New Clause 1 — Education Act 1996

Part of Oral Answers to Questions — Work and Pensions – in the House of Commons at 6:30 pm on 20 May 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Chris Bryant Chris Bryant Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 6:30, 20 May 2013

I want to start by paying tribute to Mr Burrowes. Although I disagree with him passionately on every element of the Bill, I none the less enjoyed sitting on a panel with him at a school in his constituency to tackle the problem of homophobic bullying in the area. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on that issue.

I understand that many people of religion disagree fundamentally with every element of the Bill. I hope that one day they will be amazed that they ever held those views. Some have said that the Church used to support slavery and that it no longer does. A better analogy might be the Church’s attitude to the role of women and, for that matter, women in marriage 100 years ago, compared with its views today. For those who have a strong a religious bent, I note that the Church of Scotland has voted today to allow homosexual clergy. I think that Churches will change and I do not want to lock them in so many ways that they are not able to do so.

I and my hon. Friends believe that equality under the law is a vital principle. The Equality Act 2010 is a subtle and intelligent piece of drafting which ensures that people’s religious belief is as protected as their sexual orientation. I worry about some of the new clauses and amendments before us, because they would upset that balance.

Hon. Members have referred to the chilling effect of what they call “political correctness” and of this kind of legislation. I say simply that if they look around the world and listen to the experiences of many gay and lesbian children in schools, they will see that hateful speech is alive and well. That is why a gay or lesbian child is six times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual child. We need to take seriously the fact that the language that people use merely because they oppose same-sex marriage adds to that sense of hatred and unpleasantness. To make the point, one has only to mention the names of Stuart Walker, who was burned to death only a few years ago for being gay, and Jody Dobrowski, who was murdered not far from this House.

I want to deal with the new clauses and amendments. New clause 1, to which many hon. Members have referred, is fundamentally ill-conceived. I do not doubt that some people are concerned about what teachers will be able to teach in schools. However, some of the understandings of teaching that I have heard this afternoon are completely misplaced. Sir Gerald Howarth, belted knight that he is, elided preaching and teaching. My fundamental point is that not much teaching should be preaching. That is the experience in every religious school in this country. Such schools want people to embrace the central understanding of every religion, which is that conscience trumps everything else. If that is the case, why would they want people to adhere to a line or to be indoctrinated? They would not. They want people to learn how to understand the facts and the world in which they live so that they can make good decisions for themselves.

The Education Act 1996 states very clearly:

“The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools…they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.

I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. Secondly—and this is vital to the point that some hon. Members have made—it states that pupils must be

“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.”

Therefore, the Act already embodies precisely what new clause 1 seeks to achieve.

Where new clause 1 fails is that it undermines the next bit of the Act, which states:

“In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance.”

The new clause would make the Secretary of State’s guidance completely and utterly irrelevant.

The guidance is extremely balanced. It states:

“Within the context of talking about relationships, children should be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children. The Government recognises that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore, children should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society. Teaching in this area needs to be sensitive so as not to stigmatise children on the basis of their home circumstances.”

That applies equally to children who are gay or who have gay family members and to those who grow up in a religious background and do not want to be stigmatised on the basis of their religion.

I say to those who support new clauses 2 and 3 that everybody should be equal under the law. How can somebody who turns up at a register office be told that the registrar will not marry them just because of their sexuality?