| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Platt of Writtle: It is with pleasure that I rise to support everything said by my noble friend Lady Young. Her amendment seeks to place emphasis on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children, including the importance of marriage and parenthood in the bringing up of families, with which I wholly agree.
The majority of marriages are for life; the majority of children live with their married natural parents. We do not read nearly enough about the successful upbringing of children; we read too much about the occasional dramatic failure. Too much emphasis is placed by the media on the statistics of failure. Marriage and parenthood are not easy responsibilities to assume. On occasion difficulties loom large in everyone's life. Careful and sympathetic preparation at school, including how to deal responsibly with problems, will give
children strength to cope in their later lives. We all know of the problems of housing, finance, mortgages, hire purchase and different family customs. All those problems contribute stresses and strains to marriage. Even such humdrum decisions as who does the washing-up and who makes the bed can be the cause of great tension. If children discuss such problems openly at school under proper supervision, incorporating the principles put forward by my noble friend Lady Young, which have stood the test of time, they will later recall what they have learnt and, we hope, find permanent solutions in their own lives.If the children of a marriage also see their parents come to an amicable solution of their problems following a disagreement, that will provide a stable basis for their upbringing and will help in their own future marriages.
As a fellow member of the Church of England, I support the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lady Young on Christianity; but I also support an ecumenical viewpoint and co-operation between different religions on spiritual development of children. A spiritual vacuum, which is the alternative, is a much more dangerous situation.
I hope that the Government will accept the principles of my noble friend's amendments and incorporate them into the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question, but before doing so I should like to comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said when he linked history, religion and morality.
It is simply not possible to look back at the history of our own country, and certainly not at the history of our own continent, and say that religions were always virtuous. We have had persecution of the Jews by various Christian bodies; we have had persecution and burning of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics. We cannot say that just by looking at religion we shall obtain a guide for today's morality. In fact everyone who has spoken has also said that tolerance, which is a modern virtue--it was not a virtue 300 years ago, but is one of today's virtues--should be part of our moral armour. We should not always refer back to what were our basic virtues in the past. What people perceive as being important changes over time. There are a lot of things that many of us would feel are virtues; I personally think of truthfulness, courage, a generous heart and modesty. However, over time not everybody has necessarily supported the same set of virtues. Morality changes. We are all human beings and therefore our ability to interpret religion changes. That does not mean that there is not a spiritual aspect to the life of every human being that needs to be nurtured.
I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. It is important that educators take on board some of the aspects of education that she raised. I remember some years ago an education committee trying to lay down what education should be about. Some of us had to struggle to get the word "moral" back
into the list because we were then talking of vocational matters. "The person" was being edged out because of the need to prepare that person for adult life.I have a problem with the reference in the noble Baroness's later amendments to the principle of a mainly Christian approach. If I understand it correctly, this set of amendments has to do with the home-school agreements with which we were concerned earlier. Those home-school agreements are still part, or potentially part, of the admissions process of schools. I should like the noble Baroness to tell us how she thinks that will work when parents who wish their children to go to a particular school come from a wide range of different backgrounds, including non-religious people. That does not mean that those people do not have spiritual values. In today's world people can be very considerate of others and very keen to do their best for the world but be anti-religious. That must be accepted.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: Does the noble Baroness agree with the estimate of one of the most revered humanists in this Chamber--he may address us--when he told us long ago that 10 per cent. of the population was non-religious?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I cannot dispute or agree with the figure because I do not remember, but I am willing to accept that that was what was said. All I can say is that, in my experience, a considerable proportion of people are anti-religious. I am not part of that group. That is one group who might be disconcerted. A second group might be unwilling to sign the pre-admission agreement between the school and the parents. The same might be true of those who come from different religious backgrounds. How does the noble Baroness, Lady Young, see this fitting in with the rest of the Bill?
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. It is clear that her amendment has a great deal of support in this Chamber and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept it into the Bill. Amendment No. 127 refers to "spiritual, moral, social and cultural development" and does not include the word "Christian" at all. That does not mean to say that Christian values are not included. In her later amendments she correctly points out that Christian tenets are in the main the ones that are recognised in this country. However, in the context of Clause 30 that does not lead me to say that every religious class will be dealing with Christianity. On the contrary, I believe that it is very valuable that the word "spiritual" is used rather than the word "Christian" in that it gives a wider definition of what children should expect to learn. In all the cases that I have known over the many years in which I have dealt with schools, I have seldom found that parents--even when they are non-religious or when
specifically atheists--object to their children having some kind of general spiritual education in school. In fact I believe they expect it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she would accept that in this country there are places where people have fought to retain county schools because all the other schools for the age group in that area were religious schools. It is simply a matter of fact. I may not agree with it but it is part of the society in which we live.
Baroness Elles: I thank the noble Baroness for pointing that out. But this particular clause is a voluntary and not mandatory provision. The clause states:
- "The admission arrangements for a county or voluntary school may include provisions".
It gives the opportunity to those schools which wish to include these provisions to do so. I believe that that is the right and proper way to do it. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend's amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that it seems to me--though I may be wrong--that the amendment refers to Clause 30. It simply states that schools in their statement should specify, among other things, not only the education but:
- "the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development"
of the pupils. Schools could specify that it was nil. The provision does not state that there has to be spiritual development and so on. It is simply a statement.
It seems to me of the greatest importance and interest to all parents to know whether or not a school is delivering those kinds of teaching and if so what they are. This particular clause, unlike subsequent clauses, is in no way mandatory and does not tell schools what they have to do.
Lord Stallard: I can be very brief. Much of what I would have said has already been said. But I feel that it is necessary to rise in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in support of my noble friend Lord Howell's remarks about his experience in the inner cities. I have lived in London now for 60 years, come next month. I have seen the tremendous changes that have taken place in schools, education, housing, crime and goodness knows what. Much has gone on in those years.
Those of us who can remember the atmosphere that surrounded the 1944 Education Act, and immediately afterwards when it was implemented, know that there was then a totally different atmosphere. There was a far wider acceptance of the spiritual and moral standards that prevailed in those days. An acceptance of those standards was written into that Act and encompassed everything that surrounded it.
We are now in a totally different set of circumstances. The country and society have become more secularised than it was and there are many more problems as a result. Certainly, I accept and support what the right reverend Prelate said about the need to pay attention to other
religions. I do not advocate that this area is solely the province of Christians. For example, there is the understanding and acceptance of the relationship of marriage as a necessity rather than just something which happens and the emphasis on marriage as a basis for family life and for communities. Those views are shared by the people of other religions who have come to this country. Many of the views that we hold as Christians are shared by the followers of other religions, whose children go to our schools and are taught by the same teachers. That has made it much more difficult for the teachers. Gradually, through the years, religion has changed. In this country religion has meant Christianity and Christianity has implied something traditional, old-fashioned and out-of-date. As time has passed it has become a lesson which is added on to the curriculum, to be spoken about if there is time. It does not have its own space. It is not something which should first be there and then go on to embrace all the other aspects mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. If such teaching were put back on to the agenda, teachers could talk to the children. It would be understood that they must advocate marriage and a stable home.Teachers face much opposition at the moment. We could discuss for hours the opposition they encounter from videos, television, the tabloid press and so on. The papers are full of examples from soap operas which seem to emphasise the virtues of homosexuality, drugs, and so on. All those aspects are brought in. Teachers may well try to teach one thing during the day and find that in the evening or after school the children are being taught by a different medium altogether which pushes out what they have learnt at school. I do not blame the teachers.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned training. Religious or spiritual training does not come through from some teachers, some of whom have themselves been brought up by a generation which did not believe in religion, did not understand it or came from the same background as some of the pupils of whom we have recently been speaking. There is a big problem, but it is not insurmountable. We should all speak with one voice and the people should be given a lead.
I do not criticise present company but I am saddened by the lack of a lead from the Churches. It is all very well to talk above people's heads. Much of the discussion about morality and spirituality goes way above the heads of ordinary parents. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches was almost right to say that we should talk to people about the meaning of tolerance and of following virtue and shunning vices. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, mentioned rights and wrongs: people understand that. That ought to be placed high on the agenda and not just be something that is mentioned in passing or if there is time or a teacher who used to go to Church can be found who is inclined to speak about it and is willing to be used as a part-time tutor, and so on. Those things have to be put back on to the agenda.
Therefore, it is necessary to accept what the noble Baroness seeks in her amendments. I understand exactly what she wants and why the amendment should be included. The amendments should be carried and then
we should discuss, if we have to, how best to implement them in order to obtain what we all understand is absolutely necessary if we are to make any impact on the major problems.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |