Social Justice Strategy

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness who secured this debate today. It is highly significant and very apt. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely on an excellent maiden speech, which promises further interesting observations from the Bishops’ Bench.

In introducing the debate, the noble Baroness mentioned IDS—we know whom we are talking about—and his social justice committee. She went on, very well, to mention leadership, the devolution of responsibility for providing social justice, government support to local areas, government impact and the effects of welfare reform. We fought those battles for quite a long time on welfare reform, and we managed to stop some of the worst aspects of it. The key phrase I got from the noble Baroness was “listening to people”. That was spot on. It has certainly made an impact. I take the point of the view, and I think my party also takes the point of view, that the alleged social justice committee set up by the coalition Government has at its heart the wrong attitude. It is not its intention, but it has at its heart the demonisation of people on benefits. It puts them into separate categories that need to be looked at separately and given special help and all the rest of it. The phrase that came to my mind in listening to the noble Baroness’s speech was a well worn phrase from Labour Party history: it seems to me that at the heart of this social justice strategy is the image of a “desiccated calculating machine”, because there are calculations rather than taking any account of people. The intentions might be good, but we have to look at how it is operating.

I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He is an expert on this. If ever I come across the person who caused the young Archie Kirkwood to leave the Young Socialists, I will have something to say to them because it was certainly our loss. He mentioned in particular—I was nodding vigorously—that the referendum in Scotland showed the alienation of people towards the establishment, for want of a better description. I was included. I have never been called an establishment figure before. There was certainly alienation towards the establishment. Between Mr Salmond and Mr Farage, the word “Westminster” has become an epithet to be dismissed. “He’s from Westminster” is almost an insult. If that alienation is not tackled by all of us, it will lead to further trouble. That alienation applies in England and Wales, not just Scotland. It had its focal point in Scotland because of the referendum. That alienation has to be tackled in social justice. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, also mentioned honesty from political parties and illustrated that. Hitherto, there have not been very many votes in telling people that they are going to be worse off. A change of priorities is called for.

A lot of people know that I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I take quite a hard line on various matters such as welfare reform, fraudulent social claims and all the rest of it. But unless we have a step change in how the country is run, there will be continuing problems. There are a number of steps that the Labour Party has decided on which will institute change, I hope, but at the same time will use fiscal authority and fiscal common sense to make sure that the country does not spend money that it has not got. For instance, we will agree and impose a cap on the total social security bill. We have got to come up with a series of measures which guarantee social justice in this country. I have looked at the Library Note and heard the absolutely classic dissection by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which was very informed, and, quite frankly and unfortunately, unless there is a step change by the Government, I do not see the strategy succeeding.

That brings me to something I have to say which addresses a gap here today. Will the Minister do the courtesy of informing the House why the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is not in his place? I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but under his ministerial brief he has no responsibility for the report being discussed. I appreciate that, formally, all Ministers speak on behalf of the Government, but this issue is not an area of expertise known to the Minister opposite. In the recent broadcast of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, at the Conservative Party conference, he said he would take away the idea of paying people with a disability £2 an hour, a reduction in the minimum wage. Did the noble Lord, Lord Freud, or his department carry out any work on that proposal? Can the Minister confirm or otherwise whether the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is still a member of Her Majesty’s Government?

I am not into witch hunts or personal malice; I enjoy a robust but friendly relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Freud. However, we have at the heart of the Government—at the heart of the department in charge of social justice and social security—a Minister who has made a statement about people with a disability which even the Deputy Prime Minister says is completely unacceptable. As long as the Government continue to have at their heart a Minister who has held and displayed those points of view, there will be no credibility for him in this House if he continues in his role.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

I think the noble Lord knows that all Ministers speak on behalf of the Government, of which the party opposite is constantly reminding us. This is, in fact, a cross-department matter. As the noble Lord has heard today, many of the points made—I would perhaps say the majority—relate to education matters, which are at the core of our social justice policy. My noble friend Lord Freud has apologised, and there has been no work on any of the background to the question that he was asked about the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am grateful for those partial answers. I thought that I had finished speaking, but I am more than happy to take another couple of minutes. I am grateful for the limited response so far, but that does not explain why the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is not here. I ask again for a full and concise—if that is possible—explanation as to why he is not here.

[Lord Nash]

I am sorry; I did not appreciate that I was up and that the noble Lord had in fact finished. I think that I have answered the question concisely.

I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Tyler for so eloquently opening the debate on this very important strategy and our underlying ethos. Social justice is at the heart of this Government’s work. We have a two-pronged approach: education and welfare reform. These are the only ways that we can break—

Education Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, but in the interests of time I shall speak only to the amendment in my name, Amendment 116A. This gives Ofsted an additional task, to inspect the effectiveness of education as influenced by the buildings and design of the school. I do not expect that this is what the Government really want, but I would urge them to take the opportunity of this amendment to embed the importance of properly designed school buildings in the assessment of the education they provide.

I shall not repeat what I said on the earlier group of amendments, but I think that it is all the more important in view of the Minister’s response on design standards. I briefly draw attention to the recently published Space for Personalised Learning report commissioned by the previous Government. In changing their approach to school building, I implore the present Government not to throw the baby out with the bath water and ignore this treasure trove of expertise. Learning is changing, and so is our understanding of it. Even if we return to chronological history and Latin, both of which I rather like, our children need to be at home with and, indeed, masters of, the modern world and its changes. They need to earn a living in that world, and they need to be able to contribute to UK growth and culture and their own self-fulfilment. The essential message of the report is that buildings and the designed space matter very much for effective learning, inclusive learning, safe and secure learning and enthusiastic and creative learning. If our inspectorate does not pay attention to this aspect of education and further it where it can, we shall all lose out.

[Lord McAvoy]

I rise very briefly, just for a few minutes, to speak on Amendment 116. When the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was moving the amendment, I felt I reached a new understanding with her, seeing as we have previously disagreed. I was even starting to think that I had a soul mate—I will withdraw the word “soul” in case that offends her. She said so much in the first part of her speech, but I will deal with that secondly. She rather spoilt it in the second part of her speech by homing in on faith schools. Although she made it clear, as usual, that she was not talking about Church of England schools, I had a bit of bother trying to fathom out which particular faith school she was on about. I am sure I will figure it out at some point. It would be totally invidious if separate criteria applied to faith schools, and I am afraid it shows deep paranoia and suspicion about Catholic schools that I just do not get.

Being positive and concentrating on the first half of her speech, it was brilliant in trying to get across how much all schools can contribute to community cohesion. I see schools I am most aware of—outside England’s jurisdiction, but nevertheless, I have knowledge of schools in England as well—and all schools getting involved in fair trade and fund raising for Africa and going out to Africa as part of various voluntary organisations. There are parent-teacher organisations that dig deep into the community because they get the parents involved. All of this goes back to the school and feeds back to the community. If there is any discrimination or any lack of importance given by the Government to community cohesion, the noble Baroness has highlighted that that is a weakness. Where it is going well, it is going very well. I also notice a bit of local rivalry which helps because if one school sees that another school has raised £2,000 or £3,000 for aid to Africa, that is its target. That is friendly rivalry, not contentious rivalry. Anything that brings back into consideration by the Government the contribution of all schools to community cohesion, the sooner the better.

[Lord Quirk]

My Lords, in a spirit of attempting to clarify rather than add to the duties of Ofsted, the proposers of Amendment 117 hope that it will find favour with the Committee and with the Minister. Indeed, we can see no reason why it should not, for this minimalist, one-word addition to the Bill very much runs with the grain of the clause in which we propose to embed it.

For those who may say, not unreasonably, why not add also other terse desiderata, such as mathematical, musical or physical, we say, no, linguistic is in a class of its own. The social and cultural development of pupils depends critically on their command of language and the interpersonal relations that promote such development proceed above all else on successful and confident facility with language. In other words, the social and cultural development already in the clause actually entails linguistic development. So manifestly true is this that it might well be felt that adding “linguistic” is superfluous, but it is not. Rather, its omission from the clause should be viewed as a glaring oversight, so much do the other two—social and cultural—depend on it. Language is what supremely distinguishes the human species, giving us uniquely the facility to talk about the past, speculate about the future and analyse the present.

This is why Ofsted's attention needs to be specifically drawn to the monitoring of linguistic development, not only for the sake of the unfortunate minority of youngsters with pathological problems in speech and language, nor for the sake of the much bigger minorities who come from non-English speaking homes or from homes which are non-speaking, and in which conversation in any language is in short supply. Our amendment has all these in mind but we propose it for the sake of the school community as a whole, for whom rich, rapid and early language development is the key to their whole education and subsequent careers. Moreover, the richer their English, the likelier it is that their interest—social and cultural—will reach out beyond English to the social, cultural and, indeed, vocational opportunities to be found in the realm of foreign language learning.

Education Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Griffiths, who is temporarily sitting on the other side, is very disarming but I disagree with him about the relevance of these amendments. I am sure that many people in this Room and outside share the view that a moral and spiritual dimension to school life is essential. I personally think that it is essential for school students to join in a morally and spiritually uplifting act every day. The problem is that, if it is a Christian act, quite a lot of children are not Christian and some are not of that particular sect of Christianity. Those children are deprived. When I went to school, the children who were withdrawn sat outside, as has been said, and I do not think that that is what school is about.

Of course, I have absolutely no objection to children learning about Christianity. It is one of our glorious traditions which I do not happen to share but, like my noble friend, I am very glad to have known the King James Bible and, for that matter, the Bible of Tyndale. I would have no objection at all to my children experiencing a Christian religious ceremony or a collective act referring to the Christian approach. What I really think we should move away from, for all the reasons which have been given and which I shall not repeat, is a sectarian approach to morality and spirituality. We really cannot allow our children in this wide, diverse world to think that only one way to truth is the right way, that only one morality is right and that only one spirituality has any validity. Therefore, I am extremely happy to support the spirit behind all these amendments.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I think I should try to sit in a different seat in future, because every time I sit here I seem to be last or near-enough last in the batting order in trying to speak. Last Wednesday, there was trouble and the Government Whip intervened and effectively stopped me from speaking—despite the fact that I was unaware of how to work these things. Fifteen speakers were in favour of that type of amendment. I was against it and was frozen out. I do not know how we find a way of trying to balance things. I should also like to speak. I am not going to declare an interest, because I take exception to folk expecting me to declare my religion before I speak on an issue. If you consider my Sundays, you might get a clue.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rhymed off a lot of substantial figures that seemed to prove that religion in schools was dying, that all sorts of statistics showed that folk did not bother and that we were heading for an atheist or a non-believing society. If that is the case, why is there enthusiasm for coming forward with amendments such as this that seem to flog a dead horse? I do not understand, if Christianity and religious belief are dying on their feet anyway, why we are trying to bury them.

At the risk of being controversial, what we have here is aggressive secularism. This is not a contribution to a debate based on tolerance. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that tolerance should surely be at the heart of any discussion such as this. I would never dream of stopping someone else from practising their religion or proselytising, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said. People are people and will do their own thing.

I can tell noble Lords that there is confusion and wonder among many in faith communities who have chosen to go to and use these schools. My noble friend Lady Whitaker was definite about the situation that she would choose for her children. That is absolutely fine, but the people who send their children to faith schools for collective worship and gatherings are surely entitled to have their point of view. There is a feeling that I am picking up—

[Baroness Whitaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he mentioned my name, I should say that I do not think that any of these amendments would prevent parents from choosing a religious school that would have a religious act of collective worship.

[Lord McAvoy]

That is technically true, but it forces them to accept assumptions—I shall not be provocative and say that they are based on hostility—that are certainly not sympathetic towards school gatherings based on Christian beliefs. This should surely be about tolerance. If people want to change the way that things are, surely they should go about convincing people of that. I really do not understand, because no one in this Room has a mandate to talk about removing the basis of collective worship within schools. I should certainly like to see a politician standing for election along the corridor try to advocate some of the beliefs and authoritarian elements in these proposals.

I appeal to colleagues: if you want to change things, try to persuade; do not dictate or try to lay down such conditions from on high. Whether colleagues like it or not those are the unforeseen consequences. I agree with my noble friend Lord Touhig that it is not the intention of noble Lords to be hostile to faith schools on the basis of collective worship.

I shall say another couple of quick sentences in a mood of co-operation. My noble friend Lady Massey said that schools are places of learning only. Among a whole host of things, I accept that. However, the religion that I belong to—the Roman Catholic faith—believes in the trinity: home, school and church. We do not believe that schools are there for learning only.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

In fact, I did not say that schools are places of learning only. I would support schools that have a wide learning experience, such as culture, the arts, sport and so on. Learning is not just about academic learning. Learning is moral, spiritual and so on. I was trying to say that schools are not churches, temples, mosques or synagogues.

[Lord McAvoy]

The Catholic schools that I know, and which I have the most experience of, incorporate all the various subjects that my noble friend mentions. There is nothing wrong with that. I go and speak to modern studies classes and I assure my noble friend that their opinions are extremely varied. These schools encompass everything. They get involved in fair trade, mission work for Africa and raising funds. They do terrific work based on their faith and it should not be mocked. I believe that if people choose to say that school, home and church are a trinity, they are entitled to do so. I very much oppose the amendments.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

Before we continue, I should say that this has been a fascinating debate and I rather sense that we could carry on all afternoon, but I am rather taken with the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that we should try to schedule a debate on this topic where we would have more time to discuss it. In the context of scrutinising amendments in Committee, though, I wonder whether we might just hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield who was trying to get in and then move on to the opposition winders. Would that be acceptable to the Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, we certainly will have to return to this matter in a different context but we will have to do so on Report, because we are not going to resolve it here this afternoon. As your Lordships will understand, we cannot have a Division on it. However, there are certain things on which we can agree. First, all noble Lords who have spoken have said that an assembly is a good idea—that all the pupils should come together as one and partake of a proceeding that has a moral and ethical dimension. Even the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would go as far as that, although he might not wish to add the word “spiritual”.

I point out that some among us are atheists—that is, we do not believe in a supreme being who is directing our procedures and telling us how to behave—but we believe that there are moral and ethical codes that should be common to the whole of humanity and we want them to be taught in assembly. We want children to have, for example, the virtue of tolerance, which has been mentioned. How can we have tolerance when children are separated into different kinds of religions, even if, as the Minister has just said—

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords—

[Lord Avebury]

I am in the middle of a sentence. I shall give way when I finish it. How can we have tolerance when children are separated into different kinds of religions, even if, as the Minister has just said, there can be a determination that allows the act of worship to be of a non-Christian character, which just means that it will presumably be of a Muslim or Hindu character, thus separating the children who belong to those schools even further from their contemporaries in the mainstream Church of England schools?

[Lord McAvoy]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will his tolerance for other people’s points of view stretch to engaging with schools that have the type of collective activity to which he is objecting? Would he care to consult them and get some measure of how they feel before we get to Report?

[Lord Avebury]

I was going to come on to the question of who is entitled to make this decision. I do not believe that there can be, as I think the noble Lord said, a diktat from on top, which is what we have in the Education Act 1944. This should be a matter for the schools themselves, and they should consult the parents and the pupils. If you want localism, if you want the decision to be made freely by the people who are intimately concerned with it, the pupils and their parents, this is the right way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 138. I like faith schools and I want parents to be able to choose them, whether or not they are of that faith. I share the distress of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, at the idea that schools become ghettoes for their own religion. Wherever that is widely practised it has been disastrous. Northern Ireland in particular and also the west of Scotland are examples of where this has caused and causes continuing division and strife that we do not see in the rest of the UK.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am loath to sound authoritative on the English and Welsh system, but I know something of the system in the west of Scotland. It is a complete travesty to say that the tragic history of the west of Scotland has been caused by, exacerbated by or would be solved by the removal of Catholic schools. If he has some time, I will give the noble Lord a history lesson on prejudice in the west of Scotland.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I would be delighted to share tea with the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, if I get the chance, but I would say that those in charge of a number of Scottish universities have spent many years refusing me information about which schools their students attend on the grounds that, if it is known that a student at a Scottish university attended a Catholic school, they would be subject to discrimination and harm as a result. If that is the kind of society which the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, is happy with, I differ from him.

I think that separate education is not desirable. On the other hand, I recognise that a religious school with no pupils who follow that particular creed would be a very strange animal indeed. I propose a compromise which has been reached on a large scale in the Anglican community that schools should be open for around half their pupils—in many cases more—whose parents are not of that religion but who accept that they want an education in that religious tradition.

[Lord McAvoy]

The noble Lord’s amendment states:

“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an Academy with a religious character may require all pupils admitted to the school to take a full part in the school’s religious life”.

Has he any idea how that would work in practice? Does he realize the division and animosity that that could cause by imposing the ethic on a Catholic school which now becomes 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent mixed variety? What right would the Catholic 50 per cent have to impose their point of view on the 50 per cent who are not Catholic? How would that be policed?

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, that phrase comes from the admissions criteria for Ampleforth, which is a well known Catholic school, where it works extremely well. Parents who want to send their children to a Catholic school should accept that it is a Catholic school and that it will educate its children in the Catholic religion. I send my children to an Anglican school. I am not religious myself, but I entirely accept that my child is being brought up within the context of school as an Anglican. I value that tradition of education. Again, it is perhaps an illustration of the conditions in the west of Scotland that such a thing is inconceivable to the noble Lord. For me, it is just ordinary. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Many of us have a strong interest in faith schools. I speak as a practising Anglican. I am heartened that on the whole the debate has not reinforced the view that we would take comfort from the ghettoisation of schools. They should be able to exist in our society, give of their own merits and receive of their own experiences from other citizens of different faiths. Some of the most impressive schools that I have seen—without exception, as it happens—have been Anglican schools that have a high Muslim component because that is what has happened to the demography in that particular area.

I want not to prolong the debate but to widen it slightly into a different consideration that can also be met by Amendment 138, to which I am sympathetic. If I may avert to the interest of noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, in wider issues of community cohesion, on which she has a strong record, many of us would be committed to that.

It has always seemed to me that the debates that we have about multiculturalism are often misconceived. The ideal that I want is people who believe in something and have a body of beliefs that they exemplify and wish to express along with fellow believers in their own school. They thereby have an ability to look within their own community but at the same time reach outwards to other communities. They are not doing it in an exclusive or inhibitory way; they are saying, “This is what we stand for but we listen to you, respect you, welcome you in and enjoy having you as participants”. I therefore feel strongly that as our society evolves we ought to be getting to a position where people may have their inner beliefs that will differ in many ways, or their own particular characteristics, but at the same time they are prepared to share a common citizenship, a common space and a common respect. The way that these amendments are conceived may help us to lead towards that. There should be no ghettoisation but a sensible inclusion—that is the way that I hope this debate is now going.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, as he says in this debate. My noble friend Lady Massey has cited Northern Ireland. If you want, and I normally do, we can go back to 1176 when the Welsh allowed Pembroke, otherwise known as Strongbow, to first invade Ireland, and that was the start of the Troubles—English and Norman interference in Ireland. It is a long-term issue.

What is coming across to me from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and certainly from my noble friend Lady Massey, is that faith schools—especially Catholic schools, it seems—are an inherently bad thing; they do bad things and they are not good for society. Among colleagues here there is a certain detachment from reality because that is not how they are perceived outside. It is completely unfair—

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords—

[Lord McAvoy]

If you will let me finish, it is completely unfair to portray them in the way that they are being portrayed here at times.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I think he will find when he reads Hansard tomorrow that at no point have I said the things that he is accusing me of.

[Lord McAvoy]

It may be that the noble Baroness has not heard me clearly. I am saying that inherent in these amendments is the idea that faith schools are a bad thing. Folk may not like that, but that is what is coming across loud and clear. For instance, there has been no answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who quickly picked up the point that the trait of moving house is not confined to faith schools or Catholic schools; it seems to be a trait throughout a whole host of schools. Yet, there has been no mention of that or any drawing back of the implication that this happens only in Catholic schools.

Society is evolving. Last week, I revised my opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I certainly remember him from the 1980s and I did not like his politics, but last week I thought that he was great. However, this week I have revised my revision and he is back to being a bad man again. Certainly for 800 years we kept the faith in Ireland, I can tell you. In saying that there should not be any more faith schools, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, makes a point and he is asking us to trumpet it. I think I mentioned last week that there is a fairly large Roman Catholic school in Scotland where, if my memory serves me correctly, about 10 per cent of the pupils are Muslim. It is working and it is great—it is doing well for everyone.

I have mentioned the phrase “detachment of reality”. I say to noble Lords who have tabled these amendments and who have spoken in the manner that they have: let society evolve and let things happen. No one should take active steps against what they see as the badness in faith schools. I say to noble Lords in all sincerity, honesty and frankness that the more you try to enforce this, the higher the wall will go up, because there has been a lack of trust that is based on British history over the past 500 years. I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall not go into all that, but that lack of trust is based on 500 years of British society. One thinks particularly of the Catholic community. If noble Lords try to enforce it, it just will not happen. They should go the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, of letting things evolve, although I disassociate myself from his wish not to build faith schools. On the other hand, if you make a big issue of it, that may happen anyway, and if so, and if that is what people want, that will be a good thing. However, I do not accept that faith schools are a bad thing.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is completely unworkable. It would cause strife and animosity and would make the original ethos of the school seem dictatorial towards the new component of the school. That would take us back. I say again that if we want to move forward, the way ahead is consensus. We should convince people that going in a particular direction is right. Go that way and all the community will come together. Go in the opposite direction, and the community will be divided.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I am as eager as anyone else to help the Committee to move on quickly, so I shall be brief. I was not going to intervene at this stage but, having been Minister for Education in Northern Ireland for two and a half years, and during my watch having authorised the institution of the Lagan integrated school, I feel that I have an interest that I should put before your Lordships.

The most heartening things that I have heard have come from my right reverend friend the Bishop. As I see it, the process of integration is already going on in established faith schools. It seems to me that what we do not want behind the movement for these amendments is an animosity towards religion. We want an animosity in favour of good education, and here I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said. In other words, a good school is always going to be a magnet. Whatever its theological background, people are going to move there to get their children into it, and the same applies to a school that is not a faith school. You are not going to end that with any amendment of this sort. It is in fact competition working its influence on the educational market. Therefore, I say only that if we are to have amendments at Report they should be designed to foster, rather than smother, the movement to inclusivity within faith schools that we have seen, and which I believe to be thoroughly healthy.

Education Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

It was not as good as mine. I remember a story told by a very humorous Roman Catholic nun. She was on a health education course with me some years ago. She said that she had been told to say that a girl should, when she danced with a boy, have the width of a telephone directory between them and that, if she got into difficulty, she should yell, “Stop it! I am a young Ursuline”. Incidentally, some excellent PSHE education takes place in Catholic schools, to which I shall come in a minute.

So I say yes to the amendments, but I want some modification. The notion of what I call the spiral curriculum gets lost in the amendments. By spiral curriculum, I mean teaching an issue very simply when a child is young and going into more detail as the child matures. Young children are able to grasp what foods are good for them and which are not without going into detail of nutritional bases and chemical formulae. Young children can explore the notion of friendships and good, respectful relationships without details of sex—they would not grasp them anyway, and that would be inappropriate teaching.

I remember the story of a little boy asking his mother where he came from. She thought, “Right, this is the teaching moment”, and went into stories about daddy's seeds and mummy’s seeds meeting. After a while, the little boy said, “Yes, but did I come from Birmingham or Luton?”. When I was teaching my two year-old grandson to play cricket, I did not toss a Michael Holding fast ball at him first thing: they were gentle lobs. Then they got faster. My point is that I would not exclude any stage of education from certain teaching; I would make the teaching suitable to the child and then build on what had been learnt. That is why a curriculum of PSHE is necessary—just like in maths or English—which builds on knowledge and skills that children learn gradually.

The other area where I have some difficulty with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is in paragraphs (7) to (11) concerning faith schools and SRE. Although faith schools will still be required to teach SRE, they are exempted from teaching it in a balanced way which promotes equity and diversity. The amendment would give faith schools the right to allow the tenets of religion to override the principles that must guide the teaching of SRE in other maintained schools. That could lead to narrower teaching. The amendment tabled by me and my noble friends Lord Knight and Lady Gould would not prevent faith schools teaching SRE in ways that reflect their religious character, but it would guarantee pupils a right to teaching about all aspects of PSHE.

To return to Roman Catholic nuns, I have talked to many of them on courses. They say, “We can be very clear about our boundaries in what we teach in personal, social and health education. It does not mean that we cannot talk about contraception, abortion, homosexuality and what they mean. It means that we must give the perspective of our faith on those issues”. How sensible. That is all I am looking for.

We all have a particular perspective on all sorts of issues. We can make that perspective clear to young people. However, they should be given full and comprehensive education. I am a humanist, but I believe that young people should be taught about different faiths and cultures. Otherwise, we are in the dangerous territory of indoctrination—a word disliked by my noble friend Lord McAvoy. Indoctrination is not education. Education seeks to bring out the best in young people.

I say to the Minister: please say yes to the principle of having PSHE as a statutory right for all pupils of whatever age or faith. Let us get the appropriate curriculum and teaching sorted out.

[Lord McAvoy]

Can my noble friend give us a definition of what she considers to be education and what she considers to be indoctrination?

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I certainly can. If the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, were here, she would give the example of a particular school where they learned the Koran for about 80 per cent of the curriculum, and very little else. I think that is indoctrination. Education should consider all aspects of a particular faith, of other faiths, of personal, social and health education, without restriction. Trying to persuade young people to adhere to a particular thing, which they may not be ready to adhere to anyway, may influence them in unfortunate ways.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. I am sure she is fed up with me, but perhaps I could test her patience further. She considers indoctrination to be a set percentage of the curriculum by a Catholic school, for instance. Does she not accept that parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools or a particular faith school? I cannot grasp why people making legislation should restrict people’s choices. People are not dragged into these faith schools. People choose to send their children to these faith schools.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, with all due respect, I think my noble friend is misunderstanding me. I am not saying that parents should not send their children to the school of their choice. All I am saying is that, as a parent, I would not wish my child to have his or her education limited to a particular doctrine or creed or particular way of teaching or particular aspects of teaching. I would want my child to have a very broad education. Earlier I gave the example of a Roman Catholic school where the nuns say they will teach in a broad sense but within the ethos of their own faith. That is fine by me.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I should like to make three brief points. First, I join in the general applause for the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on the application of the law of diminishing returns in this area: the more you specify, the more you tend to lose. My second point may also relate to later debates. As far as possible in education, we should try to maintain one framework that covers all schools. There may be some adaptation in schools of different character, but it is in the spirit of our educational system to aim for a framework that brings a Church of England school, a Roman Catholic school, a Jewish school and a local authority maintained school under the same umbrella. We are one society, and it is important to make that point in our education system.

Finally, and perhaps more significantly, I suppose that a Bishop would have to comment on sex and relationships, but sometimes I think that people get obsessed with this area. Generally, the debate has been skewed too much towards it. I also think that linking sex and relationships, while I understand entirely why we do it—we do not want to disentangle sexual relationships from relationships—we do not want to get into the way of thinking that all relationships are therefore fundamentally sexualised as an outcome. I read Frank Field’s report to the Government on children in our society, which is a serious issue. Surveys show that one of the things that children most want to learn is how to be good parents. There is something of a lacuna in these proposals in the area of what I would call parenthood, quite apart from the issues of sexualised or sexually related relationships. I rather agree with the right honourable gentleman down the corridor that what is key to our society is how we hand on civilisation to the next generation. There is some wisdom in the observation in his report that children want more than anything else to learn to be good parents. However, I do not see that coming through, and I certainly do not want to see this education reduced to sex and relationships.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, all the contributions have reflected positive attitudes and have contained many positive words. The danger is that if someone like myself dissents from what I consider to be the main thrust of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Massey, they are portrayed as dinosaurs, male chauvinists and all the litany of abusive terms that suggest discrimination against women. However, let me declare my credentials from when I served in another place because they will totally contradict that kind of attitude towards me. I voted for the equal age of consent. I voted for civil partnerships. Even when there was a free vote, I voted for every single equality measure. It was not a case of being whipped to vote for something because the Government said so. I hope that if that attitude has been inculcated, it will have been quickly dispelled by my record. Perhaps I would carry more credibility with my noble friend Lady Massey if she took into account the fact that the Roman Catholic church attacked me for those votes, but as far as I am concerned, it establishes my independence.

I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to turn to page 6 of the Marshalled List, which sets out the proposed new section. Subsection (6) states:

“The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that”—

as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment. Subsection (7) also has three paragraphs.

However, I worry about the practicality of that. The practicality is that new Section 85B(8) says,

“Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9) from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious character”.

Who decides? Who judges? Who makes a judgment if someone objects to the way in which that has been done at a school?

[Baroness Walmsley]

I think the answer is that a school does; and it would be held to account for that by Ofsted and by individual parents. If individual parents did not like what was going on, they would retain the right to withdraw their child. Of course, in all the best schools parents are involved anyway in the design of the curriculum covering sensitive issues like this.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that she supports the rights of parents. If parents send their children to a particular school, she will obviously support them in that, and she will also support them in ensuring that the ethos of that school is maintained, especially one of a religious nature.

When it comes to the new section in Amendment 90, the difficulty is that I maintain—I will no doubt encourage further contributions with this—that the common threads of the amendments are designed to minimise, damage and gradually remove the religious element of faith schools.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again but I think that he has misunderstood a great deal of what I was saying. I am not trying to damage the ethos of faith schools. I am saying that the ethos of faith schools may well exist but children have the right to know about other faiths. I was talking today to a friend from Northern Ireland who said, “Look at what damage has been done in Northern Ireland by people not learning about other faiths”. I say no more.

[Lord McAvoy]

That is the second time that my noble friend has accused me of misunderstanding her. I fully confess that I have a very limited formal education but I do not have limited intelligence, and it is my responsibility to make a judgment that I see a thread in maybe one or two contributions from my noble friend, seeing as how she has introduced this subject. It is my opinion that there is a common thread to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend that are designed to—I withdraw the word “damage”—minimise or devalue the existence and practice of faith schools.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but could he please be specific about what it is in my amendments that seeks to devalue faith schools?

[Lord McAvoy]

I said there was a thread running through the amendments.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise for intervening on the noble Lord, but we have a group coming later that is all to do with faith and religious worship. I think the comments that he is making might possibly be more appropriate when we come to the next group. Given the lateness of the hour, we might perhaps let the Opposition and the Minister wind up this particular debate, but focusing on PSHE rather than the broader issues of faith.

[Lord McAvoy]

Very briefly, in response to the Minister, I have not said much different from my noble friend Lady Massey, so it seems to me a strange distinction that she is making. But if it is the will of the Committee that I shut up and sit down, tell me. It is? That is fine.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I am not going to sum up on what has been a wide-ranging debate; I just want to make a quick comment. First, I want to put on record my support and that of my noble friend for the amendment on PSHE in the name of my noble friend Lady Massey, and those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Secondly, I was disappointed that such provisions disappeared from our legislation in the wash-up before the general election, because we were proceeding with this. Thirdly, these amendments appeared in our legislation following a wide-ranging review that my noble friend Lord Knight conducted over a long period and which involved all the faith schools, other schools and lots of interested parties. It reached a remarkable consensus on the way forward. Provisions similar to these amendments appeared in our legislation. I should like to ask the Minister: given the progress that was made, what else could the review that this Government are now carrying out possibly be looking at? Could they not move a little quicker to get these provisions into legislation, given that that work was already completed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

I accept what the noble Baroness has heard, but it is not my understanding that that is the case. However, I am sure that we can look at it outside the Committee.

What I am really saying is that we want children to be learning-ready. PSHE is not an extra subject that I am trying to put into the curriculum. I agree absolutely with the Minister that we need to slim the curriculum down. However, PSHE is not any old subject; it is a fundamental underpinning. None of us ladies would go around without foundation garments because they make our fashions look better on the outside. It is really important that children have the skills and understanding that enable them to benefit from all the other subjects that we decide that they must learn—the core ones they must learn or the additional ones that they may take.

I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is coming from. I would not want to load the curriculum with a lot of extra subjects, but he did make the point that we do not do this very well. That is exactly why I would like to make PSHE statutory. People would then train as specialists. As the noble Lord rightly said, without training, some of these areas are difficult to teach. I myself was thrown in at the deep end—many teachers are. I would certainly have benefited from training but, if that were a statutory part of the national curriculum, Ofsted would have to inspect it at every school level.

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for raising the subject of parenthood. As far as I am concerned, that would come into the relationships and sex part of PSHE. Parents have relationships between each other and with their children. It is particularly their relationship with their children that would be important there. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and his passion for getting young people taught some parenting skills. That is very important.

Finally, on the voting record of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I am quite sure that he would want to support my amendments. I reassure him that what he seeks would not be precluded by my three amendments in any way whatever.

[Lord McAvoy]

I accept the noble Baroness’s point of view.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. That is a good point on which to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Education Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Howells of St Davids]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do this because most people have concentrated on the curriculum but I would like to speak a little about the children who will receive the curriculum. My understanding is that teachers act in loco parentis. One of the most important tasks of parents is to love and nurture their children in all the many guises of that task. As educators, one would expect teachers to assume the role designated to them as they often spend more time with children than parents can afford to do in today’s world. One way of doing that is to ensure that all children are offered the choice of an enriching curriculum, as outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment. The amendment outlines many areas in which teachers have an opportunity to see the child in his or her entirety.

The children in our schools have issues when they come to school. Some are angry through having knowledge of terrible deeds, some are fearful, some are traumatised by the loss of loved ones, some are insecure and some are reluctant to engage. Surely, not being able to find a safe, reliable place in which to express their feelings will not enhance their talents. Many of the areas listed in the amendment would, if adopted, make a school a beneficial place for children in today’s world. We may need a charter for learners when looking at the sort of curriculum we should be providing.

Teachers should be able to fulfil a parental role. That is something that we need to look at very carefully when we are talking about a curriculum for schools in today’s world. When children are at play or are performing tasks they enjoy, you get more from them, learn more about what they are doing and are really in a position to guide them. Looking at a child playing a game, playing music or talking about it shows us the way to build the curriculum.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly as I am well aware of the frustration of the government whip, who may feel that there is a filibuster going on. God forbid that that should be the case. I have no experience of the English education system as I was born, went to school and have spent all my life in Scotland. However, I appreciate the principles behind the amendment and this section of the Bill. Everybody wants a broad balance in the curriculum; that is motherhood and apple pie. I was struck by the account of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, of a meeting on the national curriculum, where all the different lobbies tried to get their own obsession or point of view across.

I certainly favour having a core curriculum, but the details of the amendment are such that it may impose restrictions on the ability of faith schools to have the flexibility to take account of the core curriculum but at the same time pursue the ethos of their faith in their schools. It seems to me that this amendment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

Can I ask whoever has got that telephone next to their microphone to move it because those of us using the loop are being drowned out by the sound of their telephone sending wireless signals?

[Lord McAvoy]

I hear what my noble friend said. She is a very formidable person and I have some trepidation in having a difference of opinion with her. Nevertheless, I remind her in all benevolence and kindness that she used the expression “indoctrination” in the same context as faith schools. A lot of people would take exception to that. I certainly take exception to that because I do not believe that faith schools indoctrinate. I doubt that a faith school, irrespective of whether it is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist, would accept that it should have a curriculum and teach no faith. I can give an example of that because faith schools were mentioned by the mover of the amendment. In Scotland, in one of the biggest Roman Catholic schools I am told that between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the school population are Muslim children because it is a part of Glasgow where there is a high Muslim population. It seems to me that there is no indoctrination going on there. In my opinion, and I am entitled to put my point of view, this amendment would impose restrictions on faith schools and limit their ability to tailor their curriculum, not to tamper with the core curriculum or to ignore it, but to build their curriculum around their faith and ethos. I oppose the amendment.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I will be brief in my response as I am very conscious that there are a number of noble Lords waiting to move amendments. The issue at heart in this typically wide-ranging and thought-provoking debate is quite simple and is one that we have debated many times before; namely, what is the proper amount of prescription that there should be? It does not follow that the only way to demonstrate the value of a subject is that it should be in the national curriculum. Not everything needs to be in it to show its worth. I agree very much with the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made at the beginning about the importance of art, music and sport. I agree with her wholeheartedly on that. It is obviously the case that maintained schools, CTCs and academies are required by law or through their funding agreements to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. I would not want schools to provide a narrow education.

I do not agree with the criticisms of the EBacc as a narrowing measure. As noble Lords know, what is driving us on the EBacc is the simple fact that at the moment 4 per cent of children on free school meals have those EBacc subject qualifications, which are the qualifications most likely to get them to a top university. It is about trying to redress the balance and give some of those children more of a chance. It is not about wanting to narrow the range of subjects that people have. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, pointed out most forcefully, and my noble friend Lord Baker also made the point, over the years, the national curriculum has come to cover more and more subjects, to prescribe more and more outcomes and to take up more and more school time. We want to move away from that approach to give teachers greater freedom to design a curriculum that meets the needs of their pupils, which is why we are reviewing the national curriculum to ensure that in future it does not absorb the overwhelming majority of teaching time in schools and provides more space. Then the important subjects that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, talked about will have more time and space to be delivered in the appropriate way by the staff who know their pupils in their schools. There is an important distinction to be made between the national curriculum and the wider school curriculum. We want to get away from the approach that just because a topic or subject is important, it has to be specified in the national curriculum, or that because it is not in the national curriculum, that means that it is not important or should not be taught. Neither of those positions is true.

The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked specifically about the national curriculum. It might be helpful if I reply briefly. However, if I can let her have a fuller reply on where we have got to with the national curriculum review and on some of her questions about the terms of reference—where we have got to and how we are going forward—which we can circulate more widely, I shall do so. In essence, it is being conducted in two phases. The first phase is drafting new programmes of study for English, maths, science and PE, which we have confirmed will remain statutory in maintained schools at all four key stages. I think that that was the assurance that my noble friend Lord Moynihan was seeking. This first phase is also considering which other subjects, if any, should be part of the national curriculum in future and at which key stages. We expect to announce our proposals from this phase early next year. Then they will follow a full public consultation on those proposals.

In the second phase, we will consider the content and design of the programmes of study for any other subjects that are to remain within the national curriculum and whether non-statutory guidance should be produced to support the continued teaching of any other subjects or topics. We are being advised by an expert panel as well as by an advisory committee consisting mainly of successful head teachers and including representation from higher education and employers. The terms of reference which the noble Baroness asked for are on our website, but I will send them to her. I hope that soon—she will know this because we have discussed it over many months—I will be able to let her have the remit of the PSHE review, which she also asked me about.

We have spoken briefly about sport. She asked me specifically about the Chance to Shine initiative. Over the period 2009-13, the ECB is receiving £38 million from Sport England to support its whole sport plan, of which £7.2 million is being invested directly into Chance to Shine, which I think is a small increase.

We had a brief conversation about Singapore and what it can teach us. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley pointed out, it is the case that life skills are taught. As it happens, it also does the equivalent of the EBacc, which suggests that these things are not incompatible and which is where we want to be. That is all I want to say in response. We will come back to some of these other issues in further groups, which will raise important issues. But, at heart, it is our view that boiling down what is in the national curriculum—providing more space, being less prescriptive and looking to professionals who know more about what they are doing in the classroom than do Ministers—is the right way forward. With that, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.