Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)

My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments with some trepidation, not just because it is incredibly late but because, as my accent suggests, I come from Scotland. This an England and Wales only Bill, and a Scot speaking on education, given our recent performance, may seem a little unusual. I wanted to speak on this group of amendments because 25 years ago, as Minister for Local Government in the very early, young Holyrood Parliament, I piloted the repeal of Section 28. On this very issue of school guidelines, 25 years ago our founding phrase, which was very much rooted in the language of the time, was that “We do not honour marriage by denying the validity of other relationships well established in our society”. In that context and the context we discuss today, it is about not denying the validity of relationships and identities established in our society. Those watch- words of inclusivity, tolerance, transparency and age-appropriateness still hold good a quarter of a century later. Of course, the question of school guidance and resources for RSHE is inevitably challenging when you are trying to balance preserving the preciousness of childhood for children, parental beliefs, and building inclusive societies. What does this mean in terms of the amendments before us now—Amendments 466, 467 and 474? The Government should be encouraged to step up and create age-appropriate materials and not leave it all to third parties, although I think that doing so by retaining statutory guidance is the right way forward. Yes, parents should have access to all the materials that are taught in schools, and yes, individual parents should have the right to withdraw their child from individual lessons if they so wish. What would not be right is for one parent to censor the educational rights of others. In the parlance of today, this is an issue of free speech. The role of schools is not to judge but to educate, and it is not for parents to interfere in other children’s education. Education for RSHE, on society’s behalf, includes recognition of and tolerance for the most marginalised, including the LGBT community. Language like talk of gender ideology takes us very close to denying the experience of some of the most marginalised in our community. My final point is on the speed with which we issue guidance on gender-questioning children. I fully accept that there is a desire on the part of schools for that to be issued. I just caveat it with one comment. The ECHR rushed out guidance almost immediately after the Supreme Court ruling. It then had to redefine it as interim guidance to be followed by a new consultation, then a submission to the Government, then a government review, then further impact assessments. Let us learn from that experience and let government officials concentrate on getting it right the first time by building the broadest possible consensus on the guidelines. The priority is to get it right for gender-questioning children rather than to compel a hard and fast deadline, I look forward to the Minister’s response.