Primary schools should be inspected by Ofsted on their provision of sex education, even though the subject is not required by the National Curriculum, according to an amendment tabled in the House of Lords.
Critics fear that such a move would put pressure on primary schools to teach sex education even though it is not legally required.
The amendment has been tabled by Baroness Massey of Darwen to the Education Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament.
The amendment says that school inspection reports must include an analysis of the “delivery of personal, social and health education, including sex and relationships education”.
Earlier this week Lord Eden of Winton hit out at the “appalling” content of sex education resources which are being used with children as young as five.
Speaking during a House of Lords debate on the Education Bill, Lord Eden said that “the content of material, and the fact that it is projected to our children in schools from the age of five, is appalling. This is something that does need to be tackled sensibly.”
In March The Christian Institute released a report on sex education. The report showed the resources recommended by public bodies, mostly local councils, for use by primary schools that choose to teach sex education.
One of the suggested resources is a card game where children as young as five could be asked to match sexually explicit terms, such as masturbation and anal sex, with definitions.
An educational video produced by the BBC featuring full frontal adult nudity is being pushed to children aged as young as seven.
Top academic, Professor Brenda Almond, said that most five-year-olds have no interest in matters to do with sex and “wouldn’t even recognise the word”.
Commenting on The Christian Institute’s report, she warned: “There are comic-book-style pictures of different sexual positions, cartoon explanations of masturbation and orgasm, and crayoned drawings that are supposed to explain the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality — with anal sex getting a special mention.”
Her conclusion was clear: “For five-year-olds! So much for an age of innocence”.