![]() House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Children, Schools and Families Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Sarah
Davies, Sara Howe, Committee
Clerks attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 4 February 2010(Morning)[Janet Anderson in the Chair]Children, Schools and Families BillWritten evidence to be reported to the House.CS43
Local Government
Ombudsman CS44
Local Government Ombudsman (additional
memorandum) CS45
Jacquie
Cox CS46
John
Friel CS47
Newspaper
Society CS48
Pamela and Terry
Perryman
Clause 14Exemption
from sex and relationships
education Amendment
proposed (2 February): 63, in clause 14, page 15,
line 31, leave out 15 and insert
16.(Tim
Loughton.) 9
am Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing 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out from withdrawn to end of line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 7Removal of exemption from sex and relationships
education Section 405 of the
Education Act 1996 shall be omitted..
Before we
begin our deliberations, I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members
to the fact that, as Chairman, I have a duty to ensure that as much
progress as possible has been made in our consideration of the Bill by
the time we conclude our business at 5 pm today. I therefore
urge members of the Committee to be succinct, and I shall be listening
carefully to ensure that all contributions are relevant to the
amendments under
consideration. Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I belatedly
welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. We had an
interesting debate up to 10 oclock on Tuesday, in which we
heard many weasel words but, in reality, nothing has changed for the
Conservatives. In supporting compulsory personal, social, health and
economic education, I wish to make the point that all the major
childrens organisations support the provision, including the
National Childrens Bureau. The National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children also supports it, as does UNICEF,
which has provided briefings for me in the past. We should operate from
such a background. There has been a strong call for the move for a long
time; it is
critical. The
clause allows us to deal with the opt-outs. I have tabled four
amendments, two of which propose the age of 14 instead of 15. They are
probing amendments to find out why the Minister favours the age of 15.
There are strong arguments for making sure that all children have
education about sex and relationships earlier than at the age of 15. My
personal view is that there should not be opt-outs. I accept that the
Government agree, but I am interested in why they favour the age of
15. The
other amendments relate to my concern that the age of 15 is
late for many pupils. I suggest in amendment 163 that the curriculum
for children and young people should still have a relationships part.
That is important. It should cover not only sexual relationships but
getting on with one another, not bullying and confidence and
self-esteem. Important education centres on the whole issue of
relationships. If
the opt-out remains, amendment 164 suggests that it should apply only
if the parent has met the head teacher of the school or the relevant
teacher to discuss their concerns and to establish the nature of what
is to be taught. There are many misconceptionssorry about
thatabout what sex and relationships education involves. I have
received a letter from a parent begging me not to take the innocence
away from their child. If I thought that such education was taking
innocence away from children, would I support it?
No. The
hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham challenged me on the subject
of children being allowed to opt out. He needs to take on board the
views of the very organisations that always ask us to put forward the
rights, wishes and feelings of children. They are 100 per cent. behind
this approach, particularly the Childrens Rights Alliance,
which does not support an opt-out. It sees matters in terms of the
rights of the child and says that
the state
has the duty to ensure children and young people receive a good, broad
and balanced
education we
have discussed that
before which
develops their personality, talents and physical and mental ability.
SRE education is part of this
duty. It
does not see sex and relationships education as any different from
history, citizenship or science. No one would want to suggest that a
child should have the right to withdraw from history or science; that
would not fit in with the vision of the curriculum objectives.
Currently, parents can withdraw their children from sex education,
but not from the parts of the science curriculum that teach the
biological aspects of human growth and reproduction. What nonsense. To
teach children about the mechanics in the abstract and without
providing the important relationships education that goes with it would
be a disaster. People who argue against this are living in the past.
There is no modernisation at
all. It
is clear that children and young people want to receive high-quality
sex and relationships education. We have already mentioned the United
Kingdom Youth Parliament. The state has a duty to educate children on
health. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors
Government implementation of childrens rights, including the
right to express their views, is clear that all children and young
people should receive good-quality, age-appropriate health education,
which includes sex and relationships education. That is
important. In
the England submission to the Committee on the Rights of the
Child in 2008, more than 100 non-governmental
organisations endorsed a report recommending that the Government remove
parents right to withdraw children from sex and relationships
education in school. The case for compulsory PSHE is well
made.
Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): The hon. Lady
started by saying that one of her amendments was a probing amendment to
find out the Governments justification for 15. Her amendment
reduces the age to 14. She has said nothing to justify why 14 rather
than 13, 12 or whatever age. Will she address the reason for her
amendment?
Annette
Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
It is pretty obvious that I am simply asking the question, Why
15? The easiest way to probe that was to table an amendment. I
am sure that the Minister understands the reasoning behind it.
Why not 12? is a perfectly reasonable question. There
should not be an opt-out at all. I want to hear from the Minister why
15. Organisations consider this to be so important that they reached a
consensus around the age of 15. I am not sure that that is right, but I
know that we must get this on the curriculum. We must have high quality
PSHE and sex and relationships education, in
particular. With
those words, Mrs. Anderson, and bearing in mind what you
said earlier, I beg to move the amendments tabled in my name and that
of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil.
Mr.
Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): The
question is, What message are we sending out? It is
perfectly clear that there is overwhelming support in the country for
properly structured, well-delivered, high quality sex and relationships
education. When a poll is taken on such matters, more than 80 per cent.
of people approve. They wish it to remain compulsory and on the
curriculum for all children. I move that section 405 from the Education
Act 1996 is removed, which would render the new
clauseExemption from sex and relationships
educationredundant.
I understand
the arguments with regard to Why 16 or 15? Why
35?, as I mentioned the other day. There is no logic in any of
the answers. The other day, we had an exchange about the works of
Piaget, the child psychologist. He identified differences between the
maturation rates of boys and girls and between each boy and girl. We
know that girls in particular are entering puberty at an earlier age.
Many girls need help and often that is not
forthcoming. The
argument here is not about the quality of sex education or whether it
should be taughtwe all agree on those thingsbut about
the messages we are sending out. I share the view of my hon. Friend the
Minister for Europe
that: Britain
has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe and the
second highest, after the USA, in the world. Depressingly, the map of
teenage pregnancy is the map of British
deprivation. I
have no argument with people who decide that the way in which a school
delivers sex education does not suit them and so take their children
elsewhere. However, in Wolverhampton and another 300 or 400
constituencies, that choice does not
exist.
Tim
Loughton: Although there are close links between
deprivation and teenage pregnancy levels, it is not exclusively so.
Last year or the year before, the highest increase in teenage pregnancy
levels was in the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenheadhardly
a ghetto of
poverty.
Mr.
Purchase: I accept the hon. Gentlemans point. Of
course the levels can be quite random. However, when mapped across
Britain, the picture is as the Minister for Europe described it last
year. The
message is all important. As far as we know, only a small number of
children are withdrawn from sex education; about 40 children in every
10,000. That is almost too small to measure. Why do we make this fuss?
Is it really about parental choice, or is it about parental prejudice?
When the matter was challenged in the European Court, there was an
unequivocal ruling that it was an infringement of a childs
rights to take them out of sex education
lessons. Let
me make it clear that I think it is the right of the child to withdraw
from Christian prayers or those of other religions, but not to withdraw
from religious education. I do not believe a parent should be able to
withdraw a child from religious education. Without a good knowledge of
the King James Bible, the whole world of English literature is probably
closed off for many children. Education must be seen in a broad sense.
There must be consensus about what should be in the curriculum. Sex
education is
included. We
are talking about a tiny minority of people who insist that this matter
is very personal to them and that in the broad sweep of education, they
must be an exception and be able to deny their children the right and
opportunity to have good-quality sex education. I agree with the hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that quality is at the heart of
this
issue. I
believe that there is no age at which withdrawal from SRE can be
justified. As Opposition Members said, why is it 15? Why should it not
be 16, 19, 12 or 14? We do not include this equivocation in any other
subject in the curriculum. Children in my constituency learn their sex
in the playground, in dirty books and from TV. The other night in
EastEnders, two younger people were clearly having sex
in a cabin. It was aired just after
8 oclock. These people were virtually stripped off. In my
opinion, the 9 oclock watershed is sensible and should
apply. 9.15
am Children
are so far down the road of knowledge that it is vital that they get
advice from expert teachers in the calm atmosphere of a classroom. The
TUC argues that health workers should be involved so that they can
support teachers who do not have the wide experience that is necessary
to deliver the subject in a top-quality way. I argue that clause 14 is
redundant and out of date, that it sends the wrong message, is an
infringement of childrens rights and a sop to prejudice that we
should not be considering in
2010. Mrs.
Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): I assure you, Mrs.
Anderson, that I will be as brief as I can. I agree with much of what
has been said, and there is no point in repeating it because we want to
finish this
matter. Over
the weekend, I was fortunate enough to address two meetings. One was a
group of Asian women between the ages of 30 and 40 who were discussing
problems with divorce, and the other was a group of people who were
concerned with health matters. I took the advantage of the two
gatherings to ask for peoples opinion on this clause. The view,
by and large, was that those parents who wish to withdraw their
children from sex and relationship lessons are very likely to be the
same parents who will not broach the subject themselves at home.
Therefore, their children will be completely deprived and very
vulnerable. The other view was that 16 is far too old, and
most thought that the age should be brought down to 12 or 13,
but I will not go down that
path.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 5 February 2010 |