National Women’s Sports

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this short debate and on his excellent speech. Many national women’s teams in the United Kingdom have cause to celebrate a fine year. To name a few, gold medals have been won at the Commonwealth Games by the England women’s hockey team and by the GB women’s rowing crews at the European championships. In rugby union, the Red Roses were unlucky to lose narrowly against the All Blacks. English women were also runners-up in the cricket world cup. Above all, of course, we celebrate the magnificent victory of the Lionesses. That was great for women’s sport. It brought in a large audience, has raised the sport’s profile and has attracted many new players.

It is important that we celebrate, and that government now build on the enthusiasm generated to promote support for girls and women equally with boys and men. Champions attract newcomers. From the mass of young participants come future champions. With them, we will have future successes. It must and can be a virtuous circle. Government must nurture young sportswomen.

It is good for society if we all exercise and participate, with greater or less success, in sports. Teams are valuable for the less-gifted participants. Many children love sport, if encouraged and given the chance. Many just want to be in a team, even the third or fourth team—and that applies, as I know, to boys and girls alike. Team sports promote loyalty and friendship; to be a “team player” is a compliment we give people in life. Society wins from more involvement in sport.

However, too many girls do not play sport in their teenage years. The reasons are complex, but puberty and changing body shapes cause difficulties. There is embarrassment in changing rooms, so, wherever possible, there must single-sex changing facilities. They should not have to share facilities with boys or, later, with men. Nor should they be deterred by faster and stronger trans women in direct competition. It is simply not fair for a taller, well-built natal male with artificially lowered testosterone levels to play contact sports with girls or women. It is not just unfair; it carries increased risk of serious injury. It is not a level playing field. Inclusivity must not mean being unfair to females, who, after all, are half our population. Being kind to trans women does not justify invading the dignity of the female sex or putting them at a physical disadvantage; sensitivity to female needs and fairness to females must come first.

Sport for women should result in happy and confident persons. If we drive proper sport for females forward, we shall have more champions to cheer. So let us celebrate, build on the success we have had and drive women’s team sports to still greater heights. Let the Government now show that they believe that women and girls are the equal of men.

Music Education

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, music has played a vital part in the development of mankind. The Open University reminds us that Homer’s two great poems, the “Iliad” and “Odyssey”, the oldest in the western canon, stood in the tradition of lyre-accompanied epic song—musical performance. As the new national plan explains, music is a cornerstone of the broad and balanced education that every child must receive. We all owe my noble friend Lady Fleet great thanks for this debate and for the work she has done with her advisory panel to bring about the new plan.

Here, I declare a modest interest as a supporter of the excellent charity which my noble friend described and chairs, the London Music Fund. Its aim is to transform underserved communities in London by enabling London children in all London boroughs to access high-quality music education. The London Music Fund’s vision is that every child who demonstrates significant musical ability, enthusiasm and commitment is given the opportunity to develop their potential. This aim is in harmony with that of the national plan. I shall come back to that later.

Excellent music education opens opportunities and, as the plan says, should be an end in itself. It is an essential part of a curriculum for all. As the plan stresses, a strong foundation in music in the early years is vital for all children, particularly so for disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs, as we have heard from others. The plan’s aspiration is to support more schools and teachers, and to develop stronger partnerships at local levels; I shall come back to that. Together with an investment of £25 million in instruments and equipment, that is to be applauded.

Music hubs will, we hope, take musical education forward but we have a way still to go. The 2011 national plan, The Importance of Music, was obviously a good moment for music education, but the call for evidence two years ago, in 2020, found that provision has remained patchy: good in some places but rather less good in others. Only half of the respondents said that music education is currently being delivered in line with the Government’s vision put forward 10 years ago. Although existing music hubs raised opportunities through the support that they give, the level of provision across the regions as a whole has been found to be inconsistent. That is why the 10 year-old plan needed reinvigorating.

It is absolutely right to make the point that musical events and performances are valuable to engage children and parents in the wider life of schools. The plan is right when it says that singing should be the golden thread in every primary school, and to stress the benefits of developing music in primary schools, taught by music specialists wherever possible. I suspect that most Members here will, like me, remember the pleasure we had in our early days at school in learning to sing in unison and, for some of us, progressing to harmony. Everyone can sing a bit and, with a little help, sing decently. Singing is elemental to our existence as human beings. Singing, even just in unison with others, is a team activity. It is a valuable tool for socialising the youngest members of our society. Learning to sing at least half-decently is good for our humanity. Equally importantly, as the plan reminds us, singing is the key to developing musicianship. We should all applaud that it is to become a core part of the curriculum on offer in primary schools.

So too I applaud the plan’s aim to ensure that every child has an opportunity to learn an instrument and progress with instruments. My children were lucky, in that they learned instruments because I could afford to pay for them, but we all know that, for many people, that is not possible. The amount of money, some £25 million, is a good start but it can be only a start. Even in these rather difficult financial times, I am an optimist. I hope that the lead schools and music hubs will see this plan as a base from which to tempt and secure outside, top-up contributions. I see two particular routes: local businesses should be asked to match the contributions that schools put into purchasing instruments, and regional music charities should be established where they do not already exist, along the lines of the London Music Fund.

I hope then that we can see business and regional music charities working with the proposed lead schools and music hubs to see more instruments made available and more teaching provided for keen young instrumentalists. Certainly, I hope that, spurred on by this plan, imaginative schools and teachers will not just sit there in their schools but seize the opportunity of a new beginning to go out and seek sponsorship from local charities and business, so that everyone plays their part.

If business can be persuaded, as it should, that music in schools produces better and more skilled citizens, it will be encouraged to sponsor the provision of teaching and instruments. It is in the interests of business to do so. This national plan, properly promoted by enthusiastic members of staff, can be a platform from which to strengthen music in the community, bring support from communities into schools and involve parents. This plan offers a real new start, and the Government and their advisory panel are to be commended.

Finally, I welcome back, with real enthusiasm, my noble friend the Minister to the Front Bench. I look forward to his reply.

Freedom of Speech

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, my focus today will be on universities, from which come our future leaders. In December 2019, the Policy Institute at King’s College London published an important report after a survey of some 2,150 students. It observed that universities increasingly face criticism over freedom of expression and for a perceived increase in safe-space policies and no-platforming. Yet this perception, it found, was often disproportionate to the number of instances where freedom of expression had actually been violated. Students, it said, were generally far more concerned about freedom of expression in wider society than in their own university. None the less, it is important to note that the same report found signs of a “chilling effect” whereby some students were reluctant to express their views for fear of repercussions.

The institute produced a follow-up report in August last year. It found, after talking to students again, that as many as 20% felt uncertain about whether they could express their views freely at their university. They did not believe that it is a university’s place to shield people from intolerant or offensive ideas and felt that safe-space policies and the suppression of demonstrations or rallies representing unpopular political views posed a threat to freedom of expression. That was one-fifth of the students. So where are we going?

In March last year, Cambridge University issued a policy on freedom of speech, requiring its staff, students and visitors to be

“respectful of the differing opinions of others”.

But last December, Regent House, the governing body of that university, voted by a huge majority, 87%, to overturn that obligation to respect the opinions of others. The requirement now, thankfully, is to “tolerate” others’ opinions. For, as Dr Arif Ahmed, reader in philosophy, told the Times:

“Everyone else just becomes a little bit more worried, a little bit more reluctant to say what they think about the Empire, trans issues, Israel and Palestine, or a whole range of issues from the left or the right. The more long-term danger is that this language will be weaponised so that we will be subject to discipline if we try to invite someone who’s disrespectful, or if we ourselves speak in a disrespectful way.”


Events elsewhere show how prescient he was. As we have all heard, only this autumn, aggressive intolerance of Professor Kathleen Stock’s writings has driven her from her post at Sussex University. The university failed to protect her against the bullies. Just this November, a row erupted at the Oxford Union after a speech by the well-known art critic Andrew Graham-Dixon. Offence was taken not so much at the content of his speech but because, intending satire—some of his audience could not grasp that satire—his mannerisms in delivery mimicked Hitler. They simply could not see that he was mocking Hitler, making fun of him.

This week at Durham University, following an edgy speech by the well-known journalist Rod Liddle, some students took offence. I do not mind that—they are free to take offence—but student presidents of every university association at Durham University have now called for content warnings for future speakers. That is the road to censorship. I ask, what would happen to Alexander Pope or Dean Swift today? Students and academics have to regain a sense of proportion and, above all, humour. Significant numbers seem to have lost sight of the core importance of freedom of expression to the vitality of university life. Talk of safe spaces, in which students will not be exposed to contrary opinions strongly expressed, is, I suggest, dangerous nonsense.

We would do well to remember the words of Frederick Douglass, the escaped slave and abolitionist. He had suffered appallingly. He knew what a safe space really was and how it felt to risk life, limb and liberty. Speaking in 1860, Douglass said:

“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”


One hundred and sixty-one years later, who are we to disagree? Essential liberties have not yet been lost, but they are, I fear, under constant assault. Our universities and institutions must not swaddle the oversensitive. The idea that there should be safe spaces and content warnings is absurd and dangerous. It will bring totalitarian controls of thought and knowledge. Those who do not go to university—50% of the population or more—do not enjoy safe spaces. They live in the real world. Those who enjoy the privilege of university must be exposed to challenge and disagreement. They must open their minds to edgy humour and provocative ideas. They must sharpen their intellects on the steels of humour and debate. They, and we, must all relearn to listen and even to laugh.