AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 180

HL Deb 18 July 2000 vol 615 cc852-72

180A Line 4, at beginning insert ("In exercising any function which may affect the provision of sex education in maintained schools, every local education authority must have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 403(1A).

(7) Except to the extent provided in subsection (6),").

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, That Amendment No. 180A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180, be agreed to.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 180B, 180C and 182B. I am very glad that the government amendments, which were inserted as Clause 117 in another place, cover national health service trusts. The Minister did not refer to that, but the issue was referred to on a number of occasions when we debated the matter last March. I am also glad that they ensure that sex education takes account of the religious and cultural background of pupils. I welcome the Minister's further amendment that she has moved this afternoon.

However, although I welcome the new amendments, they are much weaker than those that were passed by the House of Lords last March. My amendments, which the House was then good enough to support, encouraged marriage, set clear principles for determining inappropriate material and gave governors an absolute veto over what materials could be used in schools.

In welcoming the fact that the Bill now takes account of pupils regardless of their religious or cultural background, I make the point once again that my amendments have cross-party support and cover all religions.

Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C are essential. I am glad that the Minister recognised that I have identified a gap in the provisions made for sex education. I make no apology for the terms in which I speak to the amendments. They are essential because I know full well that local education authorities give training and advice to teachers, governors and parent governors on sex education and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so and that such advice will increase with the new guidelines.

Local education authorities are also the major providers of in-service training. It is therefore essential that marriage is put at the centre of their courses. I am delighted to see so many on the Bishops Bench today. I do not think that I have ever seen quite so many before. I hope that they will support my amendment if they really believe in marriage.

The wording of my Amendment No. 180C applying to local education authorities is very nearly the same as Amendment No. 182B, which applies to governors and teachers. So I am completely consistent in what I am saying. It seems to me that one should be consistent, and that marriage should be on the face of the Bill in the two areas of provision relating to sex education.

I was pleased that the noble Baroness made the point that I have taken the wording from the Government's own publication. I do not want to spend time now telling the noble Baroness on just how many occasions marriage is included in the Government's Green Paper, Supporting Families. Incidentally, I was always under the assumption that a Green Paper emanated from the Government, not from one particular department, and that every department signed up to it.

The noble Baroness explained in some detail why the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn was acceptable and mine was not. That is an outstanding example of government spin. There are those of us who take these matters very seriously; I count myself as one. Marriage is at the centre of Supporting Families, and all I am doing, with the intention of being helpful, is to quote from the Green Paper. I had intended to quote precisely the same paragraph as the noble Baroness quoted, but I shall not take up the time of the House.

It is important that the House should be aware that, even today, local education authorities are producing material which is entirely inappropriate. My attention was drawn to this by a friend of mine who is a school governor and who was invited to attend a conference a couple of months ago on sex and relationship education. Perhaps I may read part of the paper that was issued to participants. It stated: Sex and relationship education should empower pupils after a positive view of sex and sexuality and support sexual self-acceptance, be well linked to contraceptive services, be sustained by working within a theoretical framework, meet local needs, undertake specific work to meet the needs of vulnerable children, be provided early, reinforce value messages, focus on risk education, use active learning and participatory techniques, ensure that children have a critical awareness of the messages that are portrayed in the media". That is the message. The section on marriage refers to: marriage linked with relationships and homosexuality". My friend made a note that the man running the course said of marriage that it was, not important per se, but important for some". The message is clear. This amendment is essential.

It is essential because of the material that is currently being used by LEAs. One example is a book that is being used in Birmingham. Marriage is not mentioned at all, yet it contains plenty of advice on abortion, "coming out", gay rights and bisexuality. Material recently issued by Leicestershire mentions marriage only when pupils are about to leave school.

I do not believe that the guidelines that are linked to the government amendment make clearer the whole issue of what is appropriate or inappropriate. What emerges from paragraphs 1.8 and 4.5 is that what is not appropriate is inappropriate. It is a kind of circular argument. Yet those who saw the exhibition that we held with regard to what local education authorities and some teachers thought appropriate in 1988 and what health promotion units think is appropriate today will have found much of the material simply appalling. All this material is paid for by the taxpayer. Many people, myself included, would regard much of it as pornographic, and all of it is put before children. I am certain that if Section 28 is repealed and the minimum provisions are not in place, the floodgates for this appalling material will be open for ever more. Perhaps I may reinforce the comment of my noble friend Lord Campbell. Guidelines, weak as they are, are not enforceable. So I believe strongly that my first amendment is essential. I hope that everyone in the House who believes in marriage will support it.

My second amendment—again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—is similar to the one introduced by my honourable friend Mr Gerald Howarth in another place. As I said, it is based on words from the Government's Green Paper. If the Government do not believe the words in their Green Paper, what can I do about it? It now seems that they do not. If they do—one must assume that that is the case—why not write them on to the face of the Bill? I am not asking for anything other than that.

It is incredible that we should be debating the need to include marriage in sex education. Marriage is still the basis of society. Many of the greatest problems being faced today—rising crime and an enormous welfare bill, to name but two—arise from the breakdown of marriage. If we examine the guidelines, we get little comfort. Marriage is mentioned only three times in 33 pages. In modern jargon, the guidelines are non-judgmental and value free. That means in effect that adults have abdicated their responsibilities to pass on traditional beliefs and knowledge, leaving children free to choose any kind of lifestyle, and that all lifestyles are to have equal value. As a kind of sop to adult consciences, children are given more rights in exchange.

I was interested to read a report by Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham in the Catholic Herald on 14th July about the guidelines, in which he said: Yet in the document there is no guidance concerning the moral principles that shape and guide a true understanding of the nature and purpose of human sexuality". He went on to say: the document indicates clearly that England and Wales are seen by government to be thoroughly secularised societies". I have long argued that there is a major debate in this country between those of us who stand by the belief that our country has been shaped and formed by the great Judaeo-Christian tradition, and those who wish to see a secular society and are quite prepared to sign up to it. I am not.

Good teachers, on reading the guidelines, will be placed in an impossible position as they struggle to follow all of this. There is no mention of right or wrong. That is extraordinary in a document such as this. The rest of us who have read it should hardly be surprised that there are so many teenage pregnancies and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

Yet the extraordinary thing is that we know from all the polls taken that the overwhelming majority of young people want to get married, and that the overwhelming majority of parents would welcome education on sex in marriage. I cannot understand why, if the Government really listen to what people want, they will not accept the amendments.

I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will not think me discourteous if I comment on his amendment before he has spoken to it. But in the way that this debate in being taken, this may be my only opportunity to do so. Some noble Lords may well think that there is very little to choose between the amendment of the right reverend Prelate which refers to governors and teachers and my second amendment, Amendment No. 182B. I want to press my amendment because—I say this with much regret —I consider the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate to be a much weaker amendment than mine; and as I have said, I regard mine as much weaker than that which the House agreed last March. I do not want to take up the time of the House splitting hairs over what each means, but there is a difference between the two verbs "to learn" and "to be taught". "Taught" is much stronger and likely to be more effective. Children may or may not learn: they are actually taught. The right reverend Prelate stresses the importance of marriage for family life. My amendment says that marriage provides "the most reliable framework", which is a statement of fact and based on the Government's own words. This is not a matter of semantics.

Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has said, the House must understand that this is a package. Amendment No. 182A is linked to Amendment No. 180A. Clearly, the intention is that, if carried, the Government will be able to repeal Section 28 with impunity. In fact, it is not a substitute for Section 28. I have already made quite clear what is happening in local education authorities. The amendment on marriage is in effect a toning down of what the Government themselves said previously. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will accept my amendment.

To sum up: I believe that the two amendments that I am moving are an absolute minimum requirement. They are in the interests of children and parents. They must include marriage because I believe—as I believe do most people in the country—that marriage is the basis of our society. Weakened as it has been, it is still the basis and we should put in front of children the ideal by which they should live.

Of the alternative amendments directed at governors, I believe that mine is the stronger. It is not as strong as I would like, but stronger than the others. Therefore, I ask the House to support my two amendments this evening. I have spoken on this issue before. It is something about which I believe strongly. I am as certain as I am standing here that I speak for thousands of people in the country as a whole, an overwhelming majority, who wish to see these amendments carried.

6.30 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn

My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 182A tabled in my name. I want to make it clear that, although the Churches were not consulted about the amendments made in the Commons, insofar as it goes, I welcome what Amendment No. 182 sets out, not least because it further clarifies what for some has been a continuing area of uncertainty; namely, that some LEAs now have no responsibility for sex and personal relationship education in schools. That is a matter on which there is a misleading article even in today's Daily Telegraph.

This matter clearly rests with the governors and headteachers of schools, having regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. But it is helpful in our consideration of Commons Amendment No. 182, that the guidance has been published by the Secretary of State before our debate. With the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I also welcome the protection offered to pupils from inappropriate materials, and the inclusion in that protection of material published by NHS bodies, which has been the cause of concern to so many parents and others. It is also good that the teaching must have regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned. That is vitally important.

But we must not underestimate the demands which this very sensitive area of the curriculum places on our teachers. We need to get into the real schools in the real world, acting, as the teachers are, very much in loco parentis, seeking to impart sensitive knowledge which many believe properly belongs to the home and to the parents. Headteachers and governors must clearly not only keep in touch with parents about this, but carry their confidence and that of the local community. That in itself is no easy task in modern Britain.

That said, I must now return to a concern first expressed in this House by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill on 9th December last year (Hansard, col. 1044); namely, the importance of marriage. Despite the quasi-jocular remarks made, this Bench remains full square about the importance of marriage. It has consistently done so and nothing that I have said in this House on any occasion during the passage of this legislation or the Local Government Bill can call that into question. Indeed, the bishops of the Church of England issued a statement on marriage, as they understood it, as recently as last year.

In my view, and that of the Church of England Board of Education, a balanced group of people representing different opinions within the Anglican tradition, and which has recently debated the new Clause 117 from the Commons, and the Catholic Education Service with which I have been working very closely are of the view that Commons Amendment No. 182 does not provide, in the statutory enforcement of the guidance, all that is required or indeed all that I believe I was promised. It is for that reason that on 18th May the chairman of the Catholic Education Service, Archbishop Nicholls, who has already been referred to, and I, in a statement broadly welcoming the provisions of Clause 117, said, We regret the omission from the government amendment of any affirmation of marriage and we look to the forthcoming guidance to state clearly the importance for all pupils of positive teaching about marriage". In the situation in which we find ourselves, my amendment seeks to rectify that omission. I have had no discussion with the Government about it. The amendment was simply tabled after discussion with the Board of Education, with the Catholic Education Service and with a very rare meeting of the Lords Spiritual. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am also glad to see so many of them here this evening.

As long ago as February, when we were dealing with the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told the Committee, We agree wholeheartedly that children should be taught about the importance of marriage, of family life and of bringing up children".—[Official Report, 7/2/00; co1.434.] We are therefore very concerned that that is not included on the face of the Bill in order to protect our children from those unscrupulous teachers—there will not be many of them—whose own lifestyle may cause them to overlook this part of the guidance, not least because in the guidance marriage and stable relationships are linked together as though they held for everyone a moral equivalence with no recognition of the fact that the state as well as the Christian and other faith communities give marriage a unique standing among relationships.

As two of the correspondents to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who copied their letters to me, put it, Whilst we appreciate that we cannot impose our Christian view of morality on the population as a whole, every society in recorded history has promoted marriage as a basis for the organisation of that society". That should be expressed in some form on the face of the Bill even if that may be, for those cleverer than myself, something of an exaggeration.

As my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester put it in that debate, The Government's claim that they wish to promote marriage and a stable family as the basic building block of society must find an echo not only in their policies but in their legislative programmes".—[Official Report, 7/2/00; col. 451.] Many people, including the Government, are anxious about what is happening in British society, from concern about teenage pregnancies to mindless football hooliganism; from road rage to rural crime. We seem to expect the schools, the Churches and the Government to do something about them. But surely at its root lies the modern cult of individualism: that what I want matters most. As I see it, the difference between marriage and other relationships, no matter how stable they may be, is that marriage involves not just the people concerned but an accountability to society which formally recognises that family unit and has clear expectations of it. Marriage is a public statement of intention and commitment made by the couple but witnessed on behalf of society. It does not rest simply on the say-so of the individuals concerned. Others are asked to respect that relationship, that new family unit. So I hope I have made it clear why I seek to amend the Bill in the way I do.

Finally, I return to the classroom and the frequently stated proper concerns that if marriage is affirmed in the way I wish it to be, then the children whose parents are not married will in some way be disadvantaged.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of the task that we ask of our teachers in providing sex and relationships education. However, the importance of marriage is taught regularly in Church schools. In the eyes of many parents and impartial observers, those schools are given a very high rating for the pastoral care of their pupils. I do not want pupils in community schools to be denied what is offered in Church schools.

We must be careful that in our pastoral concern for pupils we do not remove ideals and reduce everything to a kind of basic common denominator which may better fit health than sex and relationships education. The best schools in our country are communities in which ideals and challenges are presented and pupils are prepared to make a contribution to society. Demanding though that task is, I believe that our teachers, supported by their governors, want to achieve it. I ask the House to support the inclusion of the amendment standing in my name that pupils learn the nature of marriage and its importance to family life and the bringing up of children.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Davies of Coity

My Lords, not very long ago I argued against the repeal of Section 28, and that view was upheld by your Lordships' House. Subsequently, the Secretary of State acknowledged the decision of this House and introduced an amendment to the Learning and Skills Bill. I appreciated that in introducing that amendment the Secretary of State had genuinely addressed the concerns that I had expressed. Therefore, I spoke in favour of that amendment, believing that if it was carried resistance to the repeal of Section 28 would no longer be necessary. However, the government amendment failed to find favour in your Lordships' House and was defeated by a mere 15 votes. Hence, we return to the issue following further consideration by the other place.

I have given this question much attention. I hope that what I am about to say will not be a repeat of the arguments that I advanced previously. I address the terms of Clause 117, with particular reference to Amendments Nos. 182A and 182B. It is worth while first to explore the common ground on which all sides of the House can unite and compare it with that which divides us. We all recognise that sensible, sensitive sex education must be provided in schools. We know that this issue is not about homosexuality between consenting adults in private. That issue is dealt with in other legislation which has been in force for some time. None of us wants to see homophobic bullying in schools or anywhere else. All of us want children to be protected from sexual abuse, or any other form of abuse. We do not want to see the promotion—I emphasise that word—of homosexuality in schools. We want the teaching of sexual relationships to be carried out in a sensitive and delicate way. Although we want the importance of marriage and family life to be expressed, none of us wants any child to feel inferior because his or her parents have chosen not to marry but, none the less, provide a very stable home life. We do not want the children of single parent families to feel second class. For me, those are the fundamental, sensible and compassionate factors on which we should all be able to agree. They reflect the objectives on which we should be united, and I believe that they are embraced in this Bill and the guidance notes.

Let us consider whether the issues that divide us have any importance or relevance. To be able to do that it is necessary to trace legislative developments since 1986. First, Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 dealt with the prohibition of political publicity. Secondly, in 1988 Section 28 was introduced. Under Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, the promotion of homosexuality in schools by local authorities was prohibited. A decade later, in 1996, the same Conservative administration introduced the Education Act. Sex education in schools is dealt with in Sections 403, 404 and 405 of that Act. I do not need to deal with Sections 404 and 405. However, Section 403(1) provides: The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where sex education is given to any registered pupils at a maintained school, it is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life". From that we see immediately that the authority for teaching sex education in schools has changed and the language used differs from earlier legislation. The essence of Section 28 as contained in the 1988 legislation has been overtaken by the enactment of the Education Act 1996. In reality, Section 28 is virtually ineffective, if not totally moribund.

In the circumstances, I believe that the Government would have been wiser to let sleeping dogs lie than propose the repeal of Section 28 and stir up a hornets' nest unnecessarily. I believe that it has created a polarisation of views—a rallying call around a symbolic flag—between the opponents of homosexuality in general and its supporters, many of whom believe that homosexuality is an equal and alternative lifestyle. That is not, and should not be, what the debate is about. The debate is about the teaching of sex education in schools and, in the process, the protection of school children. Unfortunately, the issue has attracted such publicity that often it overshadows many of the worthwhile successes of the Government, which I support.

None the less, this is where we are. When I opposed the repeal of Section 28, I did so to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State my concerns and those of many others about the protection of children and young people in schools from possible abuse which, in the absence of legislation to prevent it, a minority might try to perpetrate in the teaching of sex education. The proposed repeal of Section 28 can now be seen as something of a blessing in disguise because its defeat has led to Clause 117 of the Bill.

I believe that the Secretary of State has responded. I was disappointed that this House rejected this provision on the previous occasion. However, we now have another opportunity to deal with this matter in Clause 117, the provision having been further refined in the other place. A number of amendments have been tabled, to which I have no fundamental objection. However, as I believe that this House should be united as much as possible on this very sensitive and delicate issue, I favour the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I believe that the terms of that amendment are less likely to be misinterpreted and to cause confusion and resentment, and that the sentiments which it reflects are less dogmatic. This Bill, including Clause 117 and the accompanying guidance notes, is a good one. It is my hope that the House will overwhelmingly embrace the Commons amendments and Amendments Nos. 180A and 182A.

In conclusion, I hope that, having secured in this Bill all that we seek, the House will unite and no longer find it necessary to divide again next week on Section 28. I am sure that we all recognise that that provision no longer has any real relevance.

Baroness Richardson of Calow

My Lords, I believe profoundly and passionately in the holy and honourable estate of marriage. It is wholly because of that commitment to marriage that I must speak against Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C.

As a Methodist minister, I have conducted many hundreds of marriages. I belong to a Church which for the past 25 years has permitted its ministers to conduct people's second marriages provided they are satisfied with the reasons for the failure of the first and that better hopes for the future are in place. Many couples have spoken to me about their previous experiences of marriage, giving reasons for its failure. I have listened to stories of abuse and neglect and of couples who had grown apart because they married when they were too young. Some couples have told me how little preparation they had for entering into marriage in the first place, many of them with a romantic ideal of what marriage would give them. Some married under parental pressure, mostly because of pregnancy. Some married in order to get out of their family home because they could stand it no longer. Some married because the teachings of the Church were that there should be no sexual relationships before marriage. Marriage was therefore the legalisation of sex.

I agree entirely that marriage may provide a strong foundation for stable relationships, but I believe even more that strong stable relationships provide the basis for marriage. I do not believe that entering into marriage, and going through a form of marriage, guarantees that the relationships will be strong enough to support the couple through life's difficulties.

Neither do I believe that there is a simple, reliable framework for the raising of children. We would long for marriage to be that framework for raising children, but the incidence of child abuse and neglect and the number of children taken into care because of danger and for protection from their parents reveals that the ability to bear children does not confer parenting skills. The skills involved in both marriage and the upbringing of children need to be learnt in the commitment to seeing it through together.

Amendment No. 180C provides that we, shall have regard to the fact that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships". It is not a good teaching method to proclaim that as a fact when the experience of many people shows that it is demonstrably untrue in many cases. It is wonderfully better to proclaim it as an ideal and as an aspiration to be worked towards in lifelong learning together. We must also recognise that it is an ideal which many people will never be able to fulfil either because of their orientation or for other reasons which are not for us to enter into. To label them as failing in an ideal from the beginning is something we would not want to do for our children.

My main objection is that the amendment proclaims something which is not a fact but an aspiration. I therefore wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 182A and the Government's Amendment No. 180A and hope that the other amendments, which in my opinion are too strong a declaration of our hopes, will be defeated.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, speaks from wide experience and exceptional qualifications. I do not agree with her conclusions but believe that she made an impressive speech. I have my qualifications which the House may feel disable me. I have been happily married for 69 years and I cannot see anyone here who has been married for longer. Your Lordships may believe that that gives me a bias in favour of marriage. Be it so, but I plead not only that marriage is important but that it should be treated as pre-eminent. That is a word which I like.

I know many people both inside and outside my family who are happier in their second marriage than in their first. A young friend, a much admired man, has lived with a lady for many years and they have several children. They are happy and good people, so of course it can be done. But I retain my conviction that marriage is pre-eminent; it is a better way.

Many people have spoken of an ideal and we should aim at the ideal. I am not one of those people who believes that the whole country is going to the dogs. I believe that there has been a sexual decline but that in many ways we are a more compassionate society. The wonderful debate on the disabled which we had in this House only last week shows that we are a more compassionate society, but our sexual life has deteriorated. We must make an effort and this is a chance to try to pull the country together again in that area.

I realise that one should never mention one's conscience because that can be dangerous. I remember Ernest Bevin deriding George Landsbury, the then Leader of the Labour Party. He said, "I'm not going to have George Landsbury hawking his conscience all round Europe". Landsbury did not last as Leader for much longer. I know that everyone has a conscience; we are all equal in that respect. Mine tells me that tonight we should find the strongest Motion in favour of marriage and vote for it.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I want to make two points. First, Amendment No. 182, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, states that: The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools they are protected from teaching materials which are inappropriate". Who decides what is inappropriate? Presumably, some of the material referred to by my noble friend Lady Young, and which some of us saw, was considered by some people to be appropriate, otherwise it would not have been produced. Therefore, the provision would not prevent such material from being used.

Furthermore, the Minister puts great store on the words "must issue guidance". However, guidance is guidance; one is not obliged to be held by it. The guidance requirement has effect only when a person is taken to court. The fact that he or she did not follow the guidance which was issued can be taken into account. That is the strength of guidance.

My second point relates to the important difference between the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. The right reverend Prelate's amendment states: they learn the nature of marriage". One cannot ensure by statute that anyone learns. All one can ensure by statute is that people are taught. Whether they absorb what they are taught is another matter. That is why I believe my noble friend's amendment is far better. The power it contains ensures that people are taught, but whether they learn is another matter.

Lord Warner

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I speak as someone who has spent much of his working life dealing with issues relating to children. I believe that those amendments are deeply stigmatising to the children brought up in households where the parents are not married. Children experience the effects of the legislation.

I fully accept that marriage is a desirable state in which to bring up children. However, in my experience children recognise cant and hypocrisy from the adult world. A proportion of the children taught under the regime of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would have experienced divorce—some very painfully; others would have been brought up perfectly satisfactorily by parents who are not married but cohabiting. I believe that that was recognised fully in the Government's consultation paper, Supporting Families, which I was glad to have a hand in preparing, and from which I believe the noble Baroness quoted somewhat selectively in speaking to her amendment.

I also remind the House that good research shows that the conduct of fathers in married and cohabiting relationships is virtually indistinguishable in terms of their participation in their children's life. As I said, many of those children would be the recipients of the type of tuition which would come forth as a result of the noble Baroness's amendment. I believe that, if we are not careful, we are in danger of dividing children into two groups. In their eyes we shall undermine their and their parents' position when they compare what they are being taught under this regime with their personal experiences at home. I hope that the House will not support the noble Baroness's amendment.

7 p.m.

Lord Blackwell

My Lords, I have not taken up the time of the House on this subject until now, partly because it seemed to me that the issues were so clear that they hardly needed lengthy debate. However, I should like to say a few words tonight in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young.

Her amendment seems to me to be the clearest possible statement of the primacy of marriage and of its fundamental role in bringing up families. The only possible reason for diluting the language is to introduce ambiguity. The only consequence that I can see of introducing ambiguity is that an element of fudge would be allowed to enter at local level that would enable activists who wish to ignore the primacy of marriage and to promote alternative lifestyles as equivalent to find doors through this legislation which would enable them to carry on pursuing education in the way they see fit.

Some noble Lords may believe that that is appropriate, and I respect their views. I do not; I support the stance behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that there is no reason for the House not to accept the amendment unless it is seeking to introduce a form of ambiguity or fudge. I can see no purpose whatever in that. Therefore, I urge the House to support the very firm statement put forward by my noble friend Lady Young.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, I simply want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question or two. No doubt she will be aware of the Sex and Relationship Education Guidance paper. On page 14 it states that: Parents and pupils may need to be reassured that the personal beliefs and attitudes of teachers will not influence the teaching of sex and relationship education within the PSHE framework. Teachers and all those contributing to sex and relationship education are expected to work within an agreed values framework". I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that it is reasonable to ask that of teachers. I do not believe that it is; if we were to pass her amendment. Many teachers would then have to say things that they did not believe. It is not that they might not believe marriage to be a good thing; very probably they would consider it to be a good thing. Some might even have tried it—several times! In one sense or another they might well believe marriage to be the most reliable framework for raising children. For many people it is. However, when the noble Baroness said that she can prove it, my response is that I should love to see the evidence. What she makes is a value statement. One cannot prove value statements, but never mind. We should all like it to be true.

But what are teachers to do in the average maintained school if this amendment is passed? They may not be married themselves. But the kids will know whether or not they are married. Even if they are married, it may not be a good marriage, and the kids will know that too. In many areas, most of the kids will come from homes where the father has disappeared, or it is not even known who he is. However, all the same, they may have stable backgrounds. They may say, "I see, Sir, you're married, are you?"; or, if they have a little more nerve, they may say, "And I suppose that you think my mum should get married".

One is placing teachers in an impossible position. If one says that they are not allowed to give their own opinions and are not even allowed to have opinions, one can only ask them to do things which are generally accepted throughout society, and, frankly, this proposition is not generally accepted. It is a step too far. I want to know what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, believes that the teacher should say in a situation such as I outline.

The Earl of Listowel

I wish to speak in defence of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. One should not idealise marriage. Often it fails—and fails miserably. However, marriage is important for children. The US national longitudinal survey of youth found that boys raised by unwed mothers were approximately two-and-a-half times more likely to be imprisoned. In England and Wales between 1993 and 1995 the infant mortality rate was approximately 50 per cent higher among children of unmarried parents.

I have met children. I met a child whose mother said to him, "I wish that you had never been born and I wish that I had had an abortion". Obviously she said that in the heat of the moment. She would not have said that if she had thought more carefully. I believe that one reason why marriage works is that it provides a process by which adults can decide that they wish to commit to one another and are likely to want to have children together. That does not necessarily come about through cohabitation.

I very much favour the Home Secretary's idea of having a six-month delay between saying that one wishes to be married and the act of marriage taking place. We should reinforce marriage. We should make it more of a credible institution so that people say, "We are marrying and are thinking of having children. This is a very serious business". That is desperately important. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I rise to support the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I support strongly my noble friend's amendment and, indeed, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We all hope that in relation to guidance for sex education the Bill will be strengthened through the amendments tabled this evening. However, whether or not we are successful in that objective, it will be no substitute whatever for the repeal of Section 28. Sadly, that is what the Government's late amendments to the Bill are about.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is absolutely right and I hope that the Minister will accept the point because it is a legal point. The guidance is not enforceable in law. The only thing that is enforceable is having regard to it. It is possible for a governing body to meet, to discuss the guidance and then to do its own thing. At a tribunal it has only to prove that it has had regard to, and has good reasons for disregarding, the guidance. That is my first point.

My second point relates to a matter raised by the right reverend Prelate; that is, even if it were possible by law to enforce the guidance, it is not possible to enforce learning. It is possible to enforce teaching but not learning. The new Sex and Relationship Education Guidance has been published—even before this Bill reaches the statute book. Therefore, so far as concerns most of us here, the guidance is a fait accompli.

Thirdly, on the basis of Amendment No. 182, the only part of the guidance that appears to be compulsory is item 1.8 which relates to the use of materials. That is why amending the Bill is so crucial. We need something stronger on the face of the Bill: the guidance must be strengthened. We should be concerned about children not only in the classroom but at the school gates, in their play areas, in their youth clubs, or wherever they are prey to the influence of other people.

Freedom under the law for parents to withdraw their children is now made nigh on impossible by the encouragement of schools to teach sex education through many curricular subjects; for example, drama, personal and social health education and many others. Would the Minister say how parents will be advised and helped to exercise their right to withdraw their children from sex education?

The Prime Minister himself has said that it is absolute nonsense—I think he used the word "rubbish"—to those who said that role playing was permitted in schools. However, paragraph 4(4) of the guidance actually encourages role playing for sex education in our schools.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, in his amendment, is asking that children learn about the nature of marriage. The right reverend Prelate's interpretation of the nature of marriage is wholly acceptable to me in the terms in which he has spelt it out, but I have to say that the nature of marriage as understood by many other noble Lords—whom I shall not name—would not be acceptable. I think the noble Lord, Lord Warner, gave it away: it is a dumbing down. It is equivocation. It is taking the lowest possible common denominator.

I do not believe it is stigmatising children. I think children from broken homes would benefit greatly from the sort of education that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is proposing through her amendments. All the evidence shows that marriage is the most stable form of relationship and that children brought up within marriage do better in every sense. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asks that children are taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and that that is the most reliable framework for raising children. It is unequivocal as opposed to what I believe is equivocal.

My noble friend's Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C refer to local education authorities which provide training and advice. I hope I did not mishear the right reverend Prelate when he said LEAs will from now on have no role in sex education. That is simply not true. LEAs have responsibility for giving advice, for giving guidance to their schools and also for providing training for sex education, and, in so far as they do, it is absolutely essential that my noble friend's amendment ensures that when LEAs are undertaking that obligation and duty for their schools that they do so having regard to the guidance.

The Government at this time in another department are considering relaxing the laws on cruising for sex, group sex, gay people kissing in public and soliciting, under which a man can be jailed for up to two years for asking another man for sex while in a public place. That is not joined-up government.

All surveys undertaken have shown that there is real concern on this issue. My noble friend has overwhelming support for the stand she is taking. I believe she has taken a courageous stand. The level of care and concern among the thousands who have written contrasts starkly with the level of intolerance by a high proportion of the few who have written opposing my noble friend's stand on this issue. Their mission is clear, and so too is the Government's; that is, do what you can today because it will leave us free to repeal Section 28 next week.

Childhood is precious, and the combination of weak and equivocal guidance and the repeal of Section 28 will violate their innocence and healthy education. I hope that noble Lords will think very carefully and support my noble friend in her amendments.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I have the sense of the House that it would like to reach a decision very soon, but on this issue it is appropriate that at least one speaker from our Benches should take part. I shall do so briefly to set out our position, which has been well rehearsed in the many, many hours of debate we have had on this subject during the course of the Bill.

I have a little sadness that it is this subject, important though it is, that has consumed so much time from so many of your Lordships on a Bill which is actually about post-16 education and of which this issue, important though it is, is not a central part.

I start by welcoming the changes which the Government have made to the Bill in this area. It is in the nature of compromise that it never satisfies everyone. Indeed, it rarely satisfies anyone. In this, all of us who are going to support the Government's view are to a greater or lesser extent compromising. I recognise that that is true on the Benches opposite me, and I refer to the right reverend Prelates here in such number. We are doing that because we want to reach consensus and agreement on what is a very important and sensitive issue. I would appeal to all your Lordships to try to think of it in those terms. We do no good to the people we wish to help and to protect by going forward in such a divided manner.

The hours that have been spent on debating this matter, more particularly outside this Chamber than in it, have produced amendments to the Bill which cover most of the points of concern raised by your Lordships through the many hours of debate.

Similarly, little reference has been made tonight to the guidance. I welcome most of what is in the recently published guidance document. On the whole that document is thoughtful and well balanced. I have concerns over one or two elements but I sense that this is not the time to deal with those.

I deal briefly with the amendments. I agree with much that has been said about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, so I shall not repeat it.

I believe she is insisting on including in this Bill a comparative statement about the value of relationships. That is her view, and a very sincerely held view. It is probably the view held by most of us here today. But I feel no need to make value judgments about other people's relationships, and I feel even less need to have that enshrined in legislation. One point is well made, and I shall repeat it briefly; namely, our desire to protect pupils in the classroom. This provision is actually about young people, young children, the pupils. It is not about their parents. We should be remember that. How would children feel if they are in a classroom where the teacher is having to teach that marriage is the only stable relationship and their parents happen not to be married?

We may regret this, and personally I do, but it is a fact that last year more children were born outside marriage than inside marriage. How will those children feel when they are in school and they are made to feel that in some way their parents' relationship and their home-life is of less value and a worse bet for a successful life than others?

I now turn to the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. In doing so, I pay tribute to the enormous amount of hard work that I know he has had to do in this Chamber, but I suspect much more outside, in reaching this position. We will support his amendment. It is in terms that are not judgmental. His words are positive without any negative implications and they make a valued and important point without a value judgment. On these Benches we will support that amendment, and I am pleased to hear tonight that that is what the Government intend to do. We shall support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate, but we cannot support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the reasons which have been stated so eloquently by other Members of your Lordships' House this evening.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, this has been a long debate and I do not want to take up too much time of the House now. I intend to respond to some of the points which have been raised and to try to clarify the Government's position.

I was a little disappointed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It seemed to me that she was simply repeating many of the things that she said on an earlier occasion without taking any cognisance of the fact that the Government are responding to many of the concerns which she and others have expressed on a number of occasions.

She repeated remarks which she has made about unsuitable materials without, again, any reference to the fact that the Government's amendment is determined to make sure that pupils in our schools will not be put under pressure to receive material that is totally unacceptable.

I was also rather surprised by a number of references by noble Lords opposite to the guidance and to a suggestion from, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others that our guidance would not be adequate as a basis for reinforcing what the Government and many other people who have been consulted about this, including both the Anglican and Catholic Church, want to see.

Our guidance is very clear. The head teacher and governors are responsible for making judgments in the last instance about what is appropriate. But that must be in line with that guidance, and within the PSHE framework and the law. Exactly the same considerations apply to many other aspects of the national curriculum.

We cannot write a national curriculum for sex education or, indeed, for anything else and put that on the face of legislation. We must rely on the good judgment of head teachers and governors in implementing what is desirable and acceptable and what is the intention of the Government and many others who have considered those complex issues.

However, I can tell the House that there are both sanctions and safeguards available if governing bodies do not have regard to that guidance. First, parents must be consulted about the governors' policy on sex education. Secondly, Ofsted has a statutory responsibility to inspect PSHE. Parents can complain. They can complain to the local education authority and, in the last resort, to the Secretary of State. Ultimately, they can take the school to judicial review. There has been a misunderstanding on behalf of noble Lords opposite.

Lord Elton

My Lords—

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, it would be helpful if I were allowed to complete my speech in order that we can have the Division.

I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, and to her explanation of Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C. I was also very grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said in opposing the amendments. She spoke wisely from her own very deep experience of these matters.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that providing advice and training to teachers and governors is an important role which local education authorities play in supporting schools. The Government have undertaken a number of measures to underpin the rigour and quality of that role. As well as the Ofsted inspections of LEAs, we have issued a draft code of practice setting out the standards to be expected of those providing training and have asked Ofsted to carry out inspections of training provision.

We expect that the general teaching council will also play a key role in supporting the quality of teacher training when it is established in September this year. The Teacher Training Agency has written to all providers of initial teacher training to draw their attention to the Secretary of State's sex and relationship education guidance. So teachers in training will also have to be fully aware of what is in the guidance.

I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his support in relation to the guidance and its coverage. He mentioned that there are one or two areas in which he might like to have seen changes. But I am grateful for his general support for it on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

I should mention at this point, since the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned it, that we are including health service materials. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I mentioned that in my opening remarks but she apparently did not hear me make that point.

We believe that it is right that local education authorities should have regard to the principles which we have set out when providing training and advice to schools. We have already sent copies of our guidance to all LEAs to encourage them to do so.

We recognise that the noble Baroness has identified an important issue but we believe that the government Amendment No. 180A is a much more effective response to the issue which the noble Baroness identified.

I turn now to Amendment No. 182. She does not think that marriage is mentioned often enough in our guidance. Perhaps I may quote from the Catholic Education Service's recent release which states that, The guidance … is unambiguous in its insistence on children being taught the importance of marriage". Clearly, the Catholic Education Service and, indeed, from the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, the Anglican Church take a rather different view from that taken by the noble Baroness.

In response to the claims made by the party opposite, I make absolutely plain the fact that not once did the previous government ever mention marriage in sex education guidance. This Government introduced marriage into sex and relationship education guidance for the first time. Circular 5/94, which our guidance replaces, contains no mention of marriage whatever. So it is a bit rich for the noble Baroness to complain that marriage is not mentioned often enough in our guidance.

The noble Baroness spoke at length about her amendment. We must recognise that that amendment carries the same risk as the noble Baroness's previous amendment; namely, stigmatisation and possible bullying for many children at school.

Sex education has a serious purpose, not least to help to reverse the alarmingly high trend of teenage pregnancies. We cannot achieve that unless we take young people seriously and avoid denigrating the circumstances in which many of them live.

Our guidance makes it clear, as does the Supporting Families document which is quoted in the guidance and the noble Baroness's amendment, that we recognise that there are other stable relationships in society. We should not allow homophobic bullying to take place. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tope, expressed particular concern about that during the Third Reading of the Bill. He and others referred to it again in this debate. We have strengthened our guidance to make it crystal clear that schools need to be able to deal with homophobic bullying.

My noble friends Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Warner have rightly said that no child should be stigmatised because of his or her home circumstances. Again, that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn for explaining his amendment. By drawing on the PSHE framework and the Government's sex and relationship education guidance, the wording of the amendment which he has tabled allows a true balance to be struck while giving clear support for the importance of marriage.

We have worked hard over the past few months to agree principles and build consensus across society. By contrast, I am afraid that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness threatens to undo what we have achieved.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I was disappointed by her remarks. I thought she was being unduly cynical in her suggestion that the Government are bringing forward these amendments simply in order that Section 28 of the Local Government Act should be repealed. The Government are bringing forward these amendments because, unlike the previous government, they believe that it is right that pupils in our schools should get the best possible sex education, for all the reasons I have set out. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Baroness that we shall make it clear that if parents wish to withdraw their children from sex education, they may do so.

There is a simple choice before this House this evening. If we are to have effective sex and relationship education, noble Lords must oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C, and support the government amendment, Amendment No. 180A. If we are to have guidance built on the consensus that we have sought to achieve, this House must support Amendment No. 182A tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and must reject Amendment No. 182B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

7.30 p.m.