HL Deb 30 October 1986 vol 481 cc800-6

23 Clause 17, page 21, line 6, after "policy", insert "with regard to matters other than sex education". 24 Page 21, line 9, at end insert— (1A) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body—

  1. (a) to consider separately (while having regard to the local education authority's statement under section 16 of this Act) the question whether sex education should form part of the secular curriculum for the school; and
  2. (b) to make, and keep up to date, a separate written statement—
  1. (i) of their policy with regard to the content and organisation of the relevant part of the curriculum; or
  2. (ii) where they conclude that sex education should not form part of the secular curriculum, of that conclusion".
25 Page 21, line 12, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)". 26 Page 21, line 23, leave out "such statement" and insert "statement under subsection (1) above". 27 Page 21, line 25, leave out "such statement" and insert "statement under this section".

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 en bloc. It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 at the same time.

We have on previous occasions debated at some length the important issues associated with the provision of sex education in schools. I should like, if I may, to take a few minutes of your Lordships' time to rehearse briefly the Bill's provisions in relation to this aspect of schools' work. In particular, I should like to explain the effect of the amendments which have been introduced in another place, and a little of the thinking which lies behind them.

Clause 24 seeks to ensure that any sex education offered in maintained schools is set within a sound moral context and is supportive of family life. This clause was introduced by the Government in this House in recognition of the need to offer a clear statement, in primary legislation, of the essential principles which should inform provision in this uniquely sensitive area of the curriculum. For the majority of schools and teachers who approach their work in a responsible manner the clause is simply an endorsement of their "good practice". However, for those teachers who may be uncertain of how to approach their task or who may not have thought through sufficiently carefully what is required of them, the clause offers a clear framework for their efforts. I believe that this clause will do much to ensure that all teaching in this area lives up to the standard which parents have a right to expect.

However, as noble Lords will be aware, concern has been growing over recent months about reports of the use of extremist and educationally unsound teaching methods and materials in the sex education field in certain authorities and schools. Parents in particular have, understandably, been alarmed by these reports, and have been anxious to see their children safeguarded from these influences. Whilst Clause 24 will do much to prevent such abuses, the Government have decided that further action is needed to give parents a greater say in the provision offered to their children in this most difficult and sensitive aspect of schools' work.

The amendments which have been made to Clause 17 in another place will effectively transfer control over sex education from teachers and local education authorities and give it instead to the new-style governing bodies provided for under the Bill, which will have increased parental representation and will be accountable to an annual meeting of the full parent body. The governors will be responsible for deciding whether sex eduction should be given in the school and, if so, what should be its content and organisation. This is broad1y the position already in voluntary aided schools. They will he able to determine the particular textbooks and teaching materials to be used in the classroom—and those not to be used—and to decide how, and indeed whether, particularly controversial sexual issues, such as homosexuality, should be approached by teachers. The governors will also have the discretion—presently exercised by head teachers—to decide whether, in certain circumstances, individual parents will be able to withdraw their children from particular sex education lessons to which they object.

I am confident that the measures proposed by the Government will ensure that unsuitable methods and materials are not imposed on pupils against parents' wishes. The Government remain firmly committed to appropriate and responsible sex education as an essential aspect of preparing pupils for the realities and responsibilities of adult life. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. As I understand the amendments, the governing body may decide not to have sex education in the school for which they are responsible, and I suppose this means that parents of children attending that school who would like their children to have sex education cannot insist upon it. In a school in which the governors have decided to have sex education, they decide the form, content and organisation of it, and I understood the Minister to say a moment ago that it may be open to parents who object to particular sections of sex education to withdraw their children from them; but where the governors have decided to have sex education, it is not possible for a parent to withdraw a child completely from it.

I wonder whether I have it right. It seems to me to lead to the conclusion that parents who want their children to have sex education will not be able to insist upon it. It also means that the teachers in schools in which there is no sex education will have no duty imposed upon them in that regard, but in schools where sex education has been decided upon the teachers presumably will or may be under some obligation to perform a duty in connection with the sex education syllabus. This seems to leave the parents in a position of disadvantage in some cases, and will also vary the conditions of service of the teachers themselves who will be required to help with sex education in some schools and be excused from undertaking any such duties in other schools. I hope that those points can be cleared up.

I can only say that I approve of the general spirit and conditions in which it is proposed to deal with this controversial matter. Men of my generation, of course, had no sex education. We only had discovery and experience. I am not quite sure whether sex education is a form of applied science and could be regarded as a parallel with other specialist subjects in the curriculum. One day perhaps we could have a lesson in a committee room, with slides if they are provided, so that we can see what sex education in schools means and be better able to make a judgment upon it. I confess that I am completely ignorant about what goes on in schools in respect of sex education and I imagine that many other noble Lords are in the same position. Be that as it may, we are probably doing the best we can with a difficult subject, but I think that the anomalies to which I have referred should not be overlooked.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with one or two very brief examples which may assist in understanding the thinking behind the Government amendments, which I strongly support. Let me say that it is very unfortunate that we have to have these amendments, because in many schools there is a lot of very good work being done by conscientious teachers concerning sex education; this is much appreciated by parents and pupils. But I am afraid that it is a problem of some local authorities in London—and not only in London, but in other areas as well—who are developing an approach to sex education which I think most of us would agree is a complete inversion of the moral values and the kind of approach to sex education that most parents would wish.

For example, some authorities are encouraging in a very positive way the teaching of homosexuality. I am in favour of reducing victimisation, but actively to promote homosexuality and actively to attack heterosexuality is something about which many parents are deeply disturbed and why parents in Haringey have been taking a very courageous stand against what has been accepted in their area. Let me give your Lordships one or two examples. A relatively recent publication called Tackling Heterosexism—a Handbook of Lesbian Rights, produced by the GLC Women's Committee, has since been brought out by the other London boroughs. Among its recommendations are that ILEA and other LEAs should adopt the following course: That resources should be put into developing materials and changing the curricula in order effectively to challenge heterosexism in lessons at all stages from primary schools up to colleges of further education and that a variety of materials be developed—e.g. videos for use in lessons which would raise the issues of heterosexism and present lesbians in a positive light". Perhaps we might have one of those videos for the noble Lord to see.

Let me give another recommendation:

That heterosexism awareness training should be introduced as a compulsory part of in-service training and during teacher training programmes … That head teachers and school governors give positive support to anti-heterosexist initiatives and that schools should welcome lesbian representatives on school boards and in parent-teacher associations". Another recent publication from ILEA is called Positive Images: A Resources Guide for Teaching about Homosexuality, including Lesbian and Gay Literature for Use in the Library and Classroom. This is quite a large and substantial publication. It also recommends ways in which the attitudes of LEAs to homosexuality and heterosexuality are not just to be confined to classes on sex education but are to go through the whole curriculum. I quote: The materiography is divided into curriculum areas to make clear that homosexuality and lesbianism are as relevant to history, religious education, music, child development or science, as to English, health education or social studies". In my borough of Brent, the policy commitments in its Labour manifesto of the May 1986 elections adopt the following policy: Brent Labour Council will campaign for the GLC Lesbian and Gay Rights charter to be adopted by Brent. They will provide heterosexism awareness training for all employees, with the assistance of recognised trainers. They will give all councillors, co-optees, governors and officers full training in racism and sexism awareness". That will be followed by an assessment and anyone who fails will be unable to sit on interview panels.

The Orwellian nature of those proposals means of course that in future all appointments committees will be packed with those who are ideologically correct and of an approved sexual orientation.

One other disturbing development which is on the horizon is that the London Gay Teachers' Group has recently expressed sympathy with and support for paedophiles. It is against that kind of background that the results of the recent poll published by the National Council for Christian Standards needs to be seen. That poll showed that a significant majority—59 per cent.—of parents wanted to have the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes, compared with 31 per cent. who did not want to do so.

I have talked to a number of parents who are understandably worried about these developments. They are also worried about what will happen if politicised local education authorities' governing bodies politicise parents so that the governing bodies are also politicised. Some parents would like me to ask my noble friend the Minister whether, if there is a problem over appealing to governing bodies, in due course there may be a contingent plan for direct appeals to the Secretary of State. I should be grateful if that thought were to be touched upon in the Minister's reply.

It is because of the seriousness of the examples that I have given that I give wholehearted support to the amendments. I regret that they are necessary, but I think that they provide some safeguard for parents caught in the trap of a system with schools teaching in ways that they cannot tolerate.

4 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House or to prolong the debate. In any reply that the Minister wishes to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will she bear in mind that in surveys 95 per cent. of parents have expressed their satisfaction with the sex education in schools given to their children?

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I do not want unduly to prolong the discussion. This matter was discussed at considerable length in another place one night last week until everyone was exhausted, and I should hate your Lordships to become so. I am a little worried that the Government do not have governing bodies quite right. They are aiming in the right direction, but there is a tendency to assume that if a responsibility is handed to governing bodies all problems are solved.

We must bear in mind that governing bodies are not companies of sense. They sometimes include ambitious people. I understand that some people collect governorships. After all, it is a prestigious post to hold. One can include it as an item in one's curriculum vitae. Such people may not be entirely altruistic. They may not even be consumers. The Government of course are keen to appeal to consumers. In many schools members of the governing body do not have children at the school. I know of one school where half the members of the governing body educate their children privately. They cannot necessarily be described as consumers. Members of governing bodies are concerned only with the interests of their own child or children. What they want for their own child may not be good for the other children. Indeed what they want for their own child may not be good for that child. They are not always the best people to know. We must bear in mind that the handing of such a responsibility to the governing body does not solve all problems. Alas, local education authority governors remain political appointees.

With regard to sex education, I should like to reiterate the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that over 90 per cent. of parents want their children to receive some sort of sex education. Her Majesty's inspectors say that it should take place. In a recent pamphlet which I cannot identify at the moment, but which I will, they say that sex education should take place in schools. However, it appears that a governing body can negate that recommendation. Surely there is something wrong about that.

Let us hope that the present proposal will at least do no harm, and that governing bodies will work in close co-operation with head teachers, their deputies and all the staff who have the responsibility for handling this sensitive matter. I hope that a happy solution will be found to a difficult problem in most schools.

Lord Ashbourne

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate until it became clear to me that literally hundreds of thousands of parents—and possibly millions—are deeply concerned about the way in which sex education is going in this country. I welcome the improvements that the Government are trying to make in this sphere; but, nevertheless, at the moment there are literally hundreds of thousands of caring, responsible parents who are deeply concerned about the matter. That is why I felt that I should address your Lordships.

I, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, am in a bit of a quandary over the regulations. I hope that the noble Baroness can clear up this matter. I was under the impression—I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong—that on 22nd October in another place when this matter was debated at great length it was decided that parents are not to be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education if they find it unsatisfactory. I shall be delighted if I am wrong about that. I hope that I am. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness can answer that point.

If parents cannot withdraw their children, will she give some words of comfort to those hundreds of thousands of deeply concerned parents and say that there will be some method of appeal which they can use if they are not satisfied with the treatment that their children are receiving? That would be extremely helpful. I heard recently about a headmaster in an outer London district. He was asked by a parent what could be done about it. The only advice that he could give was that the parents should move to another area where the sex education was more to their liking. It is for you to judge, my Lords, but we are in a pretty kettle of fish if people have to move to another area to receive satisfaction in this highly sensitive matter. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us some reassurance on this matter.

Lord Somers

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate and I shall not be more than a few moments. Sex education, like most other subjects, very much depends upon the quality of the person who is teaching it. It is a little late in the day to try and propose such a thing now, but is it not possible to insist that it is taught only by a qualified medial practitioner, or someone similar, who will teach it from the right point of view and not from what one might describe as a slightly "gay" point of view?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, this has been yet another interesting debate. I am glad that so many of your Lordships share the Government's commitment to appropriate sex education and to the need to take steps to tackle the problem of irresponsible and inappropriate teaching. I gladly confirm that the Government acknowledge that in the vast majority of cases teachers approach this difficult task in a responsible and sensitive manner.

It was welcome to receive the general seal of approval of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the benefit of his experience. I feel unable to give him any undertaking on the subject of lessons. He raised an important point which has been repeated by other noble Lords. Broadly speaking, he is right. If governors decide not to provide sex education, parents who want it will be unable to opt in. But if a sufficient number of parents want sex education, they should be able to influence the governing body accordingly through their membership of the governing body and through the annual meeting of parents, to which that body is subject. The whole intention behind the Bill is to increase parent power and to enable it to operate effectively in this sort of way.

However, under the proposed new arrangements, the governors will, of course, still have the discretion, on the other side of the coin, where there are irreconcilable differences between the school's policies and the views of an individual parent, to allow a particular pupil to be excused from a certain lesson. I should, however, say in response to my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, that the Government remain firmly opposed to the introduction of a statutory parental right of withdrawal in relation to sex education as being wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. Much of the debate last week in another place turned on this point.

My noble friend Lady Cox asked how we can cope with politicised governing bodies. This is a matter that the Government will keep under review. These are new arrangements and, to some extent, we have to see how they work in practice. But parents will be able to pass resolutions at the annual parents' meeting. They will also be able, as now, to complain to the Secretary of State about any abuse of governors' powers. All this reinforces the importance of encouraging proper local democracy and the importance of having the right people as school governors.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, we are looking to quite new kinds of governing bodies in the new situation. These would be much more broadly based, and much more accountable and open to the whole parent body. As for collecting governorships, no person may under regulations hold more than five governorships in total. I believe that I have covered the points raised in the debate. I hope that your Lordships will confirm the Commons in these amendments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.