Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 458 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lady Kidron. I have spoken on this issue several times in your Lordships’ House, and I will not repeat those speeches here. I am a teacher and have taught for 10 years, but never in a school that allows students outside the sixth form to carry phones to or in school. My noble friend Lady Cass says about mobile phones that the stakeholder view and desire for action in this area is overwhelming. I will talk not about the separate issue of whether smartphones themselves are harmful but rather about whether they should be in school at all for the under-16s.

Students who do not carry phones do not get mugged for phones. In schools that do not allow mobile phones, students talk to each other at break and lunchtime, or play games or go to clubs, rather than staring at their phones. So I am about to be rather brave here: for the first time I am going to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley—at the same time. I do not think that an exception for educational purposes would be workable. You cannot teach these students how to use phones; they know far better than we do. What you can teach them are the dangers. Again, I am going to do a first here and say that it might be rather better on a PowerPoint slide than doing it practically. I really worry about 30 students in a room with their mobile phones—what carnage could happen there? But this is back of a fag packet stuff.

The excuse quite often is that carers need to communicate with people. Actually, carers do not need phones; they need time away to be children. Quite often, the people they are caring for can be very demanding, and sometimes too demanding. Schools are very good at getting messages to students in emergencies. If it is not an emergency, perhaps the child does not need to know right away. Parents do not need to know exactly where their children are at every given moment. If there are emergencies with transport, they can go to a responsible adult and ask for a message to be sent or to borrow a phone. We managed over 100 years in education without mobile phones in schools—why start now?

The Minister said recently that it is up to school heads to make the decision. At a time when, with this Bill, decisions about uniform, pay, admissions and the curriculum are being taken away from school leaders, I think a lot of them would be secretly delighted to have the Government take this decision away from them and take the lead on it, allowing them just to police the phone ban without getting the blame.

Children need time to be children: to learn, to play, to interact and to build and rebuild friendships, face to face. Leaving aside the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which I can see—but schools can provide the technology themselves—none of these is improved with a mobile phone.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 177, 183CA, 183CB and 458. As my noble friends Lord Nash, Lord Bethell, Lady Penn and many others have so eloquently laid out, the devastating impact of social media on children is not speculative anymore. It is an irrefutable fact. Social media, as many have said, is addictive; it impedes brain development and exposes children to sexual predators and harmful content, including body imaging. It is fuelling a crisis in adolescent mental health. Last year, more than 800,000 children under 18 needed NHS mental health support. This is a national crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

At what age does the noble Baroness think that children should be taught how to use phones safely?

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

Children could use phones that do not connect to the internet—phones that do not access social media—like the old phones, if they need to phone their parents in an emergency. With the mobile phones that we are talking about now, for children under the age of 16, their brains are not developed enough to understand the harms and dangers—and, as we have said, it is all very addictive. Big tech companies know how to get children to look at certain sites. In our generation, we did not have phones and we did not have that exposure to predators, and we did not have so many mental health issues among the youth.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I ask the noble Baroness how on earth she thinks that parents will be able to stand up against their children so they will not have phones? What we are discussing here is phones in school. The idea that we should prevent children under 16 from having smartphones seems to me utterly unrealistic.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I did not mean under-16s in general, I meant under-16s at school, as in those amendments. However, I agree with some noble Lords that parents also need to be educated. When we see parents pushing a pushchair and children looking at video games and such things, it is probably not very helpful, but this is part of education and we all need to get together to educate parents also. So, I support these amendments and I think that, to help our children’s well-being and future, this is something we should look at.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I too support Amendments 458 and 177, and I am delighted to support the amendments from my noble friend Lady Penn, Amendments 183CA and 183CB, which recognise the importance of helping children in their earliest years. Every day, the mounting evidence underscores a distressing reality. The issue of excessive screen time and social media usage is not a future concern but a pressing crisis that is contributing significantly to a growing mental health crisis among our children. Health professionals, educators, parents and concerned community members all echo similar warnings. Our children’s well-being is at stake and we cannot afford to delay action.

The detrimental effects of this overexposure are multifaceted. Children today are grappling with severe challenges, including disrupted sleep patterns, deteriorating eyesight, hindered speech and language development, stunted emotional and social growth, poor eating habits, as discussed in the amendments on food on Thursday, distorted body image, confusing ideologies taught as fact, diminished educational outcomes and impaired cognitive performance. Recent research highlights the alarming prevalence of addictive behaviours associated with technology use among early adolescents. Only last week, a study revealed that half of these young individuals exhibit a high trajectory of video game addiction, while one in three struggle with compulsive social media use, and one in four face similar issues with mobile phones.

The implications are dire. High and escalating patterns of screen addiction correlate strongly with increased suicidal behaviours and ideation and overall mental health decline. Furthermore, research indicates that one in four children and young people are using smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction. Smart devices, as well as giving access to harmful online content, carry a whole-body impact on the child, including physical and psychological harms, eyesight and musculoskeletal issues, speech and language issues and implications for sleep. Health professionals are now seeing those issues in their clinics daily, and we need to act now to prevent continued generational harm.

The evolution of smart devices is part of the problem. The product has developed so quickly and in such a way that, if it were introduced into the market now, it is doubtful that it would pass regulation as a safe product for children. Yet one-quarter of three to four year-olds in the UK now own a smartphone, while half of children under 13 are on social media. Shockingly, campaigners are in the position of having to prove irrefutable causation of harm rather than manufacturers proving that their products are safe by design.

Each developmental stage of childhood has unique vulnerabilities that are negatively impacted by the use of smart devices and social media. Children’s brains demonstrate tremendous neuroplasticity and rapid growth, which is shaped by their interactions and stimuli in the world around them. The quality, source and content of those stimuli are essential for children to reach developmental milestones. Unfortunately, there are many harms to normal development when smart devices and social media supplant real-world human interaction. We often hear that social media, smartphones and screens are a parenting issue—we heard it today. However, the lack of coherent public health advice to help parents navigate screens and smartphones is a glaring gap. Unlike on smoking, nutrition or car seats, there is no clear guidance on screen time, content or device use. Parents are left without the necessary tools to protect their children.

The UK is an outlier in its lack of screen time guidance for parents. France and Spain are clear on the harms of screens for young children and advise against screens before the age of five—although five seems ludicrously early to me. The US follows guidance similar to the WHO guidance, with no screens before two. However, in the UK, we remain silent, and it is time we changed that.

Amendment 183CB starts to address this startling omission. From birth to three years of age, human brain development is extraordinarily sensitive. During this period, babies and toddlers require responsive, face-to-face social interactions, as well as the freedom to move and engage all their sense to grow and thrive. Although digital devices have become essential in adult lives, extensive global research has reinforced earlier findings that frequent and prolonged screen exposure in children aged nought to three can disrupt their cognitive, physical, social and emotional development. A study from New Zealand found that two year-olds who had 90 minutes of daily screen time were associated with below-average language and educational skills, as well as above-average levels of difficulties in peer relationships. By the time they were four and a half years old, screen use was identified as an independent predictor of developmental outcomes in this study, even when accounting for various individual child and family factors. This suggests that the effects of screen usage are widespread.

These developmental delays can have significant consequences for school readiness. Research indicates that children who spend more time on screens are less prepared for school, particularly in language and cognitive development. This can hinder their ability to access the early years curriculum and achieve educational success. According to a 2025 survey by Kindred², 54% of teachers reported that children exceeding the recommended screen time were less ready for school.

Parents and caregivers need to be equipped with the information that would help them to understand the very real harms of screen usage. It is unlikely that anyone would deem it acceptable for a child to bring a TV to school, or to chat with a friend throughout their classes, and yet we are still debating whether smartphones have a place in schools. Smartphones are highly distracting, and many children report struggling to put them down. Consequently, they find it nearly impossible to resist the temptation of having smartphones in their schoolbags or on their person throughout the school day. Restricting these attention-seeking devices meaningfully can significantly benefit children’s focus and ultimately their educational attainment. Research from UNESCO indicates that it takes young people 20 minutes to refocus on learning after being distracted by their phone.

Digital distractions in the classroom negatively affect the educational performance of many students. A comprehensive study involving nearly 150,000 students across 16 countries has shown that increased use of smart devices during study sessions considerably undermines learning and academic achievement. The mere presence of a smart device can drain limited cognitive resources, leaving fewer available for critical tasks and harming cognitive performance. Experimental results reveal that individuals score lower on tests when their phones are in the room, compared to when they are left elsewhere.

Schools that impose bell-to-bell restrictions on smartphone usage, including lockable pouches throughout the school day, report significant improvements in students’ well-being and concentration. Policy Exchange’s 2024 Disconnect report found that schools with effective smartphone bans see GCSE results that are one or two grades higher than those with more lenient policies. School leaders who have implemented such measures report remarkable outcomes; for instance, the John Wallis Academy has experienced a 25% decrease in truancy, a 40% reduction in detentions and an 80% drop in incidents of online bullying. These are outcomes we should strive to see in all schools.

Teachers have noted alarming behavioural issues largely influenced by smartphone use, including refusals to hand over devices when requested, unauthorised and inappropriate usage in classrooms, misogynistic behaviour and online bullying. Problems that arise online often spill over into the classroom, impacting students’ well-being and potential for success.

In 2022, exam boards reported a 50% increase in students failing to submit their devices before public examinations compared to 2019. Additionally, 76% of teachers at schools that permit mobile phones would prefer a complete ban on mobile phone use during the school day. A poll from Parentkind shows that 83% of parents believe that smartphones are harmful to children. SafeScreens has been campaigning since 2022 for a tobacco-style regulatory framework to support the introduction of safe and restricted smartphones for children, along with a statutory ban on smartphones in schools.

Children must be supported by allowing them at least a six-hour window during the school day when they can truly concentrate on their learning, without the distraction of a smartphone at hand. We in Parliament must champion a collective response to this crisis. These amendments would work together to protect our children from before birth, in their early years, into the classroom and to the online world.

King’s Speech

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Merron, on their new posts on the Front Bench. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Barran for her excellent and diligent work over the years.

I too was surprised to hear about the reappearance of the ban on conversion therapy in the King’s Speech. It is a very complex issue which needs further consideration and risks reigniting the culture wars that the Government want to end. The barbaric methods used in the 1950s are now illegal, but activists argue that new legislation is necessary to address more subtle forms of psychological and emotional coercion not currently covered. While these concerns are relevant, such a ban would also conflict with fundamental rights such as freedom of thought and religion, freedom of expression and the right to a private life. In view of these contradictions, can the Minister tell this House what legal definitions would apply to such a ban?

My greatest fear, as the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, mentioned earlier, is the unintended consequences such a ban could inflict on children who are struggling with gender identity. Medical interventions have permanent and devastating effects. Many teenagers who have undergone treatment for gender dysphoria now regret being transitioned. I and other noble Lords have shared Keira Bell’s story in this House before and we will keep sharing it if it helps prevent other children falling into the same trap.

As a teenager, Keira Bell was put on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. At the age of 20, she underwent a double mastectomy. These treatments gave her masculine features, such as facial and body hair and a deep voice but, as she transitioned, she realised that it was not what she needed. I quote her:

“As I matured, I recognized that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause”.


At 22, she decided to detransition, but to this day she is still suffering from irreversible consequences. My heart bleeds for her. What Keira needed, and what others like her need, is space and support to thoroughly explore their thoughts, not life-altering medication and surgery. As she puts it, “If only someone had provided me with therapy and thoroughly explored my thoughts when I was a teenager—I could have been spared the trauma and I could now be living a much happier and fulfilling life”.

A conversion therapy ban must not follow in these disastrous footsteps. The Cass Review raised significant concerns about the potential criminalisation of clinicians under new conversion therapy bans. She pointed out that such legislation could create an environment of fear among therapists, making them anxious about conducting appropriate exploratory conversations with young patients. Similarly, parents should be free to have open and honest discussions with their gender-confused children, without fear of prosecution, so legislation requires a careful balancing of safeguarding to address potential risks and ensure the well-being of all affected parties, particularly children.

The Government say that a ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment or non-directive counselling and that it must respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation. Can the Minister tell this House how they will legislate to ban one type of therapy while respecting these safeguards? Furthermore, can she tell us which groups the Government will be consulting before pushing such legislation?

Schools: Transgender Guidance

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We absolutely want our policies to be sensitive, and we need them to be practical, clear and trusted. The noble Baroness quoted one element of Dr Cass’s report, but I did not hear her also say—forgive me if I missed it—that any decisions about social transition are not neutral either.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, is not imposing the use of preferred pronouns on teachers and pupils an attack on freedom of speech?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

As I say, I do not think it is helpful to generalise and talk about imposition of pronouns. We will address these issues in our guidance, and will draw on the widest range of views to inform it.

Schools Bill [HL]

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will just say a few words in support of Amendment 168. In the absence of a written constitution, we need a much more explicit statement of the values we hold dear, with which we must acquaint our children. This amendment would fulfil that educational obligation, as set out magisterially by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. It includes acknowledgment of our diversity, as well as the elements which bind us together. It also signals the environmental pressures of our time. It could, with great advantage, be the basis of the content of those lessons which are offered to pupils who opt out of worship. My only rider is that open and continual class discussion is an essential part of the teaching of these values, and this perhaps could have been made explicit also. In the words of the inspirational thinker Amartya Sen, public discourse is a vital part of democracy.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 168, on which noble Lords have spoken very well. It is very important, particularly for people who come to live in this country, to understand our values and to feel happy living here.

I also support Amendment 171F, which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, explained clearly and eloquently. As a parent, I find that it is so important to be involved in your children’s education, and children also want their parents to be involved. If there is a loophole—which is so easily amended by this amendment—it is important for it to be included, and it should not be difficult to do so. If it is not corrected, we run the risk of being on a slippery slope. There are consequences if parents are not involved in what is taught to their children—this is what happened under Nazi rule and in communist China and communist Russia, and is possibly happening even now with what President Putin is doing with children in Russia. It is important for parents to be involved and, if there is a loophole, I hope that this Government will amend it.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of all the amendments in this group, and in particular Amendment 168. However, before I get to that, I will speak in respect of Amendment 91, on careers education, and the amendments from my noble friends around work experience.

It is really important, in its own right, that we nurture in young people an interest in their future in work and the future careers they might have. I am particularly passionate that they should think about more than one career; it is about not just what you want to be when you grow up but the variety of things in a long working life that young people might want to do when they are older. I also believe in its importance for more than just that purpose, as part of a broader and more balanced curriculum than we have at the moment in our schools, at every one of the key stages, where things are particularly narrow. I would hope that, in the context of Amendment 158, which talks about digital skills, this might include media literacy—something we were talking about earlier at Oral Questions.

I would also say in passing that if any noble Lords are interested in how the career aspirations of children change as they grow up, they should talk to the people at KidZania. It is a rather unusual experience in this country, at Westfield shopping centre, where you drop your children off and they are immersed in a two-thirds size world where they can choose from different work options for them to enjoy as work experience while you go shopping. KidZania exists in various cities around the world, and it collects data about the different backgrounds and genders—all the aspects of diversity—of children and what their choices are, and it is fascinating to see how those change as they get older and become more gendered. The different aspirations according to background are indeed fascinating.

On work experience, I know that, as ever with anything where you are looking at a broader and more balanced curriculum, people in schools have to make some difficult choices about resources and what aspect of the curriculum they are going to let go to make space for something different and new. I think we need to be honest about that. My sense is that we have an overemphasis on academic and cognitive skills and not enough on some other skills. That is a point I make regularly, and it is where I would want schools to focus. I would also want them to use the good work of organisations such as the Careers & Enterprise Company, which has been mentioned; Founders4Schools, which has a great platform to help connect schools with local employers and people who run local businesses to ask them for work experience opportunities or to come in and speak in schools; Speakers for Schools; and the few remaining education business partnerships. In a world where every school is an academy, one thing I would really like to see is for all those academies to be in local partnerships with local employers so that they can help drive this important work at a localised level. I think the partnership in Hounslow still exists, but such partnerships are very few and far between, and I wish that they could be revived.

On Amendment 171F, transparency for parents is really important. They should not be treated as a third party in a school, as my noble friend talked about some being treated. They are an integral part of the community, and for community cohesion purposes among other things, it is important that such transparency exists.

That leaves Amendment 168 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which is excellent. I am somewhat partial, in that I tried to introduce through a Private Member’s Bill “sustainable citizenship” as a way of amending the citizenship subject in order to introduce sustainability. I will not rehearse all the compelling arguments that I made during the passage of that Bill, but interested Members of your Lordships’ House can look it up in Hansard. But the rest of the amendment, in respect of codification of British values, is really valuable and important. Indeed, if we could introduce this really quickly, perhaps members of the Cabinet could take some instruction in citizenship and learn about equal respect for every person, an independent judiciary, government that is accountable to Parliament and freedom of assembly—all things that appear to be threatened at the moment.

Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (England) Regulations 2019

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say how much I welcome the new guidance and regulations. In fact, the drafting of the guidance is brilliant; I compliment whoever drafted such nuanced and sensitive guidance for schools.

My main fear is that teachers will need protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, some of the objections to these regulations are so blinkered and bigoted that one fears very much for the children and the teachers who may be subjected to this sort of unfortunate propaganda. In fact, the children in the care of such people may be the ones most at risk of female genital mutilation and abuse. For their sakes, as well as everybody else’s, the facts must be taught.

At my girls’ public school, the chapters in the biology textbook on the reproductive habits of the frog—the frog, my Lords—were removed in case we got the wrong idea. This did not hold me back until I became the chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, when this gap in my knowledge caused some concern, at least temporarily. However, I managed to catch up.

The new regulations are welcome because they say that misogyny and homophobia must not be tolerated. They are not saying that any particular way of life must be promoted or forced on children—far from it. In fact, as I read it, the guidance strongly supports marriage and parental guidance. Parents should not fear because, if they have a different viewpoint to whatever is taught in school, they can point out to their children at home that they do not approve of it. However, that does not mean that the existence of different lifestyles and sexualities should not be taught in school. Indeed, children will probably get something far worse from watching things online or from their classmates than they will ever be taught at school. It is a matter of regret that primary and secondary schoolchildren could be withdrawn from sex education. The ones who are withdrawn will probably get a much worse representation of what is going on when they ask their classmates what they have missed.

Put simply, I very much welcome the regulations. What steps can the Minister and his department take to protect teachers from ill-intentioned members of governing bodies and hostile parents, who might make the lives of those teachers—who are only doing their job—very difficult?

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for arriving a bit late. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I think that a lot of things in the regulations are really good. I am a bit more conservative; I fear that I consider sex education something that is rather more private. However, it is necessary. I started life in a Catholic school. In those days, of course, we were taught nothing. Then, at the age of 12, I arrived at the French lycée, where I had to face boys and had no idea how to behave.

Anyway, that is the past and today I want only to be sure of one thing and to ask two questions. First, can the Government assure this House that the regulations are fully consistent with the obligations to parents’ rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Human Rights Act 1998? I ask this question in particular: is it consistent to downgrade parents’ current right to choose whether to enrol their children in sex education classes? Is it right to demote that right to a right to request the withdrawal of their children from such classes?

Further, on another subject, in her report Preventing Child Sexual Abuse, the Children’s Commissioner noted that 90% of primary schools still use Stranger Danger as a PSHE subject. Action against Abduction, the charity I founded and of which I remain president—I hereby declare my interest—has shown that Stranger Danger is out of date and ineffective in keeping children safe. One of the main reasons for that is that, obviously, most predators, especially sexual predators, are family members or friends of the family, not strangers. The charity that I founded came up with a new, much more effective, initiative, Clever Never Goes, which means that children learn how to behave when they feel that they are in an uncomfortable position. The regulations note that children can now go and tell their teachers that they were in an uncomfortable situation. Five hundred schools have already adopted our programme. Will the Government refer to Clever Never Goes in the guidance so that schools can give children the best advice on how to stay safe from sexual predators?

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my registered interests as well as to my role as patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I begin, unusually, by associating myself with every word of the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I think she got it absolutely right. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Massey.

Interestingly, I too received the letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, but I did not throw it away because it reminded me of the opposition to equality, tolerance and understanding—three things that should be at the very heart of all education. The letter said that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans relationships were short and lonely. Perhaps my 31-year relationship with Paul Cottingham was short compared to others—I do not know—but certainly it was never lonely and I felt completely fulfilled.

What about the children in schools who come from same-sex families—who have same-sex parents? Are not their relationships and their families’ relationships as important and as viable? Should they not be properly represented, discussed and given equivalence with other loving relationships? Of course they should.

As soon as we put sex and education together, the bonfire starts—especially the bonfire of misinformation. Of course parents will and do maintain control. As was said earlier, whether a parent wishes to teach a child outside school according to their faith or none is entirely up to them. But, please, let us remember that people of all faiths and none are also lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans. It is vital that children and LGBT children receive comprehensive and inclusive sex and relationships education. In this regard I recommend to your Lordships a book to be published in June entitled Celebrating Difference: A Whole-School Approach to LGBT+ Inclusion by Shaun Dellenty. I have been privileged to see an advance copy.

I commend the Government for the guidance and regulations, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for the way in which he has presented them this afternoon to your Lordships’ House. I am grateful also to the organisations that have made contact: the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children’s Society, Barnardo’s and the National Children’s Bureau, which provided excellent briefings.

I will finish on a couple of points provided by those organisations in their so-called Sex Education Forum. They state:

“The majority of parents want schools to teach RSE”.


Some 92% affirmed that in an independent poll in 2016.

“Effective RSE is a partnership between parents and schools. Parental involvement is integral to the new RSE guidance … Education, not ignorance, is the only way that children will be able to recognise abusive behaviour and know how to seek help. 1 in 20 children are sexually abused and 1 in 3 did not tell an adult (Radford, 2011). Sexual abuse can happen to any child, so the only way to safeguard children is to ensure Relationships Education has no opt out … Bullying and … mental health affect LGBT young people at alarming rates. Nearly half of LGBT pupils (45 per cent) are bullied for being LGBT at school”,


as shown in the Stonewall survey of 2017.

“Schools are already required to teach in a way that does not discriminate on protected characteristics, so an LGBT inclusive approach to RSE is nothing new … Teachers need training in RSE so that schools can offer the high quality provision. 80% of parents want teachers to have training in RSE”,


according to the Sex Education Forum 2018.

I would like to see HIV and sexual health become a core part of the RSE curriculum if we are to empower and inform children for the real world in which they will live.