(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, fundamental British values were first introduced in 2011 as part of the Government’s Prevent strategy. In November 2014, the Department for Education published guidance on how they should be promoted in schools. These fundamental British values, as at present defined, are: democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.
I am absolutely committed to the teaching of fundamental British values in schools. The purpose of my Bill is to make these values clearer and more holistic, and thereby to strengthen the teaching of citizenship in schools. The introduction of these values aroused opposition at the time on two grounds. First, some in the Muslim community felt that their introduction was directed at them in particular. Then there were those who felt that they were asserting British values as somehow superior to those of other cultures. More than 10 years have passed since their introduction, and now is exactly the right time to consider whether the original formulation was adequate and, in particular, whether it is possible to find a form of wording that is more rounded and is independent of the aims of the Prevent strategy.
An influential interfaith committee was set up by the Woolf Institute in Cambridge and chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Its report, Living with Difference, published in December 2015, strongly advocated the teaching of British values in schools but regretted that they were brought in as part of the Prevent strategy. In paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14 it looked forward to a more holistic understanding, independent of that strategy.
In fact, thought has already been given to these values in a House of Lords Select Committee report, The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. The committee was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and it reported in April 2018. He regrets that he cannot be here this morning but wants it to be known that he supports the Bill. I declare an interest, having been a member of that committee and of that which produced Living with Difference. The whole of chapter 2 of The Ties that Bind is given over to a discussion of fundamental values. What I am putting forward in this Private Member’s Bill is based in particular on the recommendations in paragraphs 46 and 58 of that report.
As mentioned, I believe passionately that fundamental values should be taught in schools. At a time when the world has a growing number of dictatorships, autocracies and managed democracies, it is vital that pupils in our schools should understand the fundamental political values on which our society is founded. A first change suggested in my Bill is that these values should formally be termed the “values of British citizenship”. This was recommended in paragraph 46 of The Ties that Bind. This wording avoids the implication that they are superior to the values of any other culture or country; it just states that they are, as a matter of fact, the values of being a British citizen, whether by birth or naturalisation. Being British commits you to these values. They might still be known as British values for short, but tying them explicitly to British citizenship would not only answer one of the original objections but give the concept more legal precision.
On the specifics of the values there are, of course, major overlaps between the present wording and what is now being put forward. Most obviously, both affirm the rule of law and democracy—there is no change there. However, whereas the present wording refers to “individual liberty”, the Bill uses “freedom” and, in subsection (3), states that this includes
“(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion, (b) freedom of expression, and (c) freedom of assembly and association”.
It seems to me that “individual liberty” is far too vague by itself and that what is fundamental to our way of life, as the wording of the Bill suggests, is freedom to think and state what we believe, and to do this, on occasion, in association with other people. The phrase “individual liberty” is individualistic. The freedom of our society includes freedom of the press and the freedom to form a company or a political party. In short, this freedom is social and is as much about institutions as it is about individuals.
The present wording refers to
“mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
We note that this is all one clause. It does not affirm mutual respect as a separate value; rather, mutual respect, in the formulation, is tied to tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. This is a great defect and shows the clear influence of the time it was brought in, as part of the Prevent strategy. Respect for the fundamental dignity and worth of every person ought to be included in its own right, not simply in relation to different faiths and beliefs. Also, “tolerance” is far too vague. It is far better to say clearly, as in the Bill, that freedom includes freedom of religion—that is the internationally accepted term. It is a case of not just tolerating different views but recognising that freedom of religion is fundamental to our society.
As I said, the present wording refers to “mutual respect”, which is a nice way of putting it but, in the wording, is tied to different faith and beliefs and does not bring out what is fundamental—namely, the equal worth and dignity of every human being and the respect that is due to them as a result of that. In this Private Member’s Bill, Clause 1(1)(d) refers to “individual worth”, which is defined in subsection (4) as
“respect for the equal worth and dignity of every person”.
In the wording we have at the moment, there is no mention of the word “equal”. There are many ways in which we are unequal, but we are all agreed as a country that we are equal before the law, that we all have one vote—no more, no less—and that, whether we are old or young, disabled or a minority group, we should be treated equally by the state, and indeed by all of us at an individual level. It is very important that this should be explicitly stated as one of the fundamental values of our society, but it is not mentioned in the wording that we have at the moment.
A major addition to fundamental values as we have them now, which goes beyond what was recommended in The Ties that Bind, is what is set out in subsection (1)(e), “respect for the environment”, which is then defined in subsection (5) as
“taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and the planet as a whole, for present and future generations”.
For young people, that is often the key moral issue of our times. I believe that the addition of “respect for the environment” would help young people to see the importance of this set of values as a whole.
One reason why I believe strongly in this Bill is because I think it would help to strengthen the teaching of citizenship education in schools. Citizenship education is meant to be taught in schools, but the committee that produced The Ties that Bind discovered that, while a few schools do it very well, some do not do it at all, and many more subsume it under spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. While SMSC is eminently worth while, there should be a specific content to citizenship education, concerned with our political system and why it matters, which needs to be taught in its own right. I believe that the more rounded wording of this Private Member’s Bill would give a boost to citizenship education, showing clearly the political values that are to be taught and giving the subject a much sharper focus. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord on bringing forward this Bill and on his contribution to the Select Committee he mentioned. I was proud to serve with him on it, under the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
There is a lot to be said in three minutes, but this is a timely moment—timely because there is a curriculum review now initiated under the chairmanship of Becky Francis; because, sadly, we saw over the summer the riots taking place across our country; and because, of course, we see the most enormous threats both from distortion on social media and from the re-emergence of the far right across the world. This is the moment to reinforce the importance of those values that hold us together—the ties that bind.
British values are not exclusive to Britain, but they are about our country. We debated this at great length in the committee and came to the conclusion that of course other people will share those values in their own context, but to reinforce them is really important, as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown endeavoured to do in the debate he initiated just under 20 years ago.
I was proud to introduce the idea of citizenship and democracy teaching in the curriculum over 20 years ago. Sadly, many of those who have the power to ensure that it works never had citizenship and democracy taught to them when they were at school, so they do not really get the message. That applies right across the most powerful elements within our education system. So if we are to make this work—and to detach it from the Prevent strategy, mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord in terms of what happened in 2011, which I think is the right thing to do—we need to move quickly.
I could go on and on, but I do not have the time this morning, about how my old tutor, Professor Bernard Crick, who chaired the working group that led to the curriculum on citizenship and democracy, used to ask, “How can you tolerate the intolerant?”. Tolerance is a very odd phrase, because if you have to tolerate something, your dislike of it is such that you do not accept that you can respect and hold it on common terms.
If we are to make this work—there have been a number of iterations, and my noble friend Lord Knight has brought forward ideas about the environment—we must train teachers, we must give bursaries, which we are not doing, to enable that to take place, and we must get rid of the Catch-22, which is that if you do not teach children, they will not go forward through the GCSE. If they do not do that, the department rules out providing the support to train more teachers —and round we go. Let us take this Bill and use it as a mechanism to go forward, genuinely believing that, if we do not teach this now, we will regret it later.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord on his Bill, which seeks to update and clarify the principles underlying the teaching of fundamental British values in our schools, within the national curriculum’s citizenship programme.
We all understand that sensitive issues are involved. One is the use of the term “fundamental British values”, which, when it was introduced as part of the Prevent strategy in 2011, met with opposition from some communities where people felt that the term was directed at them. Others felt the term suggested that British values were somehow superior to other nations’ values. The Bill meets these criticisms head-on by referring instead to the “values of British citizenship”. There are other textual but very important changes in the Bill, and the extremely interesting addition of “respect for the environment”—but there are questions about the current teaching of citizenship in our schools.
I turn to the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to her post. She will know that, in 2013, Ofsted reported positively on the teaching in schools of citizenship education. It said that
“headteachers had recognised the rich contribution the subject makes to pupils’ learning … and to the ethos of a school”.
But by 2018, a Lords Select Committee report entitled The Ties that Bind found that
“citizenship education is being subsumed”
into PHSE and was focusing on the personal development of young people rather than teaching them about their role in society, ignoring the political element of being a citizen. Rather alarmingly, the Lords Liaison Committee heard in 2022 from the Association for Citizenship Teaching that
“there was a general lack of … understanding of the subject by inspectors of what Citizenship is”.
I am shocked. I spent some time in my professional career as a schools inspector and this seems a rare accusation.
What has caused this change? We all value citizenship teaching, but do teachers now find the concept vague and difficult? Or do they, conscious of the sensitivities involved, need the confidence of new definitions and more clarity? I hope that the Government will see the proposals in the Bill as thoughtful and sensitive and a positive way forward.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Young Citizens, formerly the Citizenship Foundation. Teaching citizenship has a relatively short history in the UK, certainly when compared with other European countries. Its formal inclusion in the national curriculum began only in 2002. At this time, citizenship education had become compulsory and a GCSE in citizenship studies was introduced. However, this early promise was not maintained and in 2014, a government review resulted in a weaker programme that stressed constitutional history and volunteerism rather than active citizenship. Furthermore, the requirement for most schools to teach the national curriculum was removed, resulting in a significant decrease in citizenship teaching and, indeed, teachers.
Yet young people today face an extremely complex world, from riots and food poverty in the UK to wars and environmental degradation, but they also feel distanced from a democratic system that might address their concerns. The distrust of politicians, institutions and the democratic process has never been greater: 44% of young people surveyed had little or no confidence in their ability to participate and 63% did not believe that their voice was ever heard or had any impact.
The Bill goes some way to redress the balance. It restates and changes the current set of values, emphasising freedom of thought, speech, religion and assembly, individual worth and respect for the environment. In reframing the fundamental British values, it gives schools the opportunity to focus on cultivating the new values and introduces new connections with human rights, government and policy. In this sense, citizenship education is both a subject in itself and provides a framework for perceiving and relating to society more generally.
Values and attitudes need to be actively taught; in other words, we need to bring citizenship to life. This can be achieved by means of interactive and practical learning. As always, the real test will lie in the implementation. There are many steps that need to be taken, starting with providing teachers with training and resources. The next step is a firm commitment on the part of all schools to incorporate the values of British citizenship within the curriculum. Thereafter, the task will be to evaluate the impact of such courses, hopefully armed with positive results, and to continue to encourage policymakers to recognise the importance of values and support their long-term inclusion in national curricula.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that the Government are sympathetic to it and, whether or not it manages to complete its passage through both Houses, will take up the issue of citizenship education as a very important element.
We face a collapse in public trust in our democratic institutions. Surveys show that public trust in Westminster politics is lower than it has ever been since surveys began. We had the lowest turnout for a century in the most recent election. We should not regard our democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law as entirely secure. We see populism in the United States threatening to undermine the entire structure of the American constitution, democracy and the rule of law, and in three or four weeks, we may be watching with some horror what might be the contested outcome of the American election. We need to make sure that populism does not begin to get a stronger hold here. That requires us to engage our citizens and teach them the values of mutual respect, freedom of expression and the value of our institutions as such.
There is very little respect for Westminster politics at all in the public at the moment and many of us are worried about the decline among our young in the willingness to tolerate and have mutual respect for alternative opinions, which is part of the current freedom of speech debate, and where the limits of freedom of speech are. So we do need this Bill, or we need the Government to take it on board. We know the obstacles. I read the Telegraph from time to time, which tells me that all teachers are left-wing and that university teachers are systemically left-wing and indoctrinate their pupils. We know all those things, but actually, it is possible to teach citizenship in a relatively neutral way and to challenge people. I used to have Chinese and Singaporean students at the London School of Economics and I had to work very hard to explain to them that disagreeing with me, as their teacher, was a good idea—but that is part of what one has to do.
Yes, we need proper education for teachers, too, to encourage them to do it. We need to make sure that our schools are part of their local community, which they have ceased to be, partly, in recent years. We need to make sure that school budgets are large enough for this, because citizenship education is a vital part of ensuring that our democracy flourishes.
In this House in the early 19th century, a number of Peers objected to universal education on the grounds that it would lead to having a population that did not respect its elders and betters. However, when the Reform Act 1866 came through, there were a number of Liberals who argued that “Now is the time we need to educate our masters”. We need to educate our citizens and that why this Bill is a good thing.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill, and indeed on the many years of thinking and hard work which have brought the Bill to this point. I welcome the Bill, support its aims and heartily welcome the five specific headings, which together give some definition of what is meant by “British values” in an educational context.
Especially in an educational context, it will be vital to foster a culture in which these headline categories are inhabited in a meaningful way. This kind of culture is capable of being fostered as much in the teaching of maths and science as through the teaching of citizenship, PSHE or RE, but these latter subjects provide an opportunity for values to be addressed directly and explicitly. I shall say something further about RE in particular, but the list of values identified in the Bill includes respect for the environment, and I would also like to say something about the potential for a natural history GSCE.
I will address RE first. The statutory inspection process for Anglican and Methodist schools and their teaching of RE means that church schools can confidently guarantee a high-quality, diverse religious education that supports children to develop the skills and knowledge they need to grow into global citizens and to navigate the nuances of a secular, multi-religious society. However, both citizenship and RE subjects have fallen foul of the English baccalaureate system. Since its introduction in 2017, uptake of RE at GCSE has fallen sharply and social studies uptake has consistently remained below 10%. It is my sincere hope that, through the Bill and through the current government curriculum and assessment review, timetables and curriculum frameworks will be structured to prioritise and value the crucial learning currently taking place under the banners of citizenship and religious education.
Secondly, on the proposed natural history GCSE, the Bill provides an extraordinary opportunity to embed respect for the environment into British values through the education system. Wisely applied, this could ensure that young people are taught about climate and nature issues consistently and systematically, rather than as part of discrete subject areas such as geography and science. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, lead Bishop for the environment, assures me that the natural history GCSE has gone through the required iterations and is ready, but the launch of this new GCSE has been delayed without explanation. I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister as to what problem, if any, there is in launching this new pathway.
I support the Bill and hope that it will give renewed purpose to the teaching in our schools of RE and citizenship on the one hand, and natural history on the other, while also recognising that the five headline areas identified in the Bill will only ever be headings unless we foster the culture in which they can truly be inhabited and lived out.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, today is Wear Red Day, the annual fundraising day for Show Racism the Red Card, of which I am the national vice-president. It is an educational charity specifically working in schools and increasingly in workplaces on anti-racist education and anti-racism. It also helps to train teachers, specifically in Wales, but we hope in England too.
Individual worth, as envisaged in the Bill, must mean the promotion in schools of anti-racism—of challenging racism of all types. Prejudice, or ignorance-based behaviour, as my noble friend Lord Mann sometimes describes it, is not acceptable. Show Racism the Red Card has programmes to challenge the background to racism as well as its contemporary manifestations, and to look at hate crime and how to challenge it.
A report out this week, A Portrait of Modern Britain, paints a somewhat rosier picture of the state of our country than some might recognise, but it rightly asserts that racism and discrimination have not been eliminated. I think we are all well aware of that. If the Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the curriculum and how we challenge islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of racism—to be explicit, how we teach anti-racism—it would be a very good thing. It seems to me that individual worth adequately covers the notion that we should be teaching anti-racism.
Finally, I would like to say a word about the Prevent strategy. I was still engaged in education full time at the time of its introduction, and I am all too well aware that there were very big problems with it. The National Education Union, then the NUT—my union—believed that we should be taking a child protection approach to the issue of children being groomed into extremism. That is all the more true because according to Amnesty International, 87% of referrals of under-15 year-olds through the Prevent strategy do not meet the criteria for an intervention. It seems to me that there is something not helpful about the Prevent strategy. Certainly, decoupling it from the teaching of values and citizenship would be a profoundly good idea.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on the introduction of the Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I congratulate her on the important work she is doing on Show Racism the Red Card. I also agree with the decoupling of the Prevent strategy—I will say something about that later—although it is nevertheless important.
The changes that this small Bill brings about are few, but they are important. They are largely but not exclusively based on the work of the House of Lords Citizenship and Civic Engagement Committee, which reported in April 2018—some time ago—and was so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Broadening out British values as shared values of British citizenship seems wise; it strengthens those values, recognising they are both international and essentially British. It is absolutely true that we cannot take democratic institutions and their survival for granted. They are being challenged, and it is important that we seek to protect them. I see the Bill as doing just that.
The Bill also substitutes respect for the inherent worth and autonomy of every person in place of the existing mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. I support that too; that is important.
I quite understand the rationale behind breaking the link between the curriculum and the counter-extremism policy, Prevent. It is right to break that link, but of course, a massive number of incidents involve not just some religious fanatics but also the far right. The link should be broken, but that does not mean that the strategy is not very important. Breaking the link strengthens both the strategy and the curriculum.
As I say, I very much support the Bill. In my view, the extension to respect for the environment is also to be welcomed. The desire to protect our earth, seas, lakes, rivers, and flora and fauna is inherent to our education and our very being. I have just one question for the noble and right reverend Lord and possibly for the Minister: education is a devolved policy matter in Wales—devolved therefore to the Senedd—yet the legislation purports to cover both England and Wales. There may well be some very good reason for that, but I cannot quite see it myself, and I would be grateful if somebody could clear up that apparent discrepancy.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, this is an important Bill. It is an equally important reminder than unless children in schools learn about the importance of values for British citizenship, how on earth are they to grow up and live with their neighbours of different ideas, cultures, religions, beliefs, or none of those? As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said, I chaired the commission in 2015, of which he was a most valued member. He largely kept us in order, which was actually quite important since there were 20 of us of various religions and none.
The noble and right reverend Lord referred to a great deal of what was said in part of that report, which came before the Select Committee and I hope had some influence on it. At the end of the day, living with difference is what we have to do, since we are a multicultural society. In our report, we set out a vision very similar to the wording of this important Bill. We included the importance of a national story, and that people should be treated with equal respect and concern. Concern matters as well as respect; we should recognise other people’s needs as well as their views. We also included freedom to practise beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Clause 1 of the Bill refers to
“democracy … the rule of law … freedom … individual worth”
and, very importantly, as other noble Lords have said,
“respect for the environment”,
which is a valuable addition to what has already been said.
The Government absolutely must take notice of what the Bill is saying and breeze it through both Houses, as I would hope, or at least bring it into whatever legislation they choose to introduce. One way or another, it is extremely important, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government pick up and act on what is being said today by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
In 1973, as a secondary school student, in the eyes of all my teachers except one, I was visible only through the ancient, preconceived notion of the cultural and religious oppression of women—that higher education was useless for an Asian girl who, at most, would work in a factory and would certainly be married off at an early age. I did not disappoint anyone, in that I did get married very early, but of my own choosing. It is a fact that the third and fourth generation particularly of Muslim girls and women continue these trajectories of British values.
It is not culture, colour or faith that constrain individuals from reaching their full potential or aiding their sense of belonging; it is history and a legacy of colonisation, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia rooted in our institutions that intrinsically deny citizens equitable opportunities to excel. In 2024, countless UK education establishments continue to fail generations of children who are working class, black British, of Afro-Caribbean descent and of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritages. We see the grave consequences of prolonged alienation, which leads to distrust in communities and violence on our streets.
It is not just a piece of paper that induces pride in citizenship; a plethora of social actions is required to repair broken communities, with a systemic shift in unbiased education, social policies and investment. I also fear the risk of othering, in the context of redefining new British values, when we prescribe who is worthy of legitimate freedom of speech and assembly, while questioning the inalienable rights of others who are seen through a prism of spreading hate, including the threat of revoking citizenship.
Our conduct at home and our action elsewhere are visible to the global village. Equally, our response to international wars and conflicts, in upholding the values of human rights and international law, is rightly receiving significant scrutiny and eroding confidence and trust in our democratic institutions at home. When we speak of British values, it is impossible to consider their application without the intrinsic hierarchy of the implied legacy of slavery and colonisation and the lenses of culture, religion, racial wars and class divisions. Unless we recognise the complexities of common values, we will not prevail among all citizens equally.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I have three minutes and three points. First, I was last a school pupil in 1977. This House is ahead of the Commons on this issue, but we are both well behind the times and get so by the day, never mind by the year. Five hours ago, Mr Musk launched a website, where he is paying any registered voter in Pennsylvania $100 to sign up to his charter and hand over their data, and a further $100 for recruiting another registered voter. That may be, in the short term, a political electoral attempt to do something, but behind and beyond it is something far more fundamental in trying to mould people’s views. This Bill, which is an excellent initiative, refers to the UK Youth Parliament, which is asked to feed back. Frankly, I am curious, but no more than that, on what UK youth think on the big issues of the day. However, on this subject, it is critical to me—and, I suggest, to all of us—to understand how young people see themselves in today’s world.
Secondly, we need more data. I have a micro analysis on what is happening with anti-Semitism in schools, which is, I think, the biggest and only one that exists anywhere in the world. It is not public and I am contemplating what to do with it; it is certainly available to the Minister and her officials. It shows the nature of what is going on, and it shocked me in how wrong I was on some of the things I was looking at, even though I am the government adviser—I have a degree of expertise in this area. Data on what is going on is critical, and we need more.
Thirdly, something is going on with the various extremists, who are particularly targeting young women or all women, that is so big and profound that we are in danger of missing it. It is so dangerous. This work, as well as being in schools, must also be in school sixth forms and further education. There, it will not be content-taught; it is about how we allow the young people, in a sense, to organise themselves to think and discuss this. I strongly recommend that this Government re-engage with the National Union of Students, with 16 to 18 year-olds being the key priority for a new initiative.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity. This is my first opportunity to interact with the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to her important role; I look forward to future engagements.
I have huge respect for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, so I find myself in an unusual position of opposition to this Bill. I hope to explain why something as nebulous as values are not capable of codification, especially as they change over time, as they should. This Bill might be better seen as describing a set of British rules or as a political Highway Code for the basic rules of any liberal democracy, not just those of Britain. For a liberal democracy to function well, it needs more than these widely agreed political rules; it needs a high degree of trust and fellow feeling between citizens.
In turn, that requires a shared language, some degree of shared norms and even a broadly shared way of life, albeit with different streams all flowing into the mainstream. That has to grow organically; it cannot be imposed in the form of some programme of British values. One of the central paradoxes of liberal societies is that, although they need a high degree of common norms or values to function well, the doctrine of liberal pluralism insists that individuals should be able, as long as they respect that political Highway Code, to pursue radically different ideas of the good life. Atheists and pious believers of many kinds, egalitarians and libertarians, moralists and libertines; all must be accommodated in liberal societies. That means that the attempt to codify a workable set of British values, which is more than the political Highway Code, is a project that is inimical to liberalism.
Another factor against the Bill is its practical workability. It is very brief—too brief to accommodate a workable set of definitions. These are high-level and worthy sentiments, but who is to interpret the guidance? Is it the Department for Education, the regulator Ofqual or some other public authorities that are currently unnamed? That guidance will not be subject to the rigorous scrutiny that we might see on primary legislation. Only three of these values are defined, yet it can be argued that even the others are contested. The rule of law is seen sometimes as the rule by law: an adherence to the rules, rather than the broader understanding of equality under the law. For example, freedom is already part of our law, with an active regulator in the EHRC as the national human rights institution in England and Wales. What is more, tribunals and our higher courts regularly interpret and clarify these norms. How long would it be before whatever guidance produced was out of date?
I hope to elaborate on these thoughts as we go forward to Committee. Nevertheless, I appreciate this positive attempt to make our young people think more carefully and learn about the glue that binds us together.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for bringing his Private Member’s Bill to the House, and I look forward to working with the Minister. I will take the couple of minutes I have to share the journey of my family in this country.
My grandfather arrived here in 1938, before World War II, from a business family in India. He fell in love with this country when he arrived and became part of rebuilding it during and after the war that broke out. My mother and father arrived here in 1960, with me as a nine month-old baby. My mother could not speak English. We were so lucky in those days that, even though there was huge discrimination, there was also great good will among communities. I had Irish neighbours on one side and Scottish neighbours on the other, and I grew up with broth and stew. I also grew up with them taking a keen interest in my mother being able to integrate. My father could speak English perfectly well, but my mother wanted to be part of the community. We grew up seeing our parents taking their full role in the community that we had the privilege of living in.
For me, what has always been important for all people who come to our great country is the ability to speak, read and write English. It enables everybody to integrate, to understand, to share and to be able to enjoy, as well as to join in sorrow when things go wrong. Sadly, over the years, that focus on people coming together, learning a language, being able to share and being able to understand each other has become more and more distant; I speak about this from my knowledge of my own city of Leicester. I want us to put real emphasis on the need for language. I want us to help those parents who have been here for many years but cannot integrate, because they cannot speak the language, so that they can share in that language.
My mum, who is now 85 and a real, proud British citizen, brought us up to look at ourselves as just citizens of this country. I do not want children growing up thinking that they are different. I want them to be able to be like me, sharing in festivals; Christmas in our house is probably bigger than in those of most families—28 of us get together—and then there are all the festivals. We grew up to respect and share our values with others, and they shared their values back. I hope that this is shared among us today.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, both for bringing us the Bill on this initiative and for his fine introduction. I agree with many of the speeches made already—that of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and notably that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, with her expressions of concern about Prevent.
Given the time limit, I will focus on Clause 1(5), which concerns the required inclusion in educational directions of respect for the environment. This follows from the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield; I repeat his question for the Minister on where the new GCSE in natural history is.
We have inherited a disastrous set of values and attitudes towards the environment, with thinking that goes back a long way and which we have adopted into our intellectual tradition. It includes the great chain of being, which is the concept that human beings are some kind of pinnacle of life, and the idea that the whole complexity of life on earth—the living system that James Lovelock identified as Gaia, which has evolved over billions of years—is there for us as a species, under our control and for our exploitation.
The 21st century has exposed that for the dangerous fallacy it is, with the climate emergency, the nature crisis and the poisoning of our planet with novel entities; six of the nine planetary boundaries have been exceeded. We know that there are other intellectual traditions and other ways of looking at the world, which are attracting attention from our scientists and researchers. For example, I note that, across many African religions, there is the concept of ukama, which states that animals are part of a community with humans; it emphasises mutual dependence, a sense of unity and, at least sometimes, a moral imperative of respect.
For those for whom that perhaps goes a bit far, I go back to 21st-century science. It tells us that we are holobionts, a complex of tens of thousands of species. We need to understand our own bodies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, said yesterday in my Oral Question about biocides. I point noble Lords to a book written by a Member of your Lordships’ House—the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who is not currently in her place—entitled Good Nature: The New Science of How Nature Improves Our Health. We are failing our children if we do not educate them about their place as part of nature; that needs to be part of a much broader change where our education system works to prepare people for life, not just exams and jobs.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I welcome this Bill, so comprehensively and eloquently introduced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. It is indeed time to pay more attention to what citizenship consists of and what our society stands for. We benefit from a diverse society but its cohesion has deteriorated during the past years. The Bill would improve cohesion by affirming common and positive values. In general, it would give our children—and others—firm ground on which to develop the standards of behaviour that we need to live together peacefully and creatively. It covers the important elements that make our social norms.
I would like to highlight one provision. A principle from which we would particularly benefit from promulgating is that underlying the Bill’s inclusion of individual worth: the value of respect for and acknowledgment of the dignity of each of our fellow citizens. We have expressed this in our laws of human rights. They essentially enable tolerance; if we are to be tolerant, we need to be aware of what we tolerate and what the enemies of tolerance are. Both democracy and the rule of law underpin freedom but, without respect for individual worth, freedom is undermined and, in particular, minorities suffer from majority decisions. It is also time, I think we all agree, that respect for the environment took its place among our ideas of how we respect each other.
We should take pride in a degree of ownership of modern ideas of human rights. It is true that the ideas of respect and tolerance have an ancient pedigree—the code of Hammurabi and the edicts of the fifth century BC Indian king Ashoka are often quoted as the origins of human rights concepts; perhaps they are inherent in the way human nature has developed—but the European Convention and the post-war United Nations instruments have had substantial British input. Whatever some eccentric politicians might say, they have been universally adopted and underline our sense of common humanity. I would like to see the words “human rights” on the face of the Bill, therefore; I hope that, nevertheless, our Government can give it, or their own version of it, a fair wind.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries. I shall talk about the Woolf Institute’s report of the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, Living with Difference. It had a vision of a society at ease with itself—some of us would, I think, say that that is not the case right now—in which all individuals, groups and communities feel at home and in whose flourishing all wish to take part. Everyone must be treated with equal respect and concern by the law, the state and public authorities; everyone must know that their culture, religion and beliefs are embraced as part of a continuing process of mutual enrichment; and everyone must be free to express and practise their beliefs, religious or otherwise, providing that they do not constrict the rights and freedoms of others.
When Living with Difference was published, under the superb chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, it recommended that a national conversation be launched across the UK by faith leaders and others to create a shared understanding of the fundamental values underlying public life. The outcome might be a statement of the principles and values that foster the common good, which should underpin and guide public life. This has not happened in full. If we are serious about instilling citizenship values in the young, those principles from the commission need to be shouted from the rooftops and studied in school. Those classes should not be just a bit of religious studies here and personal and social education there; there needs to be a strong, agreed citizenship syllabus, and every child needs to participate in it. Although Governments have argued for the inclusion of some of this before, schools tackle it in different ways; sadly, some do not tackle it at all.
It was profoundly unhelpful that all this emerged from the Prevent strategy, giving it a bad name among many. It should come as a discrete subject—citizenship —and be governed by the values of organisations such as Young Citizens rather than Prevent. We all agree that it is necessary; it is how it is done, as well as the alleged motivations, that causes the problems.
I support my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth in bringing forward this Bill. I hope that the Government will listen and take it forward.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s tabling of this Bill and support much that has been said, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. It is timely and necessary and allows us to discuss some vital issues that will determine the kind of nation that we will be in the future.
The summer riots saw violence, arson attacks on places of worship and street attacks, and are evidence, if further evidence was needed, that many in our society do not abide by what we have deemed fundamental British values—this, despite those FBVs having been a key plank of government policy on fostering cohesion and promoting a shared sense of belonging since 2011. The failure is to some extent borne by successive Governments, including the one that I was a part of, because we implicitly and explicitly implemented this policy and promoted FBVs in ways that suggested that it is an issue for immigrant-background communities, recent arrivals and asylum seekers—that they and only they are in need of education on what it means to be a British citizen and how to live well with others in British society.
We also failed because of our insistence on coupling citizenship education with counterterrorism. It was a debate that we had at length in government when FBVs were introduced in the Prevent strategy in 2011. This was considered by the Lords Select Committee, which was right to argue that it does an injustice to the innate worth of the teaching of democracy and democratic values in our education system. It is not just terrorists who undermine our society’s democratic status and the freedoms and rights that we enjoy as British citizens but extremists, far-right racists, and anti-refugee and anti-asylum-seeker demagogues. These too are a threat to the functioning and flourishing of our democracy. The teachings of these values should not be a minority problem but a majority concern.
I also welcome the shift from FBVs to values of British citizenship. It underlines that all citizens in the UK, whatever their background, race, ethnicity, wealth, geography, sexuality, age or gender, share and live by these values as citizens of a common entity—the United Kingdom. The term “FBV” came to be perceived as values that are somehow native to some and therefore fundamental to their identity and history, and foreign to others, who were therefore in need of education.
The far-right chanting heard during the summer riots, of “We want our country back”, is paradoxically an illustration of this very point. Ethnicising our values or employing ethno-nationalist language in speaking about them suggests that the majority ethnicity possesses them, even as it breaks the law and engages in thuggery, and that the minority need to be taught them. This divests our democracy of its most basic characteristic—that democratic values do not belong to one ethnic group but are held by all people of British citizenship, whatever their ethnicity. I welcome and support this Private Member’s Bill as a positive step in the right direction.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and the change in the language. The Bill rightly calls these principles “values of British citizenship”. They are civic values. Far from being a recent invention or a fiction, as some have suggested, civic Britishness is a very real concept which is now more important than ever before.
Diversity can be a very good thing but, where there are large and disparate ethnic communities in a country, as there are now in the UK, the possibility of conflict and distrust arises. To be able to resolve any tensions which come with that demographic change, the crucial precondition is that every citizen of this country is able to participate as a citizen in the processes and institutions through which we can make decisions about social harmony, the common good and our rules of engagement. If not, we risk in academic terms losing our pluralist society and becoming plural. Instead of having a unity within which we understand our differences, we will be truly and deeply divided.
However, there is good news, as was mentioned earlier. New immigrants to the UK are proud of this country’s history and traditions. As a recent Policy Exchange research document told us this week, the majority of British people of Caribbean, Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani heritage believe Britain to have been a force for good in the world.
We are shockingly unvigilant about defending our enduring values in this country. Other European nations, such as France, are dramatically more insistent on inculcating those civic values. Yet in our country, there are actors who continue to claim that the British values strategy and the intelligence and research on which it is based are frivolous and therefore racist. Frankly, it is not so. The evidence says otherwise: that we have a clear and identifiable problem of a small proportion of people who reject our national values, where that problem is ideological—the product of competing value systems. We need a national education strategy to combat that. We are duty bound, for the good of everyone in this country, of all backgrounds, to refuse to allow people to be isolated, ghettoised and disfranchised by the holding of some of these attitudes. We must positively enfranchise these communities. Education is a natural first point of action.
Through such a strategy, we must stress that citizenship is no small thing but rather a calling to live up to. It is certainly not a purely self-serving right. It comes with a duty to participate in national life according to our common standards and customs. That is not degrading to those isolated communities. It is dignifying. The degrading thing would be to allow ghettoisation and a parallel world to continue unchecked. I commend this strategy and the continuing emphasis on our civic values, so well reflected in this Bill.
Lord Bird (CB)
Democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth and respect for the environment —I can honestly say that I was not born into that world, I did not live in that world, and it took me a long time to get into that world. I would like your Lordships to imagine a boy who is in a prison cell at the age of 14. He is offered dinner. He does not want it. He is given the dinner but, instead of eating it, he puts it on the door so that it falls all over the next person to come in—a police officer or somebody else who has been charged. That person was a person who was outside democracy. That person was a person who was outside the rule of law. That person was all sorts of things.
We are coming at this the wrong way. We are talking about education. Education is a great changer, but we have another problem. The same boy goes to school at the age of five, and his Irish mother says to him, “Get in there and behave yourself”—not “Get in there and learn things”, not “Get in there and become a different person”, not “Get in there and get away from the poverty that you were born into”. He is the same boy as me. I was blessed, as I keep telling everybody, by the restorative justice of a prison system that looked after young people and give them the chance to earn and learn and get educated while they were banged up because they missed it when they were in civilian life.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, makes the point about populism. We all are worried about populism. People stir it up, but populism largely comes from economic indecision and economic fear. It comes through the loss of jobs, the growth of a powerful China where all the jobs were exported from America —creating a situation where people did not know where the next loaf of bread was coming from. Unless this House and that House wake up to the dominance of poverty in everything, we are not going anywhere. Unfortunately, we now have a Government who follow the same lines as the previous scattergun Government, who talked about ending poverty but never did it in a convergent way that could make poverty history.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have, I take this opportunity at the beginning of my remarks to pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I am delighted to see that his persistence and eloquence on this subject have been given another opportunity for expression today.
Mindful of time constraints, I will focus on two specific elements of the Bill. First, I fully support, as set out in Clause 1(1), the expansion of the list of values to encompass democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth and respect for the environment.
Clause 1(2) may seem a cosmetic change, but I believe that it is both substantive and necessary. Replacing the phrase “British values” with “values of British citizenship” is a change for the better for a couple of reasons. First, it is simply more accurate. These values are not narrowly or uniquely British but, for the most part, Enlightenment values that find a culturally specific expression in this country.
I do not believe—and nor, I think, does any other Member of your Lordships’ House—that these values are inapplicable in France, Germany, the United States, the Netherlands and a host of other democratic nation states. A phrase that implies, or is even open to the interpretation, that they are the possession of Britain alone obviously stands in need of revision.
I support the retention of the word “British”, however, for one clear reason: the United Kingdom is not one country but a collection of four. Although education is a devolved matter and the provisions of the Bill would apply only to England and Wales, this is something with which we should engage as the Bill makes its way through Parliament.
The latest British Social Attitudes survey, published in June this year, reveals significant shifts in conceptions of citizenship in the UK as a whole and especially in the devolved nations. Across the UK there has been a shift towards regarding civic rather than ethnic conceptions of national identity as being of greater importance. That underscores the importance of the provisions of the Bill, with around half of people believing that being born in Britain is essential to being truly British, as opposed to 73% of the population in 2013. But when it comes to the devolved nations—perhaps unsurprisingly, I will focus on Scotland—there is a disinclination to see being “British” as a key marker of civic identity, even among those who support the union. While 45% of the English population see themselves as both English and British, well over half of Scots regard themselves as exclusively or primarily Scottish, while just a quarter see their Scots and British identities as coterminous.
It was disappointing, though wholly unsurprising, that the phrase “British Values” was listed under the heading “Problematic Language” in the Prevent guidance in Scotland. We know that, under previous Administrations, both in Scotland and in Westminster, there was increasing divergence in this area. The Bill, among other things, may bridge that gap. As and when it proceeds through your Lordships’ House, it may be worth considering this context if we are to ensure that these precepts of UK citizenship act as a means of binding our population more closely together rather than providing yet another excuse for ideological contestation.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, the ambition in the Bill of highlighting the importance for education purposes of democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth and respect for the environment is to be warmly welcomed. These constitutional issues go to the very heart of our values as British citizens. I therefore applaud the noble and right reverend Lord for pursuing this agenda over a number of years.
Ideally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I would like to have seen included on the list a reference to human rights and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities. Sir Peter Gross’s Independent Human Rights Act Review strongly recommended
“an effective programme of civic and constitutional education”
in our schools and universities, with a focus on human rights. There is a reference to human rights in the requirements for key stage 4, but we know from two House of Lords committees of inquiry, in 2018 and 2022, that this and the teaching of other constituent elements of citizenship have been badly neglected.
The 2022 committee report also recommended a statutory entitlement to citizenship education from key stages 1 to 4. The noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment to the Schools Bill in July 2022 would have achieved this. After setting out the same list of values of British citizenship included in this Bill, the amendment would have required those values to be taught as part of citizenship at all four key stages. As he said then, this would not have involved a change to the curriculum, which requires British values to be taught at the moment, but rather is an accurate listing of the values in question to gain greater support from teachers and pupils.
For me, this is what is missing from today’s otherwise excellent Bill, since it is restricted to statements made by the Secretary of State, Ofsted and other public authorities. There does not seem to be a direct link, legally at least, with the curriculum and its requirement to teach citizenship, so I do not see how the Bill will legally require the teaching of citizenship to refer to the key values of British citizenship set out here, even if the Secretary of State and public authorities are required to refer to them when making statements relating to British values for education purposes.
That said, I shall of course support the Bill and hope that citizenship teachers will see statements by the relevant authorities as an encouragement to improve citizenship education along the lines that the Bill sets out.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to this timely Bill, and I emphasise my hope that young people will be involved in these conversations going forward, whether they are in the Youth Parliament, are in school councils around the country or are students in FE and higher education. I draw attention to my entries in the register, particularly, given the nature of the Bill on education, as master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.
This is an important Bill sitting at the heart of our national identity. The values that we define ourselves by and teach in schools to our future citizens must reflect modern Britain. It is not where you were born; it is where you live.
However, things need to change. The current list of values taught in our schools—democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance—has served us well as a starting point, but things move forward. The current framework of British values was, regrettably, too rooted in the Prevent strategy. As many others have said, it is time to separate Prevent from the discussion of broader values.
Democracy and the rule of law remain cornerstones of our society, but the Bill goes further in emphasising freedom in its broadest sense—freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly and association. It introduces the concept of individual worth, enshrining
“respect for the equal worth and dignity of every person”,
and I strongly support that. Importantly, it adds respect for the environment, acknowledging our responsibility to the planet and future generations—a concern that we know is particularly resonant with young people today. These proposed changes reflect a modern, inclusive Britain, a confident and tolerant Britain that is proud of its heritage but looks forward.
Modern Britain must also embody modern patriotism and pride in our diversity, our ability to come together in times of need and our shared values. We could do worse than to look at Gareth Southgate’s words back in 2021. These values, as we move forward, must be lived and taught. They must be embedded, day by day, in our schools, workplaces and wider communities.
I am pleased to support the Bill today, and I hope that others will. My honest fear is that we end up with more commissions, working groups, conversations and reports. There is a broad range of agreement here, so it is really time to get on with it.
Lord Storey (LD)
That was well said: get on with it. We very much support this Bill. It is hugely important for our nation but, as has been said, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this will work only if we take it seriously in schools. It is no good putting up a poster on core British values, ticking that box and thinking, “Yes, I’ve done that”. It is no good saying, “Well, who will take the lesson on citizenship this week? Oh, we’ll give it to the PE teacher or the French teacher”. Do we train people to do these subjects? It will end up, as often happens with subjects that are not exam assessed, just something that is pushed to one side. If we are really serious about this, we have to be serious about it in schools.
If we want schools to develop it further so that it is part of their ethos, other things will have to be considered. We cannot just do chalk and talk—actually, that is the wrong phrase now; it ought to be laptop and learning. We should not just do laptop and learning. It should be about teamwork, team sports, drama productions, summer camps, visits to museums and galleries, and all the other things that bring pupils together so that they have common experiences together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will be pleased to know that, when I spoke to my Swiss cousin about our core British values, she looked at them and said, “Yes, those would be our values, too”. There was a long pause, then, “But what about the environment, looking after the environment for future generations? You English”—not British—“are not very good at that and look how dirty your streets are”. She has a point there.
While we recognise and celebrate the values of the UK, the interpretation can cause stresses and strains on different sections of our society, reflecting broader tensions and debate about identity and diversity. Collective values should strengthen communities, not divide them. The promotion of values should contribute positively to the UK as a diverse and dynamic country. There is a debate to be had and considered about whether the emphasis on British values might unintentionally alienate individuals and communities who feel that their own cultural and religious values are being marginalised or viewed as not being compatible with so-called British values. There is a concern, strong among ethnic minorities and immigrant communities, about the imposition of a monocultural agenda. There is a continuing debate about how British values align with the UK’s multicultural policy, with some arguing that promoting British values is essential to fostering integration, while others believe that it undermines the successful multicultural fabric of British society by fostering certain values at the expense of cultural diversity.
Regional differences on what contributes to British values can significantly vary across the UK. While older people might emphasise tradition and historical achievements as core components of British values, focusing on continuity and preservation, young people would perhaps be more inclined to stress the values of inclusivity, social justice and tolerance. As was said— I have forgotten who said it now—let us ask young people what they think and what they would regard as their values. I bet we would get a shock and be surprised at what they would say.
I will end with two things that I think are important to our values. Tomorrow, I am travelling to Coventry. I am patron of the Royal Life Saving Society. Up to 1,000 people, from teenagers to people in their 70s, give up their time completely free to help teach people to swim and do life-saving, and talk about water safety. They will be there to receive honours and thanks for their service to that community. They are one example of nation that takes volunteering and charity work seriously.
Whenever there is a problem or tragedy, people in this country from every walk of life will dip into their pockets and make a contribution. In my home city, a charity called Zoe’s Place for terminally ill babies found that it could not build the centre it wanted because the costs had doubled. It announced that it was not going to go ahead with it. Suddenly, there was a campaign to raise the difference in money. Within literally 24 hours, £1 million had been raised in that community. We are a nation—I am told, but I do not know whether it is true—that gives more in charitable donations per capita than any other country in the world. That is a value that we should be proud of. Volunteering and charitable work are really important.
I will end by saying something that noble Lords might perhaps not like. It should not just be left to schools to promote values. Should it not be about the leaders in our society, whether in politics and public life, industry or the media? Sadly, far too often, they are the ones who let us down.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been an in-depth and wide-ranging analysis of the Private Member’s Bill from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. It is a subject of great significance to the future of the UK and the character of all ages, young and not so young. I am conscious that this is an emotive topic and I will endeavour to do everything I can to treat the subject matter with the respect that it deserves.
Democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs—born out of the 2011 Prevent strategy and further enhanced by the 2014 government guidance—are the British values that both independent and state-maintained schools are currently required to actively promote. In line with the Education Act, they should form one part of a broad and balanced curriculum that
“promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils”
in our schools.
But education is about much more than just the transfer of knowledge. It is about passing on the sense of identity of who we are as a people, encouraging all ages to be responsible members of society. We should view the holistic education system as the primary driver of informing and enthusing young people about their country. It is crucial that we get this right. British values existed well before 2011 and we must ensure that the Government strengthen the autonomy of parents, schools and communities to deliver that goal.
The current Administration are seeking to centralise and nationalise Skills England and Great British Energy; we should be wary of a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to an issue as fundamental as moral education. Will the Minister explain to the House how she plans to ensure that British values are passed on through communities and families, not just via the state?
Regarding the values themselves, the Chief Rabbi has expressed a concern that the average person does not know what British values are. The Catholic cardinal the Archbishop of Westminster has criticised the values as being “a bit rootless”. The chief executive of the Refugee Council asked the next Government to
“rebuild a system based on British values of compassion, fairness and respect”,
while, in the other place, British values have been described as decency, tolerance and the rule of law, as well as decency, respect and kindness.
We are incredibly lucky to live in a diverse and tolerant society, but it is important that we as a nation are aligned on what our values are. Does the Minister believe that there is a need for change, and please can she give us details of exactly what the Government’s British values are and which stakeholders are being engaged to ensure we get this right?
Currently, in the form of citizenship education, the British values are taught in a variety of different ways across different schools. Some schools will teach them via PSHE while others will teach them as a stand-alone subject. This is leading to a wide range of both positive and less positive outcomes. Please can the Minister explain the Government’s approach to the curriculum and educating people on British values? How will schools be clearly told to implement the strategy? Pupils are currently not tested on the values, which means that head teachers are much less focused on this. Will the Government start testing?
The Bill from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, elaborates on the definition of “freedom” to include “freedom of expression”. Would the Minister agree that freedom of speech is a non-negotiable universal principle that should apply to everyone in this country? Can she explain to the House how freedom of speech will be taught in our schools to guarantee that the principle is strengthened and not undermined in the future?
The Bill also refers to British values being renamed as the “values of British citizenship”. We look forward to hearing the Government’s stance on that.
Of the UK’s 10 best state secondary schools, based on 2024 GCSE results, Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School came in first place with 57% of GCSEs graded 7 to 9. The report notes that the school
“consistently performs well academically while also placing a significant emphasis on moral and spiritual development”.
The Chief Rabbi believes that tolerance is
“the symphony orchestra in which we have separate instruments, each one making its own unique sound and, under the baton of the conductor, blending together to produce perfect harmony”.
Every successful enterprise has a mission statement. We need to know what mission statement the Government will assign to the education system for “British values”, and how exactly they will benchmark their success to prove that those values are being retained and understood for the benefit of everyone.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on securing this Second Reading for his Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill. As many contributors to today’s debate have asserted, the aims of the Bill are admirable. It is vital that pupils have a sound understanding of the fundamental values on which our society is founded and their relevance to the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living in modern Britain.
This debate also exemplifies one of the most important aspects of our approach to values in this country, which is the ability to be able to debate, engage widely and develop our understanding. In that respect, the noble Baronesses, Lady Butler-Sloss and Lady Neuberger, identified in talking about the Living With Difference report the importance of us continuing to have a national debate, beyond our schools, about our values and the best way to inculcate and develop them.
My noble friend Lady Morgan made the important point that our values develop and need to be lived. Although I turn to many sources of wisdom on this, I am most certainly willing to turn to Gareth Southgate when it comes to living our values.
Labour Governments have a proud history of promoting British values across our education system. We were the first Government to introduce mandatory citizenship education into the national curriculum under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Blunkett—with me as a lowly junior Minister at the time doing some of the legwork. This Government will continue that tradition to ensure that our children and young people are supported to become active and engaged citizens. I will say more about citizenship in a moment.
Although some have sought to use these issues as a political football—not in this morning’s debate but more widely—to sow division and hatred across our communities, it is only through promoting genuine respect and tolerance through our education system that we will tackle the shameful actions we saw across our towns and cities this summer. The riots showed that we cannot take these values for granted but must continue to embed them within every child’s education.
There were compelling contributions to the debate from my noble friend Lady Uddin and the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Warsi. My noble friend Lady Uddin, while talking about her own experience, made a strong case, as have others, that the development of these values needs to be broader than simply in our education system. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is right to identify the significance of speaking English to enable people to be able to feel fully part of our communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is right that our discussion about British values should not be about setting one person against another or defining the difference in terms of those who have come to this country and accepted and lived our values, and that everybody, whether born or coming to take up citizenship, is equally able to exemplify our values.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, challenged me to clarify how this Government will develop the significance of British values in our schools, and I will do that, because I would like to clarify how this understanding, and many of the issues identified in this morning’s debate, are already being satisfied by some of the existing duties on schools and current curriculum requirements, and also the action that this Government want to take to go further on that.
Our schools have a statutory duty, as the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, identified, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. This is a duty that stems from the Education Act 1944 and was reinforced in 2002. The previous Government published guidance in 2014 to support schools in delivering that requirement with respect to fundamental British values. That guidance rightly acknowledges that
“while different people may hold different views about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ … a school’s ethos and teaching … should … support the rule of English civil and criminal law”.
That in practice means embedding
“British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
Noble Lords have made important contributions today on how those ideas need to be developed.
It is important that teachers and schools have the capacity and range of ways to ensure that they are embedded in our schools. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, meant to be insulting to teachers in suggesting that in our schools people are only putting up a poster in order to do that because, actually, there is a whole range of different activities that schools are already using to successfully embed the values across a whole breadth of provision. This means that the values are taught in the curriculum, reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies and deepened through carefully planned opportunities to, for example, experience democratic processes. Having been on the receiving end of the Somers Park Primary School Pupils’ Parliament only a few weeks ago, I know how rigorous and important some of those processes can be.
There are difficult questions for teachers and our schools to consider and to reflect in the teaching and experiences that they provide for our students. That rightly brings a responsibility on to the Government to provide appropriate resources and we should continue to develop those. The department currently provides a range of support to the sector, in particular, for some of those issues that are very difficult for teachers to teach, through the Educate Against Hate website. I took a look at that yesterday and was impressed with the range of specific resources to support schools and colleges, not only to promote values but to deal with some of the difficult and contested issues that it is important for our schoolchildren to be open to and engaged with.
I want particularly to talk about citizenship, given the focus that many noble Lords have put on it this morning. Since its introduction under the previous Labour Government, as I outlined, citizenship remains compulsory in the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 in maintained schools. Although it is optional for primary schools, it is supported by non-statutory programmes of study at key stages 1 and 2. In the curriculum, pupils learn about democracy, politics, Parliament and voting, as well as human rights, justice, media literacy, the law, the economy, and the need for mutual respect and understanding. Pupils also learn the skills of active citizenship, as called for by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them in school and the wider community.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, identified how important it is that we equip our children with the ability to distinguish fact from opinion and to have critical media literacy. That is an important part of citizenship teaching. My noble friend Lady Whitaker and others identified the significance of human rights teaching, which is an important part of the citizenship curriculum. I say in response to my noble friend Lord Browne that pupils should also be taught about the diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities across the United Kingdom, and the need for mutual respect and understanding.
However, I take noble Lords’ point that, as well as some of the resources that I have already outlined, which probably need further development, it is also crucial that we have sufficient appropriately qualified teachers. It is the case that the number of specialist teachers has fallen over recent years. This Government have a commitment, both in their recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers and in the approach to professional development for classroom teachers and leaders, to ensure that teachers are equipped to deliver what we believe to be important in schools. This area of citizenship is certainly, in my view, one of those areas.
My noble friend Lady Blower rightly talked about the significance of schools in tackling racial and religious discrimination. It is absolutely right that, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, there are opportunities to discuss racism and other forms of discrimination. Those include citizenship education, which teaches about religious diversity, and mutual respect and understanding; relationships education, which teaches about the impact of prejudice and the importance of respect and individual worth, as many noble Lords have mentioned; and religious education, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield also rightly challenged us on, which teaches about religious tolerance. Once again, the Education Against Hate website provides important teaching resources to help schools discuss those sensitive topics. The department is also committed to tackling all forms of prejudice, including Islamophobia, and other forms of racism. Earlier this month, my right honourable friend the Education Secretary announced that the Government are resuming the procurement of £7 million-worth of funding to tackle anti-Semitism in schools, colleges and universities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield also asked what the DfE is doing about rolling out the GCSE in natural history. The natural history GCSE was a commitment made by the previous Government. We will want to set out our policy priorities for the curriculum in due course—I will come to the curriculum and assessment review in a moment—but that does not mean we do not believe, as was rightly emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that respect for the environment is a very important part of what we need our schools to be able to develop.
Topics related to climate change and the environment are taught within the current national curriculum for citizenship. For science and geography, teachers have flexibility to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. As a result, we are seeing some excellent work in climate and nature education in many schools. The department launched—to be fair, this was under the previous Government—a number of initiatives to encourage all education settings to take a holistic approach to climate, nature and sustainability. My ministerial colleague, Stephen Morgan, recently launched the first- year report for the National Education Nature Park, which brings together all of the land from across education settings into a vast virtual nature park. We are seeing a real change in the way that very many schools are using their estate and their environment to educate young people, develop those environments and habitats, and boost the biodiversity in their sites.
My noble friend Lord Mann rightly talked about the challenge of tackling misogyny in the work that we do on values in our schools. The Government are enormously serious, both in our department’s work in tackling misogyny and in the mission across government to tackle violence against women and girls, about focusing on prevention through relationships education and ensuring that pupils are safe while at school through schools’ compliance with their safeguarding duties. We are currently reviewing the RSHE statutory guidance and want to ensure that it provides schools with the direction and ability to protect all pupils from the growing scourge of misogyny. His idea about the way in which the NUS might support schools in developing that work was very interesting.
Several noble Lords mentioned the fact that the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to establish an independent curriculum and assessment review for England. The review will look at how we deliver a curriculum that ensures young people develop the knowledge and skills required to thrive as citizens in work and throughout life—a curriculum in which they are represented. That has the potential to reinforce the good work already happening in schools, and it will be important for us to consider any wider issues raised by the review within our next steps in government. I will certainly make sure that the very important contributions made in this debate are brought to the attention of the review.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, gave a passionate explanation of how those outside the mainstream also need to be supported in their consideration of British values, and how, understandably, they may feel alienated from what others of us take for granted. Our curriculum and assessment review must consider those who are disadvantaged and excluded; that is a specific objective for it. The Government are committed to tackling poverty, particularly child poverty. The task force led by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will look precisely at how we ensure that fewer children have to grow up in poverty in the way that the noble Lord explained.
As I conclude, I want to talk briefly about my concern about legislating for values in the way in which this Bill would do. At the moment, fundamental British values are not set out as a list of values that exist within law. The guidance is non-statutory, and I fear that primary legislation that changed, and to a certain extent set in stone, British values would potentially limit schools’ freedom to tailor their approach and would open schools up to external challenge to their provision, beyond Ofsted inspections, which are right to ensure that values are being properly dealt with. Dealing with that challenge would in turn place huge burdens on schools.
In saying that, I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who talked about the danger of too rigid an interpretation of values. I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that ensuring that schools have some autonomy in this area is important. Schools need to be free to embed the values in a way that meets the needs of their pupils. They need to be supported in doing that, but they can include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their curriculum, including where they are challenging or controversial, subject to their obligation to ensure political balance.
While we support the importance of schools reinforcing these values and considering, in the way in which the noble and right reverend Lord’s Bill would ensure that they do, the updating and development of those values in what is taught in our schools, I do not believe that more rigidly legislating for them is the right way to secure effective implementation by schools. That is why I must express reservations on the content of the Bill. The current arrangements provide a sound basis for delivering British values, but there is room for improvement. I assure noble Lords that this Government will continue to support our teachers, provide resources and give clarity about how we expect schools to go about the range of ways in which they teach British values and bring coherence and cohesion to our communities. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for the contribution of the debate this morning.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Because of the shortage of time, I am unable to comment on individual speeches, but I hope the Minister will note the great number of people who wanted to speak in this debate, reflecting the importance of the subject; the fact that there was so much significant experience, particularly educational experience, behind the speeches; and that there was support from all sides of the House. I hope she will bear that in mind. It is good to have the Minister in the House, with her long experience in the Commons. I thank her for meeting me prior to the debate so that we could discuss how we might take this forward.
The Minister’s main point was that these fundamental values are not part of the law of the land and there would be a disadvantage in making them part of it. I can understand that, but, on the other hand, one could say that as we do not have a written constitution it might be good to have something in the law of the land about these fundamental values—and we are talking about political values, not personal values, or, in the old-fashioned term, civics.
Where we could look to is the guidance. These fundamental values are in guidance, and I would like to see that guidance changed in order to bring about the better wording of this Bill. I think there is pretty widespread support for the idea that we need to move on from what was appropriate for the Prevent strategy to something that exists in its own right. I hope that the Minister will work with me on possibly a change in the guidance and the important review of the curriculum and assessment to go along with that.
Clearly, there are one or two issues that need to be taken forward, including engaging more nationally with youth forums and the Youth Parliament—that was a very important point. There is also the question of the devolved Governments, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Bourne, and the relationship between these values in England and in Scotland and Wales. That clearly needs further teasing out.
I again thank the Minister very sincerely for her commitment to the subject and everybody who has spoken.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.