| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who, as ever on such issues, has given the House a lucid, eloquent, courteous and incisive view on an extremely important matter facing the nation.
I am somewhat surprised to find my amendment being endorsed by those on my Front Bench and to find myself, so to speak, in pole position on the grid, although I am delighted that that is the case and that my hon. Friends have seen fit to promote the amendment that I tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear, the wording that I used was taken straight from the Government's own document entitled "Supporting Families--a consultation document" which was published a couple of years ago.
Paragraph 4.3 of that document states:
- The Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships. This does not mean trying to make people marry, or criticising or penalising people who choose not to. We do not believe that Government should interfere in people's lives in that way. But we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and, again, for his amendment. Will he draw the attention of the House specifically to the remark in the paragraph that he quoted, which may not have received sufficient attention so far? The Government conceded there that that view is shared by the majority of people in this country, yet they now oppose our amendment and say that they are prepared to go against the majority view, for reasons that they have not yet adequately stated.
8.15 pm
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal made it plain that that was the view of the majority of the people of the country, and that it is bizarre that the Government are bent on resisting such a modest amendment, which is entirely in accordance with the Government's philosophy, as stated by no less a person than the Home Secretary.
The debate is part of a two-sided coin. The Government announced their plans to abolish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988--the provision that prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality as "a pretended family relationship." They know that that is deeply unpopular.
In Scotland, week after week, the Daily Record--not a Tory newspaper--has been hammering the Government and supporting Cardinal Winning and Brian Souter in the courageous stand that they have taken, so demonstrating that they were in touch with the people of Scotland and the Government were wholly out of touch. That was shown by the opinion poll commissioned by Brian Souter. I pay tribute to the courage of those people, one a cleric and the other a business man, for the stand that they have taken. They have set a great example to the rest of the nation.
In the face of that hostility in Scotland and elsewhere, the Government introduced an amendment on Third Reading of the Bill, late in the proceedings in another place. The amendment, in the name of Baroness Blackstone, required the Secretary of State to issue guidance. The guidance was published on 16 March, a week before the debate in another place. The guidance was extensive, running to 28 pages.
The Government tried to get the bishops on side, but failed to reckon with the outstanding and formidable eloquence and determination of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Young, together with the right reverend Bishop of Winchester, who supported my right hon. and noble Friend and who, I know, feels passionately about the issue. They persuaded the other place of the merits of their argument and won the day with an amendment to the Government's proposal, writing into the Bill that marriage is
- the key building block of society.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 436.]
- teaching and materials which are inappropriate--
It is significant that those in another place were prepared to insert an amendment that was specific, even if it was not quite in the terms that many of us wanted, yet in this place all those provisions have been removed, save for the reference to inappropriate material.
Nothing better illustrates the confusion and prevarication at the heart of the present Government than their policy on sexual matters. On the one hand, the Home Secretary sets out graphically the Government's support for the institution of marriage. Then there is the prevarication in the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and we have the Government promoting the Bill to reduce the age of consent for buggery from 18 to 16. Where is the joined-up government in all of that? It is a very confused message that the Government are sending.
I remind the House that at the Ayr by-election the Prime Minister, having been shown some posters produced by campaigning groups whipping up homosexual propaganda, said:
- I've just seen the posters here in Scotland. I don't think I've ever seen a more astonishing campaign in all my born days. People are being told their children will have to play--what was it?--
- homosexual role playing in schools. No wonder parents are concerned. It's nonsense. No child is going to be given gay sex lessons in school. Not under this Government now. Not ever.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is what is being given out to teachers. In lesson five, part II, "Challenging homophobia", a method to be promoted is described as follows:
- This session can be performed as a role play, written up and fed back to large groups, or responded to like an 'Agony Aunt'.
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
At the taxpayer's expense, that kind of literature is being produced--literature that the Prime Minister himself said this Government would not be party to. Case study D says:
- Michael is 15 and his boyfriend wants him to have sex. He really wants to but he is nervous. Michael knows he should use a condom but doesn't know where to go for help. What should he do?
Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my understanding of the position, which is that no material is ever used in schools unless it is agreed to by the teachers, the governors and the head teacher? The governors include parents. It is a very specific responsibility. So it does not matter what anyone produces as printed material for the hon. Gentleman to read out, for his enjoyment, if not for everyone else's. What matters is what schools decide on the ground. The Government do not decide sex education policy in schools; it is decided by governors, parents and teachers.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I understand that it is material produced for schools and available to them. The Government may well believe that it is inappropriate material. My point is that the Prime Minister himself suggested that such material was not being produced under his Government. It is being produced, and that is the material that is available to schools should they wish to use it.
In a letter to my noble Friend, Lord Ashbourne, my predecessor as chairman of the Lords and Commons family and child protection group, the Home Secretary wrote on 26 July last year:
- The evidence is that marriage better provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and this framework is the most reliable for raising children.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the substance of his amendment. In view of his remarks, does he believe that all relationships that are not of the marriage kind are unreliable frameworks for raising children?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |