| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no connection between section 28 and what he is proposing, because the section has not been relevant in terms of school sex education policies, which are set by parents, teachers and governors, and have been for some time? What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is a departure in terms of guidance for schools. That is not affected by whether section 28 is or is not on the statute book.
Mr. Boswell: Although I have been at some pains not to debate section 28, its application goes wider. One of the difficulties in the clause as we received it from the Committee is that it excludes--Christian interests would welcome this--the confusing reference to duties on a local education authority. This is about--we think that this is proper, and evidently the Government do too--whether the sex education policy of schools should be determined by schools, subject to guidelines which may or may not be statutory. The amendment relates to the nature of statutory guidelines.
The amendment has an interesting and perhaps somewhat erratic genesis. First, there are resonances with the Government's general objectives, which were enshrined in an amendment for debate on Third Reading in another place. For example, it referred to the importance of learning about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the rearing of children. It referred also to learning about the significance of marriage and stable relationships. Those were regarded as key building blocks of community and society.
Many Members will be aware of the history of the debate at that stage in another place. The amendment of my noble Friend Baroness Young was preferred by their lordships, who delivered the Bill to us accordingly. Hon. Members will perhaps have studied those debates.
It is interesting that the Government, not having got their own way on their own draft, indicated in a reversing statement by Baroness Blackstone that they would consider the Government's future position. In both respects, although this is not always the case, the Government have honoured their undertaking. They have taken away all positive references in the statutory guidelines to the nature of marriage. They have produced an alternative, which appears in the Bill as clause 135, which we seek to amend.
There is an interesting feature to the Government's second thoughts. It is an open secret that they started with a heavy influence from the Christian Church, and the Church of England's board of education in particular, to produce some value-laden statements to put in statute and to inform the guidelines. However, the Government have moved away from that. They have only produced--although it is not unworthy and I am not suggesting that we should quarrel with it--a minimal filter for the activities that schools may sanction in terms of sex education.
8 pm
In one sense, it might be appropriate--in another, it might be inappropriate, given the history of the century--to describe the Government's attitude to legislation as smacking of the 18th century: they appear to be saying, rather wearily, that all they, as a Government, can do is to prevent pupils from being done harm through access to inappropriate materials. In no sense am I suggesting that it is not important to prevent access to such materials or to ensure that materials are appropriate to the age and culture of the individuals involved, but, in a slightly uneasy progress, the Government have removed any positive duties--any meat--from the guidelines, other than that which appears in non-statutory guidance.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Does my hon. Friend consider that the position is now worse than it was before? Had the Government not been through the debate in another place, where the issues were thoroughly fought out, what they have done might be thought the result of an oversight, or of a different approach. In fact, the Government, in a direct way, have decided that they are not prepared to support a provision that Christian Churches of all sorts and many informed people want to be introduced. Because of that, the Government need to explain their position far more clearly than they have hitherto.
Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend makes a most valuable point. It would have been one thing had the Government not started down the route of introducing an extraneous matter into the Bill, which makes provision for post-16 education, but it is quite another for the Government, having started on the basis that it was a good idea to tell people what they ought to teach, now to say that, because they did not get their way in another place, they have decided not to say anything at all about it. That casts doubt on the strength of their feeling on the matter.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): Will the hon. Gentleman explain the thinking behind his
amendment? As I understand it, it differs significantly from the amendment tabled by Baroness Young. Have Conservative Front Benchers been convinced by the arguments against some aspects of the noble Lady's amendment?
Mr. Boswell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I perceive a close equivalence between the two amendments. I might have overlooked something, but I think that, in amendment No. 83, we have tabled the same amendment as Baroness Young tabled. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has masterfully summarised our case in his much shorter amendment No. 73.
We have proposed some positive general objectives and attempted to address some of the issues. We welcome the Government's desire to protect pupils from harm or access to inappropriate materials, but it is mealy-mouthed of them to say that they believe in values--or did at one stage--but to remove them once challenged. It reminds me of the politician who said, "Here are the principles: if you don't like them, we'll take them away and find another set."
Some of us have occasionally been critical of our Church. The Church of England Board of Education has been straightforward in its approach. A letter was sent to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch by a member of that body, Mr. Locke, who states:
- the importance of marriage and the non-equivalence of other relationships are at the heart of where the Board of Education stands.
It is easy for the issue to be over-emphasised and for it to give rise to ill-considered talk. We are considering an important subject: the guidance that should be given to schools in framing their sex education policy. Within that, there is a separate issue of whether the guidance should appear and be altered from time to time in non-statutory form, or whether it should be enshrined in legislation. Not for the first time--sometimes to the embarrassment of previous Conservative Governments--their lordships are right. They have talked of principles and the importance of marriage and stability in relationships, and have done so in a way that reflects more closely than the Government's proposals the views of the general public, of the Christian Churches and of responsible people who engage in these sensitive matters.
I think that the Lords got it right. The Government have backed away from the challenge at the first sign of difficulty, or out of petulance resulting from their experiences in another place. They have come up with a small and inadequate alternative; our version is better. Either in the formulation proposed in amendment No. 83, or in the shorter and more succinct formulation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, the House deserves to pass back to their lordships a firm endorsement of marriage and traditional values.
Mr. Gummer: On listening to the debate, the question that most people will ask is why on earth the Government are resisting the amendments, given that they represent the views of most of those who have considered the issues over a long period. The Government said that they would
listen carefully to those outside this place who want to raise the standards of the nation and, in particular, encourage future generations to have the stability that marriage alone brings. The Government claimed in the other place that they have no quarrel with the desire to put marriage at the centre of sex education--indeed, the Government's own amendment was designed to achieve precisely that end. Therefore, Ministers face today the difficult task of explaining their actions to the public, who must be mystified as to why the Government want us not to put marriage at the centre of sex education. Had we not broached the subject, it would not be so serious a situation; but we have, so for the Government not to accept either of the amendments we offer or not to make the amendment that they proposed in another place says to the people of this country that the Government do not believe that marriage is at the heart of sensible sex education.I am one who has been fortunate to have had a long and happy marriage. Therefore, I am among the first to insist that we should in no way be willing to stigmatise those who, for all sorts of reasons, have not had that kind fortune, and certainly not their children. However, I am also aware of the enormous advantage given to a new generation of growing up knowing, as they go to sleep at night, that the next morning their parents will be there and that their parents have committed themselves, outside the having of children, to live with each other until death do them part. That is a crucial element of stability--the one thing that any couple ought to try to give to the next generation, for without it they bring into the world a life for which their commitment is not properly sufficient. We are the only animal that has the choice of producing children knowingly. The one thing that we can properly give to the next generation is the knowledge that we intend for their sake, if for no other, to live together and provide the stability that young people growing up so desperately need.
All we ask in the amendment is that that perfectly proper view, which has been the view in this country for hundreds of years, which on any test is the view of the majority of people in this country, and which we understand to be the view of the Government, should be enshrined in legislation.
If the Government refuse to accept such a reasonable amendment, they will stand accused not just by their political opponents, but by the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations of not believing that marriage should be at the heart of sex education. I can think of few things more damaging than sex education without marriage at its heart, for it would then be merely the mechanistic explanation of that which many already know.
If we are to challenge the Government, which I do in the most polite way that I can, I must ask the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to answer a simple question when she replies. If she is not willing to accept the amendment, will she tell the House that she does not believe that marriage should be at the heart of sex education in schools? Unless she is willing to say that, she must accept the amendment.
If the hon. Lady does not accept the amendment, she must have the courage of her convictions and say, "Whatever the Church of England says, whatever the Catholic Church says, whatever most people in this
country say, I do not believe that marriage is at the heart of sensible sex education." Let her have that courage. I shall not agree with her. I shall find that view offensive, in the deepest sense, for it offends the next generation and it removes from them the thing that all of us have a duty to give.I have no time for those who are not prepared to commit themselves to each other, but are prepared to produce children outside that commitment. I believe that to be a very wrong way of approaching their responsibility, but if the Minister takes that view, let her say so, and we will know. However, if she refuses to say so, the Government will be not only wrong, but extremely cowardly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |