---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair, and there is a telephone outside.

New clause 7

Promotion of marriage and parenthood in maintained schools

'--(1) Section 351 of the Education Act 1996 (General duties in respect of the curriculum) shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted
"including marriage and parenthood.".'.--[Mr. Leigh.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Under section 351 of the Education Act 1996, the national curriculum must prepare people for the

"opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life."

My new clause simply suggests that marriage and parenthood constitute one of the key aspects of adult life, and should be included in the national curriculum.

Politicians of all parties tend to make vague generalisations about being "committed to the family". When politicians say that they are committed to the family, do they mean that they are committed merely to maintaining the status quo, or do they mean that they want

28 Jan 1997 : Column 241

to support a stable, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, and to support the notion that being a parent means being a parent for life?

There is a danger that the definition of the ideal family has been stretched to include any configuration of adults and children. Given that we have a detailed national curriculum, I consider it appropriate for Parliament to lay down clear objectives about the aims that we want our state schools to achieve.

Parents are rightly concerned about examination results and academic achievement, and we should do all we can to ensure that standards are raised; but education is education, not only for the purposes of employment but for the purposes of life itself. Schools, whether they like it or not, have a key role in communicating values to young people. It surely cannot have escaped many people's attention that today's society faces serious problems as a result of the breakdown of the family.

Of course young people can be profoundly affected by a parent's leaving the family home, but education must deal with the fact that, one day, most young people will grow up and become parents themselves. My concern is to see our schools promote responsible attitudes towards marriage and parenthood. I strongly believe that the time has now come to extend the objectives of the national curriculum to include preparing pupils for the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I do not think that anyone would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that marriage--and parenthood in particular--represent an estate on which many people will embark, and that for that reason they should be included in the national curriculum. Surely, however, the hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that they were "one of" the key aspects of the national curriculum.

Why should those matters be singled out in the new clause--given that they are already covered in the Bill as it stands--in preference to any number of items that could be added, relating to the responsibilities and opportunities of adults? Does not the new clause invite people to add an infinite number of items, according to whim and to their particular interests?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that point. I shall refer to it in detail, but marriage and parenthood are such an integral part of life that they should be part of the national curriculum, and should be taught.

Some people might say, "Surely schools already cover marriage and parenthood in their courses on personal and social education." I accept that, but my main concern is that such courses can often put marriage on an equal basis with temporary relationships, and fail to promote a responsible attitude to marriage and parenthood.

The book that I have in my hand is a well-established teacher's book for primary schools. I think that most Members reading the book would be appalled by its suggestions. The introduction is a guide to flouting the law so that sex education can avoid being within the framework of "moral considerations" and "family life" as required by Parliament. The introduction gleefully points out that Parliament--that is us--has failed to define what it means by the family.

28 Jan 1997 : Column 242

9 pm

Later, the book says:

"Parenting can be carried out just as successfully by people who are not necessarily the child's natural parents."

That may be true in some circumstances, but it is a somewhat offhand dismissal of natural family ties. Of course I accept that, in some cases, adults who are not the natural parents can do a great job of raising children, but common sense teaches us that the ideal is for children to be cared for and nurtured by both natural parents. To pretend that that is not true is to distort the truth and to deceive children.

I would never claim to be able to look after other hon. Members' children as well as the hon. Members themselves. Obviously, we must assume that it is overwhelmingly the case that natural parents are the best carers and models for children. The book adopts a completely irresponsible attitude to human relationships. For the book, one-night stands are just as valid as marriage. In my view, they are not.

There is an accompanying teaching book for secondary schools. It is clear on the moral values that it promotes. Let me read just one sentence from a story to be read to pupils--school children--to help them to feel more confident about the subject:

"Deb and Philip had been together for two years, and . . . they both had other close friends with whom they slept occasionally".

What sort of example is that for young people? This is a well-known teacher's manual.

Of course these are only two teacher's manuals, albeit fairly typical ones. We do not know what is taught in every classroom. Parliament cannot control every classroom, but it can act to give general guidance to schools. My new clause addresses the national curriculum as a whole. Here, we can make a difference and state what we want.

My worse fears have been fully justified by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, which recently considered the moral values that schools should promote. Their moral framework was drawn up by SCAA officials after it appointed 150 people to a National Forum for Values in Education and the Community.

In the first draft last September, the family was not even mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment intervened. She called for the curriculum to support traditional family values. That intervention led to the next draft including the family.

By January, the "moral framework" included a weak reference to marriage. The framework says that schools should

"support families in raising children and caring for dependants,


support the institution of marriage"

and

"recognise that the love and commitment required for a secure and happy childhood can be found in families of different kinds".

Fine. I accept that the guidance says that the institution of marriage should be supported, but it qualifies that by implying that other sorts of families are equally secure and happy. Such a caveat ignores all the evidence that, normally, children thrive best of all when they live with their two married parents. That is just common sense.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen): My hon. Friend will recall that it was suggested that putting

28 Jan 1997 : Column 243

marriage into such teaching in schools was irrelevant for many children. I might suggest that talking about going to the moon could be just as irrelevant, and it could be included with marriage as an ideal to which they might aspire.

Mr. Leigh: Yes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I will return to it. We should not frame national policy making on the basis just of the lowest common denominator, but seek to provide an example to young people.

Of course there are always individual exceptions to the rule that I have outlined, but that does not change the fact that, on average, children thrive best when they live with their married father and mother. The reason why the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have objected to SCAA's wording is that marriage is supported in the document, not promoted. Marriage is not held up as the ideal, but is just one configuration of family among many others. The wording that SCAA has chosen is therefore pretty meaningless.

The public, however, are very clear about what they want. Opinion polls clearly show that people want schools to promote marriage, not just support it. A Galluppoll, which was reported in The Sunday Telegraph on3 November, found that 75 per cent. of people believe that schools should teach children that marriage is a good thing. Another poll, conducted by Audience Selection, which was reported on the same day, found that73 per cent. of people believe that the teaching of moral values in schools should focus on marriage and traditional family values.

Only after massive public controversy--reported on the front page of virtually every national newspaper--and intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did SCAA include marriage in its framework document. That shows how out of step educational bureaucrats can be with the general public. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take firm action to ensure that her own quango issues sensible guidance in future.

The two most important commitments that a person can make in their lifetime are to marriage and to parenthood. Our law recognises that both should be lifelong. The English legal definition of marriage is the

"voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

That definition was given by Lord Justice Penzance as long ago as 1866.

Legislation, such as the Child Support Act 1991, recognises that parenthood is for life. Children need a mother and a father; they need to be cared for and nurtured in a stable environment of love between mother and father.

---