Clause
12PSHE
in Academies
etc Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Tim
Loughton: On the principle that we have argued when
considering other provisions, and will continue to argue, that
academies should be exempted from the rather prescriptive regulations,
will the Minister justify both why the clause is in the Bill, given
that the Government and the Opposition are in favour of giving
academies greater autonomy and power to decide their own matters, and
why academies should not have the power to decide how they teach the
various aspects of PSHE that we have
debated?
Ms
Johnson: Clause 12 provides that for the first time,
academies will be under a duty to offer the full national curriculum
programmes of study in PSHE at key stages 3 and 4. It applies the
programme of study and the principles by which it must be taught to
academies, so that the system applies to them, just as it does to
maintained schools. Academies must also have regard to any guidance
issued by the Secretary of State.
Every child
must be able to develop the skills to make choices in their lives on
real issues that affect them, such as nutrition, sex and relationships,
and personal finance. In direct response to the question posed by the
hon. Gentleman, those issues affect all children, no matter which
school they attend. Academies already teach PSHE in imaginative ways,
but putting it on a more formal footing will ensure that all schools,
including academies, cover all aspects. That will send a clear message
about its importance. I commend clause 12 to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
13Sex
and relationships education: manner of
provision
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move amendment 197, in
clause 13, page 15, line 1, after
‘practicable’, insert
‘, including the conduct of a formal
consultation process with parents as to the content of such
education,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 62, in clause 13, page 15, leave out
lines 6 to
8. Amendment
173, in
clause 13, page 15, line 27, at
end add— ‘(7) Sections 10 to
13 of this Act do not apply to home educated
children.’.
Tim
Loughton: These are three straightforward amendments
dealing with sex and relationships education proper—we have been
skirting round the subject up until now. Amendment 197 would add a
requirement for governors to have a formal consultation with parents
about the content of sex and relationships education. We welcome the
renaming of sex education to sex and relationships education. As I
mentioned earlier, we also welcome the new guidance issued last week,
which places, in regulations, value on marriage and family. Those are
all positive things.
We all
know—this came out in our earlier debates—that the way we
teach sex and relationships education is a sensitive issue,
particularly for certain communities. If we take away parents’
powers of choice, as later clauses do, it is even more imperative and
appropriate that there should be clear and meaningful consultation
between the school and the parents before they decide in what manner
they are going to teach sex and relationships education to their
pupils. Amendment 197 would state that when deciding how to teach sex
and relationships education, there must be a formal consultation
process with the parents of pupils at a school, or the parents of those
who are going to attend that
school. Amendment
62 follows on from the short debate that we had on clause 12 on
exempting not just academies but the educational bodies set out in
proposed new subsection (1ZA)(b), (c) and (d), namely city technology
colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and academies.
I think I know what the Minister’s response will be: she can
read out the previous answer that she
read out, with the addition of two other forms of educational
establishments. We can take that as read to get us moving
on. Amendment
173 is a probing amendment, and was tabled for the purposes of gaining
information. We shall come on to the subject of home education in the
dim and distant future. I do not want to pre-empt the lively and
entertaining debate that I am sure we are destined to have at some
stage, but what is the position regarding sex and relationships
education for home educators? Is there no requirement to provide SRE on
home educators, as I suspect? In that case, are the Government happy,
effectively, to substitute the power of a parent to choose for their
child to opt out of SRE for a power for a child to come out of school
altogether and be home educated? Is that the other side of the equation
that the Government are putting forward? If it is, surely the net
result will be more children being home educated. Yet the Government
are bringing in additional regulations, which will make it harder to be
a freelance home educator. There is a bit of a dichotomy
there. The
first amendment—amendment 197—would be a valuable
addition to the Bill, while the other two are probing amendments to
give the Government the opportunity to state their position for the
benefit of the
Committee.
Ms
Johnson: The amendments would introduce further conditions
on the provision of sex and relationships education—conditions
that are not required. We do not wish to place additional burdens on
schools or to impose them unnecessarily in areas where good practice is
already in place. It is important for all schools to provide sex and
relationships education. Amendment 197 would require schools formally
to consult parents about the content of sex and relationships
education, the effect of which would be to place another statutory
burden on schools and parents that is neither necessary nor desirable.
I am certainly surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman
wants to do
so.
Annette
Brooke: I would like the Minister clearly to distinguish
what is important: is it the school working with parents throughout the
whole process, or a statutory
consultation?
Ms
Johnson: Governing bodies already have a statutory
responsibility to ensure that schools have an SRE policy in place. Many
schools have clear, open channels of communication with parents, and
that helps them to understand what exactly is being taught in schools.
In existing SRE guidance to which schools, including academies, must
have regard, it is already best practice to discuss the SRE policy and
the content of sex education with parents, and it is clear that many
schools do
that. It
is far better to encourage and reinforce the importance of regular and
open communication between schools and parents through clear guidance,
rather than through additional legislation. To that end, we are issuing
revised SRE guidance to schools in which we make clear our expectation
that schools should have an open, ongoing dialogue with parents on such
important issues, and that SRE policies in schools benefit from having
regard to parental views.
We are clear
that SRE policies must be made available to parents for inspection, and
must be provided free of charge to any parent who asks for a copy. As a
minimum, we would expect the policy to set out the aims of SRE and how
they are consistent with the values and ethos of the school; what
pupils will learn at every key stage; how parents, carers and pupils
are consulted in developing and reviewing policy; how parents are
informed of their right of withdrawal from SRE; and how the school
supports them in fulfilling their responsibility to provide SRE at
home. On
amendment 62, we believe that it is important for all schools,
including academies, to follow the national curriculum in sex and
relationships education as part of their full programme of
PSHE. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said in his
opening remarks, I refer him to the answer that I gave in debate on
clause
12. Amendment
173 would ensure that neither the new primary curriculum nor the new
provisions relating to PSHE applied to children who are educated at
home. The provisions of clauses 10 to 13 make amendments to the
Education Act 1996 or to part 6 of the Education Act 2002. In relation
to clauses 10 and 11, part 6 of the Education Act 2002 applies only in
relation to the national curriculum as taught in maintained schools. It
has no application to home-educated pupils who are not taught in
maintained schools. Clause 12 applies to academy schools and their
pupils only, and amends part 7 of the Education Act 1996.
Clause 13 also amends the Education Act 1996, but again its provisions
extend only to maintained schools, academies and academy predecessor
schools, which is clear from the Bill. I therefore urge the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Tim
Loughton: Predictably, the Minister answered the question
about home education as I thought she would—and the point about
the academies and city technology colleges. I do not agree with her,
but I shall not push the argument. I was slightly surprised that, in
her answer on amendment 197, she accused us of wanting to place an
additional, undesirable statutory burden on schools by requiring them
to consult on their sex and relationships education, a particularly
sensitive and potential controversial area as we have said. Only a few
clauses ago, we were debating parent satisfaction surveys—an
apparently undesirable statutory burden of her Government’s,
which is to be placed on schools. I do not see why the two things
should be different, particularly when the measures are all about
trying to make sure that parents feel included in one particular aspect
of their children’s education, given that they are losing powers
to withdraw elsewhere. If they are to be included, it is particularly
important that they be properly consulted at the outset. That is why we
feel that the amendment should be made to the
Bill.
9.45
pm Again,
as the Minister has admitted, there are various different ways that
schools may inform themselves of what their parents want. Some of them
may not want to consult parents; that would be a retrograde step, which
is why we tried to put a requirement to do so in the Bill. I thought
that would be a welcome addition that she might actually allow to be
included.
Ms
Johnson: It is important that there should be ongoing
dialogue between parents and schools about SRE policies. It should be
ongoing, not just a one-off consultation. That is the best way to make
sure that SRE is taught well in schools, and that parents are fully
engaged. Best practice shows that in the schools that do that, the SRE
is good.
Tim
Loughton: Yes, I completely agree with that, other than
the fact that there is nothing in the Bill that requires schools to
have an ongoing discussion and debate with parents. Nor is the
consultation that we are proposing a one-off consultation. Clearly, it
would need to be ongoing as the new guidance comes in, so that we can
see how it beds down, and see whether it is proving appropriate for the
pupils at that school. There is nothing in our amendment that says that
we are talking about a one-off form of consultation that would exclude
all other dialogue. It is not helpful to try to dismiss the amendment
on those grounds. In the interests of trying to move the Committee
along, I point out that we have made all the points that we want to
make on the subject. The Minister is clearly not going to give in. I
should be happy to reconsider the issue at a later stage, but in the
meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
13 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
14Exemption
from sex and relationships
education
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move amendment 63, in
clause 14, page 15, line 31, leave
out ‘15’ and insert
‘16’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 162, in clause 14,
page 15, line 31, leave out
‘15’ and insert
‘14’. Amendment
163, in
clause 14, page 15, line 33, leave
out ‘and
relationships’. Amendment
164, in
clause 14, page 15, line 34, after
‘school’, insert ‘if
that parent has met with the head teacher of the school or the relevant
teacher to discuss their concerns and establish the nature of what is
to be
taught’. Amendment
65, in
clause 14, page 15, line 35, leave
out from ‘withdrawn’ to end of line
36. Amendment
64, in
clause 14, page 15, line 36, leave
out ‘15’ and insert
‘16’. Amendment
112, in
clause 14, page 15, line 36, leave
out ‘15’ and insert
‘14’. Amendment
195, in
clause 14, page 15, line 36, after
‘15’, insert ‘unless
the pupil expresses a wish to be excused from receiving such
education.’. New
clause 7—Removal of exemption from sex and relationships
education— ‘Section
405 of the Education Act 1996 shall be
omitted.’.
Tim
Loughton: It is me again, Mr. Betts, I am
afraid. Now we are getting to the really thorny area about exemptions
in sex and relationship education. One of the three principles that I
set out at the beginning of the
PSHE amendments concerned parental choice and parental powers. The
clause is clearly an attack on those powers and the exercise of choice
that parents currently enjoy but only a very small
proportion—0.04 per cent. of them—choose to actually
employ. My concern is that the principle is wrong. As I stated earlier,
ultimately, it is up to parents, in the vast majority of cases, to
decide what is best for their children. That includes how they are
educated as well. The clause will change the dynamics of the
relationship between parents and a school. It could have the
counter-productive effect of those parents not engaging properly,
willingly, freely and positively with the sex and relationship
education as it will now be taught.
Amendments 63
and 65 are a sort of either/or option. We believe that the parental
right to exercise choice should remain. There should be no change to
the status quo. Indeed, that was the recommendation of Sir Alasdair
MacDonald’s report in April 2009. He clearly states that the
existing rights—[Interruption.] There is a
lot of chuntering on the Government side.
Ms
Johnson: Perhaps I could just ask for clarification. The
hon. Gentleman mentioned the status quo, but will he be clear about the
age to which the right of withdrawal would therefore
extend?
Tim
Loughton: The status quo at the moment is the age of 19.
That is why I have said that we propose an either/or. Clearly, the
Government believe that the age should be reduced and the power to
withdraw should be abolished. We do not believe that that
power should be abolished; hence, one of the amendments would
do away with consideration B, which relates to conditions of age.
However, if the clause is to contain a condition of age, as the
Government have decided, why should it be 15? Where did the figure 15
come from? What is the relevance of 15? Are children tougher and more
able to accept such education at the age of 15, rather than the age of
19, 13 or 17? What is the basis on which 15 was decided? The Liberal
Democrats want to make it even lower, and I will be interested to hear
their justification of why they think that all pupils from the age of
14 should compulsorily have sex and relationship education without
their parents having the power to withdraw
them.
| 
