King’s Speech
Earl of Leicester Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, to this House and congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech—likewise, my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. Both clearly bring great and valuable experience to this debate and to your Lordships’ House.
I take this opportunity to express deep concern at the proposal in His Majesty’s gracious Speech for a Bill to ban conversion therapy. I should make it clear that, of course, no one should be subject to abuse or coercion. But if independent lawyers have concluded that there really are gaps in the law against abuse and coercion, we should be shown their advice and those gaps should be filled. But that seems doubtful. Research commissioned by the previous Government showed that the evidence base for a new law is weak.
My main fear is that a criminal law against conversion therapy would have unintended consequences for children and young people expressing distress over what gets called gender identity but which in reality is gender dysphoria. The Cass review made it very clear that children should be able to access help to explore in a genuinely open way their experiences of gender dysphoria, and that this is not conversion practice. But banning conversion practices risks scaring into silence precisely those professionals who have young people’s best interests at heart.
Dr Cass has spoken about how clinicians who work in child gender services have told her that they are already afraid of being accused of “conversion therapy” if they follow a questioning or—in the proper professional sense of the world—critical approach. She is also clear that such an approach is absolutely the right one to take for anyone who looks after children. Actually, she says in her report that a mere
“‘informed consent’ model of care”
is incompatible with good safeguarding of children and young people. Professionals have to do much better than simply giving young people the medical interventions they think they want, especially if they think they want them only because they have spent too much time watching YouTube videos telling them that transitioning is some kind of magic solution to all their problems.
As I have said in this Chamber before, there are increasing numbers of detransitioners such as Keira Bell, who I have met and spoken to, who heavily regret their decision to transition, and for whom the only advice they received from so-called health professionals when they were young was one of affirmation of their early and ill-informed wish to change their gender.
Clinicians and others are right not just to take a young person’s word for it when they say that they are another gender; there can be serious safeguarding issues that need to be investigated. A doctor might believe that a young person’s desire to be another gender stems from trauma. They might believe that they do not comprehend the risks and consequences well enough to make an informed decision.
If a doctor recommends a watchful waiting approach to a child, but that young person disagrees and insists that they need medical intervention, is that doctor guilty of conversion therapy? Would they be guilty, in the language of conversion therapy laws that we have seen, of “supressing” or “inhibiting” that young person’s gender identity? Even if they are ultimately found not guilty, finding themselves on the wrong end of a police investigation for conversion therapy as a result of the child making a complaint would exert a massive chilling effect on good medical practice.
The pledge in the Labour manifesto was to protect an individual’s ability to
“explore their sexual orientation and gender identity”,
but that is not good enough. Any law on conversion therapy must comprehensively protect the professional integrity of doctors, teachers and others who work with children—people who put those children’s best interests first—even if that means not giving them what they think they want. They must not be chilled into silence.
Those who truly and deeply care about the well-being of the children and young people in their care should not be at risk of criminalisation. The Government must take heed of Dr Cass’s exhortation to “take inordinate care”—that is the phrase she used- with this. We need to slow down and engage in serious consultation with a full range of stakeholders, not just those who want the Bill.
Schools: Gender-questioning Children
Earl of Leicester Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, following on from the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, does my noble friend agree that for 90% of children suffering from gender dysphoria, it passes once they mature, and that maturation comes in their very early 20s?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The honest answer to my noble friend is that there is still insufficient evidence to make such a definitive statement. My right honourable friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, in her letter to the Women and Equalities Select Committee, wrote that
“studies have found a link between gender non-conformity in childhood and someone later coming out as gay”,
and certainly that
“A young person and their family may notice that they are gender non-conforming earlier than they are aware of their developing sexual orientation. If gender non-conformity is misinterpreted as evidence of being transgender … the child may not have had a chance to identify, come to terms with or explore a same-sex orientation”.
Schools: Safeguarding
Earl of Leicester Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, that was a very impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I too had not intended to say this, but I want to make the point that I support minorities and the underdog. But six days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, tweeted on X:
“The right wing in the House of Lords has organised a debate for the 7th of December on safeguarding in schools! We must push back against these people”.
What on earth did he mean? Debbie Hayton, the respected teacher and trans woman, responded:
“Pushing back against those concerned about safeguarding is maybe not what you meant, Michael?”
So first I congratulate my dear noble friend Lord Stansgate, who is sitting on the Woolsack for the first time. I also thank my kinswoman and noble friend Lady Jenkin for securing this important debate.
Schools are a place where children should be nurtured and nourished, a place of safety where they can grow up slowly, safe from the outside world and some of the more unpleasant and pernicious influences that inhabit our world and, from time to time, cross our paths. Pornography is one of those influences that I am sure every noble Peer and person in this Chamber agrees should not be available in schools—but I am afraid it is; it is readily available.
In my day, as a red-blooded sixth-former, you might chance upon a well-thumbed copy of Playboy or Mayfair, which were fairly benign, But now, due to the internet and the fact that so many children of the age of 12 or younger have smartphones, a huge panoply of pornography of every type is revealed and is so easily accessed. A young child merely has to tick a box stating that they are 18 or over and they are in.
Internet porn is readily available and there is so much of it. Many more people are exposed to it and/or choose to watch it in the anonymity of their own home, safe from prying eyes. We know from many things that we find on the internet that it is very easy to head down the rabbit hole. It is the same with pornography, with increasing categories of depravity available. Think of the category of rough sex and go further, to where young girls—it is always young girls—are abused, often by multiple men. I will stop there but, believe me, it gets worse.
What is worrying is the effect that this increased viewing of hardcore porn is having, primarily on men. The Times on Wednesday reported on a study by Edinburgh University’s Childlight child safety institute, which surveyed 4,500 men from the UK, USA and Australia. More than one in 20 said that they would have sexual contact with a child between the age of 10 and 14 if they knew that it would be kept a secret. Among British men, 1.6% said that they would definitely have sexual contact with a 12 to 14 year-old if it stayed a secret, with 2.6% saying that they would be very likely to. An additional 7% admitted to having sexual feelings toward children, which they did not act upon. The proportion was higher in Australia and higher still in America.
According to the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused, with half of them abused by their 13th birthday. I do not know the figures for the UK but I sincerely hope they are not that high. Dr Michael Salter, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales—which co-authored the report with the University of Edinburgh—stated that the rise in online child offences is part of a global trend over the past two decades, adding that an unregulated online environment is a direct cause of sexual offending against children. He said:
“Men who are sexually offending against children are watching a lot more online pornography but also the type of content they are consuming is very deviant … It is more likely to be violent. It’s more likely to be forceful”.
A report commissioned by Miriam Cates MP and the New Social Covenant Unit, What is Being Taught in Relationships and Sex Education in Our Schools?, called for a government review. It highlights how things have changed since the guidance produced by the DfE in 2000, which stated:
“What is sex and relationship education? It is lifelong learning about physical, moral and emotional development. It is about the understanding of the importance of marriage for family life, stable and loving relationships, respect, love and care. It is also about the teaching of sex, sexuality, and sexual health. It is not about the promotion of sexual orientation or sexual activity—this would be inappropriate teaching”.
I think we could all feel very happy with that definition of RSE. However, this statement does not feature in the latest 2019 RSE guidance, which contains advice that is not compatible with the definition. Indeed, now, there is strong evidence that actors with a radical ideological position on sex, gender and sexuality are monopolising the RSE third sector, as my noble friend Lord Jackson said.
I shall give your Lordships a couple of examples. My noble friend mentioned Jessica Ringrose from UCL and Amelia Jenkinson, the former CEO of the School of Sexuality Education. He also mentioned the article “Play-Doh Vulvas and Felt Tip Dick Pics”. If your Lordships will indulge me, children aged between 12 and 16 were encouraged to draw sexually explicit images, including hands masturbating erections with the words “Wanna see me cum?” and “Now it’s your turn—ride me”. The academics went on to record that
“there was a sense of solidarity”—
that is ironic—
“amongst the girls … as they discussed the pictures they had received from ‘random old men’ on Snapchat”.
Is that really acceptable? Certainly not, particularly for the 12 and 13 year-olds in the classes who were needlessly exposed to this sort of thing having mercifully never experienced it in real life.
It gets worse. Another provider, Split Banana, gives lessons to children of the same age in which it describes four types of sex: penis-in-vagina sex, oral sex, masturbation and anal sex. Its lessons created an equivalence for heterosexual couples between anal and vaginal sex, which has the potential to mislead children about whether anal sex is a universally enacted, desirable or safe sexual practice.
I leave noble Lords with this. In preparation for this debate, I asked my own children at what age they had first been exposed to pornography and how it had affected them. Only one was happy to answer: when she was 12, looking at an iPod Touch Christmas present with her male cousin of the same age. Her reaction? She threw the iPod across the room. She was terrified.