Section 28 of the Local Government Act, 1988, was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Britain at the end of the twentieth century. To mark the anniversary of its introduction, Alfie Steer has delved into the oral history archive to explore MPs’ memories of it.

Section 28 (otherwise known as Clause 28) was first included in the 1988 Local Government Act as an amendment tabled by the backbench Conservative MP David Wiltshire in December 1987, with the support of Jill Knight. The amendment stated that local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales ‘shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or public material with the intention of promoting homosexuality’ or ‘promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.’

The immediate motivation for the amendment was a moral panic over the supposedly explicit and inappropriate promotion of LGBT+ relationships to young children in schools, as encouraged by so-called ‘Loony Left’ councils, predominantly in London. This had included the extraordinary claim that children were being taught sex acts in educational books. As Jill Knight explained in her 2013 interview:

Yet it is important to stress that Knight’s claims were never substantiated. While some Labour-led councils, most notably the Greater London Council (GLC), had increased funding for various LGBT+ organisations and supported anti-discrimination or equal opportunities initiatives there was no evidence that LGBT+ identities were being ‘promoted’ to children. And while bodies like the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) provided books depicting LGBT+ relationships in an inclusive and educational way (most notably Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin (1983)) they were certainly not sexually explicit. Regardless of the veracity of the claims, they got the desired result of influencing legislation.

Despite Knight’s insistence that the amendment was not ‘against homosexuals per se’, Section 28’s introduction (at a time of rising homophobia in Britain, as well as the ongoing HIV/AIDS crisis) was widely interpreted as nothing short of a draconian attack on the LGBT+ community. While the law ultimately led to no prosecutions, it created a ‘landscape of self-censorship’ (Iglikowski-Broad, TNA) and a culture of ‘silence and homophobic repression’ [Steer, ODNB] in British society, particularly schools, where teachers were heavily discouraged from openly discussing LGBT+ relationships. It also formed one of the last elements of the Thatcher government’s efforts to restrict the powers of local authorities, which had begun with harsh restrictions on local expenditure in the early 1980s, and even included the abolition of the GLC in 1986 and ILEA in 1990.

At the time, the full impact of the legislation was not recognised by those who would otherwise have likely opposed it in the Commons, most notably the Labour Party’s frontbench. Indeed, in the early stages, Labour’s local government spokesman Jack Cunningham, even appeared to welcome the amendment. As described by Conservative MP John Bowis:

As a result, early opposition in Parliament was limited to left-wing backbenchers like Tony Benn and Bernie Grant; Britain’s first openly gay male MP, Chris Smith; and the newly formed Liberal Democrats. Once the full implications (and public outrage) became clearer, Labour’s leadership threw its weight behind opposing the amendment as an infringement on individual liberties. This continued an ongoing process by which the Labour Party had, since the late 1960s, become intertwined with the struggle for LGBT+ rights, even if such support was often moderated by cautious electoral calculations, and framed more in terms of protecting individual rights and freedoms than anything more radical. Despite persistent fears that too close an association could cost the party votes, by the end of the century, the issue of LGBT+ rights had taken on an increasingly central role in Labour’s policy platform, leading to important reforms by the New Labour era.

Even on the Conservative benches there was discomfort with Section 28. While only Robin Squire voted against the amendment at the time, other figures, such as Steve Norris and Edwina Currie became critical later, and supported new attempts to combat discrimination against LGBT+ people, most notably around the issue of the age of consent, which was higher for gay men. In their respective interviews, Squire described his reasons for opposing Section 28, while Currie described her later involvement with the Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality (TORCHE) and its work around equalising the age of consent.

While TORCHE’s later initiatives were ultimately unsuccessful, they showcased how views were changing, even among members of the Conservative Party. Interestingly, this was echoed by Robert Hawyward (a Conservative MP who later came out as gay) who at the time experienced a far more liberal culture within the Conservative Party privately than is public pronouncements may have suggested. This even included a high proportion of gay men active within the Conservative Party, particularly in London.

Outside of Parliament, opposition to Section 28 galvanised the LGBT+ rights movement, ‘sparking a new generation of activists who worked across Britain… as part of the largest display of queer political resistance to the state that the UK had ever seen.’ [Severs, 617]. One march against the legislation in April attracted as many as 30,000 people. As described by Chris Smith, protests against Section 28 was a ‘coming of age’ moment for LGBT+ rights campaigners:

New campaigning organisations were also formed in the years following Section 28, such as the direct-action group OutRage! and the lobby group Stonewall. One early supporter of Stonewall was Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP for West Derbyshire (1979-1986), and himself an openly gay man. While Parris would claim in his oral history interview that Section 28’s impact was ultimately minor, it ‘sparked’ the formation of Stonewall and motivated a collection of gay activists (including actor Ian McKellen) into action, paving the way for other reforms to alleviate discrimination.

Following New Labour’s election in 1997, Section 28 was eventually repealed, first in Scotland in 2000, and then in Britain following a cross-party amendment to the 2003 Local Government bill, tabled by Lib Dem MP Ed Davey. The New Labour years also saw the equalisation of the age of consent in 2000, and the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004, laying the foundations for same-sex marriage less than a decade later. Section 28’s repeal and later reforms to enhance LGBT+ rights reflected both the Labour Party’s embrace of the issue since the 1980s and changing social attitudes more generally. This also found expression within the Conservative Party. By 2009, then Conservative leader David Cameron apologised for the party’s role in introducing Section 28, and it was under his Conservative-led coalition government that same-sex marriage was legalised in 2013.

Given the changes in social attitudes since the 1980s, Section 28 has been a difficult subject to unpack in our oral history interviews. Those who were opposed to the legislation from the very beginning have proven far more forthcoming in discussing the issue than its supporters. Only Knight has explicitly defended the legislation in our interviews, with others who supported it at the time having expressed regret subsequently. One of our most revealing reflections came from David Sumberg, who described how he largely supported Section 28 out of political expediency.

In a 2018 interview, even Knight apologised for any hurt caused by Section 28, while still insisting that her primary concern had been ‘the wellbeing of children.’ [BBC News, 24 May 2018]. 

Nevertheless, interviews with those predominantly opposed to Section 28 can still be revealing of a whole range of differing experiences, motivations and limitations. John Bowis describes in his interview how his cautious support for LGBT+ issues (as chair of TORCHE) led to assumptions that he himself was gay, hate mail, and even family friends being concerned that his children would be bullied at school. On the other hand, he also described ‘sackloads of thank you letters’ for speaking out on gay issues. Meanwhile, Matthew Parris acknowledged that part of the reason why he was able to support campaigns like Stonewall was because he was firmly established in his career, and also no longer a sitting MP, given him a degree of freedom and security that others may not have enjoyed. Finally, Edwina Currie’s insistence that her motivations were based on ‘equality’ rather than ‘special treatment’ for LGBT+ people, reveals the kind of constraints politicians faced when arguing for reform. Whilst there are clearly issues, such as this, that our interviewees find really difficult to discuss at a later date, our interviews do offer a space for MPs to reflect back on their earlier decisions and put them in the context of the time. If nothing else, the reflections, justifications, and even the silences, can be very telling about just how much attitudes have changed in a relatively short period of time.

A.S.

Download ALT text for all audio clips here.

Interviews Referenced

C1503/14, Jill Knight by Mike Greenwood [Track 1, 41:50-42:50]

C1503/154, John Bowis by Emma Peplow [Track 3, 01:28:00-01:29:05, 01:42:00-01:44:00]

C1503/158, Chris Smith by Paul Seaward [Track 4, 07:08-08:57]

C1503/163, Edwina Currie by Henry Irivng [Track 3, 10:36-12:21]

C1503/191, David Sumberg by Connie Jeffery [Track 11, 55:43-56:27]

C1503/198, Robert Hayward by Elaine Tedder [Track 4, 54:09-55:09]

C1503/213, Robin Squire by Philip Everest [Track 1, 1:35:08-1:37:40]

C1503/240, Matthew Parris by Emma Peplow [Track 7, 08:48-13:18]

Further Reading

Paul Barker, Outrageous! The Story of Section 28 and Britain’s Battle for LGBT Education (London, 2022)

Stephen Brooke, Sexual Politics: Sexuality, Family Planning, and the British left from the 1880s to the Present Day (Oxford, 2011)

Jonathan Davis and Rohan McWilliam (eds), Labour and the Left in the 1980s (Manchester, 2018)

Vicky Iglikowski-Broad, ‘The Origins of Section 28’, National Archives blog

Vicky Iglikowksi-Broad, ‘Section 28: Impact, Fightback and Repeal’, National Archives blog

David M. Rayside, On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics (Ithaca, NY, 1998)

George J. Severs, ‘Queer Citizenship in 1990s Britain’, Contemporary British History, 38:4 (2024), pp.612-632

Alfie Steer, ‘Knight, [nee Meek; subsequently Christie], Joan Christabel [Jill], Baroness Knight of Collingtree (1923-2022), politician’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2026)