HC Deb 05 April 1944 vol 398 cc2130-42
Mr. Butler

I beg to move, in page 89, line 10, to leave out "appearing to the authority to represent," and to insert "representing."

This is a comparatively simple change in English, and should not excite interest in the Committee. It is being made because there was some doubt in denominational quarters and in the world of teachers how the representative committees could be got together. If the Committee will look at page 948 of the amendment paper they will see a further Amendment—in page 89, line 21—and they will see that the two Amendments, taken together, provide that the authority shall take some care, as is prescribed in the second Amendment, to see that these committees are representative. I shall be very greatly obliged if we can take the next Amendment when it comes as consequential upon the first Amendment.

Mr. Henry Brooke (Lewisham, West)

I should like to express appreciation of the action of the Minister in adopting the Amendment which I originally put upon the Order Paper. It seems, as he says, a small change in words, but it will serve to allay some real concern which has been felt, and personally I think that this Amendment, together with the one which he has described as consequential, will deal with the matter very satisfactorily.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 89, line 21, at the end, insert: (3) Before appointing a person to represent any denomination or associations as a member of any such committee a local education authority shall take all reasonable steps to assure themselves that he is representative thereof, but no proceedings under this Schedule shall be invalidated on the ground that a member of such a committee did not represent the denomination or associations which he was appointed to represent unless it is shown that the local education authority failed to take such steps as aforesaid."—[Mr. Butler.]

Mr. Butler

I beg to move, in page 90, line 5, to leave out "an impartial person," and to insert "a body of persons."

The Amendment, which is the first of five consequential Amendments, although requiring very little alteration in drafting, means that the impartial person who was to have drawn up alone in solitary splendour that agreed syllabus hi case of failure on the part of other people, is replaced by a body of persons. That is thought to be a better finale to the Bill than to leave the whole thing to one person at the end. This body of persons has been welcomed by the denominations and all interests concerned, including the teachers, because it will mean that a body of persons can be established which may well come to act in the world of religious instruction in the school in an advisory capacity which may help to guide us round some difficult corners. The constitution of it will have to be discussed, but I think the Committee will agree that it would be unwise to leave the task of framing an agreed syllabus to one person and that it would be better to substitute instead a body of representative persons. If I undertake that these will be representative I shall be able to consult the wisdom of the Committee at the next stage as to how it is to be constituted.

Mr. Brooke

If this indeed is the grand finale of the Bill, I should like to take the opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would like, at any rate, to say that the profound care and wisdom which he has lavished on the Bill have been shown not least in the way that here he has taken the initiative in meeting another matter—which seemed to many people to be unworkable as the Bill was first drafted. The proceedings in Committee have shown how few impartial people there are—

The Chairman

As a matter of Order and custom, it has not been the practice in Committee in the House itself, although it has been so on occasions in Committee upstairs, to make congratulatory speeches. We all appreciate the good intentions of the hon. Member and no doubt other hon. Members are concerned and would wish to join in, but it is not in Order, so I hope that hon. Members will relieve me of the responsibility of ruling them out of Order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page go, line 7, leave out "person," and insert "body of persons."

In line 10, leave out "him," and insert "it."

In line 11 leave out "he," and insert "it."

In line 12, leave out "him," and insert "it."—[Mr. Butler.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill."

Sir George Hume (Greenwich)

I am sorry at this late stage to have to raise a point of very great importance, one of the most important points we have had. It will not take long, so hon. Members need not be anxious. The question is with reference to the syllabus. A great anxiety has been felt in many parts of the country as to what may be the contents of the syllabus. The Cambridgeshire syllabus is being cited constantly as a most admirable document. As a matter of fact, while the denominations have been quarrelling amongst themselves, and, finally, their leaders have come to an agreement, although we had a most impassioned speech in the House of Commons at an earlier stage in the Bill owing to the fact that an hon. Member did not think his denomination had got as much as it should—while that was going on, the very foundations of our Christian faith were being undermined.

In the syllabus to which I referred, and which is in use at many of the schools to-day; a whole portion is given up to the question of myth and legend. The Bible, instead of being explained, is being criticised. I will draw the attention of the Committee to one paragraph in that syllabus. It will show how far things have gone in the infiltration of modernism into our instruction. Here, for instance, dealing with the case of Isaiah's prophecy in Chapter 53—

Sir P. Hannon

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but will he tell the Committee from what document he is quoting?

Sir G. Hume

The Cambridgeshire syllabus.

Mr. Cove

Am I right in saying that the Church of England and the other religious bodies agreed to that syllabus in that locality?

Sir G. Hume

Yes.

Mr. Cove

The Church of England has agreed to it.

Sir G. Hume

That is just the point. They say here: It is not suggested that the writings of Isaiah pointed to Jesus of Nazareth but that Jesus found in the writer's conception of the suffering servant a new possibility in Messiah-ship through a life of redemptive suffering.

The Chairman

I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am afraid he is not in Order. The Schedule deals with the procedure of bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious instruction, and does not in any way deal with the contents of such a syllabus. I rather gathered that the hon. Member was speaking of content.

Sir G. Hume

I was only giving that as an example. I am not speaking for myself here. I am chairman of a very representative body of Christian societies who are extremely anxious on this point. They see what is being allowed in the schools now. They see what has been approved by the Church. I have here a list of the Committee who drew this up, and it includes leading ecclesiastics and leaders of the Free Churches. These people are supposed to teach the Christian religion, but here they are allowing something which undermines everything that we believe in and takes the whole of the supernatural out of the Scriptures.

The Chairman

I am again very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. He is entitled to discuss the question of the constitution of a conference to decide upon the syllabus, but not entitled to discuss the contents of such a syllabus. I hope that is clear.

Sir G. Hume

But what will be the position in the schools if such a syllabus is to be permitted? It is absolutely subversive of the fundamentals of our Christian faith. I have approached the President of the Board of Education on this matter. He knows all about it. I was not allowed to move an Amendment which I put down and what I am urging now is that, instead of referring to the syllabus right the way through, or putting some sort of check on active Christian matters being introduced into that syllabus, there will be some regard paid, because otherwise when the syllabus is drawn up there will be a struggle going on probably in every area in the country if anti-Christian teaching or teaching subversive of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is allowed to be introduced. The Bishop of Gloucester says: I have before me a report of a course of lectures designed to qualify teachers for the giving of religious instruction"—

The Chairman

I have already indicated to the hon. Member that he is entitled to comment on the constitution of the conference, but there is nothing in this Schedule regarding the particular form which the agreed syllabus should take. I hope he will appreciate that and realise that it is not in Order to continue the discussion on his present lines.

Sir G. Hume

Would it be in Order to ask how many members are to be appointed?

The chairman

That is certainly a question which the hon. Member might properly address to the Minister.

Sir G. Hume

In some way or other this matter will have to be brought up on the Report stage, because it cannot rest where it is. I do not know whether the Minister can help us in any way, but this is a fundamental matter. That there should be any risk of the State organising modernistic teaching in our schools would be very serious.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks

I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I believe that not only here, but outside, the principle which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) has been trying to mention is one which is widely felt. I believe, however, that the point about which he expressed so much anxiety has been very largely overcome by the Amendments which the Minister has himself moved to this Schedule. I hope that we may anticipate in future that the difficulties which have arisen in the past will be much less likely to arise.

Mr. Sorensen (Leyton, West)

I appreciate the great and sincere concern of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) and the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) feel about this matter, because, in one sense, this Schedule is perhaps the most important part of the Bill. It indicates exactly for what education really exists. We may build a clever structure, but if we do not know what to do with it when we have raised it we shall have to stand by and admire it until it falls down. A ship may be well equipped, but if it has no course to follow and no port at which to aim it drifts aimlessly in circles. I take it that the concern of the hon. Member for Greenwich was to try to indicate what he thought should be, not only the purport of the syllabus, but also the ethical significance and purport of the scholastic system itself. Catholics and Jews have decided in their own way how to implement that, but this Schedule deals with a large proportion of children and parents who are neither Catholics nor Jews nor, in fact, members of any particular Church. That is why I think consideration of the syllabus is of tremendous importance.

Although, normally, most people in the country are members of the Church of England, whether incidentally they be in His Majesty's Forces, or in His Majesty's prisons, they have, I am sorry to say, very little concern about this all important question. That is why I would like the Minister particularly to consider the question of who will serve on the conferences to decide the various syllabuses, and who will sit on the final arbitrating body if the local conferences cannot agree. I do not envy either body, but in regard to both we should be concerned not merely with the denominational or the teachers' view points, although of course, we must consider them.

If we take into consideration the fact that the great majority of parents do not belong to any denomination or, if they do, show no signs of earnestness about it, surely it would be reasonable and democratic to appoint to these conferences representatives of the general public. I do not believe it is impossible to secure such representatives. Men of such distinguished ethical eminence as Gilbert Murray and Julian Huxley would be barred either from local conferences or the arbitrating and decisive body. That is not only absurd but retrograde and. rather menacing. My interpretation of Christianity, I feel, is very different from that of the hon. Member for Greenwich but I view with great pleasure and a certain amount of inspiration the wider and more intelligent understanding of Biblical and religious matters that now obtains. I hail it with delight, because it means that we are making religion more intelligible. I ask the Minister to bear in mind, in appointments to these local conferences, that there should be included, not merely representatives of the denominations or the teaching profession, but of the general public who take that point of view. As I have said, large numbers of people profess very strong ethical and religious faith but are of no denomination and in days to come more and more of that type may exist.

I would enter a protest against the assumption that religious and ethically minded people must always be identified with some denomination—whether Baptists, Congregational or Church of England. There are also certain religious people belonging to the smaller denominations who have made valuable contributions, not only to our country's history but to the human race. There are members of the Society of Friends, Unitarians, scientific humanists such as those I have named, and the ethical body to which our one-time Member, the present Lord Snell, belongs. I saw in "The Times Educational Supplement" the other day that 90 per cent. of our teachers desire a syllabus that involves religious instruction but I am persuaded they mean by this one that is not primarily theological, but is ethical in its content. I submit, most earnestly, that the type of person we want on these conferences is the type which emphasises the ethical side of religion. Are there many here who will deny that young children if they are taught the famous historic creeds or the 39 Articles cannot possibly understand them?

The Chairman

The hon. Member is getting on to the content of the syllabuses. The constitution of the conferences is a matter to which he may refer, but not the content of the syllabus.

Mr. Sorensen

I am endeavouring to put a point of view which, however unpopular with some, is nevertheless going to be put, with your permission, Major Milner, because I represent large numbers of people who may not belong to denominations but are deeply concerned with this matter. I want to see a real religious faith taught in the schools, but it must be a sound faith which corresponds to human needs and is in accordance with modern thought. Surely I am as much entitled to express the need for representatives of that view to be on these conferences, as others are to advocate the older Churches and denominations. I have admitted that an agreed syllabus may be desirable. What I am arguing is that the agreed syllabus should be drawn up by those competent to draw it up in relation to modern needs. I urge again that we should see to it that those who are appointed are not identified merely with denominations. I am, of course, not suggesting that they should be kept out—let the best of them be brought along—but I urge strongly that those who represent the majority of people in the country, who are not atheists, but may be agnostics—most people are agnostic in some degree or other—should have their point of view expressed in the syllabus. I submit that the proposal is thoroughly in order and in the best interests of religion. If we can broaden our minds to include men of real ethical and religious outlook, with those I have named who represent this larger group, we are in that way, perhaps, helping to establish in our schools that real religious faith which, I trust and believe, will suffuse the whole of the schools, and in due course, help to create an outlook, no longer cynical, or negative, but possessing a real hope and belief in the future of humanity.

Mr. Woods (Finsbury)

I should like to support what my hon. Friend has said. We cannot discuss the outcome of the interesting series of theological and religious conferences which will be held up and down the country in consequence of the Bill. Everyone knows however how much will depend on the personnel composing them. I feel that there is a liability of these conferences not being properly balanced representations of the generally enlightened religious views of the country. I believe the actual members of denominations represent about 12 per cent., a mere fraction, of the whole community. We often talk as if this 10 or 12 per cent. had a monopoly of religion, which is a monstrous libel on the other 88 per cent. of the population. The fact is that many people who are unequalled in their religious conviction or devotion, have simply discarded some views which they think more or less obsolete. The merit of the Schedule is that it provides for movement. It puts upon a body of people an obligation to do something which will be representative of the age in which they live. I should like to see the idea suggested in the Amendment accepted. These people have children and they are concerned for religion. They are not denominationalists. They have moved with the times, very largely as the result of the education we have had, and I think they should have specific representation on these committees. It may be replied that it will be difficult to find an organisation which will appoint them, and that they will be included in paragraph (d), but even so, there will be no one appointed with a specific modern outlook. I should like the Minister to say that something will be done to ensure that men and women with this enlightened outlook on religion will make a contribution to these conferences.

We are, here, the heart of the British Empire, and although we speak of Christians they do not compose the majority of the population of the Empire. There are other great historic faiths, and I hope the day will come when there will be great mobility and we shall have the opportunity of knowing more of these various faiths. There will be no opportunity, unless something is done along the lines suggested, whereby the boys and girls attending our schools will have any knowledge of the faiths of their fellow citizens in the Empire. I should like to see the Minister take the line that instruction in such subjects as comparative religion, the history of religions and the development of religion should be included in the syllabus. What we get in the syllabus will depend largely on the people who draw it up. If the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate drafted it, anything that was tainted with modernism would be immediately crossed out, and the syllabus would be tied down to something which has served its day and generation. Modern science has given to enlightened people in a modern world, not less religion, but more religion. There is no guarantee in the provisions in the Schedule that the views of men and women who take a world outlook and an enlightened and tolerant view of all faiths will be expressed in these conferences unless, as we hope, among the teachers there may be a few who will take such a view. I am afraid, however, that they may be ruled out of order in the conferences and told that they are there merely as teachers to be consulted and that they will not be recognised as theologians or authorities on comparative religion. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again, so that we can have some guarantee that when children are taught religion they will have put before them a conception which is worthy of the modern world and of the Empire with its cosmopolitan population.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Mossley)

I want to point out to those Members of the Committee who do not perhaps know it that the last two speakers show themselves to be years and years behind the times. Their argument is that if denominationalists draw up the syllabus modernist thought will be eliminated. My own experience within the last 12 months in theological controversy is that the representation of modernist thought in all the Churches, and even in the hierarchies themselves, is amply provided for. The two hon. Members have never advanced during the last 25 or 30 years. They have taught the same sort of thing that their predecessors would have taught, the sort of stuff that H. G. Wells taught. Do they think for a moment that denominational representatives on such a body as this will leave out of account modernist thought, comparative religion and scholarship itself? If they do I can assure them that they are extremely and fatally mistaken. They themselves are far more likely to get obstinacy and a harking back to the controversies which are, thank Heaven, stilled and which took place long before modern physics was thought of and when Huxley was the god of physical scientists. Scientific thought has developed to such an extent that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in the philosophies of those persons who were mentioned by name by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. Cove

This is a most unexpected place for such a controversy to turn up. "The wind bloweth where it listeth." The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) has raised some very deep and important questions, but they must be settled outside the Committee. The Government have said to the religious bodies—although I profoundly disagree with the principle—"Get together, you who are interested in religious teaching, and frame a syllabus." The Church of England, the local authorities, the teachers and the Nonconformists—I speak from memory as to the representative bodies—came together. The State said, through my right hon. Friend: Agree upon a religious syllabus"— which is now called the agreed syllabus—"and I, representing the State, will enforce it."

Frankly I cannot see what else the right hon. Gentleman could do. If there is a quarrel among religious bodies as to what should be included in that syllabus, the quarrel should take place and be settled outside the purview of the Government and of the State. I hope it will be, anyhow. The Government cannot enforce views upon dissident bodies and minorities. I do not see how they can, unless we are getting to the totalitarian State. The State has said that it will make the agreed syllabus enforceable in the schools of the country, and I do not see why those who support religious teaching should quarrel with that statement. The Church of England has made its mark on the agreed syllabus, and the Cambridge and all the other syllabuses have had their influence; so have the teachers, the local authorities, and the representatives of Nonconformity. Therefore, I cannot gee what else the right hon. Gentleman could do, so long as those are the conditions, but say: "We will accept the agreed syllabus, and put it into force."

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Butler

I waited until the hon. Members who had risen collectively had resumed their seats. I am sure that if any others want Ito take part in the Debate we shall be only too glad to hear them. I feel that the Committee is desirous now of getting the Seventh Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) raised a point on which I have been in correspondence with his friends. I have said in that correspondence—I say this for the sake of public opinion outside—that if one were to read the full text of the Cambridge syllabus one would gain rather a different impression from that which the hon. Member has put to the Committee. I am sure he wanted to put a sincere point of view to the Committee, and I answer him with equal sincerity by saying that if he will read pages 136 and 137 of the Cambridge syllabus, I feel that he will have less disquietude about the references to the Bible than he indicated in his remarks. In any case I hope that a further study of that syllabus and its intentions will quiet his mind. There is no desire that he should be unduly disquieted in this matter.

Mr. Sorensen

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are some Members of this House and others who do not want any kind of modern interpretation of the Bible?

Mr. Butler

I am coming to that next.

The Chairman

That question does not arise. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will set his usual good example.

Mr. Butler

I was setting a good example, Major Milner, in confining myself to the pages of the syllabus, though I am in the position now that public opinion will be able to read what the hon. Member said without my being able to read the words of the agreed syllabus which would have quieted his fears. Coming to the other views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods), I can say quite shortly that the object of this Schedule is to provide for an agreed syllabus of religious instruction. Every one of those words matters. If it is a disagreed anti-religious syllabus which does not give religious instruction it will not carry out the object of this Schedule. Provided these representative bodies can obtain agreement and give instruction we shall all be perfectly happy. We have given an example in this Committee of trying to solve some religious differences of the past by agreement. We trust that these committees, when they meet outside, will have similar success. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks), who was anxious to ensure that these committees, shall be, as to personnel, more representative, the Government have taken their part in setting up machinery which is more than likely to give satisfaction. Not only can teachers be represented, but such religious denominations as in the opinion of the authority ought in the circumstances to be represented can be represented too, and although they will be representatives of the authority he will see that, as far as possible, the committee will be on a broad basis. Let us wish them well in producing an agreed syllabus of religious instruction, and let us do our best to use that syllabus in the schools. Let us remember also that religious instruction should also be carried out outside the schools.

Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Eighth Schedule agreed to.