Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]

Baroness Neuberger Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Education and Society

Baroness Neuberger Excerpts

Friday 8th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the most reverend Primate for introducing this debate which signals the coming of Christmas and, dare I say it, of Hanukkah, too. I should also say that although we Jews do not believe in the Second Coming, it is a great pleasure to see the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, in his place to speak in today’s debate. He was a huge support to me in my days at the King’s Fund. Here I declare an interest and noble Lords will see why in a moment. I am a former chief executive of the King’s Fund and vice-president of the Centre for Mental Health. I am also a vice-chair of the independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983, chaired by Sir Simon Wessely.

I want to address what the most reverend Primate has described as human flourishing and what I would describe as the emotional well-being of children. While congratulating the Government on their announcement that mental health support will be available in schools from 2022, I should like to ask the Minister why the date cannot be brought forward, given that we know how serious the issues are around the mental health and well-being of young people, something alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others.

On average, in every classroom three children aged between five and 16 will have a diagnosable mental health problem. We know that over half of all mental ill-health starts before the age of 14 and that 75% of it has developed by the age of 18. Studies suggest that when problems which start in childhood and adolescence are not addressed early, there is often a lifelong trajectory of mental ill-health. Rates of depression and anxiety among adolescents have increased by 70% over the past 25 years, which places huge costs on the economy, let alone on individuals. We know also that supporting mental health in schools is not just about responding to signs of emerging mental health problems. It is also about early education and support. We now know that helping children to become emotionally literate is a vital part of any social and emotional well-being focus and needs to be part of how we think about education. You shall teach your children and they shall teach theirs; it is not only about getting GCSEs.

In a recent report on school readiness by the National Association of Head Teachers, school leaders noted a decline in young children’s school-readiness over the past five years, with concerns about personal, social and emotional development high on the list. If children are starting school already at a disadvantage socially and emotionally and are unable to catch up, this increases their vulnerability in terms of their emotional well-being and their potential to achieve and succeed. A lack of social awareness, understanding and the ability to regulate emotions underpins many of the behavioural problems we see in schools. Studies have indicated a link between better academic outcomes and a reduction in behavioural issues in those schools that deliver an effective social and emotional curriculum.

We know that we need to do more. We know that emotional literacy education needs to be embedded in approaches to teaching all children about their mental health. Over the years, a range of social and emotional intervention programmes has been delivered in schools, often as part of the personal, social, health and economics curriculum, but it is not a statutory requirement in state schools. Although most faith schools provide it, many state schools do not. I hope to persuade the most reverend Primate that one day we should have multifaith schools as well as single-faith schools, much as I admire Church of England schools. We know that it works well. When social and emotional learning is a key area of focus for all children, it makes a huge difference as part of a whole-school approach. Whole-school approaches have been shown to work and we have many examples in the UK. I am indebted to the voluntary organisation Place2Be, which provides such support, for the education that it has given me on how it works. It is a charity that both I and, indeed, my congregation support wholeheartedly.

The approach not only involves teaching children about the nature and recognition of emotional states in themselves and others, but also promotes social competence and well-being. A good deal of research evaluation has gone into how to do this in the United States, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand, but much less in the UK. A systematic review several years ago concluded:

“Positive evidence of effectiveness was obtained for programmes that adopted a whole-school approach, were implemented continuously for more than a year, and were aimed at the promotion of mental health as opposed to the prevention of mental illness”.


Can the Minister tell the House whether this is the approach that the mental health support announced by the Government this week will take? Can he also tell us that he supports investing in a curriculum that values emotional understanding, communication and problem solving with regular and well-delivered lessons that address emotional awareness and understanding?

Of course we need teachers, school leaders and governors to promote a “mentally healthy school” and, like others, I pay tribute to teachers, school governors and leaders—I am the mother of a teacher. We need them to foster warm relationships, develop pupil and teacher autonomy, and maintain clarity about boundaries, rules and positive expectations. We need them to prevent bullying and identify those with problems early. But the Government and educational leaders need to give a steer in this direction. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that this is the approach the Government support and will foster, and that emotional literacy education will be as much a part of what schools need to provide as passing GCSEs.

Anti-Semitism

Baroness Neuberger Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Deech for initiating this debate. I, too, can claim a parent who came to this country and sought refuge here—a very proud Brit with a very strong German accent.

Back in April, I was somewhat surprised to find myself commenting on anti-Semitism publicly and in the media for the first time in my life. Apart from very occasional anti-Semitic comments from a very few people in politics and outside, it was something I had not really feared or experienced, despite hearing of such things as my noble friend Lord Sacks raised. We knew what was going on on campuses. I felt—and feel—proud to be a subject and citizen of what has historically been such a deeply tolerant and diverse country, and I have felt nothing but acceptance and respect for my traditions and beliefs throughout my life’s work.

However, last year—though we know it did not really start last year and has much deeper roots in a combination of anti-Israel views and a definition of anti-racism that is exclusive and perverse—things began to change. I found myself appearing on “Newsnight” with the noble Lord, Lord Levy, discussing anti-Semitism in the Labour Party—the Labour Party in which I grew up—and on campuses, where the cry, “Zio, Zio”, said to Jewish students, is ringing in our ears. This was all in the wake of Naz Shah’s comments, for which she rightly apologised.

Add to that what we can read and what is repeated and retweeted in the blogosphere and on Twitter, where we see ad personam attacks of a disgraceful and upsetting style, particularly against MPs such as Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth, who are both Jewish, let alone others—the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, talked about that—and we have reason to be worried. This is a style of attack that makes no attempt to tackle the issues but just goes for the person and is anti-Semitic to boot, while hotly denying that anti-Semitism is even possible in a left-wing, anti-racist party. “I am an anti-racist”, goes the cry. “By definition, I therefore cannot be anti-Semitic”. Really? That thinking has become a serious problem for Jewish students around campuses in the UK, for that cry keeps emerging.

Now, we know that the Labour Party has had very serious issues with anti-Semitism, with significant resignations because of it, or indeed exclusion in the case of Michael Foster on the basis of a headline he did not even write. It is not only in Labour, although it feels as if it is becoming institutionalised and part of the party. Of course, there have been instances in other parties and elsewhere in considerable quantities. Social media need to be looked at and sorted out if anything is to be done about all this.

All this should be a wake-up call. The Government need to act in relation to campuses and universities, as do the political parties—notably, but not only, Labour. I end by asking the Minister two questions. First, apart from the Government’s power to legislate, how will they set or indeed change the tone around this anti-Semitism debate and give leadership, particularly in regard to universities? Secondly, in the wake of the Commons Home Affairs Committee’s excellent report, what assurances can the Minister give that action will be taken to force Twitter and other social media sites to take action against the appalling anti-Semitic tweets and posts, and other extreme blogs, that allow this poison to fester?