HL Deb 03 February 1987 vol 484 cc179-83

5.45 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of Local Government Act 1986]:

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, leave out ("publishing or").

The noble Baroness said: I should like to make it clear at once that this amendment is put forward in a spirit of inquiry. I do not understand how one can publish homosexuality. I can see how one might promote it, and I imagine that one might publish material which would promote it, but I do not understand how one would publish homosexuality. It does not seem very wise to leave that sort of expression in a Bill. I do not think that it will be clear to the general public. I beg to move.

The Earl of Halsbury

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is helpful. The Bill as drafted contains what grammatical disciplinarians would call a category mistake. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said. One can publish statistics, propaganda and so on, but one cannot publish the thing itself.

It seems to me that the way the wording should go is: A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to any person for the publishing of material to promote homosexuality as an acceptable disposition orientated away from normal family relationships". Having said that much by way of agreement with the noble Baroness—and I thank her for drawing my attention to this—I observe that the lot of a Private Member's Bill in this Chamber is a hard one unless it can get through all its stages by Christmas. If the Committee sees fit in due course to pass it, it then has to go to the other place and run the hazards of a Second Reading on Friday, when a single voice can object to it and that will kill the Bill stone dead. It has always seemed to me contrary to the spirit of amity between the Houses that a Bill that has been through your Lordships' House should be subject to this hazard from a single objector; but such is the case. I am not alone in thinking that.

I cannot expect this Bill to be exempt from the natural hazards. It has to go upstairs, and unless it gets down by Easter it does not have a chance of surviving, because the time after Easter in the other place is government time. Thus I am in rather a hurry to get this through as fast as possible so that it may take its place in the queue elsewhere. If I assure the noble Baroness that the point she has made will, if the Bill survives Second Reading, be taken in Committee in the other place, I hope she will accept that and be prepared to treat it as just a probing amendment and withdraw it this evening.

Baroness David

I thank the noble Earl for what he said. I am glad that he accepts there is some sense in the amendment. I listened to what he said, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Before the amendment is withdrawn, I apologise to the Committee for not having been in my place. I was the drafter of the Bill and I should like to express a word of appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for the very important contribution she has made as part of the revisory role. I understood that this debate was to have taken place in the dinner hour but it seems to have become somewhat advanced. That is the reason why I was not in my place and I hope that the Committee will forgive me.

If it is any consolation to the noble Baroness and to the Committee the difficulty here is that we all accept that the word "publishing" as it stands does not make sense. We also accept that what we should do is not take out the word "publishing" but add after that word the phrase, material to promote homosexuality", followed by the words, or for the purpose of teaching such acceptability in any maintained school". In other words, we should delete the words "as an acceptable family relationship". This would marry up with the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Cox, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and which is wholly acceptable to me, as I said at Second Reading. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, leave out ("family").

The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that he is in a hurry. I appreciate that, and I too should like to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. I certainly do not intend to hold up the process in any way by doing anything which might lead to the Bill being amended, which I understand would be most undesirable. However, there are three or four points which I should like to bring up but I will withdraw all my amendments at the appropriate time.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete the word "family" in line 9 so that it would read: or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable relationship". My purpose in tabling the amendment is to broaden the scope of the Bill. I do not want it to be possible for anyone to say, "We are not promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship, only as an acceptable relationship".

What the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said is true. My amendment would not broaden the Bill enough. It would be far preferable to amend the Bill in another place along the lines he suggested by leaving out the words which follow the word "homosexuality" and making it an offence to promote homosexuality of any kind, full stop, wherever it occurs. That is a matter the Committee may like to consider. In the meantime, I do not intend to take my amendment any further.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I am grateful to the noble Lord not only for his support on Second Reading but also for the care and trouble that he has taken to make sense of the drafting of subsection (1). All his expressions of opinion will now be on the record for the assistance of the other place and the parliamentary draftsman if it should ever come his way. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord.

Lord Kilbracken

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does the noble Earl wish to intervene?

The Earl of Halsbury

I want only to say that I attach some importance to retaining the word "family" because it is part of homosexual propaganda that the family is a form of male chauvinism, which is not something I believe should be said. Therefore, I want to keep in the word "family" so far as possible. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord and I will see that it receives attention elsewhere.

Lord Kilbracken

It is certainly most undesirable that homosexuality should be promoted as an acceptable family relationship, but I also believe it is wrong for it to be promoted as an acceptable relationship. By deleting the word "family" we should still be making it illegal to promote homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship. However, I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 17, leave out ("referred to in") and insert ("under").

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. The Committee will see in subsection (3) reference to, any person having a sufficient interest to institute proceedings referred to in subsection (2) above". However, in subsection (2) there is no reference to any proceedings. It merely states: A breach of the prohibition referred to …shall be justiciable in the civil courts", without using the word or referring to "proceedings". I therefore propose that instead of the phrase, institute proceedings referred to in subsection (2) above", the subsection should read, proceedings under subsection (2) above". I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I shall not take up the time of the Committee on this matter. It is a drafting point and will be before the draftsman. I would have defended the drafting as it stands but that is a matter for another place.

Lord Kilbracken

The noble Lord told the Committee a short time ago that he was the draftsman so it is not surprising that he defends the drafting. I do not intend to press the amendment; therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 19, leave out ("pupil") and insert ("child").

The noble Lord said: This is a point of a little more substance than the previous amendment. It refers to the use of the word "pupil" in subsection (3). The Committee will note that the subsection reads: any parent, guardian or other person having custody of, or access to, any pupil in attendance at any such school shall be entitled to institute such proceedings.". My amendment will substitute the word "child" for the word "pupil". I have tabled the amendment because I do not want it to be possible for anyone to claim that anybody coming under this influence is not actually a pupil in a school.

However, on looking up the meaning of the word "child", I find that it is an extremely unsatisfactory word to use in legislation. In some statutes it means anyone under the age of 14, in other statutes anyone under the age of 16, and in yet other statutes it means anyone under the age of 18. Therefore, I do not know why the word is used in any legislation. I am sure my amendment is wrong. Since tabling it I have realised—as a matter of fact only a few moments ago—that the first half of subsection (1) is not confined to children. The first half of subsection (1) simply says: A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to any person for the purpose of publishing or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship". There is nothing about schools and nothing about children. Therefore, homosexuality is something that must not be promoted as something adults should follow. That is not a bad idea. However, I did not realise that the first half of the subsection applies to adults and children and that the second half applies only to children.

In that case, I hope that the noble Earl will give consideration to extending the application further in subsection (3) by substituting "person" for "pupil" so that it applies for people of all ages. I have given no notice of this point because I have only just spotted it, but I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

With respect to the noble Lord, on this occasion there is a misconception. He is right of course that when the Bill was first drafted, one's pen wrote "child". It is only when a lawyer realises the most unsatisfactory definition of "child" in a multitude of statutes, that one uses the phrase "pupil in attendance" which has not been subject to various interpretations.

The other aspect, with respect to the noble Lord, in which I suggest he is in error, is that the concept of subsection (1) is double-barrelled and the concept of subsection (3) is related only to the choke which is, for the purpose of teaching such acceptability". Subsection (3) is drafted on the choke by using the words: Without derogation from". The derogation is the overall rights which rest in the first part of the first barrel. On this I think, with the greatest respect, that the noble Lord has misunderstood the drafting.

Lord Kilbracken

I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 6, leave out ("were") and insert ("have been").

The noble Lord said: This is purely drafting and a matter of grammar. On page 2, at line 5, the subsection at present reads: if such instructions have been disregarded and such steps were ineffective to secure compliance". It would be better English if that were changed at some later stage to: if such instructions have been disregarded and such steps have been ineffective".

The Earl of Halsbury

As one who received a classical education in the first instance and was taught about the need to agree tenses, I would agree that a perfect passive and an aorist used predicatively should not be matched in the same sentence. Therefore, there is much to be said for what the noble Lord proposes.

Lord Kilbracken

I also had a classical education and I have forgotten a lot more of it than the noble Earl, even though it was not quite so long ago. I certainly could not remember the names of the tenses that he conjured from his memory with such accuracy. I am glad that he agrees with me, and perhaps we can correct this at some other time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

House adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.