HC Deb 20 December 1990 vol 183 cc589-96 2.30 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

This is the last debate before Christmas and it is very much in the Christmas spirit—in that it is a genuinely altruistic debate. I used to work in the television industry, but am now a full-time politician. The people on whose behalf I have sought this debate are the Brethren, sometimes known as the Exclusive Brethren. They do not watch television and they do not vote, so this can genuinely be described as an altruistic effort on my part—and the same can be said of any other hon. Member who participates.

The Brethren are very concerned about the national curriculum—not so much about its content as about the way that it is being interpreted. The Brethren have doctrinal purity. They believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and therefore no religious instruction is taken outside the Brethren. They do not share meals with non-believers; nor do they watch films or television. They do not use computers either, and heavily restrict their reading material. Some people will find that odd. Most people will regard their behaviour as being outside their own norms of society.

In representing the case of the Brethren in my constituency, it is not for me to decide what are the norms of society, or what those decent, honest, law-abiding people should or should not do—or should or should not want for their children. In the past, I have taken up cases concerning people who are black or Asian—and no doubt I shall do so in future. For example, I was heavily involved with the whole issue of whether Sikh people should be forced to wear hard hats on building sites. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, was partly instrumental in ensuring, very creditably, that they should not be compelled to do so. That was done on the basis that it was not for us to dictate what people should or should not believe in terms of their religion. What was true for them must be true for the Brethren.

The Government's view was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) when she was Minister of State, and was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) when he assumed that office. It is summed up in a letter from my hon. Friend dated 29 August, in which he states: the use of television and radio programmes and videos as media for teaching is not a requirement of the National Curriculum … DES Circular 3/90, which was issued on 6 March with the National Curriculum Order for technology, made clear our hope that schools would have regard to parents' views in their choice of media for teaching purposes. That makes it abundantly clear that, with goodwill on both sides, it could and should be possible to reach a reasonable compromise. Regrettably, that has not been the case.

There have been a range of responses. Some schools and local education authorities have been helpful. In Humberside, a school wrote to the parents saying: Your children will be allowed to leave the room whenever a video is to be shown, in all subjects and in each year group; you will be informed of a suitable textbook in Science, which you may wish to purchase as an alternative source of information … In English, you will be sent a copy of texts which are to be used, so that you may decide upon their suitability. Should you feel they are not acceptable then we will try to provide an alternative". In the London borough of Barnet, the headmaster of East Barnet school said: The parents and pupils concerned"— the Brethren— are admirable people and I sincerely hope that their strongly held religious beliefs can be accommodated within the State schools. I trust that the English traditions of religious tolerance and compromise will eventually prevail. Article 14 of the Convention of The Rights Of The Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989: States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents … to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. In the London borough of Harrow, one of the schools wrote to parents saying: Brethren children are excused from these sessions, however with the encouragement of their teachers and parents they invariably back-up their work from other sources … -Far from inhibiting the childrens' progress, it enables them to give a different view point in written work and discussion. Finally, a head teacher from a school in Gloucester said: This letter is just to inform you that the school policy will continue to be one of respecting your wishes in this matter, come what may! It has not always been as good as that. Some schools and education authorities have been actively hostile. I have here a series of insensitive and high-handed letters. If these children were black or Asian, some of the remarks in these letters could contravene the Race Relations Act 1976. The remarks that I am about to read are, in my judgment, patronising, insulting and high-handed.

In Hampshire, a headmaster said: there are areas in which you have no choice in law whilst the pupils are attending a State school. These areas are in connection with Sex Education and Information Technology. That headmaster is wrong in law.

In Stafford, a chairman of governors wrote: Your particular interpretation of the Bible places demands upon the school's resources that cannot be met without a very considerable amount of extra work. How dare he tell parents what their interpretation of the Bible must, or must not be?

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will my hon. Friend note that I have the greatest possible sympathy with the views that are expressed by the Exclusive Brethren? It would be extremely desirable if some of the people who use these intemperate remarks would pay greater attention to the importance of religion and Christianity in our schools. Furthermore, if he looks at the Race Relations Act 1976, I think that he will find that there is a positive prohibition not only of racism, but also of discrimination on religious grounds.

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) both for his support and for the interesting point that he has made about the Race Relations Act. I am certain that the Brethren will follow that up.

Indeed, I have received a number of letters front colleagues, including my neighbour the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), expressing their support for what I was doing today and hoping that the Brethren will be allowed to carry on as they are and that their religion will be respected.

I have a letter from the chairman of governors of a school in Stockport: We regret the necessity of this action as we accept that your request was made with the best of intentions". That is the letter that I described as patronising. A Suffolk headmaster said: there is no point in discussing these matters further and therefore I am not prepared to make another appointment. The appointment was with representatives of the Brethren. That was on 2 February, a full month before the Government's circular was issued. The school would not even consult before the Government's view was clear.

The final letter from which I wish to quote comes, regrettably, from my own constituency. I am sorry to say that it is from the chairman of the governors at Longfield school. It is a very good school, but the governors will have to think again. Dr. Welch, the chairman, said: the Governors give notice that, as from the first day of the new school year in September 1991, no pupil may be excluded from any lesson, or part of a lesson, or any procedure used by the teaching staff to deliver the curriculum … From September 1991, if pupils exclude themselves from any part of the secular curriculum, for reasons other than those listed, the matter will be dealt with using the agreed disciplinary procedures". I find that entirely unacceptable. It is plain that the good will and reasonableness that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his predecessor hoped would prevail have not done so in all circumstances. We must see what can be done to help the people concerned. If necessary, they will refer the matter to the European Court of Human Rights—and they have every reason to do so. Article 2 of the European convention on human rights states: No person shall be denied the right to education … The State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious … convictions. Nothing could be clearer than that.

I believe that a change may be necessary to enable parents to exercise their own religious discretion. Let me give just one example of what has been done in another part of the world. In New South Wales, Australia, the legislative assembly passed a Bill saying: The parent of a child enrolled at a government school may give the Director-General of School Education written notice that the parent conscientiously objects on religious grounds to the child being taught a particular part of a course of study. I believe that that is necessary. I believe that we must protect these people, particularly because of the very fact that they do not vote. The fact that they do not vote is a matter for them. Because they do not take what others would regard as a normal part in society, we have an even greater responsibility to protect them—against, for instance, the high-handed attitude displayed in the letters from which I have quoted.

2.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for raising this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for attending the "swansong" of this part of our Session.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has raised a very serious matter, and I know that the Brethren feel very strongly about it. It is a matter on which I have already spent considerable time since my arrival in my relatively new post, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) also spent a good deal of time considering it. It was considered exhaustively during the various procedures and thought processes that contributed to the building of the national curriculum.

The questions raised by my hon. Friend and by the Brethren are not only matters for the Brethren themselves; they relate to the position of all children who are educated in our maintained schools. The issue at stake is what sort of education we should provide for the majority of our youngsters to ensure that they leave school well prepared to meet the challenges that they will face throughout their lives.

One of the aims of the national curriculum is to ensure a broad and balanced education for all pupils of compulsory school age at maintained schools. That is part of a wider requirement—enshrined in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988—to ensure that all pupils are fully prepared for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. If we are not to sell children short, we must ensure that all pupils in maintained schools are given a thorough and relevant preparation for adult and working life.

It is essential that children are prepared for the world in which we live. Information technology is playing an increasingly significant role in contemporary life. Pupils cannot be prepared for a modern society in which the use of information technology is prevalent if they are not provided with some basic knowledge and understanding about information technology. This is not to prosyletise or encourage, but it is to inform. It is vital that young people are fully aware of and competent to use information technology. Not to include information technology in the national curriculum would be an immense disservice to future generations who will have to work and compete in a wider world with others.

To leave information technology optional would also disadvantage children in a country that must strive hard in a highly competitive and increasingly technological world. We therefore need to ensure that all pupils in state schools understand how information technology and its applications work. That is why the Government believe that IT education should be a requirement, not an option, under the national curriculum in maintained schools.

In particular, all pupils should have the opportunity to acquire some knowledge, skills and understanding about computers and their uses. This is a matter of curriculum content rather than delivery. Computer education is not simply a medium for teaching other subjects: information technology constitutes a subject for study in itself. That is why the national curriculum order for technology—along with those for maths, science and English—all involve the use of computers or word processors. Schools are not allowed to excuse children from these requirements; nor can local education authorities.

I can understand many of the Brethren's concerns about modern media which information technology supports in one way or another. Quite apart from religious beliefs, it is widely felt that television, radio and videos do not always portray the best in our society. I can appreciate why parents should wish to protect their children from the worst aspects of those media. Parents have rightly complained about materials which, while acceptable for adults, would be unsuitable for children in their early and formative years. I respect parents' views on those matters. The portrayal of sex and violence in various media and the promotion of uncaring and irreligious attitudes, particularly among the young at an age when they are impressionable and vulnerable, rightly concern many people.

I respect the wish of Brethren parents to discourage their children from becoming too accustomed to television, radio and videos. That is irrespective of the Brethren's particular religious views. The Government have been at pains to ensure that the views of the Brethren were carefully considered. We have received a great many representations on their behalf. I have listened intensively to the views expressed by some of my constituents in Enfield, North. There has been very extensive correspondence about the whole issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden met representatives of the Brethren to discuss the matter. The subject was also aired in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments when it considered the national curriculum orders in English and technology last June.

The use of television, radio and videos in schools is a question of the delivery rather than the content of the curriculum. The national curriculum emphatically does not require the use of such media. Schools remain free to choose their own teaching methods. The Government have done their best to ensure that shools are aware of this. Guidance has been offered on this point in a circular that was issued by my Department in March this year, along with the national curriculum order for technology. These documents made clear our hope that schools would have regard to parents' views in their choice of media for teaching purposes.

I have to make it clear that the guidance contained in the circular is not legally binding and that the final decision on teaching methods rests with schools. Although I can, and do, encourage schools to have regard to parents' views on teaching methods, the Government have no power to direct them to do so. Nevertheless, I would expect schools and local education authorities to be sensitive to the beliefs of families in considering teaching methods and teaching materials.

My hon. Friend referred to a number of letters and, in the phraseology of the old essay question, called on me to contrast and compare them. He referred to a letter from a school in Harrow. Although that school seems to be acting within the letter of the law, I regret the intransigent and hostile tone that was adopted and the lack of sensitivity that was shown. I hope that all schools will heed the advice that is given in my Department's circular 390, in which we encouraged head teachers and their staff to have regard to parents' views on the media used for teaching and, where practical, to provide individual pupils with alternative methods. My hon. Friend cited one or two examples of the way in which some schools were doing just that.

An important issue in making decisions about the use of such alternative materials should be whether pupils' access to the curriculum would be seriously harmed if they did not participate in lessons involving the use of those media. I hope that schools will adopt a friendly and helpful approach to members of the Brethen to find ways of meeting the school's legal obligations and of enabling Brethren children to remain within maintained schools.

I must stress that parents cannot exercise a right of veto by withdrawing their children from particular lessons if they disagree with the teaching methods that are used. There is nothing new in that. There has been a long-standing right under the Education Acts for parents to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship in maintained schools. There has never been a parallel right of withdrawal from the secular curriculum of maintained schools.

The introduction of the national curriculum does not alter the historical position; nor does the Education Reform Act contain powers that would allow parents to decide which aspect of the national curriculum their children should follow.

My hon. Friend referred to article 2 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. The Government's view is that the article does not require the state to provide education in accordance with the particular religious or philosophical convictions of parents. Nor does it prevent the state from including in the school curriculum matters that do not accord with some parents' convictions, provided—this is a big proviso—that the material is presented in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. We believe that the requirements of the national curriculum are compatible with article 2.

We offer choice in education. Parents can opt to send their children outside maintained schools. They may send them to independent schools or educate them in some other way—for example, at home. We do not wish to exclude groups of people who have deeply held views from access to our maintained schools.

We have reviewed the Brethren's case thoroughly. We have looked extensively at ways in which it may be accommodated. I believe that at central Government level we have arrived at the best solution that can reasonably be expected. The Government have to take a broad perspective and, if we gave Brethren the right to withdraw their children from particular aspects of the national curriculum, other parents might well expect to get similar rights on grounds of other religious, conscientious or philosophical objections to other parts of the curriculum.

We do not, therefore, intend to introduce a conscience clause, which would encourage parents to withdraw their children from a variety of significant elements of the national curriculum. If every child in a maintained school could resort to a conscience clause, it would undermine the concept of the national curriculum. That would not be in the greater interest of education in this country. I recognise that my hon. Friend did not develop that line of argument, but on previous occasions the Brethren have indicated—they have done so to me personally—that that is an avenue which they would wish to pursue. However, as I said, we must exclude that option.

But—this is an important but—schools have a great deal of discretion in the way in which the curriculum is taught. I would expect that schools would be very responsive to the wishes and beliefs of parents in this. Just as they have put a great deal of time and effort into ensuring that materials and manner of delivery attempt to avoid a gender bias or a racial bias, to which my hon. Friend referred, so they should also ensure that they do not trample over people's beliefs. I am confident that the Government's reforms, which give parents far more freedom of choice in the school to which they send their children, will ensure that governors are aware of parents' feelings in this, and ensure that the national curriculum is delivered in an appropriate manner.

This does not, however, in any way enable young people in the maintained sector to opt out of any part of the national curriculum. The national curriculum was introduced to ensure that every child in a maintained school would get an education that would serve him well for adult life and employment. We must not disadvantage those children as a whole. We must offer them nothing less than a full, broad and balanced curriculum. That decision has been reached for the greater good of the majority of children in this country. We remain firmly committed to that aim and to the national curriculum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

On behalf of Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, may I extend to all right hon. and hon. Members our best wishes for an enjoyable Christmas and a happy new year? I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members join me in wishing all those who serve us in this building an enjoyable Christmas and happy 1991.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock till Monday, 14 January, pursuant to the Resolution yesterday.