| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for all that she has done, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]
7.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: 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.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 2, line 6, at end insert "defined as such in the Standard Industrial Classification issued by the Office of National Statistics"
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will no doubt appreciate, this amendment is merely for clarification of definition, as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has no bearing whatever on the principle of the Bill or the opposition of government, who are not inclined to entertain any such proposal. But I had the opportunity of having a word with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and explained that I wanted to put the Bill in its proper perspective, dealing with some errors that have crept in—and they are very few.
The first is the suggestion that the structure of the 1999 Act, which amended the consolidation Act of 1992, may not be readily amended to include statutory restriction proposed by this Bill, superimposed on extant law.
Secondly, the Bill is concerned only with containing disproportionate industrial action in the designated public services and only at the behest of the trade unions. It is not concerned with an individual right to strike or with wildcat strikes.
Thirdly, the Central Arbitration Committee is to be given mandatory powers only within this limited context by statute, and otherwise retains its present voluntary role.
The High Court exercises civil, not criminal, jurisdiction and enforces its orders only against trade unions or the officers of a trade union if they are in contempt of an order of the court.
Lastly, the suggestion appears in the Official Report that Lady Castle of Blackburn's In Place of Strife proposals were implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. They were not, to my personal knowledge. They were operated by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, whom I served at the time, under the Heath administration, in the days of Vic Feather in 1971. As the House would expect, these matters have been discussed with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. His position is respected and understood. This is not the occasion on which to renew our debate. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I support both amendments tabled by my noble friend, which are an appropriate accommodation of the comments of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. However, I do not think that they will change the Government's mindset on the Bill, even if they are accepted. That is a pity. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told the House on Second
Reading that the Government were reviewing the workings of their Employment Relations Act 1999. That review will take place against the favourable background of the industrial dispute figures for 2001, which the noble Lord also gave the House. He then asked:
- "what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector? Clearly, there are threats of disputes . . . But the facts do not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of industrial disputes in the public sector".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; cols. 871-72.]
We must all wonder how long that statement will stand, as trade union disaffection with the Government and their policies grows—witness the RMT's withdrawal of support from the Deputy Prime Minister and 13 other Labour Members or the rumblings in the Communication Workers Union. That may be a foretaste of things to come.
Finally, the trouble with legislation in this area is that it is usually introduced just before or just after major conflict. There is much to be said for anticipating such conflicts well before they happen. That is the aim of the Bill. In line with the Performance and Innovation Unit report that my noble friend quoted on Second Reading, the Bill gives top priority to the customers of public services rather than to those who provide them. That is surely right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not want to prolong the debate. Both the amendments tabled by my noble friend would improve and clarify the drafting in comparatively small ways. That is desirable. We all know the difficulties of pursuing a Private Member's Bill at this time of year, but that is no reason for not trying to improve the wording as much as possible. We also know the Government's view of the Bill, which was expressed clearly and in strong terms by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Second Reading. As my noble friend Lord Roberts said, there are threats at the moment. I have no wish to trespass on the current problems of the Labour Party vis-a-vis the trade unions, but we have noticed some recent comments. The Bill is not irrelevant to those remarks.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and all those who have not spoken. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy for his support from the Back Benches. Back-Bench support for the Bill is very welcome, although he is also a member of the Front Bench.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 2, line 7, after "order" insert "made by statutory instrument"
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment and its purpose is self-evident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.36 p.m.]
Education Bill
8.36 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 83 [Establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order]:
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 120:
- Page 56, line 18, leave out subsection (12).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 120, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 121.
I have tabled the same amendments as we debated in Committee because I received a quite encouraging response from the Minister when I pointed out the sheer illogicality in this day and age of neglecting to teach in the science curriculum about one of the most serious threats to the health of the whole of mankind—HIV/AIDS—and about other sexually transmitted diseases. So I am hopeful of success if I pursue this matter.
I also pointed out that it is important to teach young people in a way that is relevant to their lives and what is happening around them, and that reference to the science of HIV/AIDS is a very relevant way of teaching about the importance of the immune system and what happens when it breaks down. The subsections removed by my amendments make it illegal to teach about AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and aspects of human sexual behaviour, other than the biological aspects, in science lessons in schools in England and Wales. That is what I want to change. I think that it should be perfectly legal to include these subjects in the science curriculum for children of an appropriate age; indeed, it is essential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out that Clauses 83 and 104, in which these subsections appear, merely re-enact part of a previous statute without changing it at all. She rightly asked the Minister why this should be done when the only valid reason for re-enacting part of a previous statute is to change it.
Since we debated these amendments a few weeks ago, we have had a Question in your Lordships' House about the health of children in which I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to the fact that the number of new diagnoses of HIV/AIDS in this country doubled during the last five-year period for which I could find statistics. A high percentage of these victims are young people, very
many of whom are heterosexual. Some are even babies who were born with the disease, having contracted it from their mothers in the womb.AIDS is one of the greatest scourges of our age. We are letting down our children if we do not teach them about the science behind it, including how it is transmitted and how devastating it is to the normal functioning of the human immune system. I also pointed out to the noble Lord that the incidence of gonorrhoea among teenagers doubled within the same period and that the incidence of chlamydia among teenage girls doubled in one year alone, between 1999 and 2000. There is clearly a great need for more and better teaching about these issues, and, crucially, children need to understand the science behind them. When they understand that, they will see the logic behind the lifestyle advice on safe sexual practices which they receive in sex education lessons in other parts of the curriculum. It is a matter of joined-up education.
Ofsted has already identified the problems caused by this ridiculous law. Its report Sex and Relationships stated:
- "Education about HIV/AIDS is receiving less attention than in the past, despite the fact that it remains a significant health problem".
- "In secondary schools, the teaching at Key Stage 4 was better than at Key Stage 3. At both key stages teaching about sexual health, including sexually transmitted infections, and the law in relation to sex, was poor in one in five lessons".
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments and change education law on this matter so that our children can be given the protection of good information. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page