| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Addington: The debate on this amendment brings to mind several debates in which I have found myself contradicting the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Spiritual, moral and cultural development depends on one's view. We are at the mercy of fashion. From the Benches opposite over a period of time we have heard much criticism of trendy theory. I suggest that at present the trend is towards what I regard as a more traditionalist view.
I agree with the logic of the right reverend Prelate who spoke but I disagree with his conclusion. We have many traditions and styles. We have had a similar debate as regards SCAA. If a specific provision becomes part of the curriculum and one says, "Thou shalt do it in a certain way", that alienates certain people.
As regards the shared tradition of spiritual guidance, for every example of good, moral sense one can find an example of bigotry. Societies which say, "This is the way that we go forward", traditionally become incredibly intolerant. On the last occasion that we debated the SCAA report, I used the example of the communist society of Eastern Europe which gave us a mantra to chant. It happened to be one interpretation of the works of Marx. There is always a danger of some such development at a minor level.
I suggest that the cultural and spiritual development of young people is best left predominantly to their parents. If one starts interpreting events in history, one is bound to distort them in some way or another. By putting this measure into the Bill there is a far greater danger of damaging people's development than of creating benefit. The moment a provision goes down on paper, it will be interpreted and reinterpreted. This type of approach is so fraught with danger that it should be avoided at all costs.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord falls into a trap in ignoring history. Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He referred to 1944 when Archbishop William Temple requested of Mr. R.A. Butler that "spiritual" be on the face of a Bill. We were in a desperate extreme in a war with a country more powerful than us, recently joined by an ally which had not yet rescued us from what looked like a terrible defeat. We were confident of victory because of our spiritual qualities. We were aware of our interdependence as individuals within the nation. Self-sacrifice was an obvious virtue. Courage was an absolute essential. There was a clear moral matrix without which we could not survive. It was perfectly reasonable then to ask that this should be recognised on the face of the Bill; and it was perfectly reasonable then that Rab Butler should ask the departing delegation, in an aside, to pray for him.
Now in 1997 we are in a world in which success is not seen as the fruit of courage, self-sacrifice and high moral endeavour. It is seen as skill in extracting benefits from the market and from society. The right reverend Prelate says that schools have difficulty deciding what spiritual means. That is an indictment of our education system, because those people are the product of earlier generations of education. If we simply accept that difficulty and say that it is irremediable, we shall accelerate down a very slippery slope into a bottomless chasm. If we are to survive as a nation worth its salt, we have to realise that self sacrifice, courage and endurance are virtues; and they are virtues not simply because they result in the survival of the country but because they are the inescapable conclusion of anyone who examines the religious basis of this country's history which is Christianity.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is poised to leap to his feet. However, perhaps he will restrain himself for a moment. He will say that this measure is in danger of becoming a bigoted enforcement of a single religious viewpoint upon the many minorities in this country. But it will not be for this reason. The amendment does not refer to Christian spirituality. The Act of Parliament under which the amendment would be interpreted is the Education Reform Act 1988. Thanks to the exertions of my noble friends, and noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the 1988 Act states that what we are teaching recognises Christianity as wholly or mainly the tradition in this country. It leaves ample scope for the local religious advisory bodies to ensure that the local curricula take account of local religious minority circumstances which in certain parts of this country are predominantly non-Christian.
I am looking only at the first word of my noble friend's amendment; namely, "spiritual". The others seem less desirable, but less essential, and simple to explain. If we ask teachers to teach children the moral and cultural background, that again answers the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because it will teach the cultural and social backgrounds of the community in which they teach.
In her amendment, my noble friend asks us to recognise virtues which are too easily brushed under the carpet and too easily silenced by those who wish to be politically correct. I hope that the Committee will support her.
6 p.m.
Lord Howell: I support the amendment and wish to comment on the noble Baroness's remarks about the relationship between schools and parents. That is the great justification for the amendment. It is the duty of parents to do much more. But unfortunately, as we all know, many parents do not accept their responsibilities in this area or indeed other areas. Therefore the question facing us is: if we do not tackle these problems in schools, even though we hope that they will be tackled in the home, in so many cases where will they be tackled at all? That is the great justification for the noble Baroness's approach.
Incidentally, I undertook some research in my old constituency--which I am sorry to say has the highest infant mortality rate in Europe--on the effect of some of these issues on single parents. I have been astonished to find that the attention of single mothers--with all their problems, living in high-rise flats, often trying to earn a living--to the spirituality of their children is probably greater than in many other areas of the city. That in some ways is a great comfort. We must not assume, as I know the noble Baroness does not assume, that the biggest problem is that of single parents. I do not find that to be the case. There is perhaps some complacency in that regard.
The main point that I wish to take up, especially following the remarks by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, with which I strongly agreed, is the wording that the noble Baroness has used in her amendment,
- "the religious traditions of Great Britain, which are in the main Christian".
That wording is very sensible--"in the main" Christian, but not exclusively Christian.
Again, I fall back on my experience in Birmingham to point that out. I hope that I am dealing with the right point.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is perfectly correct in his reference to the other grouping. I spoke simply to the first amendment, in which the words do not occur. I apologise for interrupting him.
Lord Howell: I am so glad to know that the referee is not offside on this occasion. I wanted to draw attention to a problem that worries me enormously. In my city, Birmingham, as I have mentioned before, in three years' time 50 per cent. of the schoolchildren will be Moslem. Some will be Hindu, some will be Sikhs, and a few will be Jewish. But the balance has changed. The challenge we face is how to deal with questions of spirituality and morality in a society with that sort of make-up. As a member of the Church of England, I do not think that we give enough attention to the problem of how we relate to each other in terms of religion. There is still a great lack of communication between the various religions.
The right reverend Prelate asked us to define "spirituality", or at least to discuss the question. I prefer the phrase "ethical studies" so far as schools are concerned. Ethical studies, which should be central to a school curriculum, can be related to each one of those religions. A great deal of common ground can be found between them. Indeed that is true of religion generally.
I support the later amendment because it uses the phrase "in the main Christian", which is a matter of fact. Religious traditions in this country are Christian; but we have to acknowledge the evolving situation and make arrangements in the schools, the Churches and society to deal with those changes. I would plead that, when these matters are discussed in schools and in churches, the ethical basis of society is the issue that is likely to hold the greater attraction.
I am pleased that, more and more, the Church has regard to ethical questions. In the church to which I am attached we formed a centre for ethical business studies. It is becoming quite revealing and produces a great deal of information from the business community about the ethical basis of its activities. This is an all-embracing question. However, its fundamental consideration has to start in the schools. That is why I am delighted that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment. It enables a few of us to make one or two points that we have wanted to make for some time.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment and very much hope that it will not be
turned down on the ground that it is not necessary or that the implications are already there in the 1988 Act. It is fairly obvious that, as a society, we are in worse shape than we have been for a long time not only in regard to crime but in regard to a kind of total forgetfulness of morality. It is not sensible to say that the teaching of morality is a function of the family. As we have heard, an enormous number of families do not even possess a moral vocabulary. I was very encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elton, use the names of virtues as part of that which it is incumbent upon schools not only to teach by example but to name and to hold up as ideals for their pupils. If the schools do not do it, we shall repeatedly and increasingly be in a condition where we have no vocabulary left with which to say plainly that some things are morally wrong and other things constitute ideals.I have some sympathy with the heads whom the right reverend Prelate came across who did not quite know what to make of the word "spiritual"--unless it means religious. Immediately we say that it means religious, we fall into the difficulty that there are numerous different faiths in one school.
I should feel perfectly happy to say to people who do not know what "spiritual" means, that they are there to teach the possibility of an ideal, a fundamental value, wherever it may come from, from whichever faith, or indeed no faith. "Spiritual" entitles someone to hold up an ideal which is absolute and which may never be attainable. If a child is presented with that idea, an enormous change for the better will come about.
I should therefore like to retain both words--"moral" and "spiritual". However, I believe that in teaching these values in schools it is important for teachers themselves to be unashamed of using deliberately moral words and not to be obsessed with moral relativism or saying that what may be right for one person may not be right for another, but to come down--if necessary, in an Aristotelian way--and talk about virtues and vices. We know that there are such things. I believe that, if the schools do not teach children that that is so, many of them will never pick up the idea and we shall continue in the wave of crime that we now find ourselves in. I strongly support the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page