| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 580
assumption, which was notified to the council, that work on the Ayr road route would begin. At that time, Strathclyde's financial plan showed that only £28.6 million of its planned expenditure was legally committed. The regional council therefore had considerable flexibility, with the balance, £45 million, being available to accommodate the rest of its programme, including the Ayr road route. However, when we make allocations to local roads authorities, taking into account the priorities that those authorities have stated in their transport policies and programmes, documents and plans, we do not give projects specific consent. In other words, the authority can, within the allocation announced, use its spending consents as it sees fit.The reasoning behind that approach is clear. It is for regional authorities to determine their relative priorities for investment in their area. We believe that it is for them to judge the most pressing local priorities. If one likes, that is local democracy at work. Phase 1A of the Ayr road route from Dumbreck road to Barrhead road was programmed to start in March 1991. Phase 1B from Barrhead road to the city boundary was programmed to start in March 1992. Both parts--a total of 5.5 km--were due to finish in 1994. At its meeting on 23 October 1990, Strathclyde region's transport policies and programmes sub-committee considered options for delaying the work by 18, 30 or 42 months. It decided to recommend that work on the Ayr road route should be delayed by 30 months. That decision was confirmed by the full roads and transportation committee on 1 November 1990. The decision stems from a programme review carried out by Strathclyde roads department. The council decided that, to take account of what it saw as the wider needs of the region, it was necessary to delay the start of the Ayr road route.
Whether we like it or not, if we add together the roads and transport programmes which all Scottish authorities would like to undertake, the total requirement for capital consent in any one year would substantially exceed the amounts that can be made available. However, Strathclyde's allocation for roads and transport for 1990-91 is 45 per cent. of the Scottish total. It is the highest allocation per local road length of all mainland authorities. It is £5,600 per local road kilometre, compared with the national average of £3,200. Also, although Strathclyde has a high population density, its level of expenditure per head of population is equal to the national average and is substantially higher than for other central belt authorities.
I accept that Strathclyde has to make choices within the resources allocated to it, but I believe that we have treated Strathclyde generously. A start should, therefore, be possible on the Ayr road route if the council deploys the funds available on schemes that were at the centre of the emphasis that the council made in preparing its bid to the Scottish Office.
I shall not respond in detail to what the hon. Gentleman said about the advantages of the route for inward investment because those advantages are self-evident. There is no doubt that that view is shared by Locate in Scotland and by the Scottish Development Agency. Strathclyde's decision to delay the Ayr road route works is most unfortunate. To return to road funding, decisions on final allocations for 1991-92 will not be taken until about February. But it is possible, given the council's decisions this year, that the relatively favourable treatment
Column 581
that we have given Strathclyde on capital allocations will have to be reappraised. A reappraisal will be needed if the council is deploying funds on schemes which were not central to the priorities put to us. Those comments do not necessarily imply that there will be a reduction in Strathclyde's allocation next year. We shall examine carefully the council's latest financial plan and its reviewed priorities, including its other major schemes. We shall then determine final allocations for next and future years within the overall amounts available for Scotland.The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the road for jobs. As he knows, the SDA identified the Bringan site at Kilmarnock as a potential high-amenity site which could be marketed on a time scale to fit with the roads improvement programme. I urge that the region take that fact fully into account. Road safety is also relevant. We attach the highest importance to that and I must point out that the accident rate on the A77 between Glasgow and Ayr is not exceptionally high by comparison with that on other similar roads. However, we aim to reduce accidents on all roads by one third by the year 2000. We are aware that the number of fatal and of serious accidents on the A77 is a cause for serious concern, so the construction of the Ayr road route would be a major step forward in improving road safety on that important route. I repeat the advice that I have given to the hon. Gentleman on our previous meetings. He and his constituents should address their representations to Strathclyde regional council as the key decision on when the Ayr road route proceeds is the council's. We are very disappointed that the council has decided not to begin the strategic work now. However, we believe that the council could start work on the northern part of the new road in 1991-92. We should warmly welcome a decision on those lines by the council.
Column 582
Vietnamese Children (Hong Kong)
2 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham) : I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again at Christmas time the subject of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. In December 1989, we had a full debate on the boat people in which I was able to take part. In December 1988 and in December 1987, I was able to raise the issue in the regular pre-Christmas debate. Sadly, the problem still troubles our conscience at this time of year. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who know the problem well.
At Christmas time, we should be especially conscious of those for whom there is, metaphorically, no room at the inn. We should also be especially concerned about young children in need of care and comfort. Sadly, however, this season will once again be a bleak time for the many thousands of young children locked up in the detention camps of Hong Kong, for which we in the House are ultimately responsible.
Over Christmas, many thousands of young Vietnamese children will catch a glimpse of the outside world only through thick coils of barbed wire. They will play as best they can on crowded cement yards in which they have spent every day of the past year. Some children in the camps are lucky if they can walk on grass or touch a flower on one day in the whole year. Their regular home will be shacks 30 m long by 9 m wide, shared by 300 adults and children.
The minimum guidelines set by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees state that every adult or child should have living space of at least 3.5 sq m. At the Whitehead and High Island detention centres, which hold almost 30,000 boat people, the living space is about 1 sq yd per person. That means that three families will live on top of each other in tiered bunks. It means that home for a husband, a wife and two children will be a strip of plywood measuring 8 ft by 6 ft, with one family living 3 ft above their heads and another family living 3 ft below them. I am ashamed that we should make families live in such conditions.
We require men, women and children to live in such conditions as a by- product of a policy which has been tacitly approved by the House whereby we seek to stop a flood of people desperately seeking a haven from political and economic repression. We know, and the people of Hong Kong know, that a quarter of the 60 million inhabitants of Vietnam would emigrate if they could. Indeed, more than a million have left Vietnam in the past 12 years, and 800,000 have found new homes in the United States. To stop that vast potential flow of people trying to escape from political repression and abject poverty, we had to erect effective and unpleasant barriers.
There are two prongs to such a policy. On the one hand, we say that all new arrivals in Hong Kong from Vietnam must face a fair, but rigorous, screening process to establish whether they are genuine political refugees rather than economic migrants. We also make conditions tough for those who have been screened out and denied refugee status, as well as tough for those waiting to be screened. Our policy of being deliberately unpleasant to those fleeing
Column 583
from Vietnam reached an unhappy climax earlier this year when a planeload of protesting boat people were forcibly deported to Vietnam.I acknowledge that the policy has had its successes. The flow of boat people from north Vietnam has dropped dramatically since that single act of forced repatriation. Perhaps that reduction was caused by news of the repatriation. However, the fall has been so steep--from 2,000 boat people per month from north Vietnam to 100 per month--that it seems more probable that the drop is the result of a change of policy by the Vietnamese and mainland Chinese Governments. The Foreign Office has reached an agreement with the Vietnamese authorities which provides for easier repatriation of those boat people who do not protest too much. In some ways, that is a typical Foreign Office agreement, in that it reassures Vietnamese symathisers like me that there will not be forced repatriation, while it encourages anti-Vietnamese politicians in Hong Kong to believe that there will be.
At the same time, the policy of making conditions intolerably uncomfortable is supposed to persuade people who have been screened out and denied refugee status to return to Vietnam voluntarily. In the first nine months of this year, 3,500 people returned voluntarily. That is a far higher figure than I had expected 12 months ago. The authorities in Hong Kong, and Foreign Office Ministers, will claim that the policy is working, that the number of refugees from north Vietnam has been cut dramatically and that the number of boat people returning voluntarily to Vietnam is higher than we had reason to believe.
However, that policy is based on the hope that economic and political conditions in Vietnam will improve and that the repressive nature of the Vietnamese communist Government will be relaxed still further. Unfortunately, in recent weeks Vietnam seems to have been going backwards rather than of forwards. A year ago, inflation in Vietnam seemed to be under control and the Government there appeared to be adopting a more liberal attitude politically and economically. In the summer of 1989, I met the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, a veteran hard-line communist, who at that time sounded like a member of the "No Turning Back" group with his buoyant enthusiasm for market forces as a cure for inflation. That seemed to be working, but inflation is, alas, now rising sharply once more and the economic liberals have given way to communist hard-liners. Other conditions are also deteriorating. Soviet aid has disappeared. Fertilisers are in short supply in Vietnam. Oil prices are rocketing and unemployment is growing. The foreign currency earnings of Vietnamese guest workers in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have disappeared.
At the same time, political repression, especially in the more relaxed south, seems to be intensifying. I note that, although the number of boat people coming from North Vietnam has fallen dramatically in the past few months, the number from south Vietnam has trebled in the same period. Many of the thousands of south Vietnamese boat people now arriving--most are ethnic Chinese--are confident that they will be given refugee status. Postal communications between Vietnam and the detention camps in Hong Kong are surprisingly good. It seems wholly unlikely that many detainees will agree to go back
Column 584
in the face of genuine fear of famine and hunger. I also fear that the economic and political repression in Vietnam could lead to a fresh wave of desperate people taking to their boats. If that happens, the British Government must be prepared to step in directly. The finances of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong are in a mess. When I was last there a few weeks ago, UNHCR owed the Hong Kong Administration more than 100 million Hong Kong dollars, but sadly some countries specifically exclude Hong Kong from their UNHCR contributions on the grounds that Hong Kong is rich. The politicians in Hong Kong, some of whom will be facing elections soon, are all too likely to want to cut the amount of money spent on the boat people. If there is a new exodus, the British Government have an obligation to step in with fresh help.So, what can be done? I shall comment on three areas--screening, accommodation and education. First, there has been some improvement since I referred to the screening process last year. Of course, it is not perfect and there have been bad cases, such as the 111 boat people who were recently freed on a writ of habeas corpus and who have now been given refugee status. Clearly, they should never have been treated as they were. That episode has had a happy ending, however, and I am satisfied that the bulk of the boat people have received a far more thorough screening than most would-be refugees seeking asylum in other countries.
However, I am not at all happy about the screening of the unaccompanied children in the camps. Depending how one defines the words "unaccompanied" and "children", there are between 2,000 and 4, 000 unaccompanied children in the Hong Kong camps. I am sure that their screening is carried out humanely, but it takes an extraordinarily long time. There is the bureaucracy of the Hong Kong Administration, meshing with the bureaucracy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. One then has to deal with the even more inefficient bureaucrats in Vietnam.
If the present rate is maintained, unaccompanied children may languish for years in the overcrowded detention camps. When I was last in Hong Kong, about 40 unaccompanied children were dealt with per month. That cannot be sensible of humane. I ask the Minister to look again at the special screening arrangements for those children. In view of the deteriorating situation in Vietnam, I hope that far more can be resettled in the West.
Secondly, I hope that all the unaccompanied children, and many of the families, can be moved from closed detention camps to open centres where they are not kept in prison-like conditions. When I was in Hong Kong this autumn, I was impressed by the Pillar Point open centre, which is run by the non-profit-making firm, Hong Kong Housing Services for Refugees Ltd. Pillar point now houses 5,000 people who have been given refugee status. All those refugees will be rehoused in the west sooner or later. Many have jobs in the still-thriving Hong Kong economy. Rent is charged at 100 Hong Kong dollars per month per room. Accommodation is sparse but adequate. In place of the scores of wardens with jangling keys, who are an inevitable part of the scene at High Island and Whitehead closed camps, there is an administrative staff of fewer than 20.
When it comes to looking after refugees, privatisation works. I am glad that there are plans for that non-profit-making private company to run the new Tai A
Column 585
Chau detention centre being built on the Soko islands. That should give hundreds, if not thousands, of children the opportunity to lead a more normal life. I hope that the Chi Ma Wan closed centre--also on an isolated island many miles from the city--can also be privatised and opened up.I accept, with reluctance, the necessity for some closed camps, where conditions are austere, but as the ominous situation in Vietnam means that only a minority of people will be willing to return in the immediate future, we must take urgent action to ensure that children and young people are treated humanely.
Thirdly, I note that the Vietnamese, like the Chinese, are hungry for educations. I salute the work that the Save the Children Fund and other voluntary bodies are doing to provide playgrounds for the younger children. I note that considerable efforts are being made by the authorities to provide Vietnamese education, with an improved curriculum, for children of school age, but the effort seems to have a patchy impact and I hope that the Hong Kong Administration will feel able to increase the resources spent on the boat people's skills. A little money spent judiciously on educating those children should not be begrudged.
When I visited Pillar Point refugee camp recently, I was depressed to hear that the UNHCR had cut out all adult education, particularly the teaching of English. We know that the thousands of adults and children there will eventually be resettled in the west, almost certainly in English-speaking countries. It seems folly, therefore, not to make an effort to teach those people English while they are waiting for resettlement. I have appealed through the American press to Vietnamese organisations in America to fund that work, but ultimately the responsibility for this and for life in all the camps rests with us.
The people who run these camps on our behalf are generally kind and humane, but as Christmas approaches we should not tolerantly accept a system which leaves a child, or a man or woman, with 1 sq yd of living space. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced an extra £5 million for famine relief in Ethiopia and the Sudan, and I welcome that. I accept that the British taxpayer cannot meet all demands, but we have a particular responsibility to help those whom we have deliberately locked up. 2.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for once again raising the important issue of the plight of Vietnamese children in the boat people's camps in Hong Kong. I know that the House will be pleased to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who have taken a great interest in this subject.
The debate provides an opportunity to review recent developments in our efforts to find a humane and lasting solution to the problems posed for Hong Kong by the large numbers of boat people there and by those who still continue to arrive--although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, fortunately in rather reduced numbers--for it is only through a lasting solution that a stable future for the children in those camps can be secured.
Column 586
I pay tribute to the Hong Kong authorities, who, despite preoccupations with their own future during a time of considerable uncertainty, have continue to provide a safe haven for the Vietnamese asylum seekers. As we have been able to say for over 11 years now, no Vietnamese has ever been turned away. Hong Kong's humanitarian record is one of which to be proud, but I remind the House that last year Hong Kong coped with the arrival of more than 34,000 people, in addition to the 18,000 who arrived in the previous year.The cornerstone of our concern is that genuine refugees should continue to enjoy protection and that a new home for them should be found in the west. The corollary is that those who are not refugees should return to their country of origin either to rebuild their lives in their home cities or villages or, if they are intent on leaving, to migrate through normal emigration channels. It is against that background that the policy for dealing with the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong and south-east Asia has evolved.
Screening was introduced in Hong Kong in 1988 with the co-operation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has been good enough to say that it is a thorough process. The procedures in Hong Kong have undergone some changes over the past 30 months, and I am confident that they are fair and well adapted to their main objective, which is to ensure that no one facing the prospect of return to Vietnam need fear persecution at the hands of the Vietnamese authorities.
Screening selects those whose fear of persecution in Vietnam is well founded. My hon. Friend referred to the agreement that the Foreign Office has concluded with Vietnam, and we have sought to obtain from the Vietnamese authorities specific undertakings that nobody who returns will be punished for having left. I am happy to say that the Vietnamese have honoured that. More than 6,000 people have returned to Vietnam from Hong Kong since March 1989, and their conditions have been monitored by the UNHCR and the British embassy. Not a single incident of persecution or mistreatment of those who have returned has yet been recorded.
Nevertheless, one can understand the argument that it would be hard-hearted to send people back to Vietnam without offering them any help to rebuild their lives. Our policy is far from hard-hearted, for the following reasons. The UNHCR has been providing reintegration assistance to which we have contributed. In addition, last May we announced a contribution of £1 million of aid for the areas of Vietnam from which the boat people originate. Perhaps most significantly, at our instigation, the European Community proposed in July to set up a major repatriation and reintegration assistance programme for returning Vietnamese. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham may have seen an announcement in the press stating that that is starting with a pilot project of some 10 million ecu. Therefore, returning Vietnamese can now enjoy the prospect of generous financial support and a real opportunity to build their own future. There is no prospect that the international community will change its mind and resettle Vietnamese who are not refugees. Yet, sadly, pamphlets, some of which have originated in the United States of America, have circulated in the camps urging people to hang on in the expectation of change.
Column 587
Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : The basis of the economy in Vietnam could be changed if we and the United States recognised Vietnam and normalised relations. In that way, the many people who want to reinvest in Vietnam and its economy could do so, and the future of the Vietnamese people would be secure in their own country rather than their having to leave. That would be more helpful than the policy that my hon. Friend the Minister has just described.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and certainly it will be considered. However, it is going wide of the debate.
The pamphlets are appallingly irresponsible. They prolong to no purpose the detention of men, women and children at a time when the wherewithal exists for them to start a new life back in the communities which they left.
In the few minutes left to me, I should like to comment on the main subjects of the debate. If the ultimately hopeless period of waiting in the camps in Hong Kong is hard on adults, it is even harder on children. There are some 16,500 children under the age of 16 in Hong Kong, and special provision is made for them. They have special dietary scales and are provided with supplementary feeding to ensure that they are well nourished. Medical services, including the same free immunisation service for all babies and children as is provided for all Hong Kong children, are available in every centre. Any child requiring specialist treatment or hospitalisation is sent to outside hospitals, and arrangements are made for the parents to visit regularly.
During the 1989 influx many of the facilities provided for children had to make way for basic accommodation. However, as a result of the improvements this year, conditions are now much better. Education programmes include pre -school, primary and secondary levels. There is a library in each centre and access to educational videos is available to all. My hon. Friend commented on education for these children. Curricula taught in the detention centres are modelled on curricula taught in Vietnam. If more resources could be found, the quality of education would be improved, and we shall give some thought to that. English is taught in the camps to refugees to help them prepare for resettlement and to non-refugees. For the latter, the emphasis must be on Vietnamese because they will be returning to Vietnam.
The camp environment is far from ideal for children. There are play areas and open spaces with play equipment where possible. Donations of toys and gifts, especially at Christmas time, are distributed. Recreational programmes, including outings and excursions, are organised in co-operation with voluntary agencies.
My hon. Friend spoke of the Tai A Chau and the Chi Ma Wan camps. We believe that children are best cared for by responsible adults--their parents, adult relatives or temporary foster parents. Children inevitably tend to be
Column 588
spread throughout the camps. Tai A Chau is to be used as a camp for southerners. Consistent with that policy, the Hong Kong authorities intend to move as many children and unaccompanied minors as possible to Tai A Chau when the camp opens early next year. I am happy to say that the arrangements at Chi Ma Wan are being reviewed. We shall consider including families in that camp.My hon. Friend was particularly concerned about unaccompanied children, of whom there are estimated to be 2,000 or more. Special committees responsible for them must be created in each country of first asylum. The committee in Hong Kong has operated since 19 April. It is charged with making a recommendation to the Hong Kong Government. So far, 663 cases have been submitted to the committee, which has reached a decision on 116 of them. Of those, 78 have been recommended for repatriation and 38 for resettlement.
My hon. Friend expressed concern at the committee's slow rate of progress. We and the Hong Kong Government share that concern and have urged the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' office in Hong Kong to speed up the committee's work.
Hong Kong has some 12,000 people who have been determined not to be refugees. They are no different from any other illegal
immigrants--except that, inevitably because of the emotive history of the boat people and the Vietnam war, their deportation is a matter of contention. It is not fair to expect Hong Kong to continue to provide a temporary resting place. Nor is it fair to the people themselves to continue to hold out a false hope of resettlement.
We, the Hong Kong authorities, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will continue to work closely to achieve the orderly return of those people as soon as possible. I am confident that we have the basis of a durable and humane solution to this long-running problem. We will continue in our unflagging efforts to make it work.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that all right hon. and hon. Members received today a letter from the Secretary of State for Health about my private Member's Bill on no-fault compensation in the national health service. His letter refers to provisions in the Bill, which is not yet published and was only deposited with the Public Bill Office less than one hour ago. Is not it a grave contempt of the House for a Minister publicly to oppose a Bill in that way, before it has even been published?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : As I understand the hon. Lady, she is suggesting that contempt or a breach of privilege is involved. The correct procedure is for the hon. Lady to write to Mr. Speaker. Doubtless she will reflect on that.
Column 589
National Curriculum (Religious Freedom)
2.30 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : This is the last debate before Christmas and it is very much in the Christmas spirit--in that it is a genuinely altruistic debate. I used to work in the television industry, but am now a full-time politician. The people on whose behalf I have sought this debate are the Brethren, sometimes known as the Exclusive Brethren. They do not watch television and they do not vote, so this can genuinely be described as an altruistic effort on my part--and the same can be said of any other hon. Member who participates.
The Brethren are very concerned about the national curriculum--not so much about its content as about the way that it is being interpreted. The Brethren have doctrinal purity. They believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and therefore no religious instruction is taken outside the Brethren. They do not share meals with non-believers ; nor do they watch films or television. They do not use computers either, and heavily restrict their reading material. Some people will find that odd. Most people will regard their behaviour as being outside their own norms of society.
In representing the case of the Brethren in my constituency, it is not for me to decide what are the norms of society, or what those decent, honest, law-abiding people should or should not do--or should or should not want for their children. In the past, I have taken up cases concerning people who are black or Asian--and no doubt I shall do so in future. For example, I was heavily involved with the whole issue of whether Sikh people should be forced to wear hard hats on building sites. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, was partly instrumental in ensuring, very creditably, that they should not be compelled to do so. That was done on the basis that it was not for us to dictate what people should or should not believe in terms of their religion. What was true for them must be true for the Brethren.
The Government's view was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) when she was Minister of State, and was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) when he assumed that office. It is summed up in a letter from my hon. Friend dated 29 August, in which he states :
"the use of television and radio programmes and videos as media for teaching is not a requirement of the National Curriculum DES Circular 3/90, which was issued on 6 March with the National Curriculum Order for technology, made clear our hope that schools would have regard to parents' views in their choice of media for teaching purposes."
That makes it abundantly clear that, with goodwill on both sides, it could and should be possible to reach a reasonable compromise. Regrettably, that has not been the case.
There have been a range of responses. Some schools and local education authorities have been helpful. In Humberside, a school wrote to the parents saying :
"Your children will be allowed to leave the room whenever a video is to be shown, in all subjects and in each year group ; you will be informed of a suitable textbook in Science, which you may wish to purchase as an alternative source of information In English, you will be sent a copy of texts which are to be used, so that you may decide upon their suitability. Should you feel they are not acceptable then we will try to provide an alternative".
Column 590
In the London borough of Barnet, the headmaster of East Barnet school said :"The parents and pupils concerned"--
the Brethren--
"are admirable people and I sincerely hope that their strongly held religious beliefs can be accommodated within the State schools. I trust that the English traditions of religious tolerance and compromise will eventually prevail.
Article 14 of the Convention of The Rights Of The Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989 : States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child." In the London borough of Harrow, one of the schools wrote to parents saying :
"Brethren children are excused from these sessions, however with the encouragement of their teachers and parents they invariably back-up their work from other sources Far from inhibiting the childrens' progress, it enables them to give a different view point in written work and discussion."
Finally, a head teacher from a school in Gloucester said : "This letter is just to inform you that the school policy will continue to be one of respecting your wishes in this matter, come what may!"
It has not always been as good as that. Some schools and education authorities have been actively hostile. I have here a series of insensitive and high-handed letters. If these children were black or Asian, some of the remarks in these letters could contravene the Race Relations Act 1976. The remarks that I am about to read are, in my judgment, patronising, insulting and high-handed.
In Hampshire, a headmaster said :
"there are areas in which you have no choice in law whilst the pupils are attending a State school. These areas are in connection with Sex Education and Information Technology."
That headmaster is wrong in law.
In Stafford, a chairman of governors wrote :
"Your particular interpretation of the Bible places demands upon the school's resources that cannot be met without a very considerable amount of extra work."
How dare he tell parents what their interpretation of the Bible must, or must not be?
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Will my hon. Friend note that I have the greatest possible sympathy with the views that are expressed by the Exclusive Brethren? It would be extremely desirable if some of the people who use these intemperate remarks would pay greater attention to the importance of religion and Christianity in our schools. Furthermore, if he looks at the Race Relations Act 1976, I think that he will find that there is a positive prohibition not only of racism, but also of discrimination on religious grounds.
Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) both for his support and for the interesting point that he has made about the Race Relations Act. I am certain that the Brethren will follow that up.
Indeed, I have received a number of letters from colleagues, including my neighbour the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), expressing their support for what I was doing today and hoping that the Brethren will be allowed to carry on as they are and that their religion will be respected.
I have a letter from the chairman of governors of a school in Stockport :
"We regret the necessity of this action as we accept that your request was made with the best of intentions".
Column 591
That is the letter that I described as patronising. A Suffolk headmaster said :"there is no point in discussing these matters further and therefore I am not prepared to make another appointment." The appointment was with representatives of the Brethren. That was on 2 February, a full month before the Government's circular was issued. The school would not even consult before the Government's view was clear.
The final letter from which I wish to quote comes, regrettably, from my own constituency. I am sorry to say that it is from the chairman of the governors at Longfield school. It is a very good school, but the governors will have to think again. Dr. Welch, the chairman, said :
"the Governors give notice that, as from the first day of the new school year in September 1991, no pupil may be excluded from any lesson, or part of a lesson, or any procedure used by the teaching staff to deliver the curriculum From September 1991, if pupils exclude themselves from any part of the secular curriculum, for reasons other than those listed, the matter will be dealt with using the agreed disciplinary procedures".
I find that entirely unacceptable. It is plain that the good will and reasonableness that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his predecessor hoped would prevail have not done so in all circumstances. We must see what can be done to help the people concerned. If necessary, they will refer the matter to the European Court of Human Rights--and they have every reason to do so. Article 2 of the European convention on human rights states :
"No person shall be denied the right to education The State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious ... convictions."
Nothing could be clearer than that.
I believe that a change may be necessary to enable parents to exercise their own religious discretion. Let me give just one example of what has been done in another part of the world. In New South Wales, Australia, the legislative assembly passed a Bill saying : "The parent of a child enrolled at a government school may give the Director-General of School Education written notice that the parent conscientiously objects on religious grounds to the child being taught a particular part of a course of study."
I believe that that is necessary. I believe that we must protect these people, particularly because of the very fact that they do not vote. The fact that they do not vote is a matter for them. Because they do not take what others would regard as a normal part in society, we have an even greater responsibility to protect them--against, for instance, the high- handed attitude displayed in the letters from which I have quoted.
2.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar) : I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow,West (Mr. Hughes) for raising this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for attending the "swansong" of this part of our Session.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has raised a very serious matter, and I know that the Brethren feel very strongly about it. It is a matter on which I have already spent considerable time since my arrival in my relatively new post, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) also spent a good deal of time considering it. It was considered
Column 592
exhaustively during the various procedures and thought processes that contributed to the building of the national curriculum. The questions raised by my hon. Friend and by the Brethren are not only matters for the Brethren themselves ; they relate to the position of all children who are educated in our maintained schools. The issue at stake is what sort of education we should provide for the majority of our youngsters to ensure that they leave school well prepared to meet the challenges that they will face throughout their lives.One of the aims of the national curriculum is to ensure a broad and balanced education for all pupils of compulsory school age at maintained schools. That is part of a wider requirement--enshrined in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988--to ensure that all pupils are fully prepared for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. If we are not to sell children short, we must ensure that all pupils in maintained schools are given a thorough and relevant preparation for adult and working life. It is essential that children are prepared for the world in which we live. Information technology is playing an increasingly significant role in contemporary life. Pupils cannot be prepared for a modern society in which the use of information technology is prevalent if they are not provided with some basic knowledge and understanding about information technology. This is not to prosyletise or encourage, but it is to inform. It is vital that young people are fully aware of and competent to use information technology. Not to include information technology in the national curriculum would be an immense disservice to future generations who will have to work and compete in a wider world with others. To leave information technology optional would also disadvantage children in a country that must strive hard in a highly competitive and increasingly technological world. We therefore need to ensure that all pupils in state schools understand how information technology and its applications work. That is why the Government believe that IT education should be a requirement, not an option, under the national curriculum in maintained schools.
In particular, all pupils should have the opportunity to acquire some knowledge, skills and understanding about computers and their uses. This is a matter of curriculum content rather than delivery. Computer education is not simply a medium for teaching other subjects : information technology constitutes a subject for study in itself. That is why the national curriculum order for technology--along with those for maths, science and English--all involve the use of computers or word processors. Schools are not allowed to excuse children from these requirements ; nor can local education authorities. I can understand many of the Brethren's concerns about modern media which information technology supports in one way or another. Quite apart from religious beliefs, it is widely felt that television, radio and videos do not always portray the best in our society. I can appreciate why parents should wish to protect their children from the worst aspects of those media. Parents have rightly complained about materials which, while acceptable for adults, would be unsuitable for children in their early and formative years. I respect parents' views on those matters. The portrayal of sex and violence in various media and the
Column 593
promotion of uncaring and irreligious attitudes, particularly among the young at an age when they are impressionable and vulnerable, rightly concern many people.I respect the wish of Brethren parents to discourage their children from becoming too accustomed to television, radio and videos. That is irrespective of the Brethren's particular religious views. The Government have been at pains to ensure that the views of the Brethren were carefully considered. We have received a great many representations on their behalf. I have listened intensively to the views expressed by some of my constituents in Enfield, North. There has been very extensive correspondence about the whole issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden met representatives of the Brethren to discuss the matter. The subject was also aired in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments when it considered the national curriculum orders in English and technology last June. The use of television, radio and videos in schools is a question of the delivery rather than the content of the curriculum. The national curriculum emphatically does not require the use of such media. Schools remain free to choose their own teaching methods. The Government have done their best to ensure that shools are aware of this. Guidance has been offered on this point in a circular that was issued by my Department in March this year, along with the national curriculum order for technology. These documents made clear our hope that schools would have regard to parents' views in their choice of media for teaching purposes.
I have to make it clear that the guidance contained in the circular is not legally binding and that the final decision on teaching methods rests with schools. Although I can, and do, encourage schools to have regard to parents' views on teaching methods, the Government have no power to direct them to do so. Nevertheless, I would expect schools and local education authorities to be sensitive to the beliefs of families in considering teaching methods and teaching materials.
My hon. Friend referred to a number of letters and, in the phraseology of the old essay question, called on me to contrast and compare them. He referred to a letter from a school in Harrow. Although that school seems to be acting within the letter of the law, I regret the intransigent and hostile tone that was adopted and the lack of sensitivity that was shown. I hope that all schools will heed the advice that is given in my Department's circular 390, in which we encouraged head teachers and their staff to have regard to parents' views on the media used for teaching and, where practical, to provide individual pupils with alternative methods. My hon. Friend cited one or two examples of the way in which some schools were doing just that.
An important issue in making decisions about the use of such alternative materials should be whether pupils' access to the curriculum would be seriously harmed if they did not participate in lessons involving the use of those media. I hope that schools will adopt a friendly and helpful approach to members of the Brethen to find ways of meeting the school's legal obligations and of enabling Brethren children to remain within maintained schools.
I must stress that parents cannot exercise a right of veto by withdrawing their children from particular lessons if they disagree with the teaching methods that are used. There is nothing new in that. There has been a long- standing right under the Education Acts for parents
| Next Section
| Home Page |