HC Deb 20 July 1999 vol 335 cc1092-102

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

11.1 pm

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)

I am exceptionally grateful to have the opportunity of raising this subject at a topical time in the development of the national curriculum. The only interests I have to declare are membership of my local wildlife trust and my local Country Landowners Association committee. I have no links, either direct or indirect, with any genetically modified food company—indeed, I have serious concerns about the sustainability of GM technology in the British environment.

I have a number of constituents who take a close interest in the environment and sustainable farming. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Stephen Martin whose close involvement with many environmental initiatives and organisations—and specifically with the World Wide Fund for Nature—inspired me to seek this debate.

It was a meeting with the WWF, organised by Dr. Martin, that persuaded me that this was an important issue, and that organisation has been very helpful in preparing me for tonight's debate. I am particularly grateful to another Martin, Peter Martin—I am assured that he is no relation to Stephen—who is head of education at WWF, for his patient guidance and advice. I have also received the views of two other organisations for which I have a high regard: the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when I was young my dreams were regularly of a nuclear holocaust. That dreadful mushroom cloud soared into the sky of my nightmares on too many restless nights. I am glad to say that my nightmares are now more mundane, but my waking fear is very real. It is about the consequences for our environment if we do not approach it with greater respect and understanding. That, in turn, could have huge consequences for the welfare of billions of human beings on this planet.

I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sometimes I despair as I watch the contempt shown by too many of our fellow citizens for the environment in which they live. Litter, graffiti and waste seem to characterise our urban lives. The countryside is defaced by thoughtless fly tipping, and, even worse, it faces more serious threats from agricultural polices that force farmers into behaviour that many of them dislike intensely.

Recycling may have caught the imagination of some, but how much fossil fuel has been used making special journeys to take small quantities of bottles, cans and newspapers to recycling facilities? How much energy and how many chemicals are then used to do the recycling?

If I may be allowed to make a slightly partisan comment in an essentially non-partisan speech, I believe that the Government are guilty of some muddled thinking on this subject. They are trying to use the mask of sustainability to justify what are actually only simple tax increases. Look at the proposed pesticides tax, for example. However—I see the way that you are looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that is a matter for another debate.

Our understanding of sustainability is still very limited and that is why this debate is so important. Sustainability is a new buzzword, often twisted to suit the argument of whoever is using it at the time. That is why children must be taught to think critically about what it means. Our world has to work out how to meet present human needs and improve the quality of life without diminishing the Earth's capacity to provide for the needs of future generations. That is what I mean by sustainability.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not one who believes that education is the answer to all our problems. I am intensely reluctant to dump on teachers all the problems of our society at the end of the second millennium. Problems such as declining democratic participation rates, teenage pregnancies, loss of basic social skills and increased vandalism and crime all seem capable of solution, according to many, simply if teachers educate pupils about those matters in our schools. That is profoundly wrong. Teachers are there to do many things, but above all their purpose is to teach the academic subjects, to inspire young people to wider horizons and to develop their skills, wherever they lie.

Teachers are not there to solve the whole kaleidoscope of problems that confront modern Britain. If they are asked to spread themselves too thinly, their attention will be diverted from their real tasks as teachers, but—this is a big but—there are some things, essentially factual in nature or lying beyond any reasonable expectations of pupils' parents or guardians, that can best be taught in schools rather than in families. Among those is the importance of education for sustainable development.

The 1992 Rio conference concluded that education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address sustainable issues. Since then a lot has happened under Conservative and Labour Governments, but there is still a serious gap between official endorsement and practical educational policy. Now, the review of the national curriculum for England gives us a unique opportunity to put that right. The consultation closes this Friday and the final curriculum documents will be sent to schools this autumn. The revised curriculum will become statutory from September 2000.

One of the key recommendations of the sustainable development education panel, which was set up by the Government, was that sustainable development be identified within the aims and purposes of the revised curriculum". It is only fair to say that the Government have met that objective in their proposals, and it has been strongly welcomed by the environmental movement. I associate myself with that welcome.

In the Secretary of State's introductory comments to "The review of the national curriculum in England, the Secretary of State's Proposals", he says: Each subject makes a distinctive contribution to pupils' learning and development…History, geography and science give an essential understanding of our place in the modem world, including the importance of sustainability". On page 5 of the other main document, "The Consultation Materials", we read that the school curriculum should develop pupils' awareness, understanding and respect for the environments in which they live, and secure their commitment to sustainable development at a personal, local, national and global level. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has told me that it views that statement as the most important breakthrough for education for sustainable development for over a decade.

There is, therefore, much that is encouraging, but warm words and good intentions must translate into concrete reality if they are to mean anything. Those decisions will be set in concrete very soon. They will not, I hope, be revisited for many years, so they must be got right now.

For geography, those decisions have certainly been made correctly. In that section of "The Consultation Materials", the distinctive contribution, programmes of study and attainment targets all fully address geography's role as a key deliverer of sustainable development education. Concepts such as global citizenship, environmental change and values and attitudes are all well represented. I congratulate the Department on that and hope that when the Minister winds up, he will be able to confirm that that will remain the case in the final curriculum.

Elsewhere, however, all is not quite so rosy. As I have already made clear, increased prescription and increased work loads for teachers are not the answer and they are not necessary. A few small changes here and there in most of the other subjects would make all the difference. They would ensure that teaching effort is well used to further the cause of sustainable development without adding to teachers' burdens or even introducing new subjects into the curriculum.

Let us consider science. That is specifically and rightly identified by the Secretary of State as providing essential understanding of the importance of sustainability, but, incredibly, no reference to sustainability is made in the distinctive contribution or in the attainment targets of the proposals for the national curriculum. The programmes of study include content that is important for sustainable development education, but without proper detail.

Those deficiencies need to be remedied, and the easiest way to do so would be to add a suitable phrase to the distinctive contribution and to flesh out the programmes of study a little. To take one example at random, at key stage 4, it is suggested that pupils be taught the basic principles of cloning and genetic engineering", but there is no mention of the environmental and ethical implications. A little more thought about the detail would bring great dividends.

History is another subject that is specifically mentioned in the Secretary of State's proposals as providing "essential understanding" of the "importance of sustainability". However, no reference to sustainable development is made in the "distinctive contribution" section for history; nor is there direct reference to it in the programmes of study or attainment targets. That is despite the fact that many of the programmes could easily be directed towards a better understanding of the complex links between society, the economy and the environment. Those deficiencies could easily be remedied with just a few words, but what a difference those few words would make.

Most of the other subjects provide many opportunities for elements of sustainable development education to be fully implemented. For example, the "distinctive contribution" section for different subjects says: Information and Communication technology. An essential part of ICT capability is being discriminating about information and the ways in which it may be used, and making informed judgments about when and how to apply aspects of ICT to achieve maximum benefit. Pupils also develop understanding of the implications of ICT for working life and society". How easily that could be expanded to explore our interdependence in a shrinking world. How easily it could offer children first-hand experience of other societies, economies and their environments.

Design and technology, we are told, contributes to the school curriculum by preparing all young people to participate in a rapidly changing technological world. It enables them to understand how to think and intervene creatively to improve the world, combining their knowledge with understanding of aesthetics and function. There is no mention anywhere of how to choose materials for their sustainability. Cost, durability and appearance are all rightly mentioned, but not sustainability. Again, one word could make a great difference.

In art and design, we are told that pupils learn how to become actively involved in shaping environments, making informed, aesthetic choices and practical decisions which enrich their personal and public lives". That is absolutely right, but when it comes to shaping environments, sustainability is a vital dimension. Again, there is no mention of it in the detail—that is easily put right.

There are similar opportunities in other subjects as diverse as English and mathematics. Unless there are powerful statements of the importance of sustainable development education, and unless the vital role that all subjects can play in its delivery is both endorsed and explained, sometimes the implicit and at other times the potential opportunities are in danger of being overlooked.

There are other concerns, too. One is the limited reference made to education for sustainable development in the non-statutory guidelines for personal, social and health education and the complete lack of any mention of it in the recommendations for teaching citizenship. Education for sustainable development seems to be added as an afterthought, with no introductory preamble that identifies it as one of the key global concerns of the 21st century.

I know that the Minister understands the importance of education for sustainable development. He knows about the likely impact of climate change on the British coastline, the consequences of household growth for new housing locations, the implications of ozone depletion, public concern about genetically modified organisms, the worldwide concern about fresh water supplies, and so on. The apparently limited profile given to the importance of education in addressing major national and international concerns is ironic given the commitment of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to achieving sustainable development, and the growing number of large corporations that are making major and very public commitments to such development.

Among those large organisations are the Government themselves. In the very good document, "A Better Quality of Life—A strategy for sustainable development for the UK", the Prime Minister says: That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this Government's programme. We must ensure that our economy thrives, so we can deliver the schools and hospitals we want, the jobs we need, and provide opportunities for all. But we must ensure that economic growth contributes to our quality of life, rather than degrading it. And that we can all share in the benefits. Talking about sustainable development is not enough. We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground. We must hold ourselves to account—as a government, but also as a country. Because the only way in which we will succeed is if we all play our part". It is difficult to argue with that, although it is disappointing that there is only very passing reference in the document to the role of education in achieving sustainable development. I would have hoped—this is intended as friendly criticism—that the Department for Education and Employment would register its commitment to sustainable development education with a little more conviction.

Non-statutory guidelines should be produced to explain how education for sustainable development can be integrated across the curriculum, identifying the unique contribution that each subject, including citizenship, can play. That would not add to teachers' or pupils' burdens, as it would provide focus and purpose for and—often, for young people—relevance to much of what is already being taught.

The panel for education for sustainable development made several specific recommendations in its first report. It discussed the curriculum issues that I have largely been talking about this evening. It talked about the need to monitor outcomes of education for sustainable development and to give governing bodies specific responsibility in that area. It talked about giving Ofsted the duty to evaluate education for sustainable development in its inspection framework. Finally, it said that education for sustainable development should be incorporated into all initial teacher training, continuing professional development and governor training, and that local education authorities should give encouragement and support to schools to conduct all their activities sustainably.

You can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that getting the curriculum right is not enough in itself, but it will be a big step in the right direction. Other issues will also need to be addressed. The Minister, when he winds up the debate, can do more for the environment and for posterity in his speech tonight than many of us could ever dream of. I hope that he will do that.

In school terms, the report on the Government so far must be, "Pleasing progress overall, but I had hoped to see just a little more commitment in certain subject areas." I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that next term's report can be a little less guarded.

11.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing the debate. He laid down quite a challenge in his final remarks. When he was talking about our muddled thinking, I found it entertaining that he described his interests as being a member of the Country Landowners Association and the wildlife trust in his constituency. Some might say that there was an element of muddle in some of those issues, too, when they came around the corner.

I strongly believe, as do the Government, in educating children about sustainable development. It needs to be at the core of the education system. That is why we established the sustainable development education panel, which has worked very hard and produced a stimulating, wide-ranging first annual report, covering all phases of education and training and all types of informal learning.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the panel, which was chaired by Sir Geoffrey Holland, the former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, who knows these issues fully and with whom I and my colleagues have discussed the recommendations in very great detail. We are working with the panel and consulting on the recommendations for education and training. I am placing copies of the report in the Library for the reference of all Members.

The panel defined sustainable development in the following way: Education for sustainable development is about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life and the quality of life for generations to come. It is about equipping individuals, communities, groups, businesses and government to live and act sustainably; as well as giving them an understanding of the environmental, social and economic issues involved. It is about preparing for the world in which we will live in the next century, and making sure that we are not found wanting"— or learning in, through or about our environment, our society and our economy, with the specific aim of leaving the planet as we would wish to find it, or better. I think that that is a fine definition, and it is one with which the Government entirely associate themselves. That thinking has informed all our consideration on the future of the national curriculum.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, the national curriculum is under review at present. The aims of the review are clear. They are: increased flexibility and reduced prescription in the curriculum, giving teachers more scope to use their professional discretion; a full and rounded entitlement to learning for all pupils; continued emphasis on literacy and numeracy; further opportunities for work-related learning in schools; and helping young people to develop a fuller understanding of their role and responsibilities as citizens in a modern democracy.

In accordance with those aims, we have listened to the representations by the sustainable development education panel to raise the profile of sustainable development in the school curriculum, and that has informed our proposals for the national curriculum. Only today, I read the response to that consultation from the Council for Environmental Education. I shall take the opportunity to place on record what the council said about that approach. It said: Education plays a significant part in the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy, and quality of life issues, including social exclusion, have a significant impact on the ability of schools to raise standards of achievement. The Council for Environmental Education is particularly pleased that this is reinforced within the Secretary of State's proposals … for the revised national curriculum in England. The Council for Environmental Education welcomes the Government's acknowledgment in recent policy documents and reports that education and sustainable development are interdependent. The council is right, and I very much appreciate its statement to the effect that we have risen to the challenge in the curriculum that we have proposed.

I shall provide a number of examples, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of specific proposals in the national curriculum through which we have sought to take into account the issues of sustainability.

First and foremost, the science curriculum teaches children that actions have consequences, and that some of those consequences are irreversible. That is one of the keys to understanding sustainable development. It is at the core of the science curriculum and runs through all the key stages. From five to 16, pupils must study a theme on living things in their environment which draws out those points.

At key stage 3, for ages 11 to 14, the curriculum requires pupils to learn how living things and the environment can be protected in a way that is consistent with the demands of society, and to learn about the distinction between renewable and non-renewable resources—a key concept in the idea of sustainability. At key stage 4, for ages 14 to 16, pupils must be taught about the impact of human activity on the environment and its relation to social and economic factors, and about energy efficiency and the environmental implications of generating energy.

Those are all important aspects of the science curriculum in the consultation in which we are currently engaged, and put sustainable development at the core of the education system.

Mr. Luff

The Minister has rightly quoted from the response of the Council for Environmental Education. He has just dealt with science. It is worth putting on record that the CEE also states in its response: Both single and double science are weak, particularly at key stage 1 and 2, and need further strengthening, particularly with reference to biodiversity and interdependence. I hope that that does not contradict what the Minister is saying but fleshes it out.

Mr. Clarke

That does not contradict my comments at all. The consultation on the national curriculum in which we are engaged is a genuine consultation. We welcome not only the contribution of the hon. Gentleman this evening but the comments of a wide range of organisations, which will help to improve particular aspects of the national curriculum. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want those remarks, valid as they are, to detract from the thrust of the CEE's view that, for the first time in history, the Government have taken seriously the challenge of putting sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum.

That is true of the geography curriculum too, where environmental change and sustainable development are introduced at all key stages, including key stage 1 for ages five to seven. In geography, we highlight the importance of sustainable development through additional references to the use of resources and the effect on the environment. We make it an explicit requirement to explore the idea of sustainable development and how it relates to changes in places and environments, and to consider the implications of sustainable living.

Similarly in design and technology, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, pupils must reflect on and evaluate ideas from a variety of perspectives, including use, production and marketing, and environmental, cultural and aesthetic considerations. Those ideas are at the core of a sustainable approach to design and technology. In planning, children are encouraged to consider moral, economic, social, cultural and environmental issues.

I maintain that, for the first time in these subjects, we have a concept of sustainable development which is at the core of the curriculum that our children in every school in Britain will learn. That raises to a different plane from what has gone before the extent to which we are addressing and considering such issues.

The major change is the introduction of a framework for personal, social and health education and citizenship. I should put it on record that unlike the rest of the curriculum, which is to be implemented from September 2000, these changes will come into effect from September 2002, should Parliament agree to the orders later this year.

The two key frameworks for PSHE and citizenship provide ample and profound opportunities to consider sustainability issues through learning about the world as a global community, the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employers and employees, and the challenges of global interdependence and responsibility. Pupils will learn about what improves and what harms their local environment, different ways to look after it and the impact of economic choices on the environment.

We are acknowledging in a way that has never been done before that our children are growing up in a world that is so interdependent and changing so rapidly in so many profound and different ways that they will be seriously disadvantaged if they cannot grasp, control and direct the future of the world. That means understanding it from the perspective of sustainability, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his speech.

Those ideas—the relationship between the individual, the environment and society—are at the core of our ideas for PSHE and citizenship. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the statutory instruments when they are laid before the House later this year. There has been some dissent among Conservative Members. However, the far-seeing Conservative Members who served on the panel dealing with the statutory instruments are strongly in favour of the development. I am confident that the Opposition will support them when they come before the House. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I know that we shall be able to rely on his support.

We can genuinely say that our proposal places sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum and the education of our children for our future. The consultation is genuine and, when it closes, we shall consider the precise considerations that are put forward, including those made by the hon. Gentleman this evening. In the light of those, we may make various small modifications to aspects of the curriculum. What will not change is our determination that sustainable development shall be at the heart of our national curriculum, because that is at the heart of the future of the whole of our population and that of the world.

Other programmes complement the national curriculum and affect the way in which people operate in schools. For example, we seek to focus on travel to school—safe routes to school and all the issues around that, which ensure that children, from an early age, think how their own conduct in travelling to school can have an impact on the environment.

We have signed up to the international global learning and observations to benefit the environment programme and implemented it in England. The programme links sustainable development to the state-of-the-art technology of satellite imaging and the internet, precisely to bring these issues graphically home.

We have funded the Going For Green campaign, the Tidy Britain group and the eco-schools programme, and we are encouraging schools throughout the United Kingdom to improve the impact that they have on the local environment through activities involving children, teachers, governors and the local community.

In September, I will be launching the green code for schools, a CD-ROM developed by Going for Green to communicate the Government's "Are You Doing Your Bit?" campaign to schools, which is imaginative and effective, has been put together in partnership with teachers and is designed to absorb and involve pupils directly in green issues. At the same time, I shall write to head teachers, to stress our aim to support the sustainable development content of the national curriculum through the green code programme.

Earlier this year, I, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Madam Speaker, participated in the Children's Parliament on the environment, a positive initiative which Madam Speaker strongly supported, and which allowed young children to put their views about sustainability on the agenda. I commend to the hon. Gentleman, if he has not yet seen it, the action plan that emerged from that, the Government's response and the Hansard of their debate and Select Committee produced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office—whose headquarters is in my constituency—which I shall place in the Library.

Those debates show how passionate young children are about the world in which they are growing up, how keen they are to learn about how the environment, economy and society all link together in affecting our quality of life and the quality of life of people throughout the world, and how keen children are that the decisions that we make now mean that the world that they inherit as adults is in a fit state for them. They are also keen that they should have the skills and knowledge that they need to make decisions in all aspects of their lives that contribute to sustainable development.

I conclude by reinforcing the Government's determination to place sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum because it is so important to the future. Yet again, I reaffirm our readiness to listen to helpful contributions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman. I also reaffirm that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as the curriculum rolls out. We have a massive programme for developing resources to pay for high-quality teacher training and a much wider range of resource materials. That will help teachers to help schools address those issues in a positive and constructive way.

We very much appreciate not only the contribution made by the sustainable development education panel but the work done by organisations such as the Council for Environmental Education and a large range of positive and committed organisations—for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that are totally committed to turning these ideas into reality. I urge them not to sit back and leave the Government to do the work in the national curriculum, because the way in which it develops will depend on the commitment of all those people and organisations to making those ideas real. It has been a pleasure to respond to the debate and reassure the House of our commitment to those ambitions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.