Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate, as others have, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on bringing her Bill to a Second Reading. Of course, as we have discussed during this debate, she introduced a similar Bill in 2021. We all love a tryer and there is real benefit in political life in persistence in the areas that you believe in. We all recognise her commitment to making changes to policy on collective worship in schools. Of course, other noble Lords have also had an encore today in their support for the Bill, including my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett—whom I also commend for her commitment this morning to Private Members’ Bills. We have had a good debate today, with others making different points. My noble friend Lord Davies made a strong case on what is, I think, his first appearance in support of such a Bill.

Having said that, and despite the noble Baroness’s persistence, I am afraid that, although I have sympathy with many of the arguments made, I express reservations on behalf of the Government about the Bill. First, on collective worship, which many noble Lords have focused on, I believe that it fosters reflection on belief and societal values. As several noble Lords have said, existing legislation allows schools considerable flexibility to meet their pupils’ spiritual needs while promoting the school’s ethos and values. Despite Britain’s increasingly diverse religious landscape, Christianity remains the principal religion.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I also went back to the Hansard report of the debate in 2021. I was struck by the arguments made by my noble friend Lady Morris, who saw both sides of the argument but made a strong argument at that point about the social significance of the festivities and worship that often brings people together across the country and at particular times of both celebration and difficulty. This was also the point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made. As others noted, it was proven that she was not alone in the arguments that she was making about collective worship.

I accept the right reverend Prelate’s observation that fewer people would describe themselves as practising Christians—I think she said that “fewer of us” are practising Christians; I presume she was not referring to the Bishops at that point—but there nevertheless remains, as other noble Lords have said, some benefit in the idea of acts of collective worship.

However, it is completely right that there is flexibility for exemptions within the legislation. As has already been stated, non-religious schools may seek exemptions if their community predominantly follows another faith. Although current law does not provide for non-religious alternatives, students over 16 and parents of younger pupils retain the right of unconditional withdrawal from collective worship, which gives them an element of choice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and another noble Lord—I am sorry, I have forgotten who—also raised a point about the age at which pupils may exercise a right of withdrawal and referenced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is our view that 16 is an appropriate age to have the right to withdraw from collective worship. This is in line with English case law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and we believe it balances the rights of parents and of children. It is consistent with the age at which they can make other decisions on matters affecting their lives, such as consenting to medical treatment, consenting to sexual activity or consenting to get married or register a civil partnership.

There was a strong consensus in the debate on the need to ensure that our schools are teaching the spiritual, moral, social, cultural and other inclusive values that various noble Lords identified. The Bill itself proposes replacing daily collective worship in non-religious schools with assemblies focused on that spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. I recognise the concern to ensure that that is being provided for children in all schools. There is a consensus across the House today on the benefit of that.

However, as others have also said, under the Education Act 2002, schools must already promote SMSC development through various means, including the basic and national curricula. Collective worship is one avenue, but there are many others—such as religious education, history, citizenship and the arts—that also develop spiritual, moral, social and cultural education, and provide opportunities for pupils to reflect on their beliefs and the world around them.

Furthermore, schools can already hold assemblies focused on that development alongside collective worship if they choose, and many already do. I suspect some of the examples used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, are already happening in many schools where, when students are brought together for assemblies, there is a wide range of activities, sometimes alongside collective worship but certainly not involving only collective worship. Therefore, the flexibility to enhance pupils’ spiritual and moral growth already exists.

On fundamental values, state-funded schools are also required to promote fundamental British values. We had a very good discussion about this in a recent debate on a Private Member’s Bill. Schools, whether through citizenship or in other places, are promoting democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect for diverse faiths and beliefs—which is important here, as some have suggested that the current law would alienate or make more difficult respect for the diversity of faiths and beliefs in our schools. Once again, these values tend to be taught across the breadth of the curriculum as well, and are reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies and deepened through carefully planned opportunities. All of us would hope that our schools are places where there is respect for the diversity of faiths and for those who have no faith. I have confidence that that is the case in our schools.

Other noble Lords mentioned the need for reinforcing shared values of respect, understanding and kindness. That is of course also done in relationships, sex and health education, which equips students with the tools to challenge stereotypes, understand diverse perspectives and form healthy, respectful relationships. Together, these approaches foster an environment of greater tolerance, where differences are embraced and mutual respect flourishes. So, regardless of what noble Lords feel about collective worship, I do not think it would be fair to say that the current legislative situation with respect to collective worship prevents the development of all the other very important learning that noble Lords have rightly identified, and nor does it mean that our schools are not inclusive or not respectful of those with a whole range of faiths or in fact none.

The Bill proposes replacing collective worship in non-religious schools with mandatory daily assemblies promoting spiritual, moral and social values. It is probably worth noting that the Bill requires that to be delivered through daily assemblies. The definition of collective worship does not strictly require an assembly, as such. It could be carried out in classes, or through hymns, prayers or other forms of reflection. In this legislation, there is at least the risk of a greater burden or responsibility on schools. This may be what the noble Baroness intends, but would certainly potentially be the case. If collective worship is already infrequent in schools, requiring daily assemblies may impose an unwanted and unnecessary burden. Additionally, requiring religious schools to provide meaningful alternatives to withdrawn students introduces questions of implementation. What constitutes equal educational worth and how long should these assemblies last? The diversity of collective worship practices makes a requirement to organise an alternative potentially complex and onerous for schools.

In summary, I have listened carefully to the debate, which reflected a wide range of views both in support of the Bill and not. The Government are not persuaded at this time that there is a need to amend the current legislation on collective worship but very much accept the arguments made about the need for our schools to be inclusive and adaptable, supporting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. I am very grateful to noble Lords today and for the opportunity brought forward by this legislation to be able to debate this, and to be absolutely clear about that for all.