Baroness Blower:

Moved by Baroness Blower

463: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—“Duty to provide relationships and sex education and PSHE to persons who have not attained the age of 18 at further education institutions(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows. (2) In section 34 (education relating to relationships and sex)—(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) relationships and sex education to be provided to persons who have not attained the age of 18 and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(d) in subsection (2)(c), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.(3) In section 35 (other personal, social, health and economic education)—(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) to persons who have not attained the age of 18 and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(d) in subsection (2)(c), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.”Member's explanatory statementThis new clause would extend the existing provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to people under the age of 18 who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.

My Lords, given that my noble friend Lady Lister is unable to be here this evening, it is my pleasure, with her permission, to read her speech to move this Amendment.

It is an honour to move Amendment 463, which would extend the provision of relationships and sex education to young people aged under 16, in post-16 institutions in England. It is an honour because it has been dubbed the Massey amendment as a tribute to our late friend and colleague Baroness Massey of Darwen. Had she still been with us, she would have been the ideal person to move this amendment, given her experience and commitment to young people’s social health and well-being. It was to honour Doreen that I agreed to table this amendment, even though I do not claim any expertise in this area.

Another reason that I agreed to table the amendment was that I was so impressed by how Faustine Petron, who approached me, founded the Make It Mandatory campaign and enlisted the support of many important bodies such as Brook—of which Lady Massey was a former president—the Sex Education Forum and the End Violence Against Women and Girls coalition. She has received the endorsement for this amendment of 50 organisations, and has collected over 105,000 signatures for her petition. She says, in her own words:

“I am a university student and young survivor of domestic abuse. As an older teenager, I would have benefited from being provided with RSE after year 11 and an adequate education surrounding the early warning signs of domestic abuse, the different forms abuse can take, and places to get help”.

The third reason is that Faustine Petron has such a strong case: she has identified a real gap in the mandatory provision of relationships and sex education, which does not cover 16 and 17 year-olds, yet, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, these are still children.

Since RSE was made mandatory in schools, it has begun to make a real difference. The Office for Students is making it into a condition of registration for universities that they intend to prevent and address sexual violence. Filling the gap in FE and sixth-form colleges would contribute to a preventative strategy on sexual violence among young people.

This would also help address the concern voiced by the Public Accounts Committee that,

“to date, the approach to tackling violence against women and girls has not put enough emphasis on preventative measures that are necessary to achieve long-term change”.

The committee emphasised the key role that education can play in tackling this issue, including in preventing children from becoming perpetrators in the future. Among its recommendations was that the Department for Education should set out how it intends to work with children and young people to prevent violence against women and girls, including further changes to the relationships and sex education curriculum. Some 77% of young people surveyed—

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for interjecting relatively late into her remarks, but I am reminded that, in the Companion, it is fairly clear that Members should not seek to have their speeches read by other Members of the House. Perhaps she could rephrase her remarks in a way that makes it clear that she is speaking for herself, not on behalf of another Peer.

I apologise to the Committee. Clearly, I and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, had misunderstood the rules relating to this.

As has been noted, national organisations backing the Make It Mandatory campaign, in addition to the Children’s Commissioner, all agree that the extension of relationships and sex education to this group would be important.

In conclusion, in a recent Commons debate on relationships education in schools, the Minister for School Standards emphasised the vital role that education plays in preventing violence and that the aim of relationships education is to support all young people to build positive relationships and to keep themselves safe. That education must equip them for adult life. It thus makes no sense that, just as they are at the cusp of adult life, they should not be assured access to relationships and sex education to help equip them. The Minister continued that, as part of the Government’s opportunity mission,

“we will equip our young people and children with the skills they need to form strong, positive relationships

Although she was talking about the school context, this is clearly important in terms of an extension to post-16.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 463, to which I added my name. Government data shows that 16 to 19 year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group. Without mandatory RSE, we are leaving many 16 to 18 year-olds unsupported, just as they are starting their first intimate relationships. Tender, a marvellous charity that goes into schools to educate children in relationships, has been working with this age group. It found that only around half of the students could identify signs of an abusive relationship or knew where to find support; by contrast, after participating in Tender’s workshops, over 90% can identify abuse and will know where to find help.

Victim-blaming and perpetrator-excusing attitudes are prevalent in this cohort, in part due to a high percentage of young people viewing harmful content online. The End Violence Against Women coalition agrees, quoting the National Association for Managers of Student Services in saying that, “As the front line of support services in post-16 education, we know it’s been never more important to give young people a safe place with structure, to discuss and learn about positive relationships and to address the social isolation and misinformation a world living on social media has created”. In a confusing world, 16 to 18 year-olds seeking guidance deserve to be supported to critically examine and challenge harmful attitudes among their peers in a safe, supportive environment, which we can create through mandatory RSE lessons.

My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey, who has unfortunately had to leave to get the last possible train home.

I want to say just a few words, as the hour is so late, on Amendments 471 and 465, which seek to clarify in legislation the requirement for schools to teach about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, in religious education at all stages. I am aware of the ongoing review into the national curriculum. It may be that, through the review, it is recommended that religious education becomes part of the national curriculum. This would be welcome, to ensure that the subject becomes impartial, objective and balanced, with clear national minimum standards that teach children about all the main religions and non-religious belief systems within our country.

However, as this may not come to pass, my Amendment seeks to ensure the teaching of non-religious beliefs in religious education. In 2015, the High Court ruling in R(Fox) v Secretary of State for Education declared that religious education curricula should include the teaching of non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, to comply with the rights of freedom and belief under the European Convention on Human Rights. Nearly a decade later, in 2024, Ofsted released Deep and Meaningful? The Religious Education Subject Report. It reported that half of all secondary schools and a Majority of primary schools still did not teach about non-religious world views in their RE lessons.

It is vital that children and young people learn about non-religious belief systems alongside the major religions. Humanism has a long and significant history in the UK, stretching through our sciences, arts, culture and politics. Many people in the UK live their lives around the values of the scientific method, making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and a concern for all living life, and that in the absence of a God or afterlife we must strive to improve ourselves and our communities in the time that we have.

My Amendment 471 would ensure that religious education must teach about non-religious beliefs, providing clarity and direction to schools and local authorities. Amendment 465 seeks to remove the requirement for collective daily worship in all state-funded schools without a religious character. It would not remove the ability for schools without a religious character to provide collective worship if they choose to do so, nor, as some noble Lords have seemingly misunderstood, would it ban prayers, Christmas carols or any religious holidays.

It simply removes the legal requirement of mandatory Christian worship in these non-faith schools. While faith schools will still be required to provide collective worship, schools without a religious character will have to provide an assembly once a week that furthers the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of all pupils, regardless of their faith or belief.

This amendment is about freedom of choice and respecting the diversity of our society. It cannot be justified, when in the recent census over a third of the population in England and Wales had no religion, rising to over half of those in their 20s, that when non-religious parents send their children to a non-religious school, the school is still legally obliged to perform Christian worship. When the alternative is to pull children out of lessons or assemblies and leave them sitting in classrooms or corridors by themselves, this is not a real choice.

The current situation demands that parents choose between ostracising their children and forcing them into religious worship they do not want for their family. I know that there are many noble Lords who deeply and sincerely believe in the values of Christian worship, and I respect that belief. That is why my amendment does not remove the requirement of collective worship in faith schools. In return, I ask noble Lords to respect those of us in society who do not believe in any faith, and to allow parents the equally valid choice to have their children attend schools that do not require daily worship. Children should also have the right, as under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to remove themselves from worship if they do not believe in it.

Maintaining the daily collective worship obligation for state-funded schools without a religious character is not respectful to those families from other religions or with no religion. We should provide more choice, not less, to schools and parents, to reflect the needs and beliefs of children.

My Lords, at this late hour, I sound a slight note of caution and concern over Amendments 465 and 471. I do not have any particular problem with Amendment 463, which is something all of us should be able to embrace, in terms of ensuring education around prevention of sexual violence and promoting respectful relationships.

Amendment 465 in many ways transposes the proposed Private Member’s legislation and tries to put it within this legislation. By removing the requirement for collective worship, what is put in its place seems to be quite vague and ill-defined in its nature. It talks about assemblies that have to promote

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural” aspects. It strikes me that it almost replaces a religious assembly with what is, in effect, a humanist assembly. That is a conclusion which a lot of people will draw.

The vagueness of what is being proposed to, in effect, replace the collective worship will lead a lot of schools into trying to find other forms of lectures and lessons that they will try to put across within an assembly. There is no doubt that this will lead to a widespread and vast difference of interpretation. There is also no doubt that many of the subjects, while very merited, can be quite controversial. We would be naive if we did not believe that this would create a situation in a number of schools in which there were levels of friction, perhaps between parents and the school, or between governors and the school. There is a certain element of the hornet’s nest being stirred up.

The proposer of the amendment also then talked about choice. It is absolutely right at present that no child or family is compelled to attend religious or collective worship. The right to opt out is enshrined in legislation and, as such, clearly will remain, and I think everyone would accept that. However, the way the amendment before us today is drafted creates this alternative form of assembly, which is compulsory for everyone. It would mean that if a parent objected to a particular assembly, to a lesson, there is no right for them to withdraw their child because there is no provision directly to do that.

There is a danger of unintended consequences as a result of this. Mention was made on a number of occasions today of not wanting to go down the route of Northern Ireland education. Without going into the details, some of what has been said was a bit oversimplified and wrong. But leaving that aside, Members made the point that they see the best social mix of education where there is a wide range of faiths—where, indeed, there is a considerable level of mixing. Removing collective acts of religious worship will actually push some parents much more towards faith schools, feeling that perhaps the faith of their children is not being represented. That will create a situation that makes integration less likely, albeit perhaps in a relatively small fashion. So there is that question of unintended consequences.

I do not believe that Amendment 471 is necessary. The curriculum already at times reflects non-religious topics within RE. This, to some extent, supercharges the non-religious issues within RE. Whether we have faith or not, I think everyone in this House probably, in different ways, holds non-religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell is gone. I share with him one unfortunate trait, in that I am a lifelong Manchester United supporter. I have a belief that within the next few years, Manchester United will win the Premiership again. Perhaps that is not a non-religious belief, because the amount of faith required to hold that belief is such that it perhaps tips over into being much more a matter of faith over hope and experience.

Nevertheless, we have seen that the definition is tied to the provisions of a particular part of the ECHR. We know that, as a result of that Clause, there has been quite a lot of case law, not just here but throughout Europe, in relation to the definition of non-religious beliefs. A very wide range of topics has come into play and been defined in case law. Again, all those are perfectly legitimate topics. However, it raises the prospect of the non-religious belief side overwhelming the religious side of RE. I may be quite literalist in my view, but I think religious education should principally be about religion, and this clearly dilutes that to an unacceptable extent.

In conclusion, I appreciate, given many of the figures that have been quoted, that we are becoming an increasingly secular society, so I suppose what I am saying may be regarded as a bit unfashionable. But I believe that, in an age when perhaps there are a lot of unnecessary divisions within this country, a lot of our Laws and collective values ultimately rely on Judeo-Christian values and traditions. We should not abandon those in a school setting, on a casual basis without specific consultation. These amendments take us too far in that direction.

My Lords, the naivety that the noble Lord referred to is actually his own naivety. Because of the area in which it is, the primary school that I attended in Manningham—which is part of my title—in Bradford now has a population that is over 70% Muslim. The idea that, by law, that school has to have Christian services and assemblies is naive and possibly offensive to the parents of those children. Our society needs to recognise that it is not fair to impose these things upon those parents and children.

The UK is the only western democracy that legally imposes worship in publicly funded schools. We have been repeatedly asked by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to repeal the collective worship Laws—a justifiable call that we should not dismiss in the way that the noble Lord suggests. The idea that, because we might want to change the way that our schools operate and collectively discuss issues and values, we are throwing out the values that created our society is also naive, because that is not at all what these amendments are proposing.

I expect that these amendments will not be acceptable at the moment, but it is very important to have this discussion, because we are a multiracial, multicultural society, with many different religions and, mostly, none at all.

My Lords, I oppose this Amendment. Time does not permit me to properly debate and discuss Amendment 471, so I will confine my comments to Amendment 465. I thought that the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, were very apposite, and I more or less wholly agree with him.

I want to specifically talk about the first part of the amendment, which would replace the duty to provide an act of worship with

“an assembly which is principally directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education”,

rather than the specific issue of replacing the daily act of worship. This amendment contains an incoherent phrasing that, in effect, amounts to an imposition of humanist beliefs. To refer to spiritual education, regardless of religion or belief, is absurd. To refer to moral education, regardless of belief, is irrational. It is impossible to make moral judgments without beliefs about what is right or wrong or beliefs about how these judgments should be made.

It is not possible to understand British society and culture without regard for the religious beliefs that have shaped its literature, music, art, history and institutions. The exclusion of religious belief from a social and cultural education in assemblies is illogical and will restrict pupils’ understanding. The assumption that it is possible to provide an assembly

“directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral … education of the pupils”,

without regard to belief, is illogical. In effect, these new assemblies would promote humanist beliefs and provide pupils with a highly partial account of spiritual, moral, social and cultural education.

As humanists are keen to point out, not everyone is religious. There are people who hold non-religious beliefs, but these are beliefs, and consequently shape the perspective, values and attitudes of those who hold them in ways that are not neutral. They are sincerely held, but they are not universally held. This is why Humanists UK, for example, campaigns so vigorously—it needs to persuade others who currently disagree with it.

There is also a disparity in parents’ rights to withdraw their child. Currently, all parents have the right to withdraw their children from collective acts of worship, but this amendment allows parents to withdraw their children from assemblies in schools that contain an act of worship but does not allow parents to withdraw their children from humanist assemblies. This two-tier system is deeply inconsistent and unfair. The state educates children on behalf of parents with their permission, and not against their wishes; the amendment is inconsistent with Section 9 of the Education Act 1996, and incompatible with Article 2 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. I surmise that there has been no consultation with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or any religious bodies on this in respect of this amendment.

Without the context of religion, the content of these assemblies will inevitably focus on issues of a political nature, and views on these issues will have to be considered with religious perspectives excluded. There are already concerns about political impartiality in schools, and this amendment risks making matters worse.

Britain and its values are rooted in Christianity, and this continues to be reflected in our national life. Currently schools can accommodate important national days, such as Remembrance Day, within their acts of collective worship. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke in favour of the Private Member’s Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, earlier in the year, which aims to achieve similar changes to this amendment, arguing:

“Children need to be taught early the importance of generosity, kindness, neighbourliness … community support”.—[Official Report, 7/2/25; col. 968.]

But the fact that these are valued in contemporary British society is due in large part to the impact of Christianity. These values have positively transformed society and are still cherished in modern Britain. It is impossible to explain the development of these values to pupils without regard for the context of the religious beliefs from which they arose.

There is an assumption that Britain is becoming an increasingly secular country, which is used to support these amendments, but it is not borne out by recent studies which demonstrate a sharp increase in young people attending church. Dr Rhiannon McAleer, co-author of The Quiet Revival, states:

“While some traditional denominations continue to face challenges, we’ve seen significant, broad-based growth among most expressions of Church—particularly in Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism. There are now over 2 million more people attending church than there were six years ago”.

The present legislation already allows for the consideration of all beliefs, and requires the head teacher to have regard for the background of pupils in determining the extent to which collective worship reflects Christian belief. If still unhappy, parents can withdraw their child. The proposals are trying to fix a problem that does not exist.

There is also the issue that the amendment extends to Wales, where the education system and governance are devolved.

For all the reasons that I have laid out, I oppose this damaging and wholly unnecessary amendment.

As it is late, I shall just register my support for Amendments 465 and 471. I agree that a large number of young people and their parents do not adhere to a religious faith. It is clearly valuable and important for them to learn about the central faiths that influence our culture, but they are also entitled to have access to moral and ethical frameworks which do not depend on a religious faith so that they may arrive at their own moral compass. These amendments would enable that positive development.

My Lords, I offer Green support for all three of these amendments, but in the interests of time I shall make two brief remarks about Amendments 463 and 465.

On Amendment 463, I agree with all the contributions made thus far, but with a focus particularly on the relationship and sex education part of it. I think that it is also important that we focus on the PSHE element of that. This is education about the financial sector and managing personal finances, something that it is generally agreed there is a real shortage of. This is education about physical and mental health—and I cross-reference the earlier amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the importance of physical literacy in particular. It is also about rights and responsibilities. We have to note that, with votes at 16 now being government policy and coming in this direction, it is surely important that we provide education about voting and our political system to young people in our further education system.

When I say that we need that kind of education, people sometimes say that that is an argument against votes at 16. I think that 16 year-olds are as well informed about our political system as 60 year-olds, and they all need more information and more education. Educating 16 and 17 year-olds will also provide information that will disseminate out into the general community through their family, friends and colleagues in the workplace.

On Amendment 465, I want to respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, who, I think, suggested that there was something odd about the idea that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, had previously brought two Private Members’ Bills—I have spoken in support of both—and that their subject was now being put forward as an amendment to a government Bill. There is a very well-trodden path for—

No, I did not. In case there is any misunderstanding, I was simply pointing out that this was, in effect, a transposition. I did not suggest that it was some sort of irregular route or that there was something wrong with it. I pointed out that, if it were to become part of the Bill, it would not have gone through the same level of consultation as the rest of the Bill. However, I did not suggest that this was an oddly trodden path—in case there was any misunderstanding on that.

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course, what he just said applies to any Amendment that your Lordships’ House inserts into a government Bill.

The argument for Amendment 465 has already been powerfully made, but we are talking about a law that dates back to 1944. This is a 20th-century arrangement for the 21st century, which, as others have said, simply does not fit our society any more. A poll in 2024 said that 70% of school leaders wanted to get rid of the current legal arrangement.

On alternative moral, spiritual and cultural development, we hear from all sides of your Lordships’ House regular lamenting about how much cultural education we have lost from our current system and how little space there is to fit into the curriculum things such as cultural activities and cultural learning. This provision would be one way to create a little more space for something that is pretty well universally agreed as being essential.

My Lords, I will very briefly say a few words about this group.

On Amendment 463, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, may have taken up the baton from somebody else, but she did it pretty well—nobody has disagreed with her. It seems agreed that she is on very solid ground. The amendment is about useful information that people should have. I hope that the Government are at least friendly to the amendment.

On the two amendments tabled by my noble friend, I very much doubt that one assembly a week will change anybody’s religious views either way. Not making one point of view compulsory will probably not change religious views either way. The similarity in the values of religions—the fact that we should be nice to people seems to be common across the board—is something that we can probably convey elsewhere; it does not have to be put forward in this way. I do not think that it will make much difference. It would certainly bring it in line with a bigger chunk of the population. If people want spiritual activity somewhere else, it would be available.

I turn to the final amendment in the group. I hope that my noble friend will not hit me too much when I say that the provision should already be there. Any education about religion must include the contrary arguments, so I think this is really belt and braces. I am not getting snarled at by my noble friend, so I think I am not too far off in saying that. I hope that the Minister can confirm that Amendment 471 should be covered, at least partially, in all current religious education.

[Continued in column 2199]

[Continued from column 2198]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to strengthen the curriculum by extending the teaching of RSHE and PSHE to the age of 18 and broadening it to include non-religious beliefs in the RE curriculum. I confess to being sceptical about the impact of extending RSHE in particular to 18, in relation to safeguarding young women, principally, who might be affected by domestic abuse. My experience from working in that field is that young people are very good at identifying domestic abuse in other people and that training and support can facilitate disclosures of abuse, but it is much less likely that they will identify it in time in their own relationships. That is because, of course, most abusive relationships start off looking like any other relationship and it is only when you are in that relationship and significantly controlled by your partner that you begin to realise what is going on. I absolutely support helping and providing advice to people, young and old, in abusive relationships, but I am not convinced that RSHE to 18 will change much on the ground.

I do not support either Amendment 465 or Amendment 471, for the reasons set out by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Lord, Lord Weir. I will spare the Committee my wider thoughts; suffice it to say that we are at risk of expecting schools to step in where in the past parents were responsible and I do not think that it ends well when the state takes on parental responsibilities. You cannot outsource parenting and culture.

My Lords, as we have heard, this group covers a range of issues. Inevitably, we have heard some very detailed views on different sides of the arguments covering the subjects of the amendments.

I begin with Amendment 463, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, which concerns making personal, social, health and economic education and relationships and sex education mandatory for all pupils under 18 in further education colleges. We absolutely recognise the importance of promoting healthy relationships to young people. That is exactly why PSHE, including sex and relationships, is taught in colleges. I strongly believe that schools play an important part in developing students’ attitudes. We recently updated the statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education to ensure that it provides foundational knowledge for all students to thrive. Given the public consultation results and our safer streets mission, we have strengthened the content of the guidance on sexual violence.

Going further, the Government understand the challenges that young people, particularly women, face at college. This is part of a society-wide problem with sexual and domestic violence and it is why one of the Government’s five core missions is to make our streets safe again. All parts of government are contributing to the key target of halving in a decade the incidence of violence against women and girls. The FE sector has huge experience in meeting these challenges and the department’s FE student support champion is drawing on this and international comparators to create a new toolkit that will arm colleges with the confidence, skills and materials to make a real difference in the lives of their students.

To pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with regard to the National Association for Managers of Student Services, I reassure him that the department works closely with the association on improving support for 16 to 18 year-olds, with a focus on relationships and sex education. It will be at the forefront of delivering the new RSE toolkit later this year.

Although the department has concluded that no current measure would consistently formalise post-16 RSE teaching, given the diversity of FE providers as it has developed haphazardly over more than a century, 16-to-19 institutions must follow guidance requiring that they teach RSE and health education to all 14 to 16 year-olds. To support colleges, the department has engaged a leading expert to disseminate effective RSE materials and practice. Polly Harrow is well known in the field and is working towards raising quality and consistency. A toolkit will be launched with a series of regional events in the autumn to raise awareness of this important issue.

I am also pleased to let noble Lords know that my noble friend Lady Smith recently met stake- holders from the sector, including Lucy Emmerson, chief executive of the Sex Education Forum, Janaya Walker, public affairs manager at the End Violence Against Women coalition, Faustine Petron, founder of the Make it Mandatory campaign, and Eliza Bell, senior communications co-ordinator at the Brook sexual health charity. I am pleased to let Members know that my noble friend had a very positive recent meeting with them and looks forward to continuing those discussions to see how we can work with them to take this agenda forward.

Amendment 465 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, concerns the requirement for daily collective worship in schools without a religious character in England. It proposes replacing the requirement for a daily act of collective worship in non-religious maintained schools with a weekly assembly focused on spiritual, moral, social and cultural education, and extending this requirement to academies without a religious designation. The Government value collective worship and assemblies as an essential part of school life, encouraging reflection on beliefs, traditions and ethics. As mentioned by several noble Lords this evening, the right to withdraw from this remains.

Under the Education Act 2002, schools must promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in their curriculum. Schools already have flexibility to deliver non-religious assemblies. This amendment introduces different statutory duties on local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers, creating administrative burdens without, I must say, evidence of improving pupils’ educational experience.

I shall pick up on the comments of my noble friend Lady Thornton, who always makes an enormous contribution to these discussions, specifically with reference to her former school in Bradford. I am sure she is aware of what I will say: schools have considerable flexibility in deciding how to meet their existing statutory duty. Schools can apply to their Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education, also known as SACRE, for an exemption from the duty to provide predominantly Christian collective worship. Further, pupils over the age of 16 and the parents of those aged under 16 may, as I said, exercise their right to withdraw if they wish to do so. If children are withdrawn from collective worship, schools are required to provide supervision for them.

Amendment 471 is on a requirement for schools without a religious designation to teach about non-religious world views. I believe the noble Baroness is referring to introducing a legal requirement for agreed syllabuses of religious education to take account of teachings of non-religious beliefs.

As we have heard, Britain’s religious landscape has diversified, and a growing proportion of the population now declare themselves as having no religion, as identified by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Weir. The current legislation is already flexible. It allows schools to reflect that context when designing their religious education curricula and to include the teaching of “non-religious world views”. This is recognised as analogous to a religious belief, such as humanism.

The independent curriculum and assessment review is under way. The review has gathered evidence on a wide range of subjects, including religious education. As we know, it is not due to make its final recommendations until later this year. Given that, we would not want to pre-empt its recommendations on any subject, including religious education.

To sum up, we recognise the importance of relationships and sex education through personal tuition and have commissioned effective practice to maximise its impact. Existing legislation already gives schools the necessary flexibility to deliver collective worship or assemblies in ways that support pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and this flexibility is also guaranteed for schools designing their religious education curricula to include “non-religious world views”.

I hope noble Lords are reassured that we have considered their amendments in this area carefully. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I thank my noble friend for those responses and commend those who spoke in favour of the other amendments in this group, all of which I think are interesting and worthy of further consideration. But, given the lateness of the hour, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 463 withdrawn.

Amendments 464 and 465 not moved.