Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Watson of Invergowrie

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on securing a Second Reading for her Bill, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As we have heard this morning, when the Bill was considered in 2021, it did not pass through the Commons due to lack of time. But, at that time, the Conservative Government were unable to support it, and I am afraid—I guess this will not surprise the noble Baroness—our position has not changed. I will briefly outline my concerns, some of which were much more eloquently represented by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme.

The first point, which other noble Lords have made, is that collective worship is important and gives children in school a time to learn and to reflect but to do that with a sense of community, and religion allows children to learn some of the essential values of life. Many of the topics that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, cited as possible topics for secular collective worship are part of Christianity and often already form part of the collective worship that happens in our schools every day. As the House is aware, there are already curriculum requirements for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of pupils through the PSHE curriculum. As we know, the Government have asked Professor Becky Francis to lead a review of the curriculum and make an assessment, and I am sure that if any changes are required she will bring them to the Government’s attention.

As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, both pointed out, the existing legislation is flexible, and I feel that it is unjust to describe it as an imposition or a coercion of children or their parents. As noble Lords know, it is already possible for children or indeed whole schools to be exempted from this practice. Therefore, we believe that this legislation is unnecessary. That of course includes schools where the principal religion is not Christianity.

I was interested to hear the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, about removing parents’ right to remove their children if they were unhappy with a new collective worship or reflection—I am not sure what we would call it, but collective assembly—and the risk that it would exclude important commemorations. Obviously, we accept that social attitudes are changing, but one can also then make the argument that it is more important than ever that we have some common core that children understand and learn from, because they are unlikely to learn it elsewhere in modern society, other than possibly at home. The Judeo-Christian principles, which I am sure we could have many good debates about, underpin our culture and have withstood the test of time. We unravel at our peril that understanding and shared sense of who we are as a community, and the commonality across religions of some of those principles.

I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, very cunningly—in a good way—finding a Question from 25 years ago. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the question might be the same, but I do not think what we would see in the classroom or school hall would be the same. That is an important point in all this. Our teachers are absolutely aware of how our society is changing; they are aware of the diversity in their communities, and they have the skill and sensitivity to make sure that it is translated every morning to the collective worship—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Just in response to the noble Baroness, I understand what she is saying about teachers reflecting the current situation in classroom. That is why I support the Bill—because things have moved on from the time of that 1999 Question to which I referred. To some extent, that is the whole point of the Bill; that was then and this is now.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think that equally plays into the argument that the Bill is not needed. If our system is naturally evolving with a strong core, the argument is made for the Bill being unnecessary. As I listened to some of the moral questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the right reverend Prelate posed, I thought that in some way many of those moral questions are exactly the same. We are achieving that in a gradual and evolutionary way in responding to those issues in our schools. Therefore, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill to the House, I am afraid I cannot support it.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Watson of Invergowrie

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just looking through my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendments 28, 29 and 30, to which I added my name. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that, since Skills England was announced, the DfE has been using a pretty coloured diagram in five sections to describe the planned functions of the new executive agency. One of the sections says that Skills England

“identifies priorities for and shapes technical education to respond to skills needs”.

Having done that, it will need to update the necessary technical standards and work with sectoral industry bodies to develop them. Indeed, the Government will need to set out which functions currently with IfATE will be delegated to sectoral organisations and regional bodies. That is what Amendment 28 seeks to achieve.

My noble friend the Minister said in Committee last week that there needs to be “a sectoral approach” to the way that skills are developed across the economy. Of course, that is right. With that in mind, it is necessary that the Government’s plans for the powers that they anticipate will be required are set out, and this amendment would facilitate that.

Another of the sections in that DfE diagram says that Skills England will ensure

“national and regional systems are meeting skills needs”,

explaining that this will entail:

“Working with Mayoral Combined Authorities, Employer Representative Bodies, and other regional organisations to align national and regional systems with each other and with skills needs”.


All that seems fairly straightforward, but it is not clear how Skills England will achieve that without the necessary powers and some resources. We do not as yet know what these might be, so it is important that criteria for national skills priorities are set out and that the expectations of departments other than the DfE are made clear. My noble friend the Minister stated on several occasions how important the effect of joined-up government will be for the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. Amendment 29 offers the opportunity for that to be spelled out.

Finally, there is more than a little uncertainty as to how the plethora of qualifications to be transferred will be subject to oversight. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has covered this, but I will simply say that qualifications at levels 3 and 4 are crucial in allowing young people the opportunity to build their skills in an environment in which they are not intimidated by unrealistic expectations or other barriers to entry, as has been the case too often with apprenticeships. The unfortunate tangle—let me put it no less kindly than that—that we currently have involving the introduction of T-levels and the consequent often rash and sometimes reckless defunding of some BTECs must not be allowed to happen with the transfer of the many essential qualifications validated by IfATE in its short lifetime.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27 and in support of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I start by noting that I support very much the spirit of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the aspiration of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, although I have a certain sympathy with the Minister in trying to actually deliver on that.

My Amendment 27—I thank my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park for adding her name to it—aims to ensure that the Government’s strategy is up to date and relevant for local areas and that the Government do this by consulting the relevant bodies. I suggest local skills improvement partnerships and mayoral combined authorities although, in his Amendment 36B and his extremely helpful, clear and practical explanation of it, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, raises the relevance of other groups and the importance of making sure that we do not miss out significant parts of the population as we try to aggregate and understand these local views.

What we are trying to do is to balance technical education qualifications that can be tailored, to a degree, and that best support the needs of a local area, with the ability to aggregate and use the data and intelligence from them to inform national policy. That needs to then feed into an ability for the Government and those to whom they devolve their powers to understand where providers are delivering efficiently on these plans and where they are not, identifying gaps and seeking to address them.

I also want to speak to the importance of the Government setting out how they intend to delegate these powers that are being centralised. As my noble friend Lady Evans said, what the Government talk about and what is actually happening in terms of centralisation rather jars, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has brought this forward through his Amendment 28. I do not think anyone is suggesting to the Minister that this is an easy task—if it was easy, somebody would have cracked it already—but it is clearly a very important task and the more she can say about how these different groups will interact with Skills England and how there will be lines of communication from the local to the national and back again, the more confident the Committee will feel.