Relationships, Sex and Health Education: Statutory Guidance

Debate between Earl Russell and Baroness Twycross

Thursday 16th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made this morning by the Secretary of State for Education. There is much in it that is welcome. Teachers and school leaders have long pushed for clearer guidance on RSHE to be published, particularly in relation to gender identity. A child’s education should and must equip them for the world in which they live. It should stand them in good stead for their life in the adult world, including healthy relationships. It is particularly welcome that there will be additional content on suicide prevention and on tackling the malign influence of online misogyny and hate. As former deputy mayor for fire resilience in London, I was also pleased that wider harms including fire and knife crime will be included.

Labour agrees strongly with the principle that parents should have an explicit right to know what their children are being taught. It is also right that what children are taught is age appropriate. But, behind the phrasing and the stated aim of allowing children to be children—the Secretary of State used the phrase “we need to allow our children to be children”—lie some serious concerns that need to be addressed through the consultation process.

First, far from protecting the innocence of children, not talking about sex in schools in an age-appropriate way does not keep children as children but potentially exposes them to harm and emotional distress. It also risks reversing very hard-won progress in preventing teenage pregnancies. The NHS website states:

“Most girls start their periods when they're about 12, but they can start as early as 8, so it’s important to talk to girls from an early age to make sure they’re prepared.”


It goes on to say:

“Boys also need to learn about periods. Talk to them in the same way as girls about the practicalities, mood changes that can come with periods, and the biological reason behind periods. It will keep them informed, as well as help them to understand about periods.


When a girl starts her periods it’s a sign that her body is now able to have a baby. It’s important that she also knows about getting pregnant and contraception.”


Can the Minister outline how, if schools cannot teach sex education until children are 13, a girl who starts menstruating at the age of eight or nine whose parents do not prepare her for this will be able to understand what on earth is happening to her? How will the Government address the fact that both girls and boys need to understand menstruation well before the age of 13? How was the age of 13 arrived at? Did the DfE discuss this with the Department for Health and Social Care or with the NHS? What assessment, if any, have the Government carried out of the likely impact of this proposed change on the number of child pregnancies?

The notion that providing sex education encourages sexual activity, which the Statement appears to suggest, is as outdated as it is dangerous. I confess that I am struggling to understand the logic. We simply cannot return to times when children believed that you could get pregnant simply by kissing another person because they were not taught about sex in a clear way.

Secondly, we know that, regrettably, for too many children childhood is not an age of innocence. We need to be clear that it is the case, or we cannot protect vulnerable children. Schools are among the strongest levers for preventing and identifying child abuse; any guidance has to enable, not prevent, this. The Statement does make it clear that teachers should speak about unwanted touching at an earlier age. However, how will the DfE ensure that teachers are not so scared of talking to children directly or responding directly to questions that the opportunity to protect children is missed? With half of children seeing pornography by the age of 13, if schools are teaching about online safety—including, presumably, online pornography—at an earlier age than they can teach about sex, how on earth will teachers navigate this? Does the Minister agree with the Telegraph that it is

“Precisely because children are doing so much of their growing up online, they need sex education classes more than ever”?


Labour believes that what defines a family is not the shape it has but the love it gives. I am therefore also concerned that potentially drawing down the shutter on discussing different types of relationships and the lived experiences of those who are transgender means that some children may grow up with a narrow, potentially prejudiced, view, and that this may harm children who, or whose family, do not conform with this. How do the Government intend that schools deal with questions around transitioning and the process people can go through to change their gender?

My final point concerns the apparent exclusion of school leaders in the drafting of the guidance so far. I hope the Minister can assure us today that the voices and views of school leaders and teachers, who appear not to have been consulted in developing the guidance published today, will be heard and reflected in the final document. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House. If it is not broken, do not fix it: we on these Benches do not welcome most of these changes, which are politicised solutions that are mainly looking for a problem. Indeed, we fear that the net result will be to put our children and young people at greater risk.

The Government are choosing to water down the safeguarding of our children on the altar of yet another pointless culture war in the run-up to the general election—legislation for leaflets, I call it. Sex education, particularly in the early years, is not about teaching young people to have sex; it is about safeguarding. It is about teaching them to know what is appropriate, what is invasive, and what is abusive; it is about informed consent. Age-appropriate education is vital for empowerment of our young children, so they can live healthy and happy lives.

Where children are questioning their gender identity, they should be supported with open and inclusive discussions centred on their health and well-being. The Government should be careful what they wish for; it is better that appropriate support be provided in schools, because the only alternative is that perhaps inappropriate information will be sought elsewhere.

Finally, what actions have the Government taken to ensure that these changes do not pose greater safeguarding risks to our children and young people?

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings

Debate between Earl Russell and Baroness Twycross

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, or RAAC, which is one of the most pressing issues this country faces in both education and the wider built environment. I declare an interest as London’s Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience. I thank the Minister for her time earlier briefing Members of this House; her approach in this regard is much appreciated.

It is clear, however, that this is not the start to term that it should have been for many schools and students, who have already missed too much education over the past few years due to Covid. This is not a new problem. The Government were aware that this was a critical issue in 2018. More could clearly have been done sooner, including putting more resources into tracing information from schools which failed to respond immediately to the government questionnaire.

The Statement from the Secretary of State appears in some ways to play down the scale of the problem, while not playing down the scale of the issue for schools where RAAC has been identified. It is no doubt of small comfort to the schools affected that they are largely in the minority, but the fact is that the number of schools facing this issue is currently unknown, and the figure provided in the Statement is probably a drastic underestimate. The Government need to learn from previous and very recent building safety crises and remember the issues that arose once ACM cladding was identified as a safety concern following the Grenfell Tower fire.

It is clearly right that the risk to children be taken seriously and that affected schools need to close or partially close. However, it is still not clear, despite the Statement, why the assessment of what constituted dangerously critical-grade RAAC was not stronger previously. Can the Minister reassure us that what the Schools Minister described in January this year as visual inspections are now definitely intrusive and sufficient to ensure confidence that the surveys being undertaken provide an accurate picture? Also, what is the additional risk posed by asbestos in the affected buildings?

While we may not choose to use her form of words, the Secretary of State was right to imply that more action may be required of her government colleagues. We also need confidence from this Government that they are taking every action possible to identify the range of buildings this issue affects, and that they will identify new funding to address the crisis and the scandal of failing RAAC. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are engaging fully with the Fire and Rescue Service, other emergency services and local resilience forums on this matter and providing them with the information and guidance they need to respond to and prepare for what must now be an entirely reasonable worst-case scenario involving a major building collapse in a school or other affected buildings?

I know that others will have questions on funding for schools to resolve this issue. However, I note that a recent House of Commons briefing highlighted that between the financial years 2009-10 and 2021-22, capital spending by the Department for Education ranged between a high of £9.8 billion in 2009-10 and a low of £4.9 billion in 2021-22, based on 2022-23 prices. This means that in England, under the current Government, school building funding has declined by around 37% in cash terms and 50% in real terms. By way of contrast, under Labour in Wales, capital funding has increased by around 23% in real terms over the last decade.

This is not just about the identification of schools facing the immediate problem of RAAC; it is also about choices around what to prioritise spending on. This is actually about political choices. How could this situation happen when there were already warnings to government of a critical risk to life? Why did the Prime Minister, when Chancellor, cut the funding intended to address this issue in the 2021 spending review rather than increase it at that point?

I look forward to hearing the wider debate on this and other issues arising from the Statement. I also look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House today and updating us on this issue. As a parent myself, I am sending a child to a new school. I have every sympathy with parents who are deeply worried about the situation and everything that teachers across the country are doing. If safety had been prioritised over budgets, we would not be in this position today.

The Statement says that, within a matter of weeks, a list of all schools will be published

“once mitigations are in place”.

Although I welcome the change of heart from the Government, does the Minister feel that, with 10% of schools left to conduct surveys, those surveys will be available in a couple of weeks?

Further, the Statement says that the Government will spend “whatever it takes”. This was later clarified as coming from existing educational budgets. Given the scale and urgency of the problem, does the Minister really feel that school budgets alone will be capable of dealing with this problem?