I rise to speak to new clause 20 as a parent of two boys, one of whom is still at school and one of whom left recently. I also want to speak for the many parents in my constituency who, like me, are concerned about the provision of sex education in this country.
I am pleased that new clause 20 proposes to redefine sex education as “sex and relationship education”, although I would have put it the other way around, with the emphasis on relationships rather than sex. After agreeing on the wording, I part company with those who tabled the new clause.
5.30 pm
I want to concentrate on one aspect of the new clause: the implications of the proposal for a centralised curriculum. In March, the current PSHE legal framework was given backing in this House by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), when she published the results of the Government’s recent PSHE review. She stated:
“To allow teachers the flexibility to deliver high-quality PSHE we consider it unnecessary to provide new standardised frameworks or programmes of study. Teachers are best placed to understand
the needs of their pupils and do not need additional central prescription.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 52WS.]
I believe that was right and that the curriculum centralisation that would inevitably follow endeavours such as new clause 20 would not advance the cause of PSHE or, critically, the interests of our young people. To clarify, we currently have compulsory sex education in secondary schools, but governors of primary schools are at liberty to authorise the teaching of sex education if they think it appropriate.