Local Government (Section 28 Repeal) Act of 2001

[Will Frost]

Madam Speaker,

I know there are others who wish to speak on this matter, and I don't want to take up too much of the Houses' time, so I will make one final intervention in order to address some of the arguments made by the Member for Erewash.

The thrust of the Minister's argument is that passage of my amendment would, "open up an Orwellian future," in which parents could oppose the teaching of any matter with which they hold personal disagreement. Now the Honorable Member is a smart man, he is a capable Minister, so I can only imagine that he is willfully misinterpreting the amendment in the hopes of strengthening his argument. The amendment makes it plain that the only materials that would be subject to a ballot would be those that, "would have been otherwise banned as a result of the guidance provided under Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986." The amendment specifically address materials of an illicit nature, those that would cover sexuality or the promotion of alternative sexual lifestyles. There is literally no way this could possibly be misconstrued to mean anything else, and the Government knows this.

I would now like to turn to the argument the Minister has made, multiple times now, about freedom of speech and expression. There is nothing free about legislative action that would impose the views of a few New Labour Ministers upon the vast majority of the country whether or not they agree with them. For all the Minister's talk of preventing the "tyranny of the majority," the legislation he seeks to introduce is indeed codifying the practice of subjecting the majority of this country to the views and values of a very small minority of people. I am glad the Member for Erewash paid so much attention to my speech to the ACLU, I just wish he listened to it in whole rather than cherry picking individual quotes that he believed would strengthen his argument. I spoke directly about the power of people being able to utilize their free speech to make actionable change via the democratic process. Under the status quo, individuals can do just that by taking local authorities to court over alleged violations of Section 28. This legislation rips that right away from parents and concerned citizens, denying them of any legal recourse to protect their children from sexually explicit materials.

The Government has a simple choice to make: stand with the Opposition in passing our amendment, or admit the they have zero interests in supporting British families and defending the rights of parents. The amendment we have introduced is fair, narrow in scope, and represents a wholly moderate and commonsense policy proposal. I simply ask that the Government do more than pay lip service to the issue of parental authority, and actually do something to protect it.

[Elizabeth Tanner]

Madam Speaker,

I rise today to support the legislation introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Repealing Section 28 is a step to a more equal and progressive society. It has remained on our statute books for far too long and it was only placed there out of the fear of the Conservative Party while in government. Instead of taking an appropriate approach to the concerns at the time they went too far and have caused serious harm to a great many children and staff in our schools and communities.

I would first like to touch on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Only a few days ago he gave a speech to the American Civil Liberties Union - an organisation in the US that was founded to, and I quote, “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person…” During his speech to the ACLU, the Leader of the Opposition opined to great affect about his commitment to equality, liberty and again I quote “our shared commitment to free, unfettered speech” - I wonder if he forgot to add in the part that he only supports free and unfettered speech when they align with his own views and the views of his political party. It is a shame that he so clearly led the ACLU on, and I am certain they will have their own views of the actions of the man they invited to speak.

During his speech in this debate he has criticised the Government for pursuing this legislation out of some desire to cause divisions in his party. Madam Speaker, I have two responses for him; not everything is about him, and his party is doing quite well at causing divisions themselves. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I can be quite clear that the decision to introduce the repeal of Section 28 had nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition. The decision to repeal this law was borne out of our commitment and desire to do so, and to enable young gay and lesbian children to feel free to ask questions about sexuality and to enable teachers to answer those questions freely and without fear of legal recourse.

I would also like to address the Leader of the Opposition’s comments regarding parental choice. Like him, I believe that parents should be actively involved in their children’s education - that has been a long-held belief of mine and I am certain it is the same for the Right Honourable member - however, Section 28 doesn’t empower parents in the way he believes, quite the contrary. Section 28 has led to a cessation of all discussion of homosexuality within schools because schools fear legal action. Now, these discussion are not how to guides of how to be gay, but they are open and honest discussions to provide support to children. If we do not allow children the freedom to ask these question we will be consigning generations of gay and lesbian children to lives of fear and shame. I can not in good conscience allow that to happen any longer.

He also raised a case about a nurse in Scotland pursuing legal action against explicit material being distributed to children. And in such a case that nurse would have no greater ally than myself. Children should never be exposed to explicit or pornographic material and I am sure no member of this House would disagree with that. However, Section 28 is not needed to mount that legal action - the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Protection of Children Act 1978 both make it clear that the distribution of explicit material is illegal.

What I would be more concerned about is a case being brought forward that has been so clearly backed by a religious organisation that is diametrically opposed to homosexuals. And if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to cite cases I do hope he knows all of the facts regarding the case. Because if we are to look at this case in detail, the nurse who brought forward the case dropped it only months later and Lord Marnoch awarded costs to a consortium of gay and lesbian groups. Madam Speaker, so while there may have been vexatious legal claims to use Section 28 I do believe it is correct to say that the claims the Leader of the Opposition has made are not correct.

Madam Speaker, the move to repeal Section 28 has been endorsed by a wide variety of stakeholders spanning health, education, local government, trade unions and others. This decision is one to ensure openness in our schools so children have the freedom to grow up in an environment that is welcoming and encouraging. This Government believes that every child has the right to a good education, and a good education for gay and lesbian children is hampered by Section 28. It forces them to live in fear and the shadows. Section 28 places unwarranted restrictions on countless charities and non-profit organisation that provide help and assistance to gay and lesbian people in their attempts to raise funds in order for them to carry out their work.

I am immensely proud of this bill and I commend it to the House.

[Brown]

Madam Speaker,

I would point out briefly to the Leader of the Opposition that one could quite validly use the amendment standing in his name on the order paper to bring up a vote to ban discussions of historical figures--and even very recent political figures of import--in class who have been engaged in homosexual activity. After all, talking about them might be "promoting an alternative lifestyle." If the Leader of the Opposition believes that is a stretch, he is clearly unaware with how Section 28 is being applied right now, and if he can not see how that constitutes censorship, then I simply can not help him.

[Rebecca Flair]

Madam Speaker I rise in this debate to give my full and unqualified support for the legislation on offer today.

The Liberal Democrats have always stood for the individual, for allowing each individual to express themselves in whatever manner they see fit for their character, this is a principle that I hold dear to myself and that I know all of my parliamentary colleagues in the party do too. Articles 9 and of the Human Rights Act provide every citizen of this nation with the almost absolute right to freedom of thought, belief, religion, and expression, those rights are being trampled every single day that we allow this legislation to remain on the books.

Madam Speaker the former Shadow Foreign Secretary spoke about a values based foreign policy, I ask the House how we can have a values based foreign policy when we trample on rights and freedoms at home? The Leader of the Opposition argued for freedom of speech, I ask the House how we can have freedom of speech is the topic of homosexuality is banned from discussion? The Conservatives preach child safeguarding, I ask the House where will a child go to be educated on matters related to homosexuality if his teacher is prohibited by law from discussing it? Madam Speaker the answers are simple and depressing. We cannot argue for a values based foreign policy if we trample on rights and freedoms at home, we cannot have freedom of speech if the topic of homosexuality is banned from discussion, and we cannot protect a child's safety if they go out into the World asking any Tom, Dick, or Harry about homosexuality because his teacher won't tell him.

I urge the entire House to put values first, protect and extend our freedoms, and provide children with a safe space to talk about this difficult topic without fear of reprisal or worse. I will vote for this legislation today and I urge the entire House to do so as well.

[Ege]

Her Tudor rose brooch and St.George's flag pin is very visible.

Madame Speaker,

I have waited so far to see how this debate would go. I wonder how can Labour and Liberals justify such an atrocious act and the more I observe the more I am shocked. Frankly, Madame Speaker, this act will indoctrinate our children that it is okay, moral and acceptable to be gay. I can talk more and more about it but frankly a lot of honourable members made the case why is this act unacceptable. I want to ponder why it is pushed, what is behind this and whose values are these because they are certainly not values of where I come from.

Most of this country is against such radical foreign values by Member for Gordon and Member for Edinburgh Central. Their buddies in Edinburgh pushed this first in Scotland now they want to export it to England and Wales. Madame Speaker, this is Ian Dunn’s values, he has pushed this for years as part of Scottish Labour and now Scottish Labour is embracing it. Member for Edinburgh Central is pushing values she has embraced from Ian Dunn and Liberal leader and member for Gordon is helping her export it from Edinburgh. Madame Speaker, while Member for Gordon and Member for Edinburgh Central may have managed to do this in their own country without a healthy challenge, I will not sit down and allow them to export it to England and Wales without a challenge. This foreign ideology, this foreign belief system has nothing to do with our values and Madame Speaker, we shall not allow them to shove it down our throats without a fight. Traditional values, traditional beliefs are still ruling in the moral centre of this country and people are opposed to this move Madame Speaker, we can not allow this insidious move to corrupt minds of our children and our society. I frankly do not understand Madame Speaker, why do Members for Edinburgh Central and Gordon push their radical agenda when these powers are devolved to Scotland. England does not get a say in Scotland’s decision to repeal Section 28 but Scotland gets a say in England’s desire to keep it, Madame Speaker. This discrepancy in policy making is neither acceptable nor should have any place in a proper democracy. Madame Speaker, this debate, once again, shows the real need to resolve the West Lothian question once and for all. If we do not get a say in what Scotland does, Scotland should not get a say in what we do.

Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberals can not just export their radical agenda to England, they should not be allowed to do that, Madame Speaker. That is why I call for English votes for English laws because Madame Speaker, England should not be forced to dictates of Scotland when England can’t get any say on Scotland’s affairs.

[Elizabeth Tanner]

looks through her briefing papers for the note when Scotland was declared a foreign country then remembers the meeting she had with the Queen making her the Head of the UK Government - she then simply smiles.

[Astrid Goldman]

Madam Speaker,

I wish to rise today in order to convey my thanks to my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for introducing this legislation. I also wish to thank all Honourable and Right Honourable Members who have taken the time to attend, listen and speak on this matter with the seriousness, courtesy and respect that the matter deserves. To those who have been unable to do so without resorting to insult, bigotry and inflammatory remarks, I say that it would be worthwhile to listen to the calibre of debate from the Honourable and Right Honourable Members of the House I have mentioned to find a model example of what good practice looks like, and what the public expect.

As Secretary of State for Education and Children, Madam Speaker, I have a profoundly passionate interest in this matter. The safety and wellbeing of children while they are school has been a key feature of this debate thus far both inside the chamber today and in the media. I wish to frame my remarks today by replying to some of the comments made, answering some questions raised and addressing some of the misconceptions held both in this House and elsewhere, with specific relation to my role as Secretary of State.

Madam Speaker, my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was absolutely right as he laid out this legislation at the start of today's debate, to make reference to the unacceptable bullying of children. Bullying, in all of it's forms, is wholly unacceptable in Britain's schools and there is an expectation both from the Department for Education and Children and the Office for Standards, that school leadership teams address it robustly. Madam Speaker, It is absolutely right that Section 28 has undoubtedly crafted a culture of fear in which teachers have been cautious about addressing specific cases of homophobic bullying. I completely disagree with the Member for Woking in his rather simplistic assessment that this is due to individual weakness. It is a disservice to the professionalism and talent of our country's teachers and school staff that failures at governmental or parliamentary level are laid at their door.

As Secretary of State for Education and Children, Madam Speaker, I will be plain on that matter and state very clearly in the House today on the record that this Government does not put the blame for homophobic bullying at the door of teachers but at the failures of this House and our members to properly address the culture of fear, misconceptions and mistrust that Section 28 has generated. My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is quite right to point out that schools have been uncertain about their positions.

In his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker, said the Government had not presented evidence. I am not sure if he didn't hear because of his ears or because it was said by a woman, Madam Speaker, but the Deputy Prime Minister has already laid out in her own remarks, but some of the evidence of this. For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition's selective hearing I shall repeat it;

Madam Speaker, according to research by the Health Education Research Unit out of the University of London, 1997, 44% of teachers felt that the continued existence of Section 28 made it more difficult to meet the needs of certain pupils. Madam Speaker, Glasgow City Council, in research done in Scotland's gay communities, found that most gay and bisexual adults experienced overt forms of social exclusion based on homophobia while they were in Secondary school. In the same research, Madam Speaker, they found that 82% of schools were aware of verbal forms of homophobic bullying, 26% of schools were aware of physical attacks based on homophobia, 10% of those in Edinburgh were verbal forms of abuse by members of staff themselves. Only 6% of schools had explicitly noted homophobic bullying in their anti-bullying policies. In all of these cases, Madam Speaker, the research found one glaring commonality that was identified as the major barrier to being able to address these issues; Section 28.

The most resounding summary, Madam Speaker, was that in almost all of these schools identified during research, it was stated that there was a "culture of fear" around Section 28 that led to teachers erring on the side of caution and ignoring homophobia in fear of potential retribution. This culture of fear has extended beyond schools, Madam Speaker; in 1998 Birmingham City Council withdrew leaflets that would have supported young people in dealing with alcohol, bereavement, eating disorders, racism, smoking and coping with stress. What was it that caused the council to withdraw this useful, vital information which would supported Birmingham's young people in seeking help and access to support? The leaflets also contained a small section on issues around sexuality and dealing with prejudice. Health and wellbeing support for young people stripped not out of any legal basis but because of a culture of fear.

Madam Speaker, this culture of fear is unwarranted. One of the major misconceptions in this entire debate, and this has been repeated by the Leader of the Opposition himself, is that schools are in some way legally tied by Section 28 and cannot teach about homosexuality as a result of it.

I wish to state with absolutely clarity for the avoidance of doubt, Madam Speaker, this has been examined in court and by the Office for Standards; schools are not responsible under the current framework for ensuring compliance with Section 28. Section 28 binds Local Authorities, not Local Education Authorities, which hold a different statutory footing, nor schools.

In fact, Madam Speaker, teachers are absolutely free to answer questions around sexuality from children under the current framework with no potential for retribution at all.

So why, I can see members opposite asking, is the Government insisting that it goes? Well Madam Speaker, firstly I should state for the House that the fact Section 28 restricts Local Authorities in this way is reason enough. However, it is that culture of fear and worry about retribution that is the larger issue.

Shropshire County Council withdrawing a youth counselling service just in case they were forced to answer questions about sexuality, Madam Speaker. Corby Borough Council rejecting an application from Corby Lesbian Line for small grant funding in the aftermath of the horrendous nail bombs in London. The local constabulary had suggested they improve their security, a sensible police recommendation to the benefit of everybody. However the local authority felt that the organisation's core objectives could be seen to be promote homosexuality and would therefore be a breach. That is a police force's recommendation on public safety being rejected out of a culture of fear.

So while, Madam Speaker, I am confident as Secretary of State for Education and Children, to say that Section 28 actually does not apply to schools at all, and the Office for Standards agree with me there, no Ofsted Inspector is going to haul a head over the coals for comforting a lost child about feelings they may be having, I cannot stand and say that Local Authorities would not seek retribution, because they have and are and this culture of fear is the one we must stop.

Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my Right Honourable Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I thank him for rightly pointing out that on the matter of safeguarding and protection around sex education, there are sufficient protections afforded to children in the Learning and Skills Act 2000 as well as the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Protection of Children Act 1978, all three passed by Labour Governments for the benefit of the Member for Woking, that prevent them being exposed to inappropriate adult content in their schools. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools has made comments that he has not witnessed any such literature in Britain's schools before or after Section 28 and neither have I in my role as an Ofsted Inspector, a Headteacher or a classroom teacher.

Madam Speaker, the Honourable Member for Woking's comments have been of particular concern for the staff at the Department for Education and Children. It is one thing to be passionate about one's beliefs and religious dogma but it is another entirely to be inflammatory and bigoted while in a public office, while in the public eye. I have said before that I feel his comments on teachers and bullying are a disservice but I also want to address a particular concern he has raised. The Honourable Gentleman has accused this repeal of being stepping stone to changes to the National Curriculum that would see the promotion of sexuality added to the requirements for schools, presumably somewhere between long division and photosynthesis. I regret to inform the Honourable Member that in this case he is too late. This Government have already changed the National Curriculum on Sex Education in the Learning and Skills Act 2000. I also regret to inform him that we do not need to repeal Section 28 to change the National Curriculum, it is within the power and authority of the DfEC to do so. Quite frankly, if I had a secret agenda to introduce homosexuality onto the National Curriculum, I would have already done it by now and there isn't a lot he could have done about it.

Madam Speaker, the largest misconceptions on this matter, have of course, been spread in the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. I don’t want to hold up the House's time too much and so I shall move through them at pace for the record so that Honourable and Right Honourable Members can benefit from the facts and the Leader of the Opposition, or the Shadow Education Secretary wherever she may be hiding, can address them.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that the original intent of Section 28 was to prevent authorities governing maintained schools from promoting homosexuality. I refer the Right Honourable Member to the correction I made on that some moments ago; there is no statutory provision for that in Section 28.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said repeal of Section 28 removed parent's right of appeal on the curriculum; that is not true, parents have the same rights of appeal with or without Section 28. I urge parents with concern over the curriculum to follow the usual channels and contact their school governing body, and if unsatisfied to contact their Local Education Authority, the DfEC or Ofsted.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that Section 28 safeguards and empowers parents; no such provisions exist under Section 28. It does not apply to the statutes governing school safeguarding practices.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said parents would be left with "no recourse" if they disagree with the curriculum offered to their children. This is categorically not true; parents can follow the usual processes I have outlined above. If their concern relates to materials from their Local Authority, they should contact the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that the Government has claimed Section 28 mandates homophobic bullying. This is, of course, not the case and that can be checked in Hansard.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said no evidence had been provided as to the culture of fear in schools. He rather conveniently misheard the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks or ignored them. Either way, he can check the record and I have repeated them in my own address.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote, repeal would "allow public funds to be used for the promotion of a certain lifestyle". Regulations on the use of public funds, on safeguarding in schools, on the national curriculum and the likes have, of course, all remained unchanged.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that repeal would "rob parents of legal recourse". Madam Speaker, parents retain their full current legal rights.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, rather bizarrely, said this was a matter around division within the Conservative Party. In this next breath, then stated that his having no issue with gay people would make him unpopular in his party; I will let Honourable and Right Honourable members make of that what they will.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said in the provisions in his amendment that it would cover material "otherwise banned as a result of guidance provided under Section 2A." Madam Speaker, no material in maintained schools is banned under Section 28; it is banned from Local Authorities. Parents would have no further rights under his amendment; it is a nonsense.

Madam Speaker, I urge Honourable and Right Honourable Members, lastly, as Secretary of State for Education and Children to listen to the experts. Teachers and schools are calling out for a scrap to Section 28 because it has created a culture of fear in which the social and emotional needs of our young people cannot be fully addressed. Let's change that.

[Sir Nicholas Mountstuart]

Madam Speaker,

I rise to speak in this important debate today not as a senior member of the Opposition Frontbench, or as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer - simply as a Member of Parliament, like other Hon and Rt Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I do so primarily to represent the interests of my constituents, many of whom have been steadfast in making their opposition to the repeal of Section 28 known to me. Madam Speaker, I must make it clear to you that they, and I, have been deeply unimpressed by the antics of the Government.

I have a duty to my constituents and to my own conscience to stand firmly against the Government’s decision to once again put forward a bill that would blow away in one fell swoop the deeply embedded protection of young children in British schools today. In laying this bill before the House, the public will make up their own mind as to the priorities of the Government - I believe that Hansard will quite literally speak for itself on that notion.

So too as a practising Roman Catholic, I oppose this bill. I deliberately say practising Madam Speaker, as I do not claim to be ‘devout’ like the Secretary of State for Local Government does, nor do I claim to speak for my own church on this matter, or interpret its position - I will leave that to His Eminence Cardinal Winning, who has made absolutely no secret of his opposition to the Government’s course of action.

My Right Honourable Friend the Member for Chipping Norton has eloquently laid out where repeal of Section 28 would leave us; removing an ironclad protection and replacing it with a grossly unacceptable state of ambiguity. I say to Members from the Labour and Liberal benches, that they are deeply misguided if they think that the electorate consider the protection of innocent children from sexualisation to be an issue which ought to be considered entirely supplementary to New Labour’s demand for the endless march of progress. Indeed the Secretary of State for Local Government sought fit to compare the repeal of Section 28 to work of Saint Benedict, some in this House and outside may have considered that to be in very poor taste - noting that Benedict of Nursia is indeed the patron saint of children. I would simply offer the words of St Thomas More: ‘I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.’

This goes right to the heart of the mixed messages coming from the mouths of Government frontbenchers - and they cannot have it both ways Madam Speaker, on the hand the Home Secretary tells us that repeal is needed so that homosexuality can no longer be considered a taboo subject, and he makes a few barbed references to the alleged homophobic motives of my Hon and Rt Hon friends - I would like to say that I am surprised, but this is the standard of debate that we have become accustomed to from a New Labour Government who have an intolerant, yes intolerant, opinion of anyone who dare question their so called modernising agenda. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for Education makes much of the repeal being about giving teachers the freedom to discuss a sensitive topic with school pupils. Anyone can see Madam Speaker, that these two positions are being represented by the Government as not mutually exclusive - so we are left with the question; what exactly is the Government’s position?

Let me say that we know the Government will pass this repeal without issue, they will do so with a handful of dissent from brave Labour backbenchers, Liberal Democrats will walk through the Aye lobby too and the repeal will then be sent to the Other Place - those of us on these benches are left in no doubt at all about that. But it is a shoddy bill, amidst a debate that has been littered with dozens of mischaracterisations and misinterpretations by the Government frontbench. I can only hope that their Lordships send it back to us, and that we may force the Government to come back to this House with a real explanation.

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

BB: Order! Division, clear the lobbies.

[Ege]

Yea