10 January 2003
Following the second reading of the Local Government Bill in Parliament this week, local government minister Nick Raynsford, who had not originally included a clause to repeal Section 28 in the new Bill, said he would not oppose a 'suitable amendment' lodged by a backbench MP.
Kali Mountford, Labour MP for Colne Valley, immediately tabled a motion to repeal what she described as the 'outdated and socially redundant' law introduced by the Conservative government in the 1980s.
Some Conservative MPs described Raynsford's stance as 'gutless', but leader Iain Duncan Smith now faces a stern test of his leadership as his party remains firmly divided on the issue. Leading Tories could support the motion as an attempt to show the public the party is modernising.
Labour had tried to repeal Section 28 during the previous Parliament, but Tory peers in the House of Lords prevented it.
Mountford told Public Finance she expected a closer fight this time because her motion had received cross-party support. John Bercow, a former member of the Tory shadow cabinet, and Liberal Democrat MP Annette Brooke backed the motion.
'The cross-party support will be important this time around,' Mountford told PF. 'Section 28 is outdated. More and more people are beginning to realise it. We have even noticed a change in approach among some Conservative peers.'
The motion will now be scrutinised by a Commons committee, which must decide on the issue by February 6. It could be put to the House of Lords sometime in early spring.
Meanwhile, public sector union Unison said ministers had ignored a golden opportunity to 'tighten' the new Bill in favour of public sector workers.
Unison claimed that the proposed Bill does not adequately protect the pay and conditions of employees transferred to private contractors' under Transfer of Undertakings (Tupe) regulations.
Heather Wakefield, Unison's head of local government, said the Bill should be amended so that the 'broadly comparable' benefits offered to transferred staff under statutory guidance becomes a legal commitment to protect pay.
'The government needs to take a much tougher approach if it is to ensure that transferred staff do not pay the penalty of lost income and pension rights,' Wakefield said.
PFjan2003
