remembering the advice that some of us gave two and a half years ago—that the Government might more easily get a much more straightforward Bill through, one that addresses some of the most critically and obviously distressing, disadvantaging and, frankly, wrong elements of the present system? If it is the responsibility of the majority this afternoon, which I question, it is not simply our responsibility, because the whole character of the Bill—its scale, shape and exhaustive replication—has got us where we are.

Lord Roper

My Lords, I am not speaking to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lester to Amendment No. 87. However, given that the whole debate on that group took only 15 minutes, it cannot be said that he was speaking at excessive length.

The situation is very unusual. In my experience in both Houses of this Parliament, I have never known such a radical change to a piece of legislation; it may be an unprecedented change. It would probably have misled the House had the Government attempted to use material prepared to discuss amendments that it was assumed would be considered in a different context. It is right that that material was not put on record. The Government have behaved in the correct manner in this extraordinarily unusual situation. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity at a later stage—when amendments come back from the Commons—to give amendments the consideration that we have not been able to give them this afternoon.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

My Lords, I want to add a word or two to the remarks of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. Whatever mess we have got ourselves into today, we as a House need to bear two things in mind. First, the Government started this legislation here. It is entirely appropriate that such legislation be started in this House. Therefore, we have to watch how we conduct ourselves, and not hand across to the other place legislation that is clearly in a principled mess. If we do not watch that, the Government might be tempted not to take such a route, which has implications for the practice of this House.

My second point is that we have to have legislation that is rooted in principle. All those in positions of political responsibility need to consider that, whatever their point of view. There is a variety of points of view on these Benches as well as elsewhere in the House. Given the damage that has been done today there has to be coherence in terms of principle. We have lost that today. I hope that those that are here every day through negotiation will help us to recover the situation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, like others I deeply regret the situation in which we find ourselves. It was not created by any act of Government; it was a consequence of a vote that was taken earlier today that the Government have to respect and act upon as though it happened. With the best will in the world, what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seems to suggest is that the Government should respond to amendments as if that vote had not taken place, as though the will of the House had not been declared and as though the Government had not been overturned in a straight debate about the core concept of the Bill, which is, "What is a couple?". That concept of partners living as though they were husband and wife has now been changed radically and fundamentally out of all recognition, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said.

As my noble friend Lord Alli said clearly, in consequence, most of the government amendments and the Government's response to the amendments moved were based on one concept of the Bill, which has now been completely, dramatically and fundamentally changed. If the precepts of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, had been followed we could have been described as being arrogant, as disregarding the view of the House, of ignoring it, of being confident that the Commons would overturn the vote and of pretending that it had never taken place.

We could not do that. We were in an extremely difficult position. I entirely respect some of the amendments and positions taken by noble Lords opposite—as well as noble Lords on the Bishops' Bench. The Government have tried to act in a clean, straightforward and transparent manner. I hope that we will have an adequate opportunity at a later stage to do what this House does best, which is to scrutinise the Bill carefully. Maybe we will make time to do that at some point in the proceedings, but the situation was created by the vote today. It has fundamentally changed the Bill. We could not act as though that vote had not taken place and therefore we took the most honourable way forward, which was to recognise that fact, expedite the proceedings and allow us, perhaps, at a later stage to have further scrutiny of the Bill.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, before the Minister sits down can I ask her, as a matter of curiosity, whether one of the difficulties that the Government are having with the Bill is that the original Bill was "Sewel-ed" by the Scottish Parliament? Does the fact that we have a different Bill put us in difficulty with the Scottish Parliament? Are we not in a parallel situation to that regarding Northern Ireland, where we wish the devolved governments to have a say, but that we cannot go ahead until they have that say?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, we will have to come back to the noble Duke on that. I am not in a position to get my head around all the of implications of the decision that was made by your Lordships earlier.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 172 to 179 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]

Schedule 28 [Repeals and revocations]:

[Amendments Nos. 181 to 187 not moved.]

Clause 252 [Extent]:

[Amendments Nos. 188 to 193 not moved.]

Clause 253 [Commencement]:

[Amendments Nos. 194 to 201 not moved.]