Baroness Spielman (Con)

My Lords, I support Amendments 466 and 467, proposed by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 502YE, proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. My noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment is substantially the same as one of the other amendments. On RSHE, we know that there is something of a free-for-all on what is taught in schools to give effect to the statutory requirement. It is an aspect of education that many teachers feel underequipped or unconfident to teach, and many schools and teachers rely on external providers to supply curriculum programmes and resources. Some of these external providers are excellent, and some topics are uncontroversial, but there are some real tensions. One is around age-appropriateness. Some PSHE providers appear to start from the position that no child is too young for detailed and explicit sex education, with the associated terminology. There is little recognition that parents have a wide range of views about and a legitimate interest in what is appropriate for their children’s age and stage, especially at primary school but also in lower secondary school. There are elements of the RSHE curriculum that relate to issues that have become highly politicised, with some providers producing materials that reflect their ideology, rather than a factual curriculum or the law. Many schools have embraced teaching about gender identity, sometimes downplaying the importance of teaching about sex, by which I mean the protected characteristic, not the activity. In the light of the Cass review, it is clear that the claim that we all have an inner gender identity that is more important than our biological sex has spread confusion and caused much damage. Vulnerable children have been encouraged towards social transition and puberty blockers. Choices that should not be contemplated before adulthood are still being floated at children who may already be in distress and need clinical help. Yet, in our schools, change has been too slow.