No timetable to try again on Section 28
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Prime Minister issued his strongest condemnation of Section 28 so far yesterday, describing the controversial legislation as a "piece of prejudice, pure and simple".
The Prime Minister issued his strongest condemnation of Section 28 so far yesterday, describing the controversial legislation as a "piece of prejudice, pure and simple".
But while Tony Blair pledged to abolish the clause, which bans the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, he failed to give a timetable.
William Hague, the Conservative leader, raising the issue during question time, said the opposition of the House of Lords to repeal had accurately reflected public opinion and the "gut British instincts". Peers defeated the Government by 270 votes to 228 on Monday.
The Government conceded defeat on the issue, rather than risk the loss of its Local Government Bill, which would change council structures.
Mr Hague challenged the Prime Minister: "Do you agree that on this issue the House of Lords has more accurately reflected public feeling than the House of Commons?"
But Mr Blair told him: "No. I believe that Clause 28 is a piece of prejudice. I think it is right to remove it. I remain committed to removing it.
"I think we know what you are doing. It is exactly the same as you did over the asylum issue. It is pandering to prejudice and it is not a pretty sight," he said.
"I hear what the House of Lords says. But I believe we took the right position on this issue and I shall continue to hold to it."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments