(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if
he will make a statement on what steps he is taking to counter
misinformation about the content of relationship education in
schools.
The Minister for School Standards ()
This spring, Parliament passed the relationships, sex and health
education regulations with overwhelming support. We know that
many parents agree that these subjects should be taught by
schools. We also know that for some parents, this raises
concerns. Parents have a right to understand what we are
requiring schools to teach and how their child’s school is
intending to go about it. That is why we will be requiring
schools to consult parents on their relationship education or RSE
policy. Open and constructive dialogue can only work, however, if
the facts of the situation are known to all.
We are aware that misinformation is circulating about what
schools currently teach about relationships and what they will
teach when the new subjects are introduced. The Department for
Education has undertaken a number of activities in response. In
April this year, we published frequently asked questions designed
to bust myths on the subjects. They have been translated into
three languages. In June, we published the final version of the
relationships, sex and health education guidance, as well as
guides for parents on the subjects. Alongside that, we produced
infographics that can be easily shared on social media—including
WhatsApp, where we know much of the misinformation is
shared—setting out the facts. We also sent an email to almost
40,000 teachers, providing them with factual information and
links to various documents.
The Department has also been working on the ground with
Birmingham City Council, Parkfield School, parents and other
interested parties to convey the facts of the policy and dispel
myths, to support a resolution to the protests in that school and
nearby Anderton Park School. Nationally, we have worked with the
National Association of Head Teachers to understand where there
might be parent concerns in other parts of the country and to
offer support. We will continue those efforts to support the
introduction of the new subjects, which we strongly believe are
hugely important for children growing up in modern Britain.
Mr Speaker
Quite so.
I am sure that Members from across the whole House will join me
in affirming the importance of accepting that people have
different family relationships and that it is not the shape or
set-up of your family that matters, but only that you are loved
and cared for.
Passing the Equality Act 2010 was rightly a proud moment for our
country, but these rights remain only for as long as we fight to
keep them. Respect and equality are the true British values.
There is no reason to treat sexuality any differently from the
way that we discuss any other part of the Equality Act, or
families that may have a difference in age or even a disability.
The misinformation is vast and in danger of spreading. With
respect to the Minister, whatever efforts the Department has been
making to counter that misinformation have clearly not worked.
It is clear from last night’s “Panorama” programme that protests
against relationship education are growing across the country.
Over 70 schools are now experiencing pressure and intimidation
because school leaders are fulfilling their legal duty under the
Equality Act. It would also appear, from last night’s “Panorama”
programme, that pressure was applied from the Department to
Parkfield School to suspend its equality programme to get the
school out of the national news. This has led to copycat protests
elsewhere, as protesters believe that if they make enough noise,
and turn up with loudhailers and hurl abuse at headteachers,
other schools will back down, too. There is a desperate need for
clear, firm leadership from the Department.
Will the Minister assure the House that Department officials did
not pressure the Parkfield leadership team into suspending its
equality programme? Will he confirm that he will launch an
investigation into such claims? Does the Minister agree with the
Government’s lead commissioner for countering extremism, Sara
Khan, that the Department has been slow to respond to the growing
protests? What lessons have the Department learnt from that? Will
the Minister update guidance to schools from “if” to “when”, to
ensure that schools have a clear message about the need to teach
LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education? Will the Minister
send a clear message to school protesters that LGBT-inclusive sex
and relationship education is mandated by the Government, that
compliance will be checked by Ofsted and that attempts to
intimidate individual headteachers will not change that?
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of the equality
of relationships and families, and that is spelt out in the
guidance. This is a historic document. Relationships, sex and
health education will cover everything from healthy eating to the
importance of self-respect and to consent, the pitfalls of social
media, recognising the signs of an unhealthy friendship, online
safety and first aid. What is learnt in relationships and health
education in primary school will provide the building blocks for
a child to develop positive relationships as they grow up and
into their adult life, and it will teach children to respect
those who might be different.
This is a well-crafted document that has received widespread
support. We consulted widely on it and it was drafted by experts.
We wanted to make sure that the relationships and sex education
guidance applied to all schools in this country, including
private schools and faith schools, and that is why it has been
crafted as it has.
The DFE has been involved from the first minute that we
understood that there were problems at Parkfield School. We have
had senior officials on a daily basis liaising with the schools,
Birmingham City Council and groups of parents. We wanted to
resolve this issue on the ground and to try to dispel the myths,
so that parents were reassured about what is actually being
taught in the No Outsiders programme at Parkfield School.
The hon. Lady says that the Department was slow to respond, but I
do not believe that we were. As I said, we responded as soon as
we heard that there were issues at the school. We—including
senior officials—have been working very closely with the school.
As far as the No Outsiders programme is concerned, my
understanding is that it had reached its natural end and that, in
the following term, the school would move on to religious
education—that was part of the cycle. This is my understanding of
the situation in the school.
The hon. Lady should understand that we want to achieve maximum
consensus with this relationship education. That is why there is
the requirement, in regulations, to publish the policy on the
school’s website and, in the statutory guidance, to consult
parents, but ultimately, it is matter for the school itself to
decide on the curriculum—[Interruption.] Hang on. When the school
has decided on what it wants to teach and when, it will have the
full support and backing of the Department for Education and
Ministers.
In terms of “when” versus “if”, paragraph 37 of the guidance
says:
“Schools should ensure that all of their teaching is sensitive
and age appropriate… At the point at which schools consider it
appropriate to teach their pupils about LGBT, they should ensure
that this content is fully integrated into their programmes.”
What is important and required is that children will be taught
about LGBT at some point during their education. Both the
Secretary of State and I have frequently been on the record
saying that we strongly encourage primary schools to teach LGBT
relationships. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says from a
sedentary position, “You must tell them.” If we had done that,
the guidance would not have achieved the consensus that it has
right across the country and right across different types of
schools. A large number of schools would not have adopted the
guidance. It has been very successfully landed, because of the
careful way that we have done this.
(Congleton) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that much of the debate about this
issue, including the protests in Birmingham, are about the
current curriculum and not the new curriculum, which becomes
statutory in September 2020? That new and updated guidance gives
people an opportunity to be respectful of faith-based views—for
example, on marriage, family and relationships—when the teaching
occurs. It fundamentally states that the education should be
“appropriate”, having regard to “the age” and “religious
background” of pupils. Does the Minister agree that the updated
guidance probably has the most comprehensive section ever on
respect for religious belief?
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The current controversy is about a
curriculum that is in place now. Of course, we still support the
school in wanting to teach LGBT issues. She is right that the
guidance states, in paragraph 20:
“In all schools, when teaching these subjects, the religious
background of all pupils must be taken into account when planning
teaching, so that the topics that are included in the core
content in this guidance are appropriately handled.”
Most schools will want to do that. My understanding and belief is
that when parents are consulted and when they see the materials,
the policy and the curriculum that the schools intend to teach,
the vast majority of them will support the school in delivering
that curriculum.
(Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important urgent
question, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon
Hull West and Hessle () for asking it with such
passion.
I commend the Department for Education and Ministers for their
work—we have made great progress—but I urge them to go further
and support the school. If they did, they would have the support
of this House and the other place. This is not about
consultation—I do not believe that the issues that have arisen
are about consultation; they are about LGBT rights, the
misinformation being put out and the bigotry being displayed by
some minorities on our streets. We have to hit back.
I saw it myself only a few weeks ago after marching with the
Terrence Higgins Trust at London Pride. I was trolled for
supporting the LGBT+ community, but the support I have received
from hon. Members across the House is evidence to all that we
will not opt out of equality in this place. It is time for
Ministers to provide the right guidance, resource and support to
face down the protests and prejudice. Many parents will not be
watching this debate. In addition to the measures the Minister
has already outlined, what will his Department do to combat the
misinformation and to allay parents’ fears?
In addition to the information for parents, training is meant to
be available for teachers, but there is only £6 million to fund
it, which averages at just £254 per school. Will the Minister
confirm that his Department’s estimate of the amount needed was
actually over £30 million and will he share details of how that
funding is being allocated? The early adopters will be starting
in September—just weeks away. Will that funding be available only
for early-adopter schools? If so, what resource is available for
others wishing to take up the programme?
We must provide the most comprehensive support for the teachers
on the frontline, and this must continue under the new Prime
Minister. Inclusive education must be a right for every single
child. We will not go back to the days of section 28. Every child
is a gift. I hope that the Minister will ensure that his team and
the Government take every step over the summer to reinforce this.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for what is a
landmark piece of legislation and statutory guidance. We should
not allow this debate to overshadow the importance of what has
been achieved. Thousands of schools do wish to adopt this policy
early—in September—and we are producing an implementation guide
for those early adopters on how to plan and develop the
curriculum and to engage parents. We are also producing a guide
on parental engagement planned for the early autumn about what
the consultation means, what good practice is and where schools
can get more support when they encounter the kind of problems we
have seen in Birmingham.
The hon. Lady is right: we need to tackle misinformation. That is
why we have produced these myth busters, which have been widely
disseminated and are having an impact. On training, we are
spending £6 million a year to develop online portals and material
that we can spread to teachers who require that training. There
should be a consensus in the House about the importance of
updated guidance. It is 20 years since the last set of guidance
on how to teach sex and relationships education in our schools,
and she will know how much her party has helped achieve equality
for LGBT people in this country in those 20 years and how the
Conservative party, under the last Prime Minister, introduced the
right of gay people to marry—a right that I am personally
extremely grateful for. We have had to ensure that our guidance
reflects modern society. I am convinced that when this guidance
and the curriculum are rolled out nationally we will be helping
people better to prepare for life in modern Britain.
Sir (New Forest West) (Con)
If the Minister’s instructions had been more prescriptive, as
some hon. Members appear to be demanding, would it have been
easier for teachers to implement?
We were keen to obtain as wide support as possible from all the
major faith groups, including the Association of Muslim Schools,
the Board of Deputies, the Catholic Education Service and the
Church of England. We wanted a widespread consensus for the
statutory guidance, and we wanted it to apply to private schools
as well as schools in the state sector. To do that and to land it
successfully, I believe we have the wording absolutely right in
that important paragraph 37.
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
If the Minister thinks the guidance is right, he might want to
come and live where I live for a while, because it clearly is not
working. All that is needed in the guidance is something that
says that in every school every child has to learn about every
equality characteristic—simple as that—and that there is no
option. We go round the houses talking about consulting and
speaking to parents, but the fundamental point is completely
missed. For the reasonable, consultation will help, but what we
are up against here is racists and homophobes trying to impose
what they think on the children where I live. There needs to be
clarity. Will he promise that? The headteachers in Birmingham and
across the country who are getting in touch with me want that
clarity.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work locally to counter
the kind of views expressed in those protests. Those protests,
which intimidate children going to school and the teachers in
those schools, are unacceptable, which is why we supported
Birmingham City Council in taking out an interim injunction
against the protests. Of course people have a right to protest,
but they do not have a right to intimidate young children going
to school.
The hon. Lady suggests, “If only we had changed the wording of
the guidance to make it more of a requirement,” but I do not
believe it would have prevented the protests at the Birmingham
school. There is a segment of opinion at either end of this
debate that will not be persuaded of the appropriateness of the
guidance. Some people will never agree to LGBT issues being
taught in schools. As such, I do not believe that requiring it in
guidance to be taught at a specific age in primary schools would
have prevented the protests.
We have been clear that we support primary schools and
headteachers who wish to teach LGBT relationships and local
authorities that take legal action against protests that have
turned into intimidation of young people, but if we had taken the
hon. Lady’s advice, we would not have had a consensus for the
statutory guidance, there would have been opponents of the
regulations as we took it through the House and another place,
and we would not have achieved its acceptance by a raft of
independent private schools that we wanted to be subject to the
statutory guidance.
Dame (Meriden) (Con)
The Church of England, the largest provider of primary education,
fully supports this updating of the guidance. As the Minister
says, it has not been updated for the past 20 years, and
childhood has changed greatly during that time. Does the Minister
agree that one of the imperatives for this change must be to
protect pupils and keep them safe in the complex online world
that they inhabit? My heart goes out to the children caught up in
all this.
My right hon. Friend is right that the guidance needed to be
updated. It includes teaching children how to tackle the pitfalls
of social media, how to recognise the signs of things such as an
unhealthy relationship and how to stay safe online. These are
important additions in the relationships guidance. It is an
important document. People are focusing on one or two paragraphs,
but we should not underestimate its importance to schools in
helping children to navigate what she correctly says is an
increasingly complicated and at times dangerous world for young
people.
Mr Speaker
Flockton Church of England Voluntary Controlled First School and
Overthorpe C of E Academy were alike privileged to benefit from
the headteachership of the hon. Member for Colne Valley
(), from whom I think it
apposite that we should now hear.
(Colne Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am so impressed.
Mr (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
You were meant to be.
Top of the class there, Mr Speaker.
A few weeks ago, along with members of the National Association
of Headteachers and my former colleagues, I signed the following
pledge:
“I support education in all schools which promotes equality,
enabling children to leave school prepared or life in modern
Britain, understanding difference and respecting diversity.”
Does the Minister agree with the wording of the pledge, and does
he agree that every parent and, indeed, every member of society
should support it?
Yes, we do support that pledge, and, as I have said, we will
support schools that decide to teach children to understand the
importance of difference. That is a fundamental part of our
statutory guidance, which was passed by this House.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I find it somewhat disappointing that most of the ire has been
focused on the Government—who have updated the relationship
guidance—and not solely on the people who protest outside
schools, doing their best to deprive young people of their
ability to make their choices, and harassing great teachers and
headteachers and putting them under pressure. If the protesters
do not desist, and if the Minister is not going to make the
guidance prescriptive, which would render the protests fruitless,
will he consider introducing exclusion zones around the schools
so that those protests cannot bear any fruit?
We supported Birmingham City Council’s injunction against
protests that had become very challenging for young people going
to that school, and we will support similar action in future when
protests become intimidatory for pupils. However, I disagree with
my hon. Friend’s view, and that of Opposition Members, that if we
had made the guidance more prescriptive, it would have prevented
the protests from occurring. There is an element of society that
simply does not agree with what the Government are seeking to do
when it comes to LGBT relationships, and they will protest as
much as they want. We were never going to be able to bring that
particular section of opinion on board, although we have brought
the vast majority of people on board for this curriculum,
including many fundamentalist faith groups.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
On Friday I drove past the protests, which have been moved just
up the road from the school in Birmingham. Apart from the fact
that allowing these people to get away with it has taken up
precious police resources, if the Minister saw them, he would
realise that putting the onus on the school to decide the content
and the appropriateness will never be accepted by them. They will
see it as a point of weakness, and they will agitate and
intimidate until they get their way. Only the Government will be
able to change that.
No Government have ever specified that level of detail in respect
of sex education, let alone relationship education. It has always
been—and must remain—for headteachers and schools to decide what
is appropriate for their pupils, when it is age-appropriate, and
so on.
We have issued clear guidance. The Secretary of State and I have
said that we strongly encourage primary schools to teach children
about LGBT relationships, because there will be pupils in primary
schools who have two mothers and two fathers and it is important
for the other children to respect that, but ultimately such
matters must be for headteachers to decide. As I have said, I do
not believe that had we been prescriptive—more prescriptive than
the wording of paragraph 37—we would have secured consensus among
major school providers in both the state and the private sector,
and I do not believe that being more prescriptive would have
prevented anyone from protesting against something with which
they fundamentally disagree.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a child of the section 28 generation who saw the damaging
effect that it had in telling some people that their
relationships and their families were not as good as other
people’s, I want to speak up for the concerned parents of LGBT
families who are now asking why the Government have essentially
green-lighted protests against headteachers, the people who will
make decisions about whether their family relationships are
considered age-appropriate or “adult content”. What does the
Minister have to say to the people—not just in my constituency,
but around the country—who may have five or six-year-old
children, but who are in same-sex relationships? When is it
appropriate for those children’s peers in the playground to be
taught that their families are just as full of love, just as much
to be respected, and just as much to be celebrated? That is what
we are really talking about: little children being taught, by
omission, to hate and not to respect each other.
It was to address those very issues that we published the
statutory guidance. That is why we published the regulations that
were passed in the House with almost no opposition. The hon. Lady
is right to suggest that when young children at a school have
parents of the same sex, that should perhaps be a pointer to the
headteacher to provide for children to be taught about LGBT
relationships earlier than they might have been otherwise. It is
important to give them that discretion. As I have said, provided
that schools have consulted, and provided that their policy is on
their websites as required by the regulations, we will fully
support headteachers when they make decisions about the content
of the curriculum and when and how it should be taught.
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
We will always respect religious and cultural values and
differences, but there are also fundamental values of human
rights. We will never retreat back down the path to a painful
past in which the love of two men for one another, or two women
for one another, was demonised. Does the Minister not recognise
that by using the words “It is for the school to decide”, the
Government will this autumn expose dozens—potentially hundreds—of
schools to the same kind of shameful treatment that we have seen
in recent weeks?
No, I am afraid I do not agree with that. The guidance makes it
very clear that pupils must be taught about LGBT relationships at
some point in their school careers, and that that requirement
will apply to private schools and faith schools, including
orthodox faith schools. That is the important achievement of the
guidance.
The Secretary of State and I have said on many occasions that we
strongly encourage primary schools to start teaching children in
primary schools about LGBT relationships, and we will support
those that do so. I believe that when schools start to produce
their policies and start to consult on what is being taught and
the materials that will be used in teaching children about LGBT
relationships, they will have widespread support from parents
throughout the country.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
These changes could of course have been introduced in 2010, when
the Minister was the shadow Minister, Labour was in power, and we
had a plan to introduce relationship and sex education which he
voted against. I am very pleased that, nearly 10 years on,
relationship and sex education are to be taught in our schools,
but I think that now is the time for the Minister to step up and
show some real political leadership, and to say what the vast
majority of people in this House and the other place agree with:
“This has to be mandatory, it has to be taught, and it cannot be
just left to the schools.”
As I have said, we have had widespread support—from the Catholic
Education Service, the Church of England, the Office of the Chief
Rabbi and the Association of Muslim Schools—and we believe that
the guidance strikes the right balance between a wide range of
views. That is why we have achieved consensus in this House and
in the other place. Had we not taken this approach, I do not
believe that we would be where we are today in terms of the
widespread acceptance of the need to teach children about LGBT
relationships in 23,000 schools up and down the country.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
Of course I welcome this guidance and have done all along, but I
find myself frustrated by the answers from the Minister. I have
met the head of Parkfield, who came to speak to a cross-party
delegation just the other day, and she was very clear: the chink
in the guidance—the word “encouraged” rather than “expected”—has
essentially put her and her colleagues in the firing line of
these parents. To state that changing the guidance would not make
a difference contradicts what that head was saying. Has the
Minister been to the school and spoken to the head, and if he
hasn’t, will he?
The issue in that particular school is not to do with the
relationship and sex education guidance—that comes into force in
September 2020—and we are making very clear in the supplementary
guidance the processes that are needed in terms of consultation.
Consultation with parents is hugely important, not so that
parents have a veto over the curriculum—they will not have a veto
over the curriculum—but because it helps to dispel myths, and it
helps to deal with the very misinformation that the hon. Member
for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle () has raised this urgent
question to discuss. That consultation is hugely important, and I
believe that as and when schools do consult up and down the
country, this new policy will attract widespread support from
parents.
Mr (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I appreciate what the Minister has done on this issue in many
respects, but does he not understand that while prescription will
not necessarily stop the protests, it will make it clear to the
protestors that it is no use bullying the schools and the heads
into trying to change the policy because the requirement lies
elsewhere? He says that the parents do not have a veto on this,
but if a school sits down and consults with parents, and those
parents who want to stop same-sex education being taught know
that the head has the ultimate decision, then there is enormous
pressure on that head, and parents will believe that they have a
veto regardless of whether they do or do not?
I can make it clear from this Dispatch Box that parents do not
have a veto over the content of the curriculum. That has been
absolutely clear: it is clear from the guidance; it is clear from
what I have said; it is clear from what the Secretary of State
has said. In addition to that, we strongly encourage schools to
start teaching about LGBT issues in primary school.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
Will the Minister make sure that his Department takes
responsibility for ensuring that every piece of information that
is made available to parents, including consultation materials,
is available in community languages, in easy-read format and in
other accessible formats?
The implementation guide will set out very clearly how to plan
the curriculum, how to engage parents and the processes that
schools need to go through to plan and develop the policy. As I
mentioned in my opening comments, we have published the
information in three separate languages to try to dispel myths,
but the key message that I hope comes from this debate is that we
will fully support and back headteachers who decide to teach LGBT
issues in their school. As long as they have been through the
process of consultation and they publish their policy on the
school website, they will have our full backing.
(Darlington) (Lab)
I am in awe of teachers like Gillian Marshall at Red Hall primary
school in my constituency who has been providing an inclusive
education for many years now. She has worked tirelessly and
sensitively with the parents of the children in her care and were
this guidance to have a stronger, firmer legal footing, that
would not stop: she would still seek to work alongside and with
the parents in her community. The Minister does not need to worry
that schools will abandon working alongside parents if he gives
more power to the school and makes that clearer to the parents.
Yes, and I pay tribute to that headteacher. There are teachers in
thousands of schools up and down the country that are teaching
these issues with no protests from any group outside their school
gates. The hon. Lady should realise that this is the first time
that we are requiring schools to teach about LGBT issues. That
will not affect the school she referred to, but it will affect
many thousands of schools up and down the country that will for
the first time be teaching their pupils about the need to respect
difference and to understand that families come in different
types, including single parents or parents of the same sex. So
this is a very important piece of legislation—a very important
piece of statutory guidance. We should all be doing more to
support and welcome it, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne
(), who speaks for the
Opposition, did in her response to this urgent question.
(Bristol West) (Lab)
In Bristol on Saturday the Pride event was a magnificent
celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. I
was there; it was wonderful. Many of the people in the parade and
at the event afterwards were probably pupils at schools where
they felt excluded or misunderstood. Most of the people marching
either were parents or one day will be parents, and they, too,
want to know that their children will have the security of having
an educational experience that is better than theirs, where they
feel included and wanted, and for them the word “encouraged” is
not enough. I respect the Minister, but will he please reconsider
that little word “encouraged”? Can he not see that the fear of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents in my constituency
that their children will be left out of education about positive
role models and positive relationships is real, not imaginary?
This is a transforming piece of legislation and statutory
guidance. It will mean that in thousands of schools up and down
the country—in fact, in every school up and down the
country—there will be a change in the approach to teaching about
relationships and teaching about RSE. And it will mean that in
schools that have not been teaching about LGBT issues, those
issues will be taught at some point during their pupils’
education. I also believe strongly that it will be taught in the
vast majority of primary schools, because the Secretary of State
and I have made it clear that we strongly encourage LGBT issues
to be taught in primary schools and not to wait until children
reach secondary school. However, had we taken the hon. Lady’s
advice, this guidance would not be applying to the hundreds of
faith schools in the private sector, and we took the view that
pupils in those schools were equally deserving of being taught
about LGBT issues and about modern life and respect for
difference, which they would not be taught about had it not been
for this guidance and the way that we have constructed it.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice about
potentially correcting the record on something that has been said
during this urgent question. The Minister stated that the “no
outsiders” programme had come to a natural conclusion and had not
been shut down because of pressure from the Department. I and a
number of other Members of Parliament—some present today and some
not—from across parties heard a very different story from the
leaders of that school last week in a meeting in this House. I
wonder how I can seek clarity on that, because I am certain, as a
local Member of Parliament, that had that action not been taken,
the subsequent protest outside Anderton Park school would not
have emerged. I have also been told by Members of Parliament from
Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Lancashire this week that they are
expecting protests at their schools this week, next week and in
September, and I wish to push back against the suggestions I feel
we have heard today that this is just a Birmingham problem.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and will offer some thoughts in a
moment, but the Minister is signalling a willingness to respond
and I think we should hear him.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull
West and Hessle (), that was my understanding
from a briefing I received from officials, some of whom had been
involved in the day-to-day discussions with the school. Given
that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley () has raised this point of
order, I will go back to those officials and ask them to check
again whether the briefing I was given was correct, and if it
turns out that I inadvertently misled the House on that
particular point I will ensure that the record is corrected.
Mr Speaker
That is a most helpful and gracious response from the Minister of
State which has, I think, for now satisfied the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Yardley (). I just want to say that the
House collectively and the House service alike are very proud of
our record on LGBT equality. In thanking the hon. Member for
Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle () for raising this urgent
question, and all colleagues for participating in the exchanges,
I am going to permit myself two observations. First, in my
experience as a Member of Parliament for more than 20 years, I
often find that when people say, “We haven’t been properly
consulted”, what they really mean is “You haven’t done what I
told you to do.” Secondly, again on the strength of experience,
we cannot appease bigots and homophobes; we have to confront them
and defeat them. My strong sense is that there is unity across
the House in that conviction.
