any sexual orientation. Whilst the Council rules out the promotion of homosexuality, it does not ruling out the promotion of any other sexual orientation. I would like to know why the Council feels it necessary to rule out the promotion of one sexual orientation but not another.

'Whilst I am concerned by this position which the Council has adopted, I hope that we will have an opportunity to meet with Sir Sandy to discuss the policy and the effect it will have.

'Kent County Council has not included the text from Section 28 referring to "pretended family relationships". Indeed in marked contrast, the policy commits the Council to "Enable children to lead a healthy, fulfilling and meaningful life in which they respect themselves as individuals, whilst developing an understanding, tolerance and respect for others and their differences, treating all people as equal". This is greatly reassuring.

'I look forward to Sir Sandy's reply to my letter and I hope that we will be able to enter into constructive discussions with the Council to move the situation forward in a positive manner.'

Read James Davenport's Letter in Full:

Dear Sir Sandy,

Over the past few months, increasing controversy has grown around your decision to 'replace' Section 28. I am writing to try and clarify your Council's position, and to offer our assistance in handling this issue in a way that does not offend, unfairly discriminate or create an inaccurate portrayal of Kent County Council's policy.

In your statement on the issue, published on the Kent County Council website, you say:

'In July 2000, Kent County Council agreed a policy about the use of our Budget which said "KCC shall not publish, purchase or distribute material with the intention of promoting homosexuality". This in no way was a statement against homosexuality, and it certainly was in no way against school sex education including an understanding of homosexuality. It was against the "intentional promotion", which is very different.'
(Statement, Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, www.kent.gov.uk, November 2003)

I would be grateful if you could clarify:

- Whether it is Kent County Council's view that it is possible for a council to promote (i.e. encourage the prevalence of) any given sexuality;
- If so what scientific evidence this view is based on;
-Whether it is Kent County Council's view that it is an appropriate use of the Council's budget to promote other sexualities including heterosexuality and bisexuality; and
- Whether if this is not the Council's view, why the Council has not introduced a policy covering the promotion of any sexual orientation.

It is the view of my organisation, which has existed as a movement of dedicated Conservative activists for about 30 years and is a specialist group of the Conservative Party, that promoting any sexual orientation is not an activity that councils exist to indulge themselves in. Do you agree or disagree with this position? If you agree with this position, why have you introduced controls to which only one sexual orientation is subject?

I note that your statement also says:

'The second part of the Government's original Section 28 spoke about "not promoting the teaching of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". This we regarded as an unhelpful statement, and we said that we would reject this and would clarify our views in a new Kent Curriculum Statement which we did in March 2001. For us, this was when we formally replaced the second half of Section 28. This says:

'"Enable children to lead a healthy, fulfilling and meaningful life in which they respect themselves as individuals, whilst developing an understanding, tolerance and respect for others and their differences, treating all people as equal."'
(ibid.)

I am greatly reassured by your statement in this respect, and I would like the opportunity to discuss with you how the position of Kent County Council can be properly presented to the public. As you will know many in the gay press and gay campaign groups have presented your Council's position as simply retaining Section 28. This is clearly inaccurate. Indeed, in regard of the education of children this policy, as it reads, provides a framework to better inform children regarding sexual orientation which goes further than the Government's simple abolition. I would like the opportunity to discuss ways in which this can be made clear to the public and the media.

The coverage of this issue is causing considerable damage to the Conservative Party's reputation as a party that will represent 'all Britain and all Britons', not only amongst the gay community, but also amongst anyone else who is concerned by this issue. I regard it as essential that a way forward is found that provides an accurate portrayal of the Council's and the Party's position.

I look forward to your reply, and hope that we can assist you in coming to a position that does not offend the gay community and others, whilst at the same time allows the Council to continue to operate within appropriate limits.

Yours sincerely

James Davenport
Chairman, Gay Conservatives