RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: CHRISTIAN CONTENT

HL Deb 18 May 1977 vol 383 cc727-874

3.58 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, if anybody was in any doubt as to the deep interest that exists in the subject to which my noble friend Lord Blake today directs our attention, they have only to look at the rather intimidating length of the list of speakers which lies before the House. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, is about to embark on these difficult waters and I assure him of the close attention that we shall all pay and of the good fortune that we wish him.

If I cut any corners in argument in the course of this debate, your Lordships will please understand that it is because of the length of the list of speakers that I am anxious to reduce the length of my own contribution in so far as it in me lies. I am fortunate in having my noble friend Lord Belstead to pick up any of the larger omissions, but I must warn your Lordships that this, the Christian content of religious education in schools, is not only in itself a large subject, but that it can only be properly considered in a context which is a great deal larger and which includes not merely the other subjects which may be taken in balance with Christianity in those periods in the time-table, but also the changes in the composition and persuasion of society which has occurred in the 33 years which have elapsed since the last Act of Parliament.

Many of your Lordships may wish—and certainly some will wish—to argue the pros and cons not merely of a Christian content in a religious education periods but indeed the virtue of having religious education periods at all. They doubt whether this is the right way to approach the moral enlargement of the children and of bringing them an approach to the understanding of life and the responsibilities and opportunities implicit in living it.

That is a corner that I intend to cut in this argument. I ask you only to accept that I believe that properly-conducted religious education is a vital contribution not only to the process of growing up for the individual child but also to imparting continuity, stability and humanity to British society. Some of my reasons for this will be implicit in the rest of my argument. For the others, if this proposition is seriously challenged, there are many who are better qualified than me to take up the cudgels in defence of what I believe to be an axiomatic position, not least among them my noble friend Lord Belstead.

I believe that there is a correlation between the general tone of life in society and the moral tone of our schools. I accept that a great—perhaps the greatest—effective moral teaching is implicit in the general conduct of the staff. But I am also convinced that some of that teaching, and a vital part of it, must be explicit and properly belongs in the RE period. I do not believe that morality should be divorced from religion in the curriculum, and in this I have the support of the Report of the Commission of the Church of England Board of Education and the National Society, The Fourth R published in 1971.

With another recommendation of that Commission I take issue: in paragraph 575 they suggest the deletion of a specific requirement to provide religious instruction and the substitution of a general requirement, rather on the lines of the general requirements now set out in Section 8 of the 1944 Act. Many of us were deeply disillusioned by the course of the debates on the Committee and Report stages of the Education Act last year as to the very limited protection such general requirements afford. We found ourselves totally out of sympathy with the interpretation put upon them by the Government, and I do not wish to renew that argument now. I wish to point out that, since none the less they had their Bill, it is unwise to repose confidence in the protection of particular qualities of education in general aspirational—if I may so put it—clauses of Education Acts.

If such a revision was undertaken, it would be necessary as a corollary to write in the right of parents to withdraw their children, not merely from lessons but from schools from which RE had disappeared. There would have to be means of agreeing that their assessment that it had disappeared was just, and of ensuring that some other accessible school could provide proper instruction in the subject. All that is a great deal to ask, and there ought to be a better way of setting about it.

In any case, my Lords, the idea that the essential subjects should be taught as individual schools, or even individual authorities, see fit is one which is going out of fashion. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, rightly pointed out that we are now having our attention directed to the subject of core curriculum. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the proceedings today, and I hope that those proceedings will he taken to constitute part of the great national debate which is going on in education involving how many contributors not all of us know. In that case, I hope that she will consider very carefully whether religious education should not be part of a core curriculum. She will also have to take into consideration both the present and the desirable future status of the subject, about which there is grave disquiet, and the resources devoted to training teachers for it. Not least, she will have to consider the nature and aims of the subject, and to do this she will have to take into account changes in the composition of society since 1944.

This ought not to be a controversial subject. We live in a plural society, a society with significant and often cohesive groups of ethnic, social, cultural and religious origins different from that of the majority. We must recognise the fact but must not be mesmerised by it. We have an obligation to these new elements in our society equal to that of the children; but our obligation to the majority, though it may be altered thereby, is not diminished. We have to recognise that race relations are a live issue in London, Birmingham and the Midlands, that a great part of our population does not live in any of those places, and to them a different educational requirement must exist.

But society is mobile and fluid—increasingly so—and it is clear that members of it will increasingly meet other members of it socially across the ethnic and religious divide. For that purpose, it is necessary that both Christian children and non-Christian children should be grounded to some extent in the beliefs of the other so that they may see them not as entirely foreign to the society which they inhabit.

Some of your Lordships may be surprised to learn that the parents and spiritual mentors of many non-Christian immigrant children welcome their inclusion in religious education periods founded on the Christian religion. Religious education, properly taught, and with a significant Christian content, is teaching about the meaning not only of Christianity but of religion itself. Because it reveals the nature of faith, the quality of worship, the virtue of spirituality, the effects of commitment and the strength of unselfishness, many of these people, particularly those of the Islamic faith, actively welcome the benefits which Christian RE can confer upon their own children.

We come then to the nub of the matter for some of us, my Lords. That is not merely the proportion of material that should be Christian in origin, but also the use to which it is to be put. I have strong views on this. It is best at this stage in a longish debate to summarise them by saying that it is the ultimate responsibility of the Churches and the parents to recruit or evangelise for specific Churches and not that of the teacher-employees of the secular authorities. This is not to say that a teacher's dedication in his faith should not be manifest: it is to say that all but very exceptional teachers are more likely to draw pupils closer to their faith by unconscious acts and implicit teaching than by a conscious attempt to proselytise, which can be—as I know to my personal cost—a very inhibiting factor for the man in front of the blackboard.

It is for the teachers to till the spiritual soil; it is for the clergy to sow the seed and for the teachers and the parents to nurture it. At this juncture, I must say that, in a fairly extensive inquiry that I have conducted—if in some haste—before this debate, it is apparent that there is a crisis of morale among the teachers of religious education, a crisis of direction, a crisis of confidence in their own futures, in their own profession and in that portion of the profession in which they specialise.

I believe that it should be a function of this debate to restore to them a conviction that the work they are doing for the children and for society is recognised as being hard and demanding, but also vital to our future. That message ought to go out—and I may repeat it before we finish—in order that it may be known to these teachers. So often there is one specialist in a large school on this subject who is supposed to represent a department by himself with a few ancilliaries brought in from geography and history part-time, and these people feel themselves to be beleaguered, and they should not do so.

I hope that your Lordships who agree with me will express words of comfort to them so that they shall know that what they do in isolation is appreciated in generality. Incidental to that, there is a role for the clergy in schools. I will not dilate on a subject about which I have no doubt the right reverend Prelate who follow s will have something to say, but I think that some attention should be take in the Church to equipping the clergy who have access to schools to make the best use of it. That is, by preparing them with a knowledge of how a school functions in its various levels, both on the staff and the pupil side, and also a grounding in methods of instruction and the content appropriate to it. Many do it superbly well. Many would do it less well but what they do is illuminated by a charity and a disposition towards the children which will carry all before it. There are some who have neither of these gifts and need the benefit of help.

An important aspect of this whole field is the growth in knowledge. The way in which we think develops as we grow up. Generally, people cite the work of Piaget followed by Goldman. There are others who have expounded and gone further, both here and across the Atlantic. But the accepted philosophy of this otherwise complicated subject is this: a child can in the early stages only think in concrete terms. He achieves the power of abstract thought only by stages, which may not be complete until middle age. That is a travesty, an absurd concentration of an entire educational philosophy, but it holds the essential germ of that which affects the way people think about religious education in schools.

Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the different expressions of the nature of God to be found in the Bible from Genesis to the New Testament, may, with me, wonder whether the human child does not recapitulate the mental evolution of mankind, much as the human embryo recapitulates his biological evolution. But that is a parenthetical aside. The teaching of this philosophy, with many of its implications, has for long been unquestioningly accepted, and that has included one unwarranted assumption—whether implicit in the teaching or not, I know not, but it is effective. It is the assumption that because a child cannot express an abstract idea he cannot perceive it. As the greater part of religious thought is abstract, I fear that this can have damaging results in the silence of the teacher, in attitude or in spoken teaching, upon vital areas. Your Lordships will be familiar with the phenomenon—and I do not doubt that before I sit down I shall be struck by the phenomenon of knowing exactly what I want to say but not knowing the word that I wish to use and rejecting a succession of them. That is a clear indication that you can have an idea, crystalline and exact, in your mind and yet not be able to express it.

As that, I believe, is true of children and as the studied ignoring of this whole area of experience by some teachers takes place, it must at least seem very odd to the child and must confirm him in the belief that grown-ups really do belong to a different species and are not the product of a childhood such as his own; or else it must suggest to him that these supremely important stirrings of the spirit are only growing pains and that the ending of them will mark the beginning of his adult life. Surely where words are absent actions can speak as loud. Where reverence, awe and humility are beyond the vocabulary, the simple action of kneeling can proclaim their content. That is one reason why I believe that if we are to be invited to turn our attention to discontinuing compulsory corporate acts of worship, we must certainly consider the primary and secondary schools differently in this context, because I also believe their effects and the importance of assembly differ at different age levels.

There is a general disquiet—and the interest in this debate is evidence of it—about the probability of an actual decline in the teaching of religion and the guardianship of morals entrusted to our schools. Where our schools are not the sole guardians of either religion or morals, they have an important role to play in the teaching of religious education. I believe this is closely related to a decline in the status of the subject which can and should be reversed. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to one approach to this, which would be in some way to enhance the career status of specialism in RE. That is a matter which we discussed in an earlier debate, and I know that the noble Lord who is to reply to today's debate has specific reservations about some of the ways in which it can be done.

It can, of course, also be tackled in the schools. In most schools, for instance—and it may seem ludicrous to your Lordships that this should be important, but I assure you it is—religious education is not an examined subject. In secondary schools, certainly, where exams are normal, it may be discontinued after the first, second or third year. Not only that, but the balance of marking is weighted against religion because it is seen as giving an unfair tilt to any prognosis to be made of a child's performance in academic subjects when the marks are aggregated. I do think that religious education contains an academic as well as a spiritual content and this need not be at any very elevated level in order to be subject to testing.

It is my experience in the classroom, and that of many of my colleagues, that subjects which can be evaluated achieve greater importance in the eyes of the pupil and of course in the eyes of the staff, because the staff are themselves tested by the results. It is not, obviously, right to mark a child on whether or not it is thought that he has a right interpretation, for example, of the meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan. But it is right to mark him on the degree of intellectual effort he has put into mastering the subject. That, I think should be drawn to the attention of teachers. I believe the whole way in which the subject is timetabled and handled in schools should be the subject of an inquiry and could well be the subject of a circular by the Department, analogous to that suggested by the noble Lord, because the burden of our society and its formation rests upon future generations of teachers who are about to be drawn into this situation.

I am striving to be brief, but I cannot leave aside reference to what is going on in the training colleges. A comparison was recently undertaken by the Religious Education Council between the number of students qualifying in main course RE in June of this year and the number of places available for students to take the same course starting in September. It is applicable, of course, only to respondent colleges and departments, but that is a wide spectrum. The comparison showed a decline of 30 per cent. before the announcement of the latest round of cuts last January and 40 per cent. after they had been taken into account. That may be about par for the course for a scarcity subject, and we must take into account the overall reduction in the teacher force. But the position of the subject is already weak and there is no indication as yet of how many colleges will find their religious studies departments viable under the new conditions.

The stark fact is that even allowing for an upturn in the provision for subsidiary courses in RE of all types—and some of them are pretty insubstantial—the total entry to the subject across the year will have declined from 1,128 to 880 at the most. If that is the scale upon which the teaching force is to be reduced in response both to the decline in the school population and to the present economic pressure, we have a right to see some advantage wrung from the situation and to expect in particular an increase in the standards required both of admission to courses and for certification, qualification or degree at the end of them.

The time has come to assert one other principle, which must never be lost sight of in the colleges: that is that the responsibility of the college or department of education is only secondarily to the students. Their primary duty is towards the children who will eventually be entrusted to their care, and they must not leave the college to undertake that duty until they are fit to perform it. If advantage can perhaps he wrung from this reduction of the intake of student teachers in toto, I do not see any easy way of wringing a comparable advantage from the regional impact of this policy of closure in which the Government are engaged.

A most valuable feature of the report to which I alluded is its geographical analysis of the impact of closures upon RE main and subsidiary course places. For example, in Oxford there were two respondents: the reduction was from 70 places to 35, or 50 per cent. overall, which is perhaps bad enough in itself. But it included an increase of 10 places in addition to the existing 10 on subsidiary courses, so the reduction of main course provision was from 50 to 15—a swingeing 75 per cent.—taking it, unless there are factors which we do not know of relating to the university itself, I would have thought, below the level of a viable course.

In the North-East, where there are no such contingencies to account for the phenomenon that I know of, responses came from five major towns and the provision dropped from 97 places to 23 main course and from 14 to 6 subsidiary, giving an overall reduction of 74 per cent. This must give force to the eloquent pleas against execution many of your Lordships will have received from denominational colleges in the area. It must also prompt us to ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they took into account the effects of their programme of closures on the provision of specific subjects, and what steps they intend to take to put right the damage that clearly seems to have been done, in view of the fact that most teachers tend on the whole to teach in the areas where they train.

One such step would be to introduce in-service conversion courses for the retraining of teachers, analogous to those which they are at present attempting to introduce for mathematics. But, my Lords, we want to know that they are viable and I understand that of the 20 London authorities approached in March, so far only 10 have replied and none will either agree to second a teacher qualified in another subject or to guarantee such a retrained teacher employment on his return in 1978. Therefore, if there is to he this sort of response we need to be told how it is to be made to work. Local education authorities cannot afford the £5,000 replacement that is necessary for a secondment. In some areas outside London, the recourse is simply going to a large school, taking a teacher out of it and telling his colleagues that they have to cover for him, as if he had 'flu, for six months. In others, they have re-timetabled free periods and have groups of teachers instructed by tutors from local colleges coming into the schools. But something needs to be done.

I would wish to give your Lordships many examples but I will not, because of the time. I will, however, draw your attention to one extraordinary example. Many of your Lordships interested in the subject will be familiar with Birmingham, because of the protracted and excited debate that took place about the content of the Birmingham agreed syllabus, or, at least, of the notes accompanying it for the guidance of teachers. In that area, the whole of the local education authority provision for the training of teachers, that I can discover, in local education authority institutions is borne by two lecturers. In an area where the teaching of the subject is so controversial, one can only hope that both of them do not get 'flu at the same time.

I conducted a small inquiry last week. I wrote to all the heads of colleges and departments of education, and I think the fact that by Tuesday I had had 120 replies is a measure of very great courtesy on their part, and also of the concern with which they view the situation. From their replies, I discovered the very great concern that exists, not only in Church colleges, over this subject, and over the decline of morale. I also discovered from the replies to the questionnaire, that it is common for student teachers to qualify to teach principally in primary schools, without having any introduction at all to the subject of religious education—and almost all of them will have to take it. It is quite common, even, for main course students of theology and religious studies to graduate—even indeed from two Church colleges—without a methods course on how to apply their knowledge incorporated. This is something that requires investigation.

I will not recapitulate, as I had intended, the points which I wish to recommend. Those of your Lordships who are still sufficiently interested can read Hansard; those of your Lordships who are not, can heave a sigh of relief. I should like to endorse the proposals of my noble friend Lord Blake, as lie recapitulated them. I should like to see, in particular, distribution of a circular of guidance to local authorities relating both to colleges and to schools, and I take well to the idea that schools of a certain size should be required to have a teacher qualified in this subject.

But the basic question which I should have answered before, but which could not he answered out of context, is the claim to primacy of the Christian content. In a country that is founded and informed, however mundanely, upon the Christian faith; in a country in which the witnesses in every court testify, unless they object, upon the Bible before they give evidence; in a country in which the day's work in both Houses of Parliament starts with Christian prayer, read by a Christian bishop or a Christian priest; in a country in which the essential focus of the ceremony by which we invest the Head of State with sovereignty is her annointing and crowning in our chief Abbey Church by the Primate of all England, in a country in which the headship of that State is combined in one person with the supreme governorship of the Established Christian Church; in a country in which in times of mortal danger—as I clearly remember after the evacuation of Dunkirk—the churches and chapels overflow across the pavements and into the very streets, as people come to prayer in times of national danger—if that is the bedrock of faith revealed when the tide of courage and fortune ebbs, then in that country, in our country, if every child entrusted to the schools maintained by the State cannot be presented with a clear and coherent idea of the principal content of Christian Holy Scripture; if he cannot be made aware of the identity of Jesus Christ and the events of his life on earth, of his crucifixion and of his resurrection as recorded in the Gospels; if he is not given an opportunity to realise from this at least some part of the nature of God, as revealed by and through Christ and the Christian faith, and if lie is not given an opportunity to put that faith in context with other world religions which he will meet in his adult life, and indeed, in his juvenile life, then something in that State is very wrong indeed, because the very taproot of its character is wilting.

I believe, indeed, that that taproot is less sound than it used to he. It is wilting, but it is not dying, and those of your Lordships—and there will be some, I fear —who suggest the end of religious education are, in fact, asking us to lay an axe to it. They are not unpatriotic, and I know that they are sincere, but what they are asking to do is something profoundly to the disservice of this country. I believe that what I have said expresses, in some measure, what most of your Lordships believe. I believe it will be supported, in some measure, by most of the people who live in this country.

We have got through the last thousand years in the knowledge of the Christian faith. A knowledge of God has been brought to us by a knowledge of Our Lord, and are these teachings which have brought us thus far to be denied by us to our children who must travel so much further in an ever more perilous world? Is Christianity to be relegated to a minor position, or even only a position of parity? My Lords, God forbid!

4.26 p.m.

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this highly relevant topic at this time, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to see the very distinguished list of speakers who are to take part in the debate. Also, I should like to add my good wishes to the noble Viscount who is to follow me by making his maiden speech. He could not make a maiden speech in a kinder and more receptive place.

I intervene as a Socialist and as a Christian, both of which I have tried rather hard to live up to for many years. I have never seen any conflict. Each philosophy is based on the very simple belief that all human life has a dignity, and all humans should be brothers, one to another. Today I have been at a conference of head teachers of various Church schools, in a school not very far from here, where we talked about—and this is very apt—the Church, the family and the school. It was very significant that many of the head teachers reported that, over and over again, Church schools could give testimony to the fact that their rolls were oversubscribed, in a city where the State schools have falling rolls and are often undersubscribed.

We tried to probe the reason. The parents were asked "Why do you prefer a Church school?" They were often unable to explain, except in very simple terms—they liked the discipline or they liked the atmosphere. Some said that the children were better behaved. But I think we would appreciate the fact that parents, in a society which is not notable for the attendance in Churches, have recognised that we are still a Christian community. One headmaster described a situation in which many of the parents recognise themselves as living in the decrepit areas of the inner cities—those which we debated recently—where children are subjected to every kind of temptation, and where there are not the opportunities for their vast energies to be deployed. Therefore, the atmosphere and the way of life that they found in the Church schools was, at least, some armour of protection against the society in which they found themselves.

In an age of changing standards, it becomes more and more important that the values of Christian belief are at least explained and practised in schools. Even if we accept—and we must, if we are honest and remember our own adolescence—that there is a point of rebellion, we must at least give children something to challenge and something to rebel against. How does a teacher or a parent get across a message, either by precept or by behaviour, unless there is some basic philosophy which enables the message to be put across? To me, the most dangerous creature in our society is not the revolutionary. Incidentally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that Marxism is not so much a religion as an economic theory. The revolutionary is not so dangerous as the cotton wool person—the person who neither accepts nor rejects; it does not really matter: you please yourself. Our society is a Christian democracy. I find that both of these concepts are equally exciting and ones which children can be excited about. You find this when you take parties round the House and speak to them about the people who have died in order that they can express a vote for their peers and about those who have died in order to retain the faith which is now ours.

One of the most rewarding facts of this day and age is that we are in the grip of an ecumenical movement. I believe with the poet who says: I cannot hate a man because he worships at a different altar from mine". There has been much moving discussion about the number of children who come from other parts of the world and who need instruction in their own philosophies and creeds. This problem was mentioned today at the conference. There is no conflict here; nobody would disagree with this. However, it is possible that in seeking to provide a very wide spectrum we might at the end of the day produce such a mish-mash that there will not be any clear message for anybody.

May I remind noble Lords—it is a very important point to be reminded of—that education originally came from the Church. There has never been any evidence produced that students who came from a background of religion showed any limitation in their thinking. This is true thoughout the world. As a Catholic, I have always believed that we are international. It has taken a long time to reveal to me that there is a difference if people are black. This was never a tenet of the religion to which I subscribe nor, indeed, is it a tenet held by anybody who believes in the brotherhood of man.

The noble Lord, Lord Blake, is correct when he says that most parents want some form of religious education for their children. If any of your Lordships have experienced the kind of proposition which is put up every now and again and which involves the destruction of a local church, they will know that the opposition comes not from local churchmen but from many people who probably have not been to church other than to be baptised. I recall one such instance in my own area. Perhaps it is a form of insurance: they want their final departure from this world to be accompanied by at least some certainty.

To those who say that Christianity has failed, may I reply that, just like Socialism, Christianity has never really been tried. We have not tried it yet. I wish to underline the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that Christian education must be retained. May I say with the great poet that: All that is needed for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing". How splendid it must be to be so certain of yourself that you do not need anyone to say "Thank you" to when you have a blessing or to give you consolation when you are sad. I know that I am not one of those. A quotation from another religion expresses my Christian belief. It comes from the Indian poet who says in that beautiful book The Prophet: Your children are not your children but our children. You may give them your love but you may not give them their thoughts, for their souls dwell in the realms of tomorrow". That is a terrific responsibility which we must not neglect.

4.34 p.m.

Viscount ALANBROOKE

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the kind words of encouragement they have given to me. It is only with diffidence that I rise to speak in your Lordships' House, but there is indeed a great warmth and friendship that abounds here, not only from noble Lords but also from the Officers of the House and from every staff member. It is because I have been made to feel at home within the short space of 10 weeks that I feel able to attempt my first utterance. Thus I beg your Lordships' patience. I cannot present the usual credentials of competence to speak in the debate. My main claim to fame is that probably more recently than any other noble Lord here, I have passed through the process of teacher training. My experience, therefore, is on an eye-toeye level with the young teacher who has just qualified.

A few of my contemporaries are young RE teachers. They are deeply concerned about the erosion of Christianity from their subject and the proliferation in it of other material. Thus, I can wholeheartedly join with the noble Lord. Lord Blake, in calling for an independent inquiry, in the maintained schools, into the current provision for the teaching of religion. To draw attention to the feasibility and importance of such an inquiry, together with some of the inherent difficulties, I should like to commend to your Lordships a regional survey executed in Cheltenham and made available on the 5th of this month. The Cheltenham Council of Churches instigated this survey as a direct result of the debate, in another pleace in March last year, that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blake.

The survey was carried out by a Working Party of nine, headed by Martin Davis, vice-chairman of the Cheltenham Council of Churches. They set out to establish what was in fact happening in the field of religious education within the area of concern of the Cheltenham Council of Churches, and 37 primary, 14 secondary and four special schools were examined. Their facts were collected via questionnaires put to the school staffs, and their report draws up some conclusions and states some opinions. The authors are conscious that it has limitations, including a lack of "in depth" studies of samples. Of their expectations they wrote: One of the main hopes of the Working Party is that this report will lead to further discussion between representatives of the Churches and representatives of the teaching profession, and between parents, teachers and clergy". One might hope that, if a national inquiry were instituted, it would instigate similar benefits on a national scale.

Regarding the content of the report, the Working Party concede that their observations raise questions of interpretations of terms. They experienced difficulty in drawing hard conclusions about what actually takes place in assemblies and classrooms, because the terms that we use have so many shades of meaning. The undermining of linguistic truth, suggested by Paul Johnson in the Sunday Times 18 days ago, plays a part in obscuring from us the real content of religious education.

The Cheltenham report states that teachers themselves are uncertain about what RE should involve and that, if the 1944 Act is not scrupulously followed, it is due less to hostility to Christianity than to this very uncertainty. Thus, a national independent inquiry might, by its analysis of the current situation, help us to define our terms more tightly.

The retention of, or alteration to the provisions of the 1944 Act surelyconstitutes one of the big bones to worry in this debate. The findings regarding this Act by the Cheltenham Working Party are interesting and surely of crucial importance. The report suggests that the majority of teachers are in favour of preserving the provisions of the 1944 Act. In the primary sector, the teachers were, almost without exception, in favour of the present legal position of RE. Only four county primaries out of the 37 primary schools which were visited wished for a change. This finding appears to be at odds with other reports that state the virtual nonexistence of Christian-based religious education in some schools in the primary sector, elsewhere in the country.

I feel that a national independent inquiry would undoubtedly help us to understand the true state of religious education in primary schools. The situation is particularly critical in the primary sector where there are not many specialist RE teachers to maintain a quality control. In the majority of Cheltenham secondary schools there was expressed: A generally clear belief that the legal position should not be changed regarding the 1944 Act". One wonders whether a national inquiry might show the commitment of Cheltenham teachers to the 1944 provisions to be more than just a local phenomenon. It must appear important that these facts be known, for without them the continued debate will flounder in a mass of opinion rather than centre upon known facts.

The Cheltenham Working Party did not present a questionnaire to parents. How- ever, they gained, via the schools, this conclusion upon the 1944 Act: What parents want is far from clear—there is no evidence apart from the small but strong Humanist lobby, and those who withdraw their children for other reasons, that parents wish to see RE discontinued or the 1944 Act's provisions radically altered". May I again repeat the call for an independent inquiry, at a national level, for surely the opinion of parents is important. Doubtless some measure of parental opinion could be gained from such an inquiry. The Cheltenham Report had to limit itself to questionnaires to school staff. Therefore no opinions from the children themselves are recorded.

I am not suggesting that a national inquiry should become in any way an organ of "pupil power" containing votes for or against religious education. But the content of new agreed syllabuses might be improved if a national inquiry could help us to know better what religious and moral concepts children can understand at various stages of their mental development. Goldman, in his work called Readiness for Religion has done valuable research in this field in the past, but Peter Lefroy Owen in his Paper Curriculum Christianity says of religious understanding in young people that: No more than hits and pieces of research are at present being undertaken. I feel there is a danger of expecting too much of our children regarding their understanding of RE concepts. Also, we cannot expect children to digest and rationalise a fearful mixture of comparative religions, humanism, atheism, stances for living, political ethics as well as Christianity. Just one of these disciplines requires a well developed conceptual mental capability. To attempt to teach the children the lot in one period a week is a little too ambitious.

I feel that we have to get back to sorting out the priorities in this subject. Much of the material that now encumbers the RE period could be taught under the headings of liberal studies, social studies, history or health. A national survey would undoubtedly help in rationalising the situation. More experienced minds than mine will, I hope, argue the preeminence of Christianity and the importance of allowing our children their right to know firmly the values upon which our society is built, and about the superlative nature of our ethos, which is currently and fashionably denigrated and underestimated.

I should like to thank your Lordships for your patience, and end by suggesting that if we cannot afford to have armed might we can certainly not afford to neglect the cultivation of the great spiritual and moral qualities that the 1944 Act was designed to foster.

4.44 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, it is my very great privilege to speak for the whole House in welcoming the maiden speech which we have just heard. It was of a character which I hope will encourage the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, to address us often. First, it was based on facts, on a detailed survey, and after those facts came the message which he wished to deliver, arising from them. Too often in this House we do not argue in that scientific way and I am quite sure all your Lordships will wish to join in congratulating the noble Viscount.

Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, in order not to interrupt my argument I want to begin with a reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said from the Liberal Benches. I found it so refreshing; it reminded me of the days when I was a Young Liberal, way back in 1906, when Nonconformists were going to prison for objecting to church teaching in schools. It is encouraging to find that although the Liberal Party has gone back on so much of its radicalism it has not gone back upon that principle.

I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his description of religious teaching in schools at the present time as being deeply unsatisfactory. He pointed out that it is one of the two compulsory subjects referred to in the 1944 Act. I find it a little ironical that the two compulsory subjects should be religious education on the one side and physical education upon the other. He said—and I noted his words—that though it is compulsory it is: The weakest, the least well taught and the most perfunctory of the subjects dealt with in school". Indeed he described religious education in schools as the "cindereila" subject. He explained this unsatisfactory situation as arising from the reduction in the Christian content in the teaching of religion.

I do not want to be controversial in this speech. I have too much reverence for the person and the teaching of the Founder of the Christian religion; I have too much regard for the spiritual experience of Christians personally; I have too much appreciation of what the Churches are now doing in the world for the equality of human beings. I want to he constructive, I hope even conciliatory. But I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that the unsatisfactory condition of the teaching of religion in schools is not necessarily due to his explanation but to the development and the liberalisation of thought in the last 33 years, since the Education Act was adopted.

The noble Lord referred to the last world war and to Christianity as being the opposite of the Nazi philosophy. I would say that it was the experience of the last world war which led to so much rethinking about religion. I do not regard the question as final, but many people said: "If there can be such a human disaster, how can a God have allowed it?" I think that is philosophically an unsatisfactory question, but it was often put. When the noble Lord said that the Christian philosophy was the opposite of Nazism I could not help remembering that the opposition to Nazism in Germany came much more from Socialists, and even from Communists, filling their concentration camps, than, with some very fine exceptions, it did from the Churches in Germany.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? May I remind him of the Ribbentrop-Stalin agreement of 1939? I do not think it is entirely correct to say that most opposition to Nazism came from Communism. I follow his thinking, but I think that is a rather dangerous remark to make in view of the historical circumstances.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I do not want to argue that in detail, but I would say that the concentration camps in Germany were much more full of Socialists, and even Communists, than they were of members of the Churches. I pay my tribute to certain Christian leaders in Germany who were so courageous in their opposition.

I want to suggest to Lord Blake that the unsatisfactory condition of religious teach-in in schools is mostly due to the development of thought, to the liberalisation of thought, and that it is a reflection of a tendency which is much deeper than the explanation which he gave. Liberalisation of thought has gone on in the Christian Church as well as outside. One has to ask, if Christianity is to be taught in the schools, which Christianity—the old view of the verbal inspiration of every word in the Bible, or the accepted Church theology in creeds today of the Virgin birth, of the supernatural miracles and the physical resurrection? It is within the Church itself that there have now been doubts about that theology. Leaders both in the Anglican Church and in the Nonconformist Churches are expressing a much more rational view of Christianity which rejects those views. Which of those views is to be taught in the schools?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to the fact that we are now living in a multiracial country and, in consequence, a inulticredal country. I recognise at once that many of the immigrants who come from the Commonwealth countries are Christians—that is particularly the case with the West Indians. But does the noble Lord, Lord Blake, really believe that West Indian Christians are satisfied with the kind of religious teaching which is given by English Christians in schools?

Lord BLAKE

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, of course I am not satisfied with it. That is the whole point of raising this debate.

Lord BROCKWAY

Exactly, but I am trying to put it a little differently. Has the noble Lord been to West Indian Christian services, with the laughter, the clapping of hands, the singing, the extrovert expression of their religion? When their children go to our schools and hear the kind of cold Christian teaching given there, they are not likely to be encouraged in their Christianity; they are much more likely to be deterred. While there is that minority of Christians among the West Indians, among the Commonwealth immigrants as a whole, there are the Hindus, there are the Buddhists, there are the Sikhs, and their conviction and faith is just as deep as that of any Christian. To say in our present multiracial society that one kind of religion must be taught, that that must be the instruction, that it must be a reflection only of Christian content—that is a denial of the kind of society towards which we are moving.

I said I wanted to be constructive. I find it a fact that all the religions have a certain ethical code. I accept at once that the Christian ethical code is the highest of all; but it is there in all the religions, and it is there in the Humanist movement to which I belong, just as sincerely as in any religious expression. It is a universal code—the belief in truth, the belief in the sacredness of individual personality, the belief in the rights of others, the belief in honesty, the belief in service to the community, the belief in identity with all peoples, the belief in tolerance, the belief in forgiveness, the belief in compassion, the belief in equality, the belief, supremely, in love. These are ethics which we all accept. and these are ethics which should be taught in our schools. They will be taught in a biased way if they are associated with any particular religion.

The noble Lord, Lord Blake, used a phrase which I do not entirely remember, but I think when he was referring to the teaching of ethics he said it would be vague and flabby; I believe that was the phrase.

Lord BLAKE

My Lords, I think not. I do not think I actually said anything about the teaching of ethics. Perhaps some other noble Lord used the phrase.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I shall read Hansard with interest. Perhaps wrongly I attached to the noble Lord an excuse for what I want to say, namely, that so far from the teaching of ethics being flabby, it can be the most exciting subject in the whole of our curriculum. Think of our own English leaders in ethics—More, Bacon, Winstanley, Paine, Godwin, Shelley, Morris. Think of those abroad who, more recently, have given us leadership in ethics—Schweitzer, with his belief in the reverence of life; Bonhöffer, and his Christ in the Community; Gandhi, the Hindu, with his belief in non-violence. Fancy teaching a class ethics with that kind of a curriculum—what an inspiration! I should love to do it myself. I am sure that on that basis of ethical teaching, belonging to all the religions and to none, we can find a teaching in our schools of a morality, a community service, a dedication to humanity, which would mean that our youth would advance towards the realisation of those aims in the Britain of tomorrow.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I just mention that when he was referring to the religions of the immigrants in this country he left out, I am sure unintentionally, the Moslems. I think he would like to correct that.

Lord BROCKWAY

It certainly was unintentional if I left out the Moslems. I have a son who is a Moslem. Perhaps it was something Freudian which led to that omission.

5 p.m.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, first, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, for the excellent way in which he delivered his speech, for sharing his views and giving us some insight into teacher training at the present time. I should like to wish him success in both his careers, in teaching and in this House. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the excellent way in which she put over her very sincere way of thinking, which I am sure will influence many people. I have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, many times in another place. I appreciate his views, but matters are not quite as he suggests. One of the great things—and he has mentioned this today—is the fact that we in this country all have freedom to live our lives as we wish; we have our thoughts and are able to express them. We must be very pleased about that.

The other day I was standing at a bus stop in the Edgware Road. A West Indian came up to me and asked whether I could tell him of a church where he could go—it was a Sunday. He said that he would like me to know that he wanted a church that was full of life because he went to so many of our churches and found them empty. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned that. The West Indian said: "You brought Christianity to my country. Do you still believe in it?" I had a talk with him and suggested that he went to All Saints in Margaret Street where I knew that he would find a good congregation and where he would be welcome. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that we must give freedom of thought to these people. At least in the musical Jesus Christ, Superstar we can see the cast enjoying a different type of religion which has gone down extremely well in this country. I may be exaggerating a little by giving that as an example.

It is a very difficult task to teach unless one believes oneself. There is a Church of England leaflet which says: No teacher of English would think it enough to teach about poetry. His task is to enable girls and boys to create within themselves that imaginative insight for them to enter into the poetic experience". The same applies to teachers of religion; it is a very close parallel. Therefore, if one is to teach religion, one must bring the children to the point where they understand what the Christian commitment would mean.

The task of the teacher is made all the more difficult at present by the upbringing of children. Children are christened and often have godparents. I wonder how many of those godparents ever carry out their vows with regard to the teaching and looking after of their godchildren. The children then go to school and are, perhaps, confirmed. They grow up and are married in church, perhaps never having attended since they were christened or confirmed. They are then buried by the Church. Sometimes they attend services at festival times. I am very glad to say that in this Jubilee Year a great many churches are getting together and holding services, particularly in the rural areas.

I agree with the noble Lords who say that ideas have changed since the days of Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. Chuter Ede, who was a very strong Unitarian and who did first-class work with regard to education, to the civil servants, and to Archbishop Temple and his advisers. Now, there is an even wider conception of religious education than there was in those days. If those really interested in teaching, and those who consider that children should be instructed about Christianity, are to educate them adequately, it is necessary to explain the traditions, the history and the way of life of our country. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would agree with that.

I should like to refer to the West Country. In Devon they have been discussing this matter a great deal and have accepted and adopted what is known as the Lancashire Agreed Syllabus. The guidelines are to go to all the schools, both county and voluntary. It is very interesting to know that local authority representatives as well as the teachers' representatives, together with those who represent the Churches, insisted at the Agreed Syllabus Conference that the syllabus chosen should clearly have the stamp of Christianity. From my inquiries I understand that in the West Country, and in particular Devon, the great majority of parents and teachers alike wish religious education to continue to find a place in the curriculum of their school. They wish this subject to be treated as professionally as any other subject, both in the county and the voluntary Church schools.

When attending prize-givings I have been particularly interested in the number of prizes that are given for scripture. This shows an interest which is not so well-known. In the CSE, 0 and A level examinations in 1975, 98,500 children took this subject, so there is an interest even for examinations of that type.

One question which worries me is that of teacher training colleges being closed. I hope that consideration will be given in particular to St. Mark and St. John—which is a new one in Plymouth—which went to Plymouth from Chelsea; to St. Luke's at Exeter and to the Rolle College at Exmouth. Those colleges all have high reputations for providing teachers who are adequately trained and, as has been mentioned by some noble Lords, there is a shortage of such teachers. In my hand I have an appeal, from a Church school which I know very well, against a reduction in the number of teachers. It says that it will not be allowed a teacher in the future. The headmaster writes: …but I am sure you will realise what a serious effect it would have here on the children's education and the health of my staff". Like so many of these schools, it is working in a rather difficult area. The headmaster continues: You know the circumstances at St. Peter's far too well for me to have to list any of them, suffice it to say that they are still the same! That is an excellent school, working under very difficult conditions, and I hope that this appeal will be taken up by the local authority so that it can continue with its excellent work. We must also realise that the university departments are cutting down on religious education. In 1965, 88 per cent. were giving some form of religious education; it has now been reduced to 46 per cent.

Although local authority schools cannot turn out practising Christians, they can help children. It would seem to me that the real lead must be given by the Churches themselves and, of course, by the parents. Parent/teacher associations can be of help. The teachers work can be undone, or not aided, without the support of parents. Therefore parents should be encouraged to read Bible stories to their children in their homes, in the same way as they read fairy stores. The Spens Report in 1938 stated: No boy or girl can be counted properly educated unless he or she has been made aware of the fact of the existence of a religious interpretation of life". It is interesting that in the United States of America religion is not taught by Constitution, but they still have a morning assembly in which the young children stand with their hands crossed on their hearts and sing national songs.

I should like to pay a tribute—and it has already been paid by one noble Lord—to the Nonconformists. I believe that they number about 12 per cent. of the population. When we remember the work that they do in Sunday schools in educating the young and even the older people, we must he very grateful to them—especially so in the West Country where they are so active. We must also be grateful to the Roman Catholics who have excellent self-discipline. I recognise the difficulties in some areas where there is a mixture of races. However, like the West Indian whom I mentioned earlier, many of them are active Christians and in many schools the Moslems and others can have separate worship if they wish. I should like to see many more people from overseas going to teacher training colleges so that they can all get an interesting exchange of ideas as regards these different religions.

I am worried about the question of teachers who have Communist backgrounds. In Hong Kong there was a primary school in which a teacher with such a background had been working for three years—it was a school for the children of Service personnel. I gather that there was a struggle by the parents to obtain his dismissal. I am told that his views still linger in many of the minds of the children and that this has upset some of the parents.

I should like to conclude by reading from a letter from a retired coalminer which was published in the Daily Telegraph. He wrote: After a lifetime of Christian discipleship I am absolutely sure of the foundation upon which I have built. This means that a happy man has written, and it is good to be reminded that Christianity is a way of life.

5.10 p.m.

Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, I should like to commence by adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Alanbrooke on his excellent maiden speech, and to add the hope that he will give us many more of a like nature. Some of your Lordships may remember that in kindred debates to this in the past I have quoted the views of the headmaster of a large comprehensive school in South-East London. I have known him for over 30 years, and I believe that he was probaby one of the speakers at the conference this morning to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred.

In his school he has one-third West Indian children and one-third children of single parent families. When it was suggested that I should take part in this debate I naturally went to seek his views. I do not think I can do better than quote him. In expressing his support for the promotion of Christian teaching he gives two main reasons. One. I believe a large number of our black folk require it for their children—more than most people estimate. A large number of their parents are positive witnessing Christians and many of them are distressed at the lack of witnesses in many schools". I might add here that in a previous letter he wrote to me he said: A large number of my black children have a Christian tradition which would put many of our natives to shame". I mention that because it rather fits in with what so many noble Lords have been saying in the earlier parts of this debate. He goes on: Two. And this is by far the more important—I think we may be seeing the ultimate decline in 'the family' as we have known it. Thirty per cent. of my children come from broken homes, 30 per cent. effectively from single parent families. When I gave this information in a talk recently one of my listeners (from the stockbroker belt, no less) told me this was the percentage in their primary schools. This headmaster goes on to say: Now we have the doctrine in our schools of in loco parentis'. It is used, I suppose, as a test of care if a child gets damaged in classroom or playground. However, many folk, it seems to me, are now saying 'For God's sake take my child, because, try as I will I cannot keep my family together!'". He ends up: The Christian faith is based on the Holy Family. Even non-religious people know this very well. Schools will need this Christian teaching on family life if the nation is to survive at all. If family life goes, so will the nation". He says later that the proportion of 30 per cent. of single parent families which he has now in his school will, he reckons, become 50 per cent. in another 10 years. He then said in that particular message that he felt so strongly on the subject that he was going to lecture on it at the Church Schools Conference, to which I think the noble Baroness referred.

Your Lordships may have seen reports of the business and professional women's meeting that took place recently in Bournemouth, where they voted for the Government to set up an inquiry into the supply of qualified teachers in religious education. Mrs. Rule, herself a head teacher, is reported as saying: Religious education is being downgraded into education about religion. In the hands of atheists all religion can he denigrated while in the hands of Marxists all religion can be put across as a tool for the oppression of the workers". Arguing against the theory that so many immigrants have a different religion and therefore we should not teach them Christianity, a Winifred Toothill said: If immigrants come to our land it won't do them any harm to listen to a Christian teacher: their parents can teach them their own religion". Then from my neck of the woods, which is the same as Lady Vickers's—and I am sure she will have read this—there was a certain leader in the Western Morning News of 16th April which states: It would be fine if all parents were conscientious and took an interest in their children. It seems however, from the ever-expanding social services we have had to set up to compensate for the omissions of inadequate parents, that standards of family care are not getting any higher. This, as the cliché has it, is the fault of us all, society is to blame. Our progressives and intellectuals have been sneering at the bourgeois standards of responsible working class and middle class families for years. Their propaganda has worked so well that the results can be seen in the ever-growing numbers of divorces and one-parent families… It goes on: People who try to conform to the old-fashioned values of constancy in marriage and responsibility for their children are laughed at. For too long it has been the smart thing to pose as a rebel and to mock established values". And what, my Lords, do we mean by established values other than our Christian values? We are still nominally a Christian country. If we do not teach Christian values in our schools regularly and from the earliest ages then history has taught us that it will be the end of any nation—that means this nation.

Take an example from a letter to The Times of 27th April, on the subject of erotic theatre. The writer there says: The critics have banded togther, to try and make it seem that nothing is obscene". The writer goes on: It is impossible to uphold values in schools when adults are enjoying a barbarous culture". By abrogating proper religious teaching in our schools we are now producing an amoral society. Amorality, to my mind, is the real danger. Immorality does at least signify that we know the difference between right and wrong. Amorality signifies that you do not recognise anything as wrong. As a confessed sinner it shows I know I have done wrong. How do I know that? Because I was taught my Christian Catechism as a child, not because I just made a study of comparative religion.

The Marxists produced their Little Red Book on education which is basically an attack on Christianity. I have quoted from that in other contexts and I will not repeat myself in your Lordships' House today. In my Catechism envy, hatred and malice were sins; for them they are means to a political end. I do not think that atheists are the worst enemies of a Christian society. I think that that honour goes—and here is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—to the Humanists and the Communists; the latter who try to substitute their own "religion" for what they describe as the "opium of the people". In 1898 a namesake of mine wrote: The British Empire will last only as long as the British people have faith in themselves". Bringing that statement up to date, I would say that the British will completely disintegrate, politically, administratively, and any way you care to mention, when they lose the last of the faith of Christianity on which their civilisation was built.

To save ourselves we must insist that our very young are taught the basic concepts of right and wrong; that is, we must reverse the trend which has produced the tendency towards the permissive society which we see enveloping us today. The commitments to teach Christianity must not be watered down to a study of comparative religions. That covers a multitude of sins, and the main damage has been done to that cornerstone of Christian civilisation, the family as the unit. Even our taxation system has favoured those living in sin and our death duties, or their modern equivalent, do nothing to encourage parental responsibility or the keeping of the commandment of honouring they father and mother.

Until we ensure that the young in our State schools learn the basic Christian beliefs, what chance is there of containing the advancing evils of the society we see around us? It is the failure of the Churches to get their message across that is producing a society with no mental discipline, and without that discipline you produce anarchy, and from anarchy comes, as sure as night follows day, the physical disciplines of tyranny and dictatorship. "Conscience doth make cowards of us all"—but it is the new conscience, not the Christian conscience.

Take as one example the treatment of our old people. The increasing demand for places in institutions for our old folk shows that more and more people want to be rid of the responsibility of caring for their own old folk; another nail in the coffin of the Christian concept of the family. As I see it, this Godless society is educating a physically healthy generation of spiritual cripples.

5.23 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of BLACKBURN

My Lords, the subject before the House raises issues far wider than just the content of the curriculum used in our schools. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his requests asks that there should be an inquiry and it seems most essential that we should know what is going on, for I doubt whether we have sufficient evidence, because of the variation from one authority to another, to speak in other than general terms.

Lord Blake reminded us that the Education Act 1944 was passed at a time when the nation was still at war, and the memories of Pearl Harbour and Changi Gaol, the memories of Belsen and Dachau, of anti-semitic cruelty both before and during the war, the memories of obliteration bombing, whether of Coventry or Cologne, were fresh, and to leave out of an Education Bill any provision which would enable our children not only to understand but to desire the Christian values on which our society should be grounded was then unthinkable.

The purpose of religious education, as I see it, is to enable people to live not only in right relationship with their neighbour but in right relationship with their Maker, and to do so with understanding and willingness. At the opening of this House, we say in the psalms that the Earth is the Lord's and that the Lord is King; if these things are true, then moral education is not enough. To do justly and to love mercy is not enough. One can be just, but only just. To walk humbly with one's God is different and it is this dimension which is the purpose of religious education.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, in his maiden speech asked that in an inquiry some inquiry should be made of the young people themselves as to what they believed and what they were taught. In fact, there was a recent report of the General Synod Board of Education entitled, Young People's Beliefs, admittedly made over only a modest sample but from that sample it was evident that many of our young people regard religion as essentially a private affair with little relevance to actual conduct. It is there —in the thinking of the young people of our land—that we find the evidence for the poverty of the religious education which we are giving, at least, some of them; not just in the content of the curriculum—not that I argue with Lord Blake about a desire for a greater Christian content—and it raises a far wider issue.

However, there is another side to this picture. Young people are capable of idealism and heroic unselfishness. They have a capacity to respond to challenge, a capacity to undertake adventure, provided that they are convinced of its value. I am sure that many of your Lordships know personally young people who, through Voluntary Service Overseas, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme or other schemes, give the lie to any suggestion that the rising generation is nothing but a collection ofsoccer hooligans. The young people capable of this unselfishness and heroism need and deserve the very best religious education we can give them.

I believe, as chairman of our board of education in the Church, that such an education calls not only for a Christian content but needs to be given with Christian conviction by a Christian teacher in a Christian context. Conviction and enthusiasm are infectious. I visited a county primary school in Lancashire recently, in which one of the teachers obviously had a flair and enthusiasm for music. That flair and enthusiasm was infectious and however much she may have known about harmony and however little she may have taught harmony to the children, I have never heard such singing from children; they had caught the teacher's enthusiasm. In the same way, the success and the worth of religious education depends not only on the ability to remember facts or even on the contents of the curriculum but on the competence and conviction of the teacher.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, argued that, as we now live in a multiracial and multicredal society, perhaps we have no right to insist on religious or Christian education. I believe that that argument falls on two grounds. First, there is the right of withdrawal, with other provisions in the Act, and the non-Christian is not trapped, as it were, in an evangelistic net from which there is no escape. But far more important, it would appear that very many of the immigrants in our midst—and I do not mean just the Christian West Indians—want to understand the Christian basis of the culture in which they live.

Certainly, in the Church schools in Lancashire there is an overwhelming demand for places from our immigrant neighbours. Some of these schools have more than half their numbers made up of non-Christians and, having made inquiry, I have not heard of a single case of anyone who has wished to be excused either from the act of Christian worship in the assembly or from the religious education, which is specifically Christian. This would appear to be what the parents want, and we do well to respect their wishes.

My fear and, doubtless, the fear of the noble Lord who initiated this debate is that the children may not receive sufficiently clear teaching about the Christian faith upon which the society in which they live rests. There is a further point to which little reference has been made in the current educational debate. Not only is it right that all our citizens should understand the Christian foundation on which our society has been built, but they should understand the Christian foundation upon which the majority of our people wish the society of the future to be built. If we do not want this land to be a Christian country in the future, let us be honest and say so. The fact that we are a society not consisting wholly of Christians need not prevent our being a Christian society. That is something greater and far more elusive but, if we want the society of the future to be grounded on Christian foundations and if, though we may all depart from the Christian ideal, we believe that we should not argue that our policies should be based on anything else, then the future members of that society must be taught to think in Christian categories and to know what those categories are.

The content of the curriculum in our schools is certainly relevant here, but the competence of the teacher is equally essential, as also are his or her enthusiasm and conviction. Reference has been made by two or three speakers to the need for greater initial and in-service training in our colleges, for enthusiasm is not enough; the task calls for competence as well. I should hate to go to a dentist whose enthusiasm outweighed his competence. However, we have recently debated the training of religious education teachers in this House and I have no doubt that the Minister will have made known the concern of the Members of this House that there should be more initial and in-service training in this subject.

Content in the curriculum. Yes. Competence and conviction in the teachers. Yes. A Christian context in the school I believe to be equally important. Given all four, the children of the future will not only know the difference between good and evil, will not only know which is good and what is evil, but will desire to choose the good and refuse the evil.

5.35 p.m.

Lord VAIZEY

My Lords, I must fist apologise to the House for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to my noble friend who is to reply and to other noble Lords that I had inescapable examining commitments at my university today, and they said that, in the circumstances, they saw no objection to my intervening. However, I apologise profoundly for my discourtesy.

I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on his maiden speech. He is much to be envied for his fluency and calm and for the wealth of knowledge that he brought to the subject. We hope to hear him more often. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having put down this Motion today. He is a very old colleague and friend and has very sensible views on this as on many other topics.

The reason for my adding my name to the lengthy list of speakers is that I want to say a little from the point of view of someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has been a practising teacher all his adult life. In the course of my university work I have had occasion to go to a good many schools and to talk to a great many boys and girls and their teachers. In so doing and as a member of the Church of England, I have come to some pretty clear conclusions about religious education, conclusions that I thought were by no means the accepted wisdom of those who set the trends on this subject. However, as I am following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I have discovered that I am in fact very trendy, for he and I appear to have come to the same conclusions. I must say that I had thought that my conclusions were, on the whole, a little old fashioned but I have now discovered that they are not but, rather, are very much in the fashion.

First, I am absolutely convinced from my own experience and from all the evidence that we have that moral standards are inculcated in the home and in the school by example, not precept. I think that the influence of a good man or woman, who is usually not at all a sentimental person but a tough, realistic and concerned teacher, is incalculably for the good. In my opinion, it does not matter, within very broad limits, what are the opinions that such a teacher holds, whether they be Catholic, Methodist, Communist or agnostic. Nor, I believe, does it much matter what subject it is that he or she teaches. It can be geography, games or mathematics. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it does not matter whether such person is actually a teacher; he or she might even be the sehoolkeeper. The example of people of sincerity, conviction, enthusiasm and loyalty will be admired and followed by the overwhelming majority of young people who come into contact with it.

The first major point that I want to make is that it seems to me that one cannot legislate for that kind of thing. In appointing people to a school, I believe that one ought to look for robust self-respect above all else, above even academic and other qualifications. However, I feel that that is something one just has to watch out for; one cannot legislate for it. In my view, it is a mistake to muddle up this kind of moral example—the influence of a person of good and powerful personality—with religious instruction. They are two different matters. I do not think that this distinction is always clearly drawn in discussions about religious education. Religious education is not ethical education.

It is true, however, that all children want to think about and discuss moral questions. It seems to me that discussions at every level from nursery school up to the sixth form and beyond will arise in very unexpected circumstances. I do not believe that one can plan moral discussions, saying, "Let's have a discussion about whether adultery is desirable" or something of that kind. That sort of artificial ethical discussion has really very little to commend it. I believe that all good teachers seek, and ought to be encouraged to seek, opportunities to get their pupils and students to think about moral choices of the sort that face us every day.

Again, I must say that I do not think that that is religious instruction. It seems to me that to confine the discussion of the ethics of truth and falsehood to the religious lesson would be absurd and damaging. Surely, it is most important that all teachers should encourage free and vigorous discussions of moral issues. I come to my third and main point—here I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the right reverend Prelate: the culture of this country is deeply rooted in the teaching of the Church. That teaching is a body of objective knowledge. It is generally the facts of what the Bible says, partly the theological findings of later ages and different churches—in particular the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the Nonconformist Churches. The facts of what they believe are not in dispute. What they believe may or may not be wrong, but the facts of what they believe are clear.

This body of Christian knowledge in our culture is enshrined, for example, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Bible, English literature and English history. I think that English literature and English history must be a mystery to everybody unless this body of knowledge about the teaching of the Church is easily available, because right up to our present day that is what our culture has consisted of. I fear that the straighforward teaching about what the Church believes to be true—that is, the revelation of God in the Bible, the elucidation of the mystery of the Incarnation in the Creeds, and the heritage of Christian culture—is gradually dying out. People do not know with what it is they think they are disagreeing.

As a moderately progressive person, I am fully aware that we are now said to be living in a multiracial, pluralistic, multicreedal society. I recall that my maiden speech in your Lordships' House was on the new Race Relations Act, so I think that I speak where my heart lies in this respect. But I think that we must be careful not to exaggerate the degrees to which this country is a multiracial, multicredal society. The communities who have come here, especially the Jewish community who came to this country at the end of the last century, and during the terrible Hitlerite persecutions, and the Asians who came here in the 1950s and the 1960s—and, for all I know, my Jewish and Asian friends—do not want their children to be taught a "mishmash" of religious ideas, proving that in the end all religions come to much the same thing. For one thing, they know that all religions do not come to the same thing. They are about different things. They make different points. I am not now saying which is right and which is wrong. I know what I think is right and what, on the whole, other people think is right and what is wrong. But it is very important not to muddle up Hinduism, Moslem-ism, Christianity, and Judaism and say that they all come to much the same thing in the end, because, quite candidly, in very important respects they do not.

What is needed is a thorough understanding on the part of all minority communities in this country of what English culture has believed and accepted for well over a thousand years. Of course, everybody is free to disagree with that teaching, but it seems to me that at the very least everybody who is living in this country must be taught what it is with which they are disagreeing. It is important, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, said, that religious education should not become just a course in comparative religion. Comparative religion is a very difficult subject indeed. Eventually, all intelligent people will want to talk about world religions. It would he perfectly absurd if one did not realise that in large parts of the world people believe exactly the opposite of what we believe. That kind of discussion is bound to take place every week of the year.

I am not saying either that Christianity, or the version of Anglican Christianity that I hold, has to be taught as the objective truth in the way that the findings of physics are taught. I believe that it is true, but I think that there is a body of objective teaching about what the Church actually holds to be true which is essential to the understanding of English culture as it has emerged over the past thousand years, and it is absolutely essential that this should be clearly and well taught, especially to the more able children, unfashionable as it may he to mention them.

As part of the campaign which the Prime Minister has initiated, and the Secretary of State is carrying on, and which has the enthusiastic support of Parties opposite—to raise standards in our schools and to raise academic standards as well—I very much hope that this point will be taken, and that the debate today will be widely read and discussed. Finally, my Lords, I apologise once more for my discourteous late arrival, and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for the opportunity to join in this debate.

5.45 p.m.

Lord SUDELEY

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I sit on opposite sides of the Chamber. We have opposite political convictions, but I should like to take the risk of following up just one aspect of the noble Lord's speech and to cross the is and dot the Is. I refer to where the noble Lord spoke about the liberalisation of Christianity. The subject of this debate is the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education, and one reason that this problem exists lies in the quality of religious instruction given at our colleges of education. Too much of this instruction is disemboweled of its proper Christian content.

To most believers down the centuries it is obvious that Christianity is revealed religion. The Bible is a sacred text and the truths in it are to be taken on quite a different plane to those scientific truths which are reached by the rational means which are so much the norm today. Most believers, therefore, take on trust all the prophecies in the Bible and all the events in scripture which transcend the supposedly invariable laws of nature; for example, the Resurrection of the body of our Lord, and all the miracles performed by Jesus. Indeed, if we did not accept the miracles performed by Jesus, it would become much more difficult to accept his extraordinary claims and his credibility as a divine person. Such a belief in the literal statements of the Bible, usually called Evangelical Christianity, has been subscribed to not only by simple minds, but the sharpest intellects.

Because this is not a debate on epistemology, I will not go far into such questions as why the rationalists are mistaken in assuming that the plane of truth on which Christianity operates is ill-founded, or again why rationalists are mistaken in assuming that the only plane of truth which has any validity is their own, particularly when it is so easy to present a rationalist case dishonestly by packing your cards. Not all forms of truth have to be reached by rational means. Apart from the revealed truth of Christianity, information may be genetically inherited. On these, and other epistemological topics, Mr. Edward Goldsmith, the brother of the financier, has many interesting things to say in his journal The Ecologist.

Rather than concentrate on these questions, I should like merely to sketch in what is the rationalist, or what is usually called the liberal, theology which is propagated at so many of our colleges of education, and give a little of its political consequences. Liberal theology springs from German Bible critics, such as Albert Schweitzer, who was refused ordination by the Lutheran church, and more especially Bultmann and others, who have all sought to demythologise the Bible. By this I mean that where anything is recounted in the Bible which runs outside the ordinary course of events, we are told that it never actually happened. So, for example, the miracle stories are written off as events that never occurred in history, and the only validity they have, we are told, is the symbolic truth which lies behind a mythical exterior. For example, the story in the Gospels of Jesus stilling the storm is given to mean only that Jesus had the power to still a troubled heart. Just as they deny the miracles from the Bible, so the German Bible critics are sceptical about the prophecies from the Bible. Bultmann says that Jesus could not predict his own passion, but the prediction, was, on the contrary, assumed by the early Church after the event and put back into the life of Jesus. The German Bible critics are sceptical also about the incarnation. What primitive mythology it is, says Bultmann, to suppose that a divine being could become incarnate to atone for the sins of men with his own blood.

Much of the teaching of Christianity at our colleges of education has been imbued with this syle of thinking, and many of the books in the libraries of the colleges of education have imbibed the same poison. By way of illustration, I should like to give just a handful of quotations from one book of sermons published about five years ago by a prominent Anglican. I will not give the name of the author, or the title of the book; neither of these facts is pertinent to my argument. I will merely mention that in this book we are told that Adam's fall was not a historical event. There was no Garden of Eden, only jungle and fenland, and, in so far as man is good, he has always had a tendency towards sin.

On the subject of the New Testament, we are told that it is not easy to believe in the Virgin Birth; and, as to the divine paternity of Our Lord, the mystery of the Trinity is denied, where the author says that the Son could not be of one substance with the Father. On the Crucifixion, we are told that Christ died of asphyxiation, and not for our sins; and after the Crucifixion, the book continues, the story of the Resurrection is not to be confused with the empty tomb. It does not follow", the author says, that because Christ was alive after death His physical body was raised after dissolution". Thereafter, the story of the Ascension into Heaven is to be looked on as pure picture language. The only way in which the Ascension may be regarded", the author says, is to take it to mean the ascendancy of Jesus". In considering the political consequence of such a liberal interpretation of Christianity, the key point is the deity of Christ, on which a measure of doubt is thrown by Bultmann and the book from which I have just quoted. Once, as in the days of the old Arian heresy, the deity of Christ is denied, then Christianity becomes subverted into a world religion, and Marxism sails in under a flag of convenience. The Kingdom of God ceases to be of another world; it becomes a kingdom of this world. The Second Corning becomes confused with social revolution, as Christianity, which should provide us with spiritual bread, proffers instead a political stone. Even though the liberal interpretation of Christianity may have these pernicious political consequences (none of us would like a social revolution, after which we should no longer be free to exercise our own free will). I am not going to advocate extreme measures—it is not fashionable to burn books nowadays—but I should like to ask the Government to consider what great personal distress is given to teacher students at our colleges of education who suffer from this liberal theology. Where their faith has been assaulted, these teacher students have sometimes broken down into tears. If you have a difficult personal life, it can bring you little comfort to be told that the story of the loaves and fishes and the five thousand had no literal historical reality. It is not only for sentimental reasons that I have instanced these cases of distress, but because the sufferings inflicted have the practical consequences of discouraging recruits and losing them to the profession once they have gone through with such a training. Then, as we have a democracy which has come into full flower we should like to keep it so, and therefore want to encourage the free expression of all shades of opinion. I should also like Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the evangelical form of Christianity is at least given a hearing, not at some but at all the colleges of education, and that the libraries of all the colleges of education should be stocked with books on evangelical Christianity.

The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this point, may I say that I am following his speech with the very greatest interest. This is a new line that we have not had in either of our debates, and I think that what he has said is very interesting indeed. I am a little puzzled at what he is driving at, because he seems to me to be getting very near a demand for censorship. If one really thinks that there is a danger of high-level German critics making people who believe things unhappy because they shake their faith, I am not sure that I do not think that his is a perfectly desirable part of free life.

Lord SUDELEY

My Lords, in politics you are much more likely to get what you want, not by asking for the whole of it but by asking only for half of it. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government, not to censor the books of German Bible criticism but to make sure that books on evangelical Christianity are also available in the libraries of all the colleges of education; because, as it is, some of the libraries of these colleges are practically devoid of these books, and in one or two cases this has been so because some intolerant head has thrown the books out. I am hoping very much that the Minister will look into this.

5.54 p.m.

Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD

My Lords, I should like first of all to do as I know we all wish to do, and that is to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on his maiden speech. I know, too, that we are all particularly grateful, as I think we have shown by the number of us who have put our names down to speak, to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having given us the chance of this inquiry. I am going to try to be as brief as I possibly can, because there are so many others, much better qualified than I am, who will follow. But may I first, as it were, declare an interest? For the first seven years after the passing of the 1944 Education Act I was a hack in the Ministry of Education, and I had the great privilege and pleasure of working, both with Labour and with Conservative Ministers, in what I still think is about the most exciting seven years that this country has ever had in educational progress.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? When he says he was a hack in that Ministry, is it his Christianity and his humility which prevents him from saying that he was head of the Ministry?

Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD

My Lords, I was Permanent Secretary of the Ministry. During that time I had the excuse and the opportunity to wander round the country attending a lot of conferences and meetings, as well as to visit a great number of schools and colleges. I was greatly impressed, and I shall always remember the seriousness with which one head teacher after another would wish to discuss with me (not because I was a hack in the Ministry of Education, but because they were interested to discuss it with someone) how on earth they were to work the Act in terms of the assembly at the beginning of the day and the religious instruction which they were to give under the Act itself. That seriousness of the teachers—not only the heads, but others, and in the training colleges as well—is one of the things that have permanently impressed me when I think of that period immediately after the Act. It was in accordance, I have not any doubt at all, with the general wish of the country and the general wish of the teachers of the country that the Act should carry forward the religious tradition which had been implanted before 1870 and before the State came into this matter at all. It was perfectly natural—it was not an imposition in any sense—that religious instruction should be prescribed as one of the parts of what was not then called the core curriculum.

I must secondly admit that I am quite out of date. For the last 25 years I have had no responsibilities of this kind in relation to the maintained schools, and I am therefore particularly doubtful as to whether my own impression is correct; but my own impression is as follows. First of all, things have got much more difficult now for all of us who believe in any sense in the Christian faith, than they were 25 years ago. This is not only for the reasons that were so interestingly adumbrated by the last speaker, but also because the world has exploded in its knowledge of all sorts of things that bear on religion and bear on, in particular, the Bible and the Christian interpretation of religion. Therefore, I think we should today all have more sympathy with the teachers and the head teachers and with the education authorities, even than I know we ought to have had, and did have, in the period immediately after the war.

But, my Lords, it is not all worse than it was. There are far fewer people, it is probably true, who belong to the churches or who attend church, but that seems to me to be much less important than what is very forcefully expressed in the 20th chapter of the Annan Report, which we shall be discussing tomorrow. In one of the most thoughtful and, to me, obsessive reading parts of the Annan Report it discusses religious education. The report is quite emphatic that the concern for religion is great and strong at the present time. I do not want to take time daring to suggest what Annan had in mind or what perhaps we shall be touching on tomorrow, but there is no doubt that in many ways things have come the way of those who are concerned with the religious dimension. I think that broadcasting itself, both the British Broadcasting Corporation and ITV, are partly responsible, and the Open University is certainly responsible, for this spreading of the interest and the catching up of the interest of the young, caught partly by their experience with Asian, and extraterritorial religious movements. This makes the job of the schools and the teachers in them a more exciting one than it was in 1945.

From my own limited experience of being a governor of one independent school, I think it only fair to say that both at that school, and at many others of its kind, compulsory worship has become less a part of the school without losing the centrality of religion in the general life of the school. I think this would be the general experience of people—and I am thinking of boarding schools in particular—where compulsory chapel, no doubt, is still continued on Sundays in some schools but is very much less common than it was before the war. But that, as far as my observations go, does not mean in any way that the school has become less concerned in seeing that the children in the course of their time there do receive religious education.

If I may try to say what I mean by religious education, I want first to quote something said by a great schoolmaster about the purpose of education. It was William Johnson Cory. He wrote this in 1861 and it is out of print now; but if I can remember part of what he said, it was this. You go to school at 12 or 13 and, for the next five or six years, you are engaged not so much in acquiring knowledge as in making mental efforts under criticism. A certain amount of knowledge you can, with average faculties, acquire and retain. Nor need you regret the hours you spent on much that is forgotten, for the shadow of lost knowledge at least saves you from many illusions. But you go to a great school not so much for knowledge as for arts and habits: for the habit of attention, for the art of expression, for the art of entering quickly into another person's thoughts, for the habit of submitting to censure and refutation; for the art of indicating assent or dissent in graduated terms; for the habit of regarding minute points of accuracy; for taste, for discrimination, for mental courage and mental soberness. Above all, you go to a great school for self-knowledge. William Johnson Cory may not be expressing what your Lordships would express if they tried in a few words to say what was the purpose of education today. But, for my own part, I have never found or could give you a better idea of what I think one of the purposes of education, what one goes to school for, ought to be.

One might ask: What part does religious education play in that? A very important part. The knowledge which Cory rightly said that you can with average ability acquire so as to retain is a crucial part of education in general and religious education in particular. It is knowledge of what the Bible says and of what the Christians have believed; of what Christ himself did and the transforming effect he had on his disciples, particularly after their not distinguished performance towards the end of his life, of what has happened since in terms of people and the societies that have been affected by Christianity—the art, the literature, the music, and all the other things which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, rightly said you cannot have an understanding of now in Britain without going back and knowing something about the religious context within which that creative work was done.

But the arts and habits—oh, how much more difficult!—that a school should be asked to teach, and the arts and habits which religious education, I think, has got to try to make available and give the children the chance of beginning to understand, are the art and habit of worship, of prayer, of meditation, of offering yourself, in all your imperfection, for the spirit to possess and be let loose through you. These are the religious concepts, whether they are true or not, which are part of our religious heritage which I believe religious education ought, somehow, to enable every child who goes to school to begin to get the hang of. That is not so that he may have it for the rest of his life because he has acquired the habit at school, but because as he matures he may make a conscious choice and choose to reject those ideas and those habits or to make them a crucial part of his life.

I think that we can only send out a message of great sympathy from this House, and in my case of admiration, for the teachers who, in spite of all the odds, are accepting the new opportunities of 1977 and the years that lie ahead and are trying to give the knowledge that is part of the knowledge that a school should give and the arts and habits, including the religious arts and habits, which are also a part of an educated person when leaving school.

My own feeling is that no one can have full knowledge of a person except the person himself. No one, certainly, can go further than achieving what I believe is the end of the religious part of education, which is not self-knowledge but something even more important and difficult, self-transcendence. That is what I should like all children who leave our schools to have realised as being something which is at any rate offered by Christianity, which is practised by some people, which is perhaps far better practised by people who reject Christianity. But that self-transcendence is what we were born for, according to the Christian view, and according to many views which are not the Christian view. It should be possible for children to leave school able to know what would be meant by the commitment which, in due course, they are capable of committing themselves to; to be able to say with St. Paul: For this cause I bow my knees unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named; That He would grant us, according to the riches of His Glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith; that we, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the length and breadth and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that we might be filled with all the fullness of God.

6.8 p.m.

Lord HAMPTON

My Lords, for obvious reasons I will attempt to be brief even if this means omitting reference to noble Lords who have already made some of my points more eloquently than I can. I think at the outset I should make my position clear. I quote from This is My God by the famous author, Herman Wouk, in which he writes: Now the belief in God may turn out at the last trump to be a mistake. Meantime, let us be quite clear, it is not merely the comfort of the simple—though it is that, too, much to its glory—it is a formidable intellectual position with which most of the first-class minds of the human race, century in and century out, have concurred each in his own way". "Each in his own way "—this is a Jew writing, but he expresses admirably the feelings of those of us who believe that there is some controlling influence infinitely superior to man. I have been in touch with the British Humanist Association recently and I believe that there is much that can in all humility be learned from its supporters; but I am satisfied that they are wrong in their denial of God and I remain a convinced Christian. This does not mean that I cannot see that so-called "Christians" can be superstitious, stupid and even, at times, I fear, positively evil. It does mean that I believe that only by following a policy of what I will call "enlightened" Christianity can the difficulties of today's world be happily resolved. So I also believe enlightened Christian education to be of the highest importance; although we must not, of course, forget the followers of other creeds. School education should provide the basis for learning throughout life.

There is not time here to analyse in detail what is wrong with our society today. I believe in many ways we are extremely fortunate, but that we have gone soft in our desire for a high standard of living (in the normally accepted sense of the phrase) and an easy life. I believe the nation, leaders and led, lack a sense of idealism for the future. With a stiffening of resolve I believe we could in fact have a better life and a happier one, and I am certainly no puritan.

We must look to our defences; we must regain spiritual confidence and determination and convince our opponents by example as well as precept that the wiser course is ours. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn, when he spoke in the debate on human rights on 4th May (at column 999 of Hansard), with reference to the Eastern bloc, said: The only understanding possible is one firmly based on some ascertainable coincidence of interests". I like to think that in time, in enlightened Christianity, that coincidence of interests could be found.

So then we have to consider what is the most intelligent approach to religious education for our children. Broadly speaking, there are three possible courses. First, negative, as practised in Russia. Children whose parents are trying secretly to instil in them some form of religious belief, can, if discovered—as they almost inevitably are—be taken away from their homes and be sent to atheistic boarding schools. Secondly, neutral, as practised in the United States. In their State schools I understand that it is forbidden to teach Christianity at all. I hoped to have full details of this, but some correspondence has gone astray and I have only bare facts. Thirdly, positively, as practised in this country, although in a rather halfhearted way, which is the reason for this debate.

In my attempt to discover just what is going on in our schools today, I am particularly grateful for a review of opinion of some of those connected with the Association of Christian Teachers in North Staffordshire. I refer now to what they say. To the question we are debating: "Is there considered to be a lack of an adequate Christian content in RE teaching in local education schools now?", the answers suggest that they think the subject is not taken nearly seriously enough. It was stated that the "agreed" syllabus in general use gives plenty of scope for "adequate Christian content", but there is often a lack of such content for one or more reasons.

First, there is a lack of qualified teachers—as was discussed in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago—and this is in part due to the low status of the RE teacher within the school and is part of a vicious circle. Secondly, there is a restricted time allocation which prevents proper academic presentation of even a limited syllabus. Thirdly, there is an exaggerated desire to be "objective"and here I quote: We feel that the fear of accusations of dogmatism has made the pendulum swing too far against the presentation of positive Christian teaching and the validity of a personal faith. This is reflected in the approach and content of many recent text books. And my informants go on: We feel that a large proportion of the nation's young people are impoverished culturally—and morally—by their ignorance of the Bible. So far as multi-racial schools go, it seems reasonable that all children in Great Britain should learn what Christianity is—and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has made this point most forcefully—and in particular that they should become familiar with the Bible, which has played such a large part in our culture and literature, and that of many other countries; and other noble Lords have emphasised this point, too. I believe this should be the firm base on which to branch out, if desired, to specialist studies of comparative religion, Marxism and so on.

Assemblies in school are a more difficult problem. It is one thing for Sikhs or Moslems or Jews to learn about Jesus Christ: it is quite another thing to expect them to pray to God in his name. It is equally unsatisfactory to require pupils who consciously reject belief in God to participate in such worship. It should be realised, however, that the number of convinced atheists in our schools is very small indeed, and most pupils are more likely to object to assembly in the first instance because it is boring (or patronisingly didactic) rather than because of its theological premises.

I have been fortunate in being able to discuss the problem of school assemblies with the head of a large comprehensive complex. Although a Christian herself she is against the formal act of worship required by the Act of 1944. Personally, I cling rather more to the idea of a simple service carried out with dignity, imagination and beauty, but I do appreciate the difficulties in multiracial schools. I agree that assemblies must be relevant to life and not seem just a meaningless mumbo-jumbo. I am reminded how the hymn "Rock of Ages, cleft for me" was translated into a foreign language and then back into English, to read: "Very old stone, cut in half for my benefit". This makes one wonder what the whole hymn is about, anyway.

The head I am talking about has carried out a most stimulating series of assemblies on such subjects as loneliness, a recent disaster or tragedy, the work of Amnesty International, the care of the aged and so on. This needs a great deal of preparation and sheer hard work and is admirable. It is significant, however, that she admits that after three years' endeavour they are faced with an exhaustion of local resources. It is impossible to be super stimulating all the time, and even a slightly humdrum service can sometimes, I believe, be acceptable and preferable to some of the alternatives offered.

Might I here humbly suggest that we, my Lords, put our own House in order. I do not blame the right reverend Prelates, but I submit that our daily form of worship is largely both uninspiring and out of date. Anyway, I end as I began. I am convinced that we abjure Christianity at our peril, and that we must ensure that ours is a living and developing faith. Our young deserve the best possible preparation not only for today, but also for tomorrow.

6.17 p.m.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE

My Lords, before saying a few words, I should like to apologise to the House for my inability to be here for the end of the debate. I should very much have liked to listen to it but I have a pressing and previous engagement. I, with other noble Lords, am most deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this debate, and I am equally grateful to so many other brilliant speakers that we have heard this afternoon.

I was brought up in a religious home; it happened to be a Christian one but could easily have been of any other religion. It was God-fearing. From early days I realised that there was another dimension. One had one's parents; one had one's brothers; one had one's sisters—and I had a number of both—but there was also God. I learned that through saying one's prayers as soon as one could talk, one learned to have faith and to believe and trust in God at an early age, because prayer leads through learning to worship.

If one is lucky enough to have an early training in religion, one indeed is fortunate. I have found that through all the vicissitudes and joys of life the extra dimension—that is, of religion and faith —will always be there wherever one goes and whatever trouble one is in. That is why I think it is so vitally important that our children, and our children's children, should have the opportunity of religious teaching. Their whole way of life can be made the richer and the fuller if they have a training at an early age. From the inquiries that I have made I have not yet found anyone who is satisfied with the religious education in our schools as it is now. That is why I wholeheartedly support the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for an inquiry. I hope that the Government will encourge this.

What is taught matters as much as how it is taught. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I firmly believe that it is not possible for a teacher to impart his knowledge if he has no faith himself. We must therefore encourage those who see the need for religious education to take an extra course in this subject. As has already been mentioned, we know some teacher training colleges are to be closed in the foreseeable future due to the fall in the birth rate. I should like to ask the Minister precisely how many places there are now for the teaching of students of religious education, and how many there will be in the future when these colleges are closed. I understand that in the foreseeable future in the North of London students from the Polytechnic may be able to take courses at the nearby theological college. That seems to me to be an excellent idea, especially as it would give the students the right atmosphere in which to study.

The subject of religious education has been lying dormant for far too long, and too many Governments and too many Ministers have failed to grasp the nettle which perhaps it represents: it had always been left to somebody else. Our children deserve to be taught and, despite all the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said in his brilliant speech, I feel that at this time both parents and teachers are abrogating their responsibilities if they do not supply the means of learning to their children.

6.21 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of PETERBOROUGH

My Lords, we are about halfway through, so I will try to give the "halfway headlines". We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, not only for arranging this debate but for having it today, which is the eve of the Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord. Therefore, our thoughts, helped by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, go up and beyond before we look among ourselves.

It is so evident from all that has been said that no one can be content with the way that Section 25 of the 1944 Act is working, nor with the way that in some places it has been deliberately designed not to work. That it works at all makes a very few all the more reiteratingly hostile; that it works less well than it should makes most of us here in this House, and most people outside, sad. "Sadder" and "wiser" go together and the question is: how wise can we be? If sadness flattens into despair, it will masquerade as realism —it always does—and it will say of Section 25, "Away with it, away with it!" But the fine art of the possible (and another, much better, name is hope) will look for revival and for reinvigoration and, up against a brick wall, will look for resurrection. I believe that sober reflection upon the schools of this country must extend to what they could be and to how they could so become, and not make school prospectuses read like obituaries.

There has been some well-advertised failure of nerve caused by the general and also well-advertised theological malaise and by barren ineptitude on the part of some teachers who have become uncertain of the things in which they might have expected to have been instructed. But lack of nerve has become more a habit of mind than a justifiable philosophy and I believe that the cure, pragmatically, is not too difficult; for the key to every school is the head teacher. On him depends all that goes on in the schools and the way in which it goes on. The aim and intention are to create in the minds of all who teach all things, and all who learn all things, imaginative curiosity, the sense of wonder and (in its proper meaning) the sense of poetry, creativeness, awe and worship, which in its lowest terms is the admission in all critical matters of the possibility that one might be wrong and therefore that there is more to learn. When that is the aim, all goes well and all comes alive. When there is no such aim, even the teaching of eurhythmics can become like a danse macàbre performed at some undertakers' annual rally.

The greatest mystery is the mystery of Christ which, like nothing else, stretches the human mind. It is not only a mystery which confronts the human race but one which also makes the human race part of itself; and the need to see that every child is put into the way of instruction in the things of Christ is self-evident. I could go on for a very long time, but I shall not.

Let us, my Lords, look at what can be done and what can be encouraged. I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Blake. Let the Government see that every education authority provides the necessary tools, which must always include, for instance, copies of the Holy Bible, and see that teachers are trained in sufficient quantities and are of sufficient quality to use them. It is so obvious that it is hardly worth repeating, but in these days nothing happens, it seems, except by repetition.

Also—and this I believe will remove much of the frustration from countless parents—let Christian people of sense and good will be encouraged to become school managers and governors. They can be an enormous help and encouragement to head teachers and, through them, to the teachers. Let them not be fobbed off with a lot of paper about the drains, the number of lavatories or the new school uniform. Let them also invigorate locally parent-teacher associations. I know, too, that there are not a few clergy and ministers who would gladly help in all that and more besides. The prickly professional pride of a few years ago which would stand in the midst of paralysis and call it progress is diminishing and I believe there is only a little sweeping up to do of the scene, clearing it of the clichés of indoctrinated agnosticism of a generation ago. We must not get hypnotised or fascinated by that.

I believe that a large part of what we want to do—and all of us can help to do this—can be done in the localities, in the parishes and the districts and within local authorities. We must see that no child is denied the right to receive an honest and whole-hearted introduction to what the Evangelist calls, "The things of Christ". Most parents want this; all children have a right to it; and I am grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for starting this debate and for promoting the subtle and vital art of the possible.

6.30 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, like everyone else, I would echo the last words, and indeed many other words, of the right reverend Prelate in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this debate and for the memorable speech which he delivered. I would say briefly that I support all his proposals, and if I do not dwell on them in the form in which he delivered them, it will be to avoid repetition. At any rate, I strongly support them. We have listened to many other memorable speeches, and we were all greatly impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, and the moving address of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I suppose that those who are not old-timers in this House will not have heard a speech that held the attention of the House quite so closely, and carried people along so intensely, since Lord Birkett delivered that famous speech about the Lake District. It took Lord Birkett about an hour to make that speech, and the noble Lord, Lord RedcliffeMaud, took about 10 minutes to deliver his, which I think is a slight point in Lord Redcliffe-Maud's favour, particularly when there are 37 speakers. At any rate, it was a wonderful effort.

Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is a master of objective teaching. He taught politics at Christchurch most objectively for many years. Now I come to think of it. I was his predecessor in that role and I do not know whether I taught it more or less objectively. At any rate, I taught at both ends. I started as a Conservative and finished up as a Socialist, and I hope that lf was still teaching as objectively at the end as f was at the beginning. So that, between us, we know all about objective teaching.

I must conform to the rules of brevity, like everyone else. On the last occasion, when I opened that Unstarred Question debate in February, I was dealing with what might be called quantitative questions, questions of supply. Today, we are dealing with content—what one might call qualitative questions. But one cannot draw an absolute distinction between quantity and quality. To make only one point, there is little doubt in my mind —and I think that those who have looked into the matter closely, certainly those who have been involved directly, will agree—that a number of keen young Christians, who would otherwise teach religious education, are being discouraged by the fact that, by most standards, it is less Christian in content than it was a few years ago. I do not think there is any doubt that it is less specifically Christian. Some may think that that is a good thing, while others may think it is a bad thing, but I do not believe there is any doubt about the fact.

A few years ago, I visited what was a teachers training college, where teachers are now being trained in religious education, and there were a number of young people who had been attached to schools as part of their training. As a matter of fact, they had been attached to primary schools. I asked whether any of them had seen any Bibles in the schools and none of them had. So one cannot really say that the Bible is featured very strongly. There was none visible, although I cannot say whether there were any locked away in a cupboard with the key lost.

It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, on the subject of liberal theology. I have read some of those German books—in English, I hasten to say. I always remember what Ernie Bevin said, when Molotov quoted some German Marxist writer—I think he was called Hilferding—and Bevin said, "I have read Hilferding and I found him tedious". That is what some people may say about some of these German writers who have tried to whittle down the New Testament.

I came across one brilliant teacher of more orthodox Christian education, whose book had been for a time banned in the college in which he was teaching. Later the ban was lifted. But I am backing up the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, in saving that, in many cases, there are very strong pressures exerted to prevent the kind of orthodox Christianity which would probably find favour among most Members of the House—certainly, those who have spoken hitherto. So that one must face the fact that, so far as one can judge, a great many Christians who would he available for teaching religion in schools are frightened off by the atmosphere in many of these colleges. One cannot quantify that; I think that is simply a fact.

Why should we teach Christianity in our schools? We discussed last time—and I will not dwell on that at great length—the need for religious education of some kind. Personally, I believe—and I think that most people who have spoken, and those who are yet to speak, also believe—that moral education cannot be taught without religious education of some kind. We may be told that there are some Humanists, some of whom we respect highly—they are friends of many of us in this House — who are not Christians. In many cases, one will find that they have a Christian background. In some cases, they have a Jewish background.

In some cases, it works the other way round. My dear old friend and master, the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, Lord Beveridge, was brought up with no religion at all, but he finished up, as those who took part in a debate on Christian unity will remember, saying that while he could not join any particular Church, he was happy—to use a phrase now available in public schools—to be placed on the general list. That was someone who started without any religion at all, who finished up on the general list after the first 78 years of his life. The fact is that many Humanists in this country who have a Christian background are living on its capital.

I now come to the argument—and I will not dwell on it at great length, because it has been discussed by so many speakers—that Christian teachers must be whittled down, because we are now what is called a pluralist society. So far as that phrase is concerned, I can only adopt a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the other day—fiddlesticks! Anybody who says that this country is a pluralist society is talking fiddlesticks. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, that was the strongest word that he thought was permitted in the House, so I use it in that sense. There is no doubt that the great majority of people want their children to be given some religious education, and in the overwhelming majority of cases that means that they want them to be given a Christian education. It may be asked: what is the proportion of children who belong to non-Christian religions? What are the figures? The odd thing is that nobody seems to know. I have given 24 hours' notice to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and I really press the question: what is the proportion? I have made a number of inquiries from the various race relations bodies and no one can tell me. Indeed, they said that the Department of Education and Science discouraged that kind of information. So we must take it that it is a very small proportion. That seems to be conceded. Is anyone seriously going to say that the whole religious education of this country must be turned topsy-turvy to suit this very small minority? That would be quite absurd.

On the other hand, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and others, that these people who belong to non-Christian religions—and I am not talking at all of the West Indians, because they are just as much Christian as we are—must be treated as being as important as anyone else. They are as dear to us as anyone else. There is no question of them getting inferior treatment. But it seems that at the present time they are fairly well satisfied with the kind of education that they have been given, though, in a sense, nobody is completely satisfied, whether or not they are Christians.

I inquired of the chairman of a borough where there is a very high proportion of non-Christian children, as to whether they had any complaints. He said that the only complaint he could remember was from Mohammedan parents, who objected to their girls going to school with boys; in other words, they objected to mixed schools. That was a point which clearly had to be dealt with. I have been told that some of them object to the wearing of gymslips, although the chairman did not say that. At any rate, the costume might raise some objections. Nobody however, is objecting to the Christian content. Therefore we must take it that there is no objection among the minority groups to the content of Christianity. Certainly they would object if an attempt were made to proselytise them, but in the absence of that we must take it that they are broadly satisfied with what is provided. If, however, the time comes when they want their own schools in certain areas they ought to have them. They are as much entitled to the kind of religious education that they need as any Christians could be.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that no comparative religion should he taught, but that I think it is being overdone—certainly in some cases among young children. However, to understand Christianity properly we need some understanding of other religions. Even if there were no immigrants at all, I would still say that some attention should be paid to the non-Christian religions. This has been brought out in various ways by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his powerful speech. I always like listening to the noble Lord, if only because he is such a great admirer of Jesus Christ. All Christians must warm to him for the way he speaks about the Founder of the Christian religion. Quite apart from that, however, what he said aroused very deep interest as we listened to him.

As the noble Lord and others have said, since 1944 there has been an immense increase in the freedom of discussion. I do not think that there have been any epoch-making discoveries. In my humble way, I have been studying Christianity for more than 30 years and have not suddenly come across some remarkable writings. Bultmann wrote long before 1944. There has not been any cataclysmic revolution in thought in the last 30 years. In general, not only in regard to Christianity, we now live in an era of very free discussion—whether it is sex, my own Roman Catholic Communion, or any of our institutions. Mercifully, perhaps, our Monarchy seems to have survived without this kind of very brutal criticism being brought to bear upon it. However, we live in an age of this kind and there is no going back on it. Therefore, we must realise that teaching methods—whether in mathematics, history, religion or whatever—cannot be the same as they were 30 years ago. That is much the most important change which affects the teaching of religious education. It is much more important than the coming of a relatively small number of immigrants. Therefore, whatever is taught must be taught in a way that is regarded as rational—at any rate, by older children.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says that, on the whole, Christian ethics are, in his eyes—I am glad he felt he could say that—the highest form of ethics known to him. Therefore let us agree that, if we are going to teach, we should teach Christian ethics. Every good teacher is going to teach some system of morals. The dirty word now is "indoctrination". However, whether we call it indoctrination, instruction or teaching, no school would be much of a school that did not try to leave the children better at the end than at the beginning. In some sense, therefore, moral education is going to be taught in any good school; and it is taught. However, the question is, how much further can we go? That is the topic upon which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, concentrated and upon which he focussed our attention today. He has brought forward very strong arguments, including what one might call the cultural aspect, among others.

Although with much less experience and, if I may use the phrase inoffensively, with much less subtlety, perhaps I may follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. In the end the question is whether we can teach any kind of theology—simple theology, if you like. However, Christianity contains a very large element of theology. Can we teach a simple theology which is combined with rationality that people can investigate with their reason and that they can be satisfied with, even if it is submitted to the most severe discussion? We live in an age when anything which is taught to older children must be submitted to that test. It is impossible to begin to teach any complete philosophy of life unless we are prepared not just to stop at the ethics but to move on to some kind of theology. In the case of Christianity that means a fairly close study of the Bible. It could be called a return to the Bible, because there has been a wide departure from the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Therefore I close with the thought that we Christians must be anxious to see that this becomes a much more Christian country than it is now—not that I say that it is any less a Christian country than it was. This is not a question which we can settle. However, we must be anxious to ensure that this becomes a much more Christian country than it has ever been. If we are asking our young people to make Christianity the centre of their teaching, they must be ready to discuss it and to argue about it. It is no good hoping nowadays that they can impose their views on anybody. Today that is quite impossible. It must be utterly rational but, if possible, it must be inspired. It must be inspired by belief and, still more important, by love. I hope that we shall bring our children through a rational study to a belief in Jesus Christ and, finally, to a love of Him.

6.46 p.m.

Viscount INGLEBY

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in what he has just said, particularly in his call for a return to the Bible. Also I should like to support very much the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in the terms of his Motion. At the present time there are, no doubt, many children who do not go to Church or to Sunday school. Therefore the only opportunity they have of hearing the basic facts of Christianity is from their day schools. I agree so much with what was said by the daughter of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich: that every child has a right to know the basic facts of Christianity and how, if they do not have a right to know the basic facts, can they choose?

One of the themes that has run through the debate has been the discouragement which some religious education teachers feel at present. Perhaps the best course for me to take is to quote from a letter that I have just received from the head of a religious education department in a large London comprehensive school. This is what he says: If Christian people want Christian teaching in religious education, then it is very largely up to the Churches to sound the call to their people to consider this as a form of full-time Christian service. I don't think I can recall one solitary time during my 11 years of RE teaching when I have heard ministers suggest to their young people that they consider this form of service … It is just as tough as missionary work, in just as alien an environment, and even more demanding than preaching two sermons a week. The RE teacher may give up to 30 messages ' a week, to an uninvited audience, who know nothing, virtually, of spiritual things, who at the same time present the teacher with no end of behavioural problems and who are growing up in an environment largely hostile to Christian values. So it is no soft option. It is hard, challenging, tiring, depressing work, but one that also opens up no end of opportunities for spiritual and moral growth among the young". It is obviously a vital task to be an RE teacher at the present time. Let us do all that we can to encourage RE teachers and to pray for them in this vital work.

6.49 p.m.

Lord HOME of the HIRSEL

My Lords, I should like to open with three short observations which are no formality. First, may I join noble Lords in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Blake for the timely introduction of this debate and for the authority with which he has spoken. Secondly, may I say what a pleasure it is to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke. Many of us remember the distinguished service of his father to this country. It is nice to see him sitting here and speaking in his own right. We hope he will often do so. Thirdly, it is a privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for this reason: that all your Lordships know he is somebody who practises what he preaches, particularly in the field of unity of the Churches.

Three months ago the noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised in this House the question of the supply of teachers for religious instruction in schools, and of course he is much too good a Parliamentarian not to know that in no time your Lordships will have shifted the ground of the debate from the mechanics, important though they are, to the basic questions. In our modern society—and it is now more than 30 years since the 1944 Act—is there a place at all for religious education? If so, what should be taught, and how? And is it not likely that unless Parliament underlines its support for the 1944 Act now, the trend which is visible at present will continue and religious education in many of our schools will first fade and then begin to perish by default?

As other noble Lords have done, I must give my own definition of religious education. It is not exclusive but it is one which gives a definite priority to the teaching of Christianity. What is the justification for that? I think we need look no further than this Jubilee Year and this Parliament. British Sovereigns at their Coronations dedicate themselves to the service of the Christian God. Yesterday I was present at the magnificent service of rededication by the Queen to the service of God and, through God, service to her people. That was no veneer of convention. From that magnificent congregation and the people outside came an expression from the heart of a belief in a Christian purpose, expressed through our Queen.

Every day in this Chamber and in another place—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn reminded us of this—we beign our proceedings with prayer, and we say, "Prevent us, Oh Lord, in all our doings". That again is not a mere convention; it springs from a deep belief that there is some strength outside even the Parliament of this country, with all its powers, without which we should be a poorer place, a weaker place and a more faltering place than we are. When we talk about—as we do—Church and State, we mean the Christian Church. In that sense, therefore, Britain is a Christian country and our young citizens should be made aware of that inheritance and of the origins of it.

One must over-simplify because of the time. How should this religion be taught? I wish that the foundation of the knowledge of the Christian religion could still be given by the mother and father in the home, but for many economic and social reasons that is no longer done as it was before, and we can scarcely rely upon that situation improving. Although the young people of our country cannot, because of television, be unaware that religion exists, nevertheless if it is to be well taught the responsibility must increasingly fall on the schools.

What should be taught? I may be unambitious, but I would not require (at least in the primary schools and in the early years of secondary education) anything very complicated. I would try to find what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, described, in shorthand, as a simple theology. Therefore I do not advocate more than the teaching of the basic facts of the story of Christ and some of the consequences which flowed from the life of Christ on earth. They are transcendental and dynamic enough in all conscience, and yet many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our children are ignorant of them.

What are these facts? The fact that on any count Christ must qualify as the greatest man who ever lived on earth—at the lowest, far greater than any of the prophets; at the highest, divine. Our children should not be left ignorant of that fact, and at present too many are ignorant of it. Then there is the fact of course that Christ made a claim for man unique in the history of religions—the claim of individual salvation.

I remember—and I quoted this in another context—once being present at a meeting which was addressed by Miss Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson as she is now) and she was talking about the impact of Christianity on the Romans. She said this: The thing about Christianity which gave them"— that is the Romans— the extraordinary sense of relief and power was the resurrection and the knowledge that God had become man and given men the power to break away from the wheel to which sin bound them. They were no longer being told to be good. They were receiving the power to be the sons of God". That is an overwhelming message, the message of individual salvation. How many of our children know of the historical origin of that today?

Then the third fact is that from the teaching of Christ. not directly but evolving over the years which immediately followed his death, there came about a code of conduct of moral and ethical values which historically has had a profound effect on the history of Europe and the evolution of Britain's democracy. Our children should not be left in ignorance of all that.

Putting all those facts together, one can say that they are a proper subject for any school curriculum. Yet those facts are inadequately taught in very many of our schools today, and if the teacher likes to add that Britain would be a happier and more contented society if we did not kill, if we did not steal, if we did not covet, if we did not bear false witness and did respect our neighbours, I would not myself hold him guilty of indoctrination. This may be a simple approach but too many of our children are ignorant of these facts. It may be that in this modern industrial society, when I suppose man can claim that he is a creator in his own right, we may feel that we have got beyond the point when we need the kind of external strength and support to which I have referred. If so, I think we are unwise: it is likely to be the pride before the fall.

Of course when we have a debate of this kind—and we have heard some of it today—there is always a rush of caveats. Other cultures will be offended; some parents and children will opt out; some teachers may evangelise; some teachers may be incompetent or so disinterested as to do more harm than good. There are such risks—certainly there are. There are difficulties, some of which were pointed out by my noble friend Lord RedcliffeMaud, for the teachers. But as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—and I am sorry he is not still here—it began to occur to me that if one really pays too much attention to some of these caveats one is in danger of becoming so broadminded that one fades away into dialectics, and from those dialectics one ends up with no purpose at all. Lord Brockway is a delight to listen to, but I am never quite sure what to do after he has finished speaking. Let us by all means teach as many religions as we can, but let priority be given to Christianity, because this is the religion of our country. If we are too diffident we shall get nowhere, and this is, in my submission, a case of nothing ventured nothing gained.

My Lords, I have attempted to show that religion has a proper place in any school curriculum on account of history and historical knowledge which is particularly relevant to the civilisation of Europe and to Britain, to argue that we have a positive responsibility to tell our children of these things, because far too many do not know, and we have a responsibility to tell them of the supreme promise of the Christian religion which is unique, that of individual salvation. They should know about it. They can—as I think Lord Longford said—reject it later. But my approach to this matter is that it is for the teacher to teach the knowledge and for the pupil to judge. I think our fear of teaching Christianity perhaps stems from distrust of teacher and distrust of pupil, and that is not a good basis for any action.

Finally. I have suggested that we dare not keep our children in ignorance of the code of conduct which has evolved from the teaching of Christ in respect of community living, because it has, and I need not elaborate this; it has the closest connection with the kind of democracy which free peoples want to see. So I would myself strongly support the proposals of Lord Blake, and once more express gratitude that this subject has been given such a full debate in your Lordships' House.

7.3 p.m.

Viscount COMBERMERE

My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this important debate. I should like also to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on a memorable maiden speech. And I should like, as is customary, to explain my own interest in the debate. I lecture in Religious Studies at London University Extra-Mural Department, and I am a member of the Shap Working Party on World Religions in Education.

My Lords, there are five aspects to this debate to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First, there is the question of total time available for RE in the school curriculum; secondly, there is the question of the way in which that time is spent; thirdly, there is the question of whether the total time available and the way in which that time is spent is desirable or adequate; fourthly, there is the question of the danger of indoctrination, which I believe is still not insignificant; and, finally, there is the question of the academic status of the subject, and, connected with this, the supply of adequately trained staff.

To take the first question, it is, I believe, generally recognised that the total time allocated for RE in local authority schools is very little, at least in relation to the time allocated in timetables for other subjects. It is difficult to generalise, but I believe that in most cases this involves at the most one period, and very occasionally two periods, per week, except, of course, in those few schools that make provision for the subject to be taught at 0 and A levels. Quite apart from other considerations, in most cases this means that the subject cannot be taken as a serious academic subject. It means that very few pupils take RE at 0 and A level. This in turn must have an effect on prospective trainee teachers going forward to colleges of education. It means that for many of them RE specialisation is not a viable choice. This again affects the supply to schools of qualified teachers of RE.

In my view, the study of religion in its widest sense—by which I mean the study of Christianity and other religions—is as academically viable and as educationally important as any other subject, and should, on academic and on educational grounds, be accorded the same amount of time as, for example, history and geography. Religious motives and religious commitments have often lain behind man's noblest achievements, on the one hand, and behind some of his basest acts on the other. It is unthinkable that one should consider a child to be adequately educated without some knowledge of what has proved to be one of the most powerful of driving forces in human history, whatever one's views about the nature of that force. I wholeheartedly echo Lord Blake's comment when he said that education which misses out religion is not education.

The second question is: Given that the time allocated to RE is limited, what in fact is the content of the syllabus taught? In consulting my colleagues about this, one thing that strikes me is that it is virtually impossible to generalise, but the indications are that possibly up to 20 per cent. of local authority schools offer an exclusively Christian syllabus with a heavy element of pure biblical teaching. On the other hand, a much smaller proportion of schools place an equally heavy emphasis on world religions, with Christianity having a disproportionately small place. In the majority of schools, however, it would appear that while Christianity is predominantly taught more time is gradually being allocated to the teaching of world religions. In a very few schools Humanism, Marxism and other alternative life stances form a small part of the RE curriculum. I would stress, however, that this view of the general content and mix of RE syllabuses is purely a personal impression based on a few soundings taken, and other noble Lords may well have more concrete evidence based on deeper investigations.

Coming to my third point, perhaps I could turn now from a consideration of what is taught to a consideration of what is desirable and adequate. In terms of the teaching of Christianity in particular, there is the view that schools can do little more than reflect the ethos of the society that establishes them, and that if that society lacks a specifically Christian ethos then it is up to the Churches to recall the nation to that Christian ethos. I agree with this view to the extent that it is not the role of the schools to convert the young to Christianity; rather it is the role of the Church to propagate faith. It is, however, and it goes without saying, the role of the schools to educate, and, in my view, one period, and occasionally two periods, a week is not enough to teach a child the elements of a subject which I submit is as important as history and geography.

If the country as a whole is unsympathetic to this, then I believe that sometimes it is necessary for those in a position to do so to take the lead in the field of education and so help form public opinion. But if it is right to plead that more time be made available for teaching about the basic features and ethics of Christianity, it is even more urgent that more time be given to RE periods if the view is accepted that religions other than Christianity should be included in the RE curriculum. Personally, I believe that it is right, and indeed essential, that children should be taught something of the basic features of those major religions which are so important, both in terms of past history and of present influence in world affairs; but not only because of this, for within our schools we will find Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist and Sikh children.

I would not wish to exaggerate the significance of this, but it is certainly not insignificant. Sheer commonsense alone dictates that we must take account of this and include in our school curricula sufficient provision for some of the elements of the major religions of the world to be taught. The deepest beliefs and commitments of people who belong to religions other than one's own must be of concern to those of us who increasingly encounter them. But this is only one reason for advocating the teaching of religions other than Christianity in our State schools. The study of religion in its widest sense, Christianity and other religions, is an important academic study in its own right, and spans a wide range of individually important disciplines. It involves of course at advance level a knowledge of languages and an acquaintance with philsophy.

I believe that the study of religion can be justified purely on the grounds that what has moved man to some of his noblest deeds of self-sacrifice and to some of his most heinous crimes is of enormous educational importance. On a more spiritual level, man's understanding of ultimate reality, however expressed in different traditions, and his understanding of his own nature and of his relationship to that reality, is equally important in educational terms. To grow up unaware of these beliefs and traditions is like growing up without a knowledge of countries like India, China and Saudi Arabia.

A number of reasons, which are persuasive on the surface, as to why world religion or, as it is sometimes called, comparative religion should not be taught, have from time to time been put forward. For example: Comparative religion makes men comparatively religious". is an oft-quoted comment by Ronald Knox, which in my opinion, underlines an entirely misconceived view of the nature of religious education. The aim is not to make men or children religious, or for that matter irreligious. The role of the school, as opposed to that of the Church, is to widen knowledge and not to strengthen faith. In any case, practical experience seems to indicate that confrontation with other religions appears to sharpen faith rather than diminish it.

However, having stressed the view that world religion should be included in any RE syllabus, I believe that as this country is still a Christian country and as it owes an enormous cultural and ethical debt to Christianity, then—as many noble Lords have previously said—that religion should form the bulk of any RE syllabus. Should other so-called life stances—Humanism or Marxism—also be taught and included in the RE syllabus? That is a debatable question. I believe that they should be taught, but should probably not be included in an RE syllabus, especially if time is limited. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if they were to be included in general studies classes.

It has been suggested that ethics alone should be taught—in other words, divorced from any religious context—and that this should form the bulk or even sole content of those periods which are allocated for RE. In effect, this is a plea that only Humanism should be taught in schools, and in my view it is as intolerant as the insistence that only Christianity should be taught. To teach any one system of thought or any one religion to the total exclusion of anything else is really nothing more than a subtle form of indoctrination.

That brings me to my fourth point. Any suggestions of preaching Christianity, or for that matter any other religion, rather than teaching about it must be finally rooted out. A great deal has already been done in this respect, but I believe that there are still a few schools left where the aim is to indoctrinate and not to teach. The danger comes perhaps when the study of RE is turned from an objective study of commitment in others to an active propagation of the teacher's own faith because of his or her commitment.

But teaching without preaching does not merely mean the cold presentation of bare historical facts. Like any other subject, religious education must be imaginatively, enthusiastically and skilfully taught. It must also involve an understanding of what commitment means, but without the committed teacher imposing his commitment on his pupils. I wholeheartedly agree with a colleague of mine when he writes: By RE I mean education for a full understanding of what it means to have a sense of commitment, an aim well served by looking with empathy and insight at the piety, culture and life style of the major faiths that are part of present-day life in the United Kingdom and in daily news around the world". Finally, to advocate more time for religious education in school timetables is useless unless there are competent, trained teachers to take advantage of it. I do not propose to go into the question of the supply of RE teachers, which was the subject of a debatable question in your Lordships' House some weeks ago. I would, however, spotlight one area where I believe the lack of provision for RE specialisation is a direct threat to the maintenance and raising of academic standards of RE as taught in our State schools. This glaring gap is in those university departments of education which make provision for the teacher training of theology graduates. So far as I know, only six universities offer these PGCE courses for theology graduates. The implication of this for those same graduates who want to specialise in RE is that it is not a worth while subject. Ultimately, the health of RE as taught in our local authority schools must rest on its acceptance as an academically respectable subject. To gain this acceptance teachers, particularly graduate teachers, need to be trained in the subject.

To summarise: Given that an extended timetable is necessary, the teaching of RE must include the teaching of some of the more important beliefs of some of those religions which are represented today in this country. Of course aims in this direction must be modest. One must be very careful not to introduce concepts and ideas far beyond the age at which the pupil is ready to grasp them. That goes without saying and is a matter of proper teaching methods. It may well, of course, be said that enough time is already being devoted to art subjects in general, and that the schools now need to concentrate on mathematics and the science subjects, because we are desperately short of scientists and engineers in a world that does not owe us a living.

I fully appreciate that argument, but the question is really a matter of striking a happy mean. An understanding of the nature of man's beliefs through the centuries, his most deeply-held convictions and his codes of ethics which have been based on those convictions, is of the greatest importance in an increasingly materialistic, selfish and violent age. What is the object in turning out a scientific genius who is at the same time an ethical imbecile? Do we also want to have a nation of technicians who, for all their professional competence, at the same time are incapable of comprehending and appreciating the deepest beliefs and convictions of their fellow men?

7.18 p.m.

Lord GLENAMARA

My Lords, the Education Act 1944, on which our education system is based at present, marked the resumption by the State of an interest in religious education. The religious provisions in the 1944 Act were, in effect, a treaty between the Churches and the Government in order to end the religious strife which had marred English and Welsh education for very many years. The treaty was arrived at without any great difficulty in the immediate post-War atmosphere, when there was a universal desire for moral and spiritual renewal. In this respect, in ending the religious strife, the treaty has been completely successful.

The religious provisions consist of a requirement that religious teaching should be available in schools and that there should be a daily act of worship. Religious education in effect became the only voluntary subject on the school curriculum because both pupils and teachers could opt out of it. Like the 1944 Act generally—and it was a very remarkable Act of Parliament—the religious education provisions have proved flexible enough to accommodate all the quite profound changes in our society which have occurred since then. Despite what many noble Lords have said, considering the radical changes in the context in which religious education takes place, they have survived to a quite remarkable degree.

However, many of us, including myself, believe that the whole approach to the teaching of religion in schools—indeed, to the teaching of religion to young children—must now be re-examined because there are signs that it is not effective, and there are some signs indeed that the teaching in our schools at the moment is in effect counter-productive. But the context of the re-examination must be 1977 and not 1944 or 1870.

I want briefly to mention four changes over the last 33 years in the context in which religious education takes place today. First, infinitely better relations between the Churches. Many factors are responsible for this; Pope John, the Vatican Council, the ecumenical movement, the dedicated work of priests and ministers throughout the country and, not least, the much maligned agreed syllabus. I think that the effect of the agreed syllabus which has been taught for 33 years has not been sufficiently appreciated. Its purpose was to set out the biggest area of agreement between the religious denominations; the highest common factor. It is partly because of its success that its non-doctrinal approach to religious education is, in my view, no longer necessary. That is the first change; the better relations between the Churches.

The second change is the growth of secularity. I agree with a number of speakers that it is possible to overstate, to exaggerate, this. Nevertheless, obviously there has been a growth of secularity. Before the War, almost everybody professed to belong to one Church or the other, to one branch of the Christian Church, and most people professed some kind, some degree, of Christian belief. Before the war—and I was teaching myself then—teachers could take these two professions for granted. They cannot do that any longer. But in one respect this is a gain. I believe that honest disbelief is very much better than a posture of belief, which we so often got before the war. This growth in secularity has coincided with the development of technology and the consequent affluence in our society. It is far too simplistic a view, as some noble Lords have stated, to say that it is because the religious teaching in our schools has declined in quality.

The third change in our society is the growth in Britain of a multicultural society because of the influx of large numbers of Asian immigrants. This has created enormous difficulties for social policy generally, but especially for education; and in education more particularly for religious education. But here again, as in the matter of the growth of secularity, I believe that this is probably much more of a plus than a minus, because we realise in this country, as never before, that we are citizens of a rapidly shrinking world. We realise that we share with other people from other countries of different colours from ourselves the same common human predicament, and we realise as perhaps never before that we must work together. The influx of Asian immigrants into Britain has brought home as never before that if religion means anything at all in 1977 it must be pre-eminent in finding common ground between people of all faiths, or none, to enable them to work together for the common good. I must say that the past record of organised religion in this respect is not all that hopeful, but I think there are clear signs of hope today.

The fourth change in the context of religious education in the last 33 years has been an extremely profound one, and that is the upsurge of radical theology. I am sorry that all our brethren from the Bishops' Benches have gone. I do not think that anyone sufficiently realises the effect of that bomb which one of their number exploded on the schools a few years ago. The schools will never be the same after Honest to God. I do not think the effect of that has really been realised. Before John Robinson and Bonhöffer talked about religion and Christianity, I am sure that the parents of most of our children today believed that they could lead perfectly good Christian lives without accepting much or any of the miraculous side of the Christian story.

This upsurge of radical theology means that those who are engaged in religious education are faced with questioning as never before. We can lecture teachers here, but it is rather different in the classroom. After Honest to God, teachers are faced with the most radical but perhaps invigorating questioning by those who want to believe, and in some cases by those who have outright disbelief, but at least honest disbelief.

As I see it, in the last 33 years there have been infinitely better relations between the Churches; the growth of secularity, and with that, of course, the growth of autonomous morality. I think that as a consequence of growth in secularity there is a much greater reliance on autonomous self-generated morality as opposed to code based morality. Indeed, I think this change lies at the heart of the problem facing our teachers.

When the 1870 Act was going through Mr. Foster said this: …all of us would agree that morality can only be based upon, and derived from, religious belief". Indeed, someone said that here today. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Few people, however, would hold this today. Many would agree, however, that Christianity probably offers the deepest moral insights; but for most young people today what is "right" and what is "wrong", in the vast area of decision-making where the civil law does not decide for them, is based on rational judgment and sometimes, unfortunately, on emotion only, and not on a Christian code or a Mosaic code. Other factors have contributed to this change—Freudian psychology; modern psychiatric practice; the cult of the individual in schools, and so on. People today do not know as they did in the past, in the sense of being able to refer to a sort of moral ready reckoner what is right and what is wrong; and that faces our teachers with a tremendous problem.

This is the problem facing our teachers today then. Teachers of religious education have the most difficult educational task ever faced by any teachers anywhere. Large numbers of our teachers, however, regard it as a challenge to improve religious education and to give it relevance. Of course, their task is made all the more difficult because many people today question the whole concept of religious education, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did today. Indeed, people ask whether religious education can have any relevance in the shifting sands of belief and commitment. Unless it has relevance to the acute and agonising problems facing young people—sex, drugs, identity, race, and so on—I believe that it would be much better abandoned.

Because religious education must have relevance to the lives of young people and to their decision-making, the relationship between religious education and moral education lies at the heart of what we are discussing today. Professor Jeffreys in a little book called, Truth is not Neutral wrote: The understanding of life comes before the formulation of theology". The Bishop of Horsham in a letter to The Times put the point very well some years ago. He said: In a world which generally accepted the Christian view of life here and hereafter the clergy were able to propound the Christian faith in their own terms and on their own ground. They can no longer do this in a plural society. The Christian message has to be translated into secular terms on secular ground, a process the more complex as that ground now changes so fast". As a number of noble Lords have said, in recent years there has been a great deal of research into the moral and religious growth of children; the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned Piaget and Goldman, and there have been many others. From their work there has emerged ample evidence that the post-1944 non-doctrinal Bible story approach based on an agreed syllabus is no longer working as it was intended to work. A great many of these people found in their research, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, that the most ludicrous misconceptions grew up in the minds of children which bore no relationship to their world—to the children's world—much less to the world of mid-teenagers. They found that young people were abandoning the whole idea of religious belief with such moral teaching as was associated with it at school; they were throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Many older educationalists throw up their hands in horror when the term "moral education" is mentioned. They believed in the past that it was something which should emerge from the ethos of a good school and from the religious teaching. I believe that is not enough, important though it is. I believe there should be in schools the vigorous and uninhibited discussion of actual situations, of specific moral issues, in spite of what his director of education told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norfolk this morning. The material for this is in the daily Press and in the Bible, and the Bible is a marvellous case book for this sort of thing.

There are those who would see this moral education as an alternative to religious education, but where up-to-date knowledge of the moral development of children of the kind r have mentioned is brought to bear in religious education, there need be no dichotomy whatever between moral and religious education; indeed, just the reverse. There was a striking report a year or two ago by the Social Morality Council on moral and religious education.

Thus, I think the contents of the periods in our schools labelled "religious education" should be much wider than the Bible stories, important though they are. They should not be identified with the deliberate attempt to inculcate dogma. Indeed, how patently ridiculous it is—the dishonesty of doing so!—to assert a dogma in a religious education period in a school when every other lesson positively encourages questioning and analysis, positively encourages the refusal to draw conclusions without sufficient evidence, encouraging unsubstantiated propositions always to be regarded as nothing more than hypotheses. Yet some schools do this.

Religious education and the associated moral education cannot in my view, in 1977, be seen in either ecclesiastical or evangelical terms. They must be seen in educational terms, and by that I mean that the object of them must be that of all education, the search for truth by teacher as well as by pupils; the humble but exciting search for truth with no pretence on either side. Above all, I believe that religious education in our schools in 1977 must be open for the expression or disbelief or doubt so that young people can grow up freely into whole mature people who can develop good relations with others, who can learn to live at peace with themselves, and who can grow freely into an awareness of the religious dimension of human life.

The British Council of Churches said: The aim of religious education is to deepen understanding and insight, not to proselytise". It must enable the young person to know what are, and to consider as deeply as possible, the ultimate questions posed by human existence and by his own existence, and then to face those questions with courage, with hope, and, one would hope, ultimately with a faith of his own. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, that all faiths should be open to examination in the classroom. I believe also that the Christian faith, the Judeo-Christian heritage—the Christian answer to those questions—must be expounded today more clearly and more honestly than ever before because in 1977 nobody need pretend any more about religious belief.

That fact, that honesty is perhaps the most hopeful aspect of religious education today. If our youth achieve honesty in matters of belief or disbelief, as they are doing, it will be worth far more than the facade of religious belief, which often passed for religious belief in the schools in the past. So, my Lords, be of good cheer. There are of course many fears, but there is also in the present situation very much hope.

7.37 p.m.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, we are having an extremely interesting debate and as it goes on it becomes more and more interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made a fascinating speech and while I will not deal with all the points he mentioned, I assure him that I listened to him with enormous interest and will read what he said in tomorrow's Hansard with keen interest. While I was a little gloomy halfway through his speech, by the end of it I realised that he was just as anxious and enthusiastic for the teaching of religion and moral principles as are any of us in this Chamber. The noble Lord speaks with enormous experience and, having been a teacher as well, his remarks have that practical knowledge which makes us listen to him with particular interest.

I was also enormously interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said because he put what was to me the point of view of the simplicity and definite principles on which I was educated and brought up—he probably was, too—and for that I have always been exceedingly grateful. I do not think anybody has yet spoken in the debate from the point of view of the Church of Scotland, and I thought I might comment somewhat from that point of view because it is the Church to which I subscribe and attend. I wrote to the Committee on Social Responsibility for the Church of Scotland and received a number of documents of considerable interest, but I will quote only one short paragraph because it is on this that the Religious Education Department bases its view: The purpose of school education should surely be to help children and young people to grow up into whole integrated mature people, with self-understanding and an awareness of others and of the universe around them and to help them to get as well equipped as possible with the mental and practical skills necessary to a full life. Education is preparation for life and living, not just a job, and in a free society it should encourage the next generation to be able to think for itself, while learning to appreciate the contributions of past generations. Religious education as defined above lies right at the heart of this concept of education". I agree with that; we must do everything to enable the schools to fulfil that teaching and explanation.

We know, or have been told, that there is a great shortage of teachers of education. At the same time, one reads in the newspapers that there is a great surplus of teachers because of reductions in expenditure due to the financial position coupled with the fact that there are fewer children in schools. Would it not be possible to see that some of those teachers who, I am sure, do not want to leave teaching are trained in the teaching of religion, where there would undoubtedly be a place for them in view of the fact that so many people say, and I do not think anybody has denied, that there is a great shortage of teachers of religion? If we believe what we are saying today in this House, it should be one of the top priorities to find and train teachers to fill this gap in the schools. We have been told that there is a great shortage of teachers of mathematics. Also, in listening to debates on education, I have heard that there is a shortage of teachers of scientific subjects. Let us put the teachers of religion in as high a category as those of the other subjects for which we are trying to find teachers.

I well remember the passing of the 1944 Act. I was not in Parliament at the time but, as your Lordships know, I have always been deeply interested in everything that happens in Parliament. I was head of a very big youth organisation and in the club movement—which was then in its infancy—we did our best to bring to the growing generation knowledge of what was going on. I particularly remember the interest aroused by the 1944 Act. I remember with what enthusiasm we watched the strong fight put up by Mr. Butler, who was then Minister of Education, for the inclusion of religious education in the Act. I was glad to hear many people in this debate say that they thought the move had been successful and of importance, and that it should be continued.

I should like to feel that, in this generation of young teachers and schools that are changing, we still have that enthusiasm for the teaching of religion, albeit by slightly different methods. My feeling that there is this interest in religion among young people—indeed, among all the people of this country—has been much encouraged by an experience that I had a short time ago. I was invited by BBC television to take part in Songs of Praise, a Sunday television programme. It was recorded last September and I had altogether forgotten what I had said. I was one of five people who gave a very short interview and I was asked to choose a hymn. I was interviewed in the parish church at home for something like a minute and a half. I do not believe that it was any more than that, but your Lordships would hardly credit how many letters that minute and a half in our village church has brought me in the last three weeks. Indeed, the letters are still coming in, and I came into your Lordships' House on the Tuesday alter the broadcast and was greeted by every policeman, all the kind attendants who look after us, and so many of your Lordships saying, "I saw you on the television last night" It is an extraordinary thing that one and a half minutes on television can produce such a result. I am sure that many politicians would be very glad to get as good an effect in so short a time.

It is very encouraging that the programmes on religion—and Songs of Praise is one—should have this colossal following. Millions of people watch on a Sunday night. I should like to congratulate the BBC because I feel that they did the programme exceedingly well. Certainly, mine was a very remarkable experience; that is, it has been a much more remarkable experience since the programme appeared than it was when I recorded it because I was only one of several and I did not feel that anything particularly important would come of it. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said about BBC television and sound broadcasting, ITV and, indeed, all the media and the enormous influence that they can have on this question of religious education. What is encouraging is to find so much enthusiasm for these programmes.

I look back on my own education, which took place such a long time ago that I have almost forgotten it, and I feel that I should have been very sad had I not been brought up in what might now be thought of as the old-fashioned habit of attending a chapel service every morning before work began and of being taught historically as well as religiously about the Bible, the history of religion. Apart from everything else, it was the greatest training in the English language that I had. I am glad that I was taught from the Authorised Version rather than any of the modern versions, which may be excellent but which, to me, are inferior in their language.

I agreed, too, with my noble friend Lord Home when he said that, generous as we should be and are about other peoples' religions, especially in a mixed society such as we have, we are ourselves a Christian country. As did my noble friend, I yesterday went to the magnificent service in Scotland for the Jubilee celebrations. It was most moving and the crowds outside and the appreciation of the whole occasion were terrific. This was all based on the great Christian service which we had in Glasgow Cathedral and which your Lordships will be having in St. Paul's in due course. I do not believe that we should underestimate or denigrate that: we must appreciate that this sort of occasion is really part and parcel of our whole background in this country. It would be a very sad thing if we were to adopt the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—much as I appreciate his views on many others matters—that one can take a completely unbiased and detached view of all the different philosophies and religions which are preached.

Of course, we all respect the religions of those people who are now living in our country—Jews, Moslems, Buddhists and so on—and naturally one wants to see that they have every chance to ensure that their children understand and know about their own religions. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked whether any of us had ever been to a West Indian Christian service in a church. I do not happen to have been to one, but I see no reason why they should not conduct their Christian service as they wish, even if they do include drums, tambourines, singing, dancing or anything else. That is what they want and I cannot see why we should not allow them to have what they want.

I return to the point that I hope we can do everything possible to help with the training of teachers in order that our young people shall have the kind of religious training that previous generations have been used to, and that we shall encourage the media of all kinds to continue their excellent work in religious broadcasting in the many varied ways in which it reaches the public and children today. I also believe that we should have the courage of our convictions and carry on as enthusiastically on this particular subject as we have done in the past.

7.49 p.m.

Lady KINLOSS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, must be congratulated on his subject for debate at this time when there is so much discussion generally on religious subjects. At no time that I can remember have religious institutions been called more in question or greater difficulties been encountered, irrespective of denomination, in recruitment to the clergy. All this can only come back to the question of religious education and especially that in LEA schools—the subject of this debate.

We have listened this afternoon to analyses of the difficulties of the agreed syllabuses and of obtaining and training teachers. It seems to me anomalous that teachers of religion in our LEA schools do not have the same career prospects as other teachers. Surely this is something that can be put right administratively. The shortage of trained teachers of religion is alarming, and it seems quite contradictory to close those teacher training colleges which provide them.

I was astonished when I learnt that in the village where I live the respective ministers of religion have no right of access to the children of their denominations, nor, as might be expected of them, to be able to watch over what is being taught; and this, I understand, is the case throughout England and Wales. I was all the more astonished because I lived for nearly ten years in the old Tanganyika before it gained independence. There, under the Colonial Office framed education ordinance of round about the same date, ministers of religion were specifically given access to children who belonged to their respective denominations, and took full advantage of it in the Government and local authority schools. Their teaching was a great success.

There seems to me to be some muddled thinking here. If, under the 1944 Education Act, the Christian religion is to continue to be taught—and there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this is the desire of the religious authorities, as well as of the parents—then it would seem to me that the first desirable action is proper machinery for collaboration between the Ministry and religious bodies, and at local level between those same bodies and the teachers. Where ministers of religion are given no responsibility and no chance to exercise their duties in respect of schools in their parishes, there is little that they can do; and there is a limit to what a head master or a head- mistress, even a convinced Christian, can do without the collaboration of the clergy. But this action by itself would not have more than a trifling effect if there is no machinery to bring in the parents on whom morally the primary responsibility rests for the education of their children.

My Lords, when we were discussing what is now the Children Act 1975, I said that it was quite right that we should be taking immense pains to secure the temporal rights and prosperity of adopted children, and that, this being so, we had an equal duty to assure the spiritual rights and prosperity of those children. This, of course, applies to all children. No one supposes that we can give religious education to children in the face of the opposition of parents. Indeed, the Act specifically provides that parents may withdraw their children from religious instruction.

I notice with pleasure that recently the Minister, the right honourable Mrs. Shirley Williams, has been giving particular attention to the relationship between schools and parents, and has proposed for discussion a form for parents to sign that gives some account of both their rights and responsibilities in their relationship with the schools their children attend. I would think that what the Minister has proposed is entirely laudable, and I trust it may help her to bring home to the parents that the school cannot perform its function in a vacuum, but needs the active, constructive co-operation of the parents, not only in the classroom, but also in matters of discipline. It is wholly idle to expect schools, however well equipped, or teachers, however numerous or well-trained, to convince children of religious truths, without the active support and co-operation of parents. And teaching, as every teacher knows, is not simply by word, but also by example.

I have in my house a very remarkable series of reports, prepared in 1972–73 by the Reverend J. M. Ritchie, a distinguished Presbyterian authority on Islam, and currently a missionary in the Yemen, on the Moslem communities in Glasgow, South Shields, Bradford and Birmingham. These of course do not exhaust the number of Moslem communities that have grown up in this country in recent years. These reports were prepared by Mr. Ritchie for various organisations concerned with social and religious work. In Glasgow, when the Moslem children are free from their secular schools, they attend a Koranic school for religious instruction on Saturday and Sunday mornings. One of the seven teachers actually travelled ail the way from Aberdeen to teach in it. Classical, or Koranic, Arabic is taught, as well as doctrine, in seven grades. In Bradford, Moslem religious teachers had an agreement with 13 schools—I do not know whether they still have—to teach Islam to Moslem pupils on certain days each week. This was provided parents requested it. In Birmingham almost all the mosques organised religious schools for Moslem children.

I wonder whether or not all ministers of religion, irrespective of denomination, could have free access with suitable agreement to teach in LEA schools the children of their respective denominations, where the parents wish for it, as the Moslem religious teachers do. I do not, however, wish to press the noble Lord who is to reply, for any immediate answer.

What I should wish to see, however, is this—and I feel certain that it is something that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, can support—that a clarion call should go out from this House to support the endeavour of the Minister to persuade parents to co-operate with the schools that their children attend; to awaken them to a new and fresh attitude to their responsibilities; to realise that their duty is as much to ensure the spiritual development of a child as his intellectual or physical development; to see that a child who is underdeveloped spiritually is as handicapped in life as a child who is handicapped mentally or physically. I say, my Lords, a clarion call for parents. It is one that has been made in recent statements by both the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. It is time that parents listened; and it is time that, having listened, they organised themselves for action in the manner both Church and State desire.

7.57 p.m.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing it and for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss what we were discussing in another relationship on 16th February. What we are doing today is treading the grapes again, and I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that treading the grapes is a more arduous process than converting water into wine. Behind all the arguments which I have listened to today—certainly every speech from the avowed Christians—is the manifest unease among devout Christians about the fact that conventional and credal religions have indeed failed to grapple with the urgent, imperative problems of our time. If I may say so, they have lost faith in faith, and are seeking to restore it by law. It cannot be done. This is a secular State; I repeat that it is a secular State, and this is because, as we have heard, people are contracting out of the religious educational system which is permitted or laid down by the 1945 Act. That Act is an anachronism in which, as has been repeatedly said, the only two subjects imposed by law are religion and physical education. I would remind your Lordships—and I do not think it is possible to contradict it—that in 1945 that was a political deal to mollify the denominational schools and indeed the organised religious bodies.

I want to protest in a way against the general attitude which has been adopted—I am not taking umbrage at it; I am simply contradicting it—by many people towards the Humanists, as though we are in confrontation with religion. We are a long way past that. I am the President of the British Rationalist Press Association, and of course the Rationalist position over many years was indeed a confrontational situation. It is no longer. If your Lordships listen to my noble friend Lord Brockway, or any people who speak as Humanists, you will realise that it is no longer so. We are as deeply concerned—in fact, I would almost go further, and say that we are more concerned than some—about the situation which is developing where, in an increasingly materialistic society, a vacuum is being created by a lack or a denial of moral values.

We are for moral values. That is our business, if I may say so. We are an ethical body, and our branches are called ethical societies, and so forth. We do believe; and we are no longer, I assure you, attacking religion. We criticise the Churches, the organisers; we deny superstition; and we at least insist that people should be able to exercise their rational judgments about what passes for religious beliefs which are dictated or dominated by superstition. On a previous occasion, I said that as a scientific Humanist I regard the supernatural as something which we must or can (we shall never succeed, I may say) reduce by reason to the natural; that the supernatural can rationally be examined, studied and understood in terms of the rational. That is a long way beyond the limits or restraints of our present knowledge. By that I mean, for example, that whenever a scientist produces an hypothesis he says, "I believe, if I can prove it, that this is so".

So we are not really in a confrontation situation, and have not been for years. But what we do feel strongly about is the kind of questions which have been raised here and with which I still find it difficult to compromise. I think that the situation was made very clear in an admirable speech by my noble friend Lord Glenamara. I am sorry he is not here, because I thought he said everything that I would have wanted to say, and perhaps I should now sit down, because he did it from the point of view of a professional educationist—a man of great concern, a man of great insight and, as he demonstrated, a man who knew the nature of the educational problem we are discussing here. I agree with every word he said. I do not quarrel with religious education if in fact we know what we are talking about when we are talking about religious education. It is not religious instruction; it is not indoctrination; it is not proseletysing. Let us be clear about that. If we are talking about education in that sense, this is the reality that we are talking about.

We are not proclaiming that you can, in any structured curriculum system, encompass all knowledge and all the religions, and can go through and really study or define comparative religions. What we are saying is that people, and particularly the youngest people in the elementary schools, have of course got to have inspiration. You can call it religious inspiration or you can call it insight inspiration. You have to give children from their youngest years a sense of inquiry, which is their rationalism, and a sense of (the word I have been using) inspiration. We have to have ideas, but they have to be properly motivated. I accept the fact that we live in a Christian society. We live in a Judaic Christian civilization—our background, our literature (as has been said very clearly and quite properly) and everything else. All our arts, if not our sciences, have come out of what was the Judaic Christian tradition.

There is no way in which we want to disentangle that—I am talking now as a Humanist—because this is part of the understanding, the knowledge and the concomitance of our experience, which must find its expression in what we do. But this is the year 1977, and, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, we have had something in the last 20 years. Lord Glenamara was talking about the revolution in the schools created by circumstances—John Robinson and others. That is far below the high theological discussions which were cited, because I feel that John Robinson has really entered into the spirit of trying to capture (I am not being disrespectful to him) the spirit of an age, a questioning age, and has tried to satisfy it.

What we are talking about here is something very profound. Let us face it: in the last 30 years we have had such a transformation of our physical and cosmic world that we are now no longer capable of whistling away or dismissing problems when we see the magnitude of those problems, which are not encompassed by anything which I know. I confess that I have had what Lord Longford was almost reproaching me with—a religious upbringing. I made up my mind quite early, I may say; but, nevertheless, I probably have "a hang-up". But it no longer encompasses it. It cannot encompass it; because we have to ask ourselves the most profound questions. It is not just the meaningfulness of life. We have to talk about the meaningfulness of life because it is the purpose of life, I hope, that we are talking about. But we are now dealing with the most radical change in the whole of the history of mankind.

I leave your Lordships with the problem of the atom bomb. That I leave to the people who can find a Christian answer to the atom bomb. But it is more than that. In the last 30 years, as a result of man's curiosity, of man's questioning of nature and of man's material ambitions, or whatever, we now have a situation in which we have had (and I repeat what I said before) four revolutions in one, all impinging simultaneously on one generation. We have had the atomic age; we have had the communications and computer age; we have had the space age; and we have had what I hand back to the theologians (because one of these days we are going to have an awful problem with what we are going to do about it) and that is the bio-engineering age. What are we going to do when we can literally manipulate the nature of man himself? That is a real problem, and if religion can find me a glib answer I would settle for it. Meanwhile some of us have got to wrestle with the real problem of what we do to find restraints on the kind of vaulting ambitions or indiscretions, almost, of scientists who might in fact change the whole trend of mankind.

This is the kind of thing which you cannot, in fact, find—and I do not say this disrespectfully, because I mean it—simply by the comforts of religion. You cannot find it simply by saying, "That is something I can talk about hereafter". This is not something you can do where you are being confronted, literally, with the facts of a changing world—and part of that changing world is the nature of our education in this country in order to cope with that changing world. A part—I might agree a small part, or a relatively small part, although I attach a great deal of importance to it—is the nature of our multiracial society and our multicredal society, because in my book (which is not the Book of Genesis) you have a situation in which you have to understand this tiny neighbourhood which the world has now become—a crowded neighbourhood, at that—in which all our old barricades or defences are down. Whether it is in Southall, with the Indian living across the fence, or elsewhere, that is the world. Even the Indian in India is, for all purposes, living just across the fence.

We have got to come to terms and understand people. We need to find a way whereby, through a proper educational system, we teach the nature of Christianity or the Christian purpose and lay into it all we can of the Christian ethic. I do not believe that the potential conflicts between children, black, white or yellow, are anything like the situation which may develop later. Presently, certainly, as people grow up in the schools and go into the universities, we must find some way in which our education, based if you like on the Christian tradition, does understand the nature of other peoples and other religions. You do not have to accept the other religions, but you must understand them. It does not mean that a monumental curriculum will be needed to achieve that. I have never found in my experience in going around the world that I had to know all about Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam. All that I had to know was that they were different, and to approach them in that spirit of difference so that I was not causing affront or giving offence, treading on people's susceptibilities or affronting their religion.

One of the great things that I want your Lordships to believe about Humanism—and I am sure you will understand it if you look at my noble friend Lord Brockway—is tolerance. I think that this is one of the greatest contributions we have to make to this debate. Tolerance: I accept your points of view; and I hope that you will accept ours and, above all, I hope that you accept the position of other people in this argument. The only thing that I am intolerant about, my Lords, is intolerance. I find that in some of these arguments we are once again building up a basis of intolerance. I do not want to be floppy in dealing with this question. I do not want our educational system to be corrupted; I want it to be reinforced. But I believe that it will be reinforced best if we recognise that we cannot impose religion by law.

8.14 p.m.

The Duke of NORFOLK

My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for having been absent from part of the debate, but I went to a requiem mass for Cardinal Conway which was said by Cardinal Hume. I thought it right that the English Catholics should have been represented at that mass to try to help restore some peace in that unhappy part of our kingdom. My Lords, I greatly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Blake, drawing attention to this subject. In a debate in the other place in March 1976 it was remarked that there was a great need to maintain and improve the opportunities for religious education. The chairman of the Religious Education Council, Mr. Hogbin, recently in a discussion paper described the position of religious education as being more critical now than ever before. I believe that no reliable statistics are available, but I am told from the inquiries I have made that something like 60 per cent. of those now teaching religious subjects in the schools lack proper qualifications. I see one of the right reverend Prelates nodding agreement. My information is second-hand, but I have taken great trouble to try to get some details for this debate.

There is a lamentable lack of teachers' certificates or bachelor degrees of education being granted for religious education. The Council for National Academic Awards ought to be encouraged to attract teachers to take up religion as a specialist subject. Furthermore, all teachers in the primary schools of this kingdom should be required to follow a substantial study of religion so as to give them a proper background. Religion is now, in fact, being squeezed out at degree level from the academic and professional courses and has become a poor relation. A religious education teacher normally reaches only a Grade II or Grade III position and not Grade IV, as does a teacher in subjects like languages or mathematics. Furthermore, the Department of Education and Science have such stringent regulations in their training institutions that there must be a minimum group size before they set up a course in a subject. If there are not enough students at a college of education who are wanting to study religious subjects they are unable to pursue these courses and the course is disbanded.

It has also been suggested to me that during all this great reorganisation of education which is taking place throughout the schools in the country, the setting up of comprehensive schools and so on, opportunities should be thrown up for the organisation of in-service courses on religion so that teachers who qualify in other specialist subjects, subjects which are no longer in such demand, could re-train and be qualified in religious subjects as well. I understand that 20,000 highly-qualified teachers are unemployed at this moment. Many of these must be willing to add religion as an additional subject to their qualifications. They could become very useful members of school staffs which lack such religious teachers.

Some teacher training colleges, as I believe they are now called, have flourishing diploma courses on religion. There is one such at this moment that is, in fact, in danger of being disbanded. It is St. Mary's College of the Sacred Heart at Fenham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Attention has already been drawn to this. Let me elaborate further. This college is the only Christian college giving Christian education in the North-East. It is not a college which is teaching Catholicism; also on its board is a Methodist minister. It studies the history of religion, comparative religion and religious history and there is much fruitful discussion on Humanism and ethics in general. I urge the Government most sincerely to consider whether it is right that a college that is so concerned should be at the moment under the axe of disbandment.

My Lords, there is another point that is kindred to this. Because there are so many unemployed teachers, vicars, priests and Methodist ministers throughout the Kingdom are discouraged from taking classes inside schools unless they have teaching qualifications that enable them to be teachers and to be treated as teachers. Why should this be so? Why should they not be encouraged by headmasters to go to the schools and to give, so to speak, extra-mural instruction in religion? This is happening in some schools but not in all schools. I know that there is a trade union problem here: church ministers competing with unemployed teachers. But surely if we are trying to look after the youth of our country it ought to be able to fit the two together.

It is patently obvious that the family is the basis of human life. I have spent 30 years of my life in the Army; I have seen throughout the world what the family unit is, and I know, as do all your Lordships, that the family—the husband, wife and children—provides the best way of bringing up the children to be the best human beings. It also applies to the generation above, in old age, for the grandparents to look after the children and themselves be looked after.

In Soviet Russia I understand that 66 per cent. of marriages break down. Such is the result of a lack of religion, and even a lack of humanism in their teaching. In our country I understand now that 33 per cent. of marriages are failing. I have no doubt at all in my mind that much of this can be traced to the lack of religious education in schools in the United Kingdom. In the past six months I have been to no fewer than six different schools situated all over the United Kingdom and I visited them on speech days, and so on. I have found that there has been the most wonderful increase in the way the children are educated in other subjects. But in practically every case the masters to whom I have spoken have agreed that we are not fitting our children out with a proper belief in religion, ethics and the family. We are sending them forth into this world not in any way as fully equipped as our forefathers were, and as we were, by belief in religion.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says many remarkable things—and he certainly said some remarkable things when he attributed the defeat of the Nazis to Communism and Socialism. If he had been to Belsen, as I have, and to Buchenwald and seen the mounds of Jews and Christians, he would not have said such nonsense. The noble Lord has again left the Chamber; but I feel strongly when I know the persecutions which took place on Pastor Niemöller and the Roman Catholics, and the other Christians. For the noble Lord to suggest that the Nazis were defeated by Communism is a nonsense. I see the noble Lord opposite is wagging his head.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, may I intervene, please? My noble friend did not say that.

The Duke of NORFOLK

My Lords, the noble Lord is not here to say what he said. But I understood him to say that. From what I have seen in Christendom, the religions of Christendom have pulled Christendom together. I see Humanism as being part of Christendom now. In our ecumenism the religions of the world are getting together and the Christians are finding the same God the Father as the Jews have, and the same God the Father as have the Mohammedans. I welcome the Humanists adding their ethics and morals to our Christian way of life, all combining to try and make the youth of our nation see that a proper way of life is something that depends on the family as the main basis of our lives.

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I hope that anything that is said by me or anybody in this Chamber will enable the Minister of Education, Mrs. Shirley Williams, to go forward in the very great work that she is doing. I have no criticism to offer at all; I think that the Government are doing wonderful things. The education of the nation has improved out of all measure to what it used to be. I have nothing but praise; I am not at all certain that comprehensive schools are not a great step forward. I am not certain of that point yet. I am only sad that some of the public schools and grammar schools might die without being taken into the system.

I want to conclude my speech, as a Roman Catholic and a practising Christian, by saying that I believe that the most important thing we are talking about in this debate is the continuation and support of the family. The family is the Christian unit on which our country will exist. May the day never come when we behave in the way I have seen in East Germany, where the working population take their children to a crêche and pick them up after they have finished work. The whole concept is inhuman and something I never want to see in our country.

Viscount BARRINGTON

My Lords, before the noble Duke sits down, may I support him to the extent of asking him this: Is it not correct, talking of Humanists, that Sir Thomas More, one of the only two Lord Chancellors—and I am told there were three by the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone —to be martyred and executed, and Erasmus, were Christian Humanists? The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an interview with Mr. David Frost, described himself as a Christian humanist. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is talking about a branch called British Humanists. I am not clear what they are saying, but they seem to be something different.

The Duke of NORFOLK

My Lords, I totally agree. I do not want to prolong this research into the proofs of the existence of God or ethics. I believe that the Roman Catholics—of whom I am one—share all the ethics of the Humanists and certainly of the other Christian Churches. When I commanded the King's African Rifles I had much dealings with the Mohammedans. I do not know the Jews as well as I should like to know them. I think that the whole of this Chamber believes in what I have been saying. Our differences are becoming fewer and fewer. But I am extremely worried, and so are many of the headmasters that I have seen, by the way children are leaving school without having understood the need to marry and keep their marriages going properly.

8.28 p.m.

Lord PLATT

My Lords, like other speakers in this House this evening, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for opening the discussion in such a notable speech, restrained yet positive in its impact. The words of his Motion have been most carefully drawn. They are: To call attention to the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education in Local Education Authority schools". I find myself in agreement with almost everything the noble Lord was saying.

I fully accept the implication that there probably is a dearth of religious teachers and religious education at the present time. It is likely that the pendulum has swung too far. We are largely a Christian society and we are proud of it. To me, the best of Christianity is love, kindness, and gentleness to replace violence and cruelty. This is not succeeding very well at the present time. It may be that the falling off of Christian belief and action is one of the causes of that failure. We should not take too much note of the fact that we are now a society which has in its midst Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and others.

Here I differ somewhat from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who, as far as I could see, wants to take them all into consideration the whole time. I think we must treat them as good Christians should treat them—with kindness and respect. I have the feeling that in any case quite a number of them are Christians, and many of them want to know about the Christian religion. I do not think we should give small children the impression that we think the religious beliefs of other societies and other cultures are the equal of our own. If those people come from other societies into our own, I think they must learn to live with our society. The Jews have managed it for many years in this country but not, alas! in other countries. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that his Unstarred Question on 16th February concerned the supply of teachers whereas today we are discussing the content of teaching; and it is to that that I shall address most of my remarks.

Having said all this, I am bound to say that in some respects, though this has been a notable debate so far, I have never known a debate go on for so long and yet evade most of the important issues. I suppose I shall have to justify that statement. A number of speakers in this debate, and also in the previous debate on the Unstarred Question, referred to the regrettable fact that the provisions in the 1944 Education Act as regards religious education were not being complied with. They felt that was a retrograde step and, greatly daring, I ventured to suggest that it might be a sign of progress. That Act is an extremely bad Act—almost as bad as some of the legislation which your Lordships have passed in recent years on some other subjects, such as the National Health Service.

The 1944 Act says in Section 25: Subject to the provisions of this section, the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school… Then certain exceptions are listed; and Section 26—which, of course, follows immediately on Section 25, as your Lordships may have guessed—says this: Subject as hereinafter provided, the collective worship required by subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall not … be distinctive of any particular religious denomination". So we are left with the somewhat peculiar conclusion that there must be collective worship—but worship of whom or of what is not to be specified. That surely earns a very high place in the world's record for reductio adabsurdum. Clearly, the law needs reform.

Because I sometimes make statements which dub me as an atheist or an agnostic, noble Lords may be surprised at what I have already said about Christian teaching, and so I shall now be quite explicit and say that, although I believe that the Christian doctrine, or rather the moral and ethical codes derived from it, is or are the best that mankind has yet produced, I cannot believe in a God who at the same time is omniscient, omnipotent and benign. I have seen little children die of leukaemia; I have seen families in which a son has progressively developed muscular dystrophy and died in his teenage years. I have known the years when pulmonary tuberculosis was a dreaded and deadly disease, remorselessly killing young people in their twenties and thirties. I have seen the discovery of streptomycin put an end to that. If there is some divine purpose which simple and stupid people like myself without faith are unable to understand, then why did the divine purpose suddenly change with man's discovery of streptomycin? I could give your Lordships many other examples.

The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, made a splendid speech, which everybody seemed to applaud. He was very keen that the facts of the Christian religion should be taught, and emphasised that a number of times. I would not dispute that with him, but he did not tell us anything about which facts should be taught. Salvation of the individual through the belief in Jesus Christ, for instance: does it mean that the Buddhists, the Hindus and others are not able to benefit from it? And the implicit faith in the Bible of a number of noble Lords has really quite amazed me. They do not tell us what part of the Bible they are going to teach to young children and yet, as I have said in this House before now, there are parts which compete with pornography in unsuitability for teaching to small children.

Perhaps, above all, nobody in this whole debate so far has mentioned a life after death. Is that not one of the facts of Christian teaching? Why are people so shy of mentioning it? Is it because they realise that large numbers—in fact, I would think the majority—of people no longer accept the doctrine of life after death? I ceased to believe in it at about the age of five when I was given a little book by my mother, only to show me the kind of stuff that she was brought up on. That told me that the difference between a man and an animal was that man had a soul and an animal had not. I could not believe that a dog had not got a soul if I had one. I do not think, if there is a God, that He would have done that sort of thing. I find it extremely difficult to believe in some of those things, and so do a large number of people at the present time.

So what can we do? I would say we should discard collective worship for a start. I find it very difficult to worship a God who is apparently responsible for some of the things which I have alluded to at the present time. I would discard all sectarian schools as soon as possible so that we no longer perpetuate the early upbringing which divides Protestants from Catholics and leads to a repetition of the ugly religious warfare in Northern Ireland which, however viewed, is no advertisement for Christianity. Having discarded these, I would teach with fervour and enthusiasm the great principles of the Christian way of life with regard to morality and ethics, and I would make sure there is room in every curriculum for such teaching, because I think that if this gradually became the new pattern of religious education a new generation of religious teachers might appear.

8.40 p.m.

Earl WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having introduced this debate, which has been an exceedingly interesting one. I have one regret, and that is that we did not really seem to start the debate until only a few moments ago, when we heard the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt. If, as is quite unusual, the Motion to call attention to the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education were put to a Vote, they might vote for it and say that we had very much proved tonight that there is a lack of religious content in education, and would have approved of that. But it is rather a pity that they did not come second and third, or fourth and fifth, on the list of speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, nods his head, but he has more control over the Whips Office than we on this side have. But perhaps it could have been arranged in that way, so that we could have had a more active debate.

I shall not attempt at this late hour, with my complete inability to do so, anyway, to cross swords with such as those two noble Lords, but we must remember that they have contributed to this debate by pointing out that there is something for us to argue about. I believe there can be no doubt whatever that, if this Motion was put to a Vote, the Contents would have it, and the noble Lord, Lord Blake, would have an overwhelming majority. The noble Lord and his supporters, of which I number myself one, have argued that there is patently a lack of adequate Christian content in RE, which I believe is called RI in the Act. We deplore that and, as I said, if the Motion were put to a Vote it would be carried by an overwhelming majority, but it is only fair that the other side should be put. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who I see has left the Chamber, quite openly said that the 1944 Act is an anachronism and should be abandoned. It is little wonder that the tremendous care which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, had obviously taken in preparing his speech, and the very devoted—I can use only that word—briefing that many of us have had from such bodies as the Organisation for Christian Unity, have resulted in a very well-informed debate about the subject which we are discussing tonight; that is, the adequacy or otherwise of religious education, and the suitability or otherwise of this Act which is still on the Statute Book. We should be thankful for that.

I thought that at this time of night I could not have anything to contribute and should scratch. But it is right that one should at least get up to say, "Thank you" to those who have organised this debate. I wondered what I should feel when we reached No. 27, which is my position on the list of speakers; whether I should be thoroughly depressed or full of hope. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, with whom I should still like to argue—but it is not good form to argue with him when he has gone to dinner— and despite the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I am full of hope. I am not over-sad. I am sad about certain aspects. I have learned a great deal tonight. I came here to learn and not to teach, because I am not at all an expert on the subject of education. But I am sad about the low and declining status of the subject.

Lord PLATT

My Lords, may I intervene for one second? If the noble Lord will look at Hansard tomorrow, he will find that my last sentence or two is full of hope.

Earl WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am very glad to hear that, and I am sure that that will be so. But I am sad at the consequent low morale of the teaching staff, at the lack of opportunity for these devoted teachers—so vividly illustrated in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby—who struggle along with so little hope of promotion, and at the fact that a generation may be growing up without knowledge (and I stress that word) which they will need, if they are to be complete men and completely educated.

But I live full of hope for the near unanimity of this debate—apart from those two very distinguished noble Lords, because I cannot believe that there were three very distinguished noble Lords, as I do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is all the way with them; and certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who is an ex-Minister of Education—about the fact that the neglect of this subject is wrong educationally, morally and legally; because it is in the Act and until we repeal it we have to do what it tells us to do. Also, the large number of speakers and the quality of the speeches fill me with hope. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, made a big speech and turned this into a Parliamentary occasion. I am proud to be here, because this debate will be remembered and we must thank him for that.

If I may take one or two others at random, the erudition with which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, developed his thesis, and his moving—one might almost say passionate—peroration moved me very greatly, and I thought that it was a great speech. Then there was the profound and patent sincerity of two noble Baronesses, Lady Phillips and Lady Macleod of Borve, who both spoke briefly and most effectively. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, but I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about it. But I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home, and, if I may paraphrase something that he said about another noble Lord, it was a delightful speech and I was quite clear at the end what I ought to do about it. I shall probably not be able to do it, but I was quite clear what I ought to do. Taking part in this debate, we have had noble Lords who have held the highest offices in the realm—a Prime Minister and a Minister of Education—who have taken the trouble to come and address your Lordships, and, if any other proof was wanted that this is an important subject, that would be it.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has just entered the Chamber. I should repeat that I was saying how sorry I am that the noble Lord's very powerful contribution, which posed the other side of the question, did not come on very much earlier in the afternoon, when there were far more people present who could have heard it and traversed it, if they so wished. Without going so far as to call this subject "mish-mash", which is a phrase that was used today, or "cotton wool", the noble Lord suffered a little from the "Please yourself what you think, and it will not very much matter" attitude. I think that that is wrong, and I am heartened in the extreme by the fact that we are not going to adopt that attitude tonight.

I have learned some new letters tonight, and I am very interested to learn the initials ESL. They are not Common Market initials, such as MCA, which were used in the Statement at half-past three this afternoon, and they are not the initials of a new and exciting drug—at least, I do not think they are. Apparently, they stand for Education in Stances for Living. All I can say is that I do not think that this would be a very popular or practical substitute in our schools today for the letters RE, or RI—and I am glad of it. Therefore I agree with all those who argued so well in support of the main theme presented by the noble Lord, Lord Blake: that it would be a betrayal of education if we in this Western European country did not insist upon Christianity being taught when religious instruction is given.

I hope also there are real grounds for hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, winds up the debate he will be able to accept the main points which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has made. If I may, I will remind the noble Lord of those main points. It is perhaps as well to remind him of them because they were made very early in the afternoon. First, there is no demand for an amendment of the 1944 Act, let alone for its repeal, but there is a demand for its implementation. I think that that would be the majority verdict of this very full House, with only a few dissentients. Secondly, we must find out what is happening about the teaching of Christianity—also we must find out what the parents think—and that can be found out authoritatively for us only by the Department. Then we need the Department to make a categorical statement, that if there is to be a core curriculum, religious education is to be part of it. The Minister should reaffirm that the teaching of Christianity is a clear requirement of the 1944 Act. If I may turn to the teachers, the House will ask that an assurance be given that the careers of the necessary specialist RE teachers are made more attractive for them. It goes without saying that there is a need for more and improved training so that qualified teachers may be available.

I mean no disrespect to the right reverend Prelates, who have made notable contributions to the debate, when I say that on the whole this has been a layman's debate. A large number of laymen have spoken about religion. We are always being told by the Church that it is the layman's turn now, that we must get on with it and that it is up to us to get involved. Well, we are trying to do that and I hope we have done it correctly. Anyway, for once we have done what we have been told to do! The real point is that the assurances that we so earnestly desire, and hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us in a minute or two, will not only make this a memorable Parliamentary debate but will make it a quite significant and important date in the ever-developing history of this country.

8.54 p.m.

Lord THURLOW

My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, for having reminded us of the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. I was proposing to begin by saying that I supported the proposals, and I am glad to be reminded of what they are. What I have to say is by way of being a footnote to something which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said in his very remarkable speech. He referred, in the elegant language of the 19th century, to the distinguished educator who emphasised the importance in education of not so much the inculcation of knowledge as what he described as the arts and habits. The inculcation of knowledge is an essential ingredient in religious education today. However, there is a more important ingredient in religious education, and as this has not been given much emphasis I venture to bring it to your Lordships' attention.

What I have in mind—this is in flat opposition to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Platt—is the importance of a daily act of collective worship in schools. As noble Lords know and have been reminded, this is provided for by the 1944 Act. It has been suggested that this is part of the anachronistic side of the Act, but I strongly dissent from that view. No doubt most of the time in school has to be devoted to the training of the intelligence, but behaviour is determined more by deeper elements in the human make-up than the intelligence. Therefore students must be shown that there is a means of access to deeper influences, which means introducing them to this side of experience in a collective act of worship. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to this briefly in her own experience.

The fact that all the boys and girls present at a daily act of worship in morning assembly are not totally committed to the proceedings is neither here nor there. It is a very important introduction to experience. This has been the position not only of Christians but also of Humanists. In 1965, the Christian Humanist Council said that not only do pupils have to be taught about Christian religion; they also should have the opportunity to see and be present at acts of worship. In practice, this means a daily act of worship in the morning assembly. I realise that many aspects of the proceedings of morning assemblies require reconsideration. In many cases, there has been perhaps insincerity, perhaps monotony, perhaps irrelevance. All of these defects can be rectified, but do not let us throw out the baby with the bath water.

Again, new forms will have to be introduced to suit the various reorganisations that have been so notable, in particular the creation of the mammoth comprehensives. It may be necessary to split up the schools for assemblies, or even to go in for some form of house organisation. But there is, in my judgment, no alternative to this central act. It has been suggested that one can have tape recordings of services, or that the boys and girls can be carted along for occasional visits to church services, and that there may be classroom acts of worship. No doubt all of these kinds of activity have their place and value, but they cannot be regarded as a substitute for the central and very important daily act of worship in morning assembly.

In conclusion, I should like respectfully to endorse the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that we should be unashamedly Christian in our education, and that we should not be diffident about emphasising that worship must play a central part in our Christian education.

9 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER

My Lords, just to vary the preface a bit I will not begin by thanking the noble Lord for moving this Motion but rather by congratulating him on his courage in doing so. I remember what an imposing figure he struck in military uniform when he moved the humble Address, and today he showed himself to be a doughty warrior in another cause, because it takes more courage than some of your Lordships may think for the head of a college, even if he could already count on the support of one of his colleagues in the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to challenge the conventional educational wisdom of today on this matter of religious education. I am not quite certain whether noble Lords, speaking either for or against the Motion, have done full justice to the degree in which the world of religious education itself has been moving into an area not very much represented by the speeches today.

Now what is this conventional wisdom? I think it is something like this, that the Christian element in our British education should be diluted to a point where it is practically invisible; that Christianity, if it appears at all, should appear only as one of a number of religious phenomena. These are frequently held to include not only the great world religions but political and social systems claiming a totalitarian domination of their adherents, and that is perhaps the principal claim that they have to be considered as in any sense religions. There is the conviction that Christian belief today is such an anachronism that it is out of place in the State schools. I think possibly the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, might be ready to go along with that and will come to him in more detail later. And those who engage in teaching religion in a Christian setting must lean over backwards to prevent themselves giving the slightest hint to their pupils that the religion they are discussing might be worth serious consideration as a basis for life.

I should perhaps have been even happier with the noble Lord's Motion if it had stressed the need for, or the importance of, the Christian element in religious education in the State schools than it does when it concentrates entirely upon the lack of this element. That there is such a lack I firmly believe—and I shall come to that also—but I think it would be a pity if the whole of this debate took place without some recognition going out from your Lordships' House that we do realise the enormous efforts that are being made by teachers of religious education, both in colleges and in schools, to reappraise their methods and to bring them up to date in every possible way. I do not remember any decade in which there have been so many books and pamphlets and project studies produced within the world of religious education to assist teachers in this admittedly difficult task. I have a list of them in my notes but I will spare your Lordships that at this late hour.

Another encouraging point that I thought was perhaps worth mentioning was that this last Easter a conference of Christian educationalists was held at Lincoln. It was held in Easter week and it was attended by 130 teachers of religious education, quite voluntarily, and their subject was Christianity in the classroom. Coming from Leicester I think I may claim to know as much as most people about the impact of the immigrant communities upon our social and educational life. Something like one-fifth of our population is to be counted in this category. My experience is—and this has been mentioned in the debate—that most of these representatives of Eastern religions are quite happy for their children to learn about our religion. I heard of a Moslem Imam who expressed the view that he was not at all afraid of his Moslem children learning Christianity in our schools; he thought the far greater danger was that they should learn atheism.

However, these encouraging features do very little to modify the real picture which is one that causes us—or very many of us—great concern. The size of schools has made the old-fashioned assembly virtually impossible and the presence of immigrant children (using that word for shorthand) provides a ready excuse for the abandonment of regular Christian practice. The common view is that the children come largely from homes where there is no belief and to ask them to sing hymns and to say prayers is to involve them in an act of hypocrisy. I think that needs a good deal of scrutiny. But in the limited time at my disposal tonight I do not propose to deal with detailed points of procedure or practice, either in the classroom or the assembly.

These are matters for experts, and they have been dealt with today by several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I wish to address my mind to the fundamental question; that is, is there or is there not justification for teaching the Christian religion—and I do not mean only teaching about the Christian religion —in England today? Is the common bogey of indoctrination and proselytising or even evangelising a real bogey? What is the real truth about the very common assumption—supported, I am sorry to say, by some of our leading Christian thinkers—that it is a gross interference with the freedom of a pupil's judgment to teach the Christian religion as though it were something seriously to be considered as a way of life?

I readily accept, of course, that the children of other religions should not be subjected to any process of proselytisation and that their culture must be protected; but I think the children of ordinary British origin are sufficiently provided for by the withdrawal clause. That brings to my mind a gentle criticism that was made about Prayers in this House by one of the noble Lords from the other side of the House, and all I can say about that is that ample use is made of the withdrawal clause as far as that particular item in our programme is concerned.

The teaching of Christianity in our schools is assailed from two sides. There is first the charge that religious belief stands in a totally different relation to ultimate truth when compared with so-called secular subjects. This needs examining. If one takes the most obvious example, the truth of mathematics does, I admit, need a different definition from the truth concerning something like the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. There are plenty of other subjects, however, where the nature of proof in relation to truth or falsehood is of a much more subtle kind. When I was reading English at Cambridge—I am sorry to say 50 years ago—I had two instructors: one was a Dr. Tillyard and another Dr. Leavis. The name of the second will probably be more well-known than the name of the first. Those two teachers took diametrically opposite views of the poetry of Milton; Tillyard thought it was superb, Leavis thought it was second rate. But nobody would suggest that a difference of evaluation of that kind made the poetry of Milton an unsuitable subject for serious academic discipline.

It is a far cry from the university to the primary school, but the same principle applies. The fact that an element of human valuation comes into the consideration of a subject does not make it an unsuitable element in education. I think this is the point where I ought to attempt some kind of tolerant answer to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. He said—and I am sure he was right—that he was a tolerant person, but he has the habit of expressing his tolerance in very provocative language. I was almost reminded of an adapted line of Tennyson: His tolerance rooted in intolerance stood. But the big challenge that he puts—and he put this the last time when we had a little brush about these matters—is that the changes that have come over human life and human knowledge in the last 30 years or so are so great as to anachronise all that we have previously adhered to in Christian faith. Obviously this is not the time to get into a long argument over philosophical matters, but I think I could allow myself the opportunity to remind him—he knows it already of course; I am not doubting that—that the Christian religion has passed through a number of revolutions quite as great, I should have said, as the ones that we have gone through recently. To pass from the Judaic world into the Greco-Roman world, to pass from that into the mediaeval world, and then into the time of new scientific study, through the influence of Aristotle, to go through the Copernican revolution, to go through the Darwinian revolution in the matter of the origin of species, all these things have revolutionised the map of the world within which the Christian faith was thought to work. All I can say is that it is still here. I believe that it will be here through this revolution in human thought and through many to come. I hope that that is a brief answer to those who hold that religion, and particularly the Christian religion, is to be classed among the myths and the fairy tales.

Perhaps I could have one last little thrust on this and be allowed to say that there have been plenty of modern scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who have found it possible to adhere to their Christian faith in spite of all their knowledge. One who immediately comes to mind is Professor Charles Coulson, the late Rouse-Ball Professor of Mathematics. Everybody knows that many scientists find this link between their science and their religion quite possible. In fact, in Leicester University it just happens that we have found it much easier to get leaders for the Christian activities in the university from the scientists than we have from those in the humanities. I believe that to be a not altogether unusual phenomenon.

Whatever we may think about all that, we all agree that the Christian religion is one of the most striking phenomena in our history. Westminster Abbey is not an illusion unless we have gone back to the Berkelian philosophy. Nor is the smallest village church. They exist and they are redolent with our national and continental history. To pretend that a child can be educated while remaining ignorant of the basic sources, history and tenets of the Christian faith is absurd. Nor should we swallow too rapidly the idea that even in our modern society Christianity is played out. The Archbishop of Canterbury was preaching recently at a great open-air service on the football ground in Truro attended by 6,000 people. Afterwards, a journalist interviewed him and spoke to him—as they usually do—about the declining congregations. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, either in these words or some others: Declining congregations, my foot! Any politician in England would be overjoyed to have 6,000 people to hear him on a Sunday morning". Without boasting, I can tell your Lordships that last June I was able to offer his Grace 15,000 people on the football ground of Leicester. Therefore, the idea that we are talking all the time about something that is past is by no means the whole truth.

Before I conclude my remarks I should like to turn to the more subtle charge that the better the religion is taught and the greater the enthusiasm of the teacher, the greater danger there is of what is called proselytism, propaganda, indoctrination or evangelisation. For our purposes they all mean the same, except that they have different degrees of pejorative content. They all mean that children may be influenced in favour of the Christian religion by the way in which it is taught. That view is the stock-in-trade of the Humanist lobby, but many Christians who are aware of the importance of respect for the individual are ready to join with them in an attempt at neutrality in the presentation of Christian or indeed any other religious material. I find myself veering away from the views even of prominent Christian educationalists at this point. I approach the matter from the point of view of Sir Richard Livingstone who was one of the greatest educationalists of this century, who used to say that: Education was the habitual vision of greatness". I see that as a clue to all subjects. Just to show your Lordships that there are educationalists who take a different view, I have seen with my own eyes a school test paper for girls of 15 years worded in this way: Write a list of all the swear words you know and say which ones you think are the worst. That was not in my view the habitual vision of greatness. In arithmetic and mathematics greatness presumably lies in accuracy, exactitude, and in the beauty of economical logical arguments. In music it consists of the chance to appreciate good music, whether simple or of the greatest architectonic grandeur.

As I was preparing this speech I happened to see on my table Mr. Edward Heath's book, Music, a Joy Forever. I found myself asking whether it would be propaganda or proselytism if a music teacher tried to instil into his pupils not the mere rudiments of music but the emotional satisfaction that it could give throughout life. In literature, to which I have already referred, there must be a warm appreciation of the material and understanding of it by the teacher unless the subject is to become boring, and I think there are few who would hold that in teaching Shakespeare one has scrupulously to avoid suggesting that he was not at least a rather outstanding poet, a useful dramatist, and a rather good student of human life.

So it is with religion. I should expect in a Jewish school that the teachers would convey the grandeur of the message of the prophets and the lyrical beauty of the psalms. The Christian religion incorporates these but goes on to include the story of Jesus, told simply at first and then examined at later stages in education with all the critical scholarship of which many pseudo-intellectuals are totally ignorant. Is it wrong for someone who is teaching the Christian religion to approach it with at least that degree of enthusiastic appreciation that I associate in my own mind with those who taught me to love Keats and Wordsworth?

I think I must draw these words to an end, and I do so with some brief reference to the question of ethics. Several of your Lordships have made the point that, while hesitant about Christian dogma, you firmly were attached to ethics, and some acknowledged that Christian ethics were the highest form that they had yet taken. I have to remind your Lordships that in the later 19th century and in the early part of this it was commonly believed that you could separate Christian dogma from Christian ethics: having thrown the dogma overboard, the ethics would still be there. But the ethics turned out to be rather like the smile on the face of the tiger after the tiger had gone. The ethics have not been conspicuous in the life of our country since the widespread neglect of Christian belief.

The last suggestion I want to make is that we especially want Christian education in schools because it would help solve our social problems, such as that of hooliganism. But I cannot sit down without expressing my own deep conviction that we shall never be able to control every action in the modern world without forces of police in such numbers as cannot be contemplated, and a degree of oppressive control which would never be acceptable in our free and democratic country. What we need is for every man to carry in his own heart and conscience something that will show a red light when he is doing something that he knows to be wrong.

Many of us and our fathers were brought up on the old Church Catechism. It had many faults but it had at least one or two plain statements about our duties to our neighbours, one of which was to hurt nobody by word or deed. Unless we can implant into the younger generation something that they will always carry with them, whether or not there is anybody watching them, I do not believe we will ever solve the problem. With those words, I will at last let noble Lords off this overlong oration.

9.26 p.m.

Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH

My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I have learned much from listening to the speeches this afternoon and I hope to learn much more when I read Hansard tomorrow morning. I do not share the rather pessimistic view that many noble Lords have about the state of religious education in our primary and secondary schools today, though I should certainly support a proposal that it should be the subject of an independent inquiry. My experience, as the chairman of governors of a large comprehensive school, is that the Education Act 1944, as it relates to school assembly and religious instruction, is still acceptable to the great majority of parents and teachers, boys and girls, in spite of the very great changes that have taken place in the composition of many schools arising from immigration and the wider opportunities of participation and self-expression which both parents and pupils have today, contrasted with what they had 30 years ago.

In the school of which I am a governor we have many pupils whose parents were born in different parts of the world—in China, Pakistan, Persia, India, Nigeria, the West Indies and elsewhere—and almost all of these pupils attend school assembly and the great majority attend religious education classes, which we have twice a week. Incidentally, in this school it is possible to take O-level and A-level in religious education; I have heard in the debate that in some schools it is not. I am sure that both the morning assembly and the religious education classes help young people to appreciate the compassion, understanding and courage of Christianity down the ages and help them to understand one another and work together.

Although I have no doubt that there is room for improvement in the training provided for religious education teachers, I am not so pessimistic as some noble Lords about the standards of teaching in secondary and primary schools. As an examination at O-level and A-level, it is, for rather obvious reasons, not a popular subject for many pupils; unlike English, maths and foreign languages, it does not help one to get a job on leaving school. Although this is a rather obvious point, it is a real and practical one and, if this committee is set up, the kind of point that should be considered from the point of view of the pupils concerned. I hope that such a committee will hear the views at first-hand of parents, pupils and teachers, and that it will be in many ways informal and not the more formal type of inquiry to which we are accustomed. I thank your Lordships again for teaching me so much this afternoon.

9.30 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for the fact that I was not able to hear his speech because, although the spirit was willing, I went to have something to eat and therefore was not able to hear what he said. However, I did hear the noble Lords, Lord Platt, and Lord Brockway, neither of whom, regrettably, is here. I felt that perhaps the two noble Lords whom I did hear should have an answer to their queries to some of us as to why we think that Christianity should be taught in schools, for that is the basic question that is before your Lordships' House.

Very briefly, I can only say how fortunate those three noble Lords are never to feel the need for spiritual assistance, because the basis of the individual Christian position is that the Christian is a person who knows that he cannot live without somebody to turn to either in an hour of need or in a moment of happiness or thankfulness. I do not want to enlarge on this: I believe that I have explained why, as an individual—and I speak for myself—I feel the need to live my own life so far as I can in accordance with a Christian standard. To put it very simply, it is only because we realise that we are sinners that we are Christians. If one were fortunate to be so good and kind as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, perhaps one might not need it, but probably most of us do. I think that it is because of this that most of us feel not only that we have benefited from knowing about Christianity but also that it is something that we want our children and—here I speak for myself again—our grandchildren to know about.

I should not like to feel that I lived in a country that deprived my grandchildren, whatever school they went to, of the benefit of knowing during their early school years about the life of Christ. Whatever they decide later on, they will, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich so well expressed it, have had the benefit of freedom of choice when they grow up. They can reject it if they like, but if they had not been given that knowledge they would have been denied a basic knowledge for living.

Looking now at the question of schools, one sees so much cruelty, so much bullying between children, so many battered babies and battered wives, so much ill-treatment of the elderly in their own homes by their own families, that one must ask oneself whether Christian charity has completely gone out of the window and whether it is only a stance for living that is left. One must ask whether this is what explains why there is so much cruelty between man and man in what is meant to be a civilised society. Indeed, one is beginning to ask oneself whether we have the right any more to call ourselves a civilised society. Although Christianity may not be the answer, I believe that it is the duty of the Government to inquire whether it might not be a contribution to society and whether society has not gone this way precisely because Christianity is no longer being taught as a major subject in the school curriculum.

How are educationalists preparing their pupils for the life with which they will have to contend? What confidence is being given them to face the difficulties of life? Why is it that so many adolescents are bordering on attempts at suicide because of the terrible problems with which they are now faced? They have no courage and nobody to turn to. How many Christians know that they could only have survived a difficult period because they had something greater than a human being to turn to? I do not want to elaborate on this but anybody who has experienced this will know very well what I mean.

Teachers also have to cope with children from broken homes. What words of comfort can a teacher give to a child who has parents who quarrel, or whose father has gone off or is drunk and beats his wife? We all know of this kind of situation. What words of comfort can a teacher give to a child knowing that that child has to return home to such conditions? What happens now with all the increased material wealth that we are getting in this country? Has it really brought the happiness that people have expected of it? Are people not looking for something rather bigger and better and outside the wealth of materialism of the bigger car, more television sets, or whatever? Are people actually wanting some return to spiritual comfort, and is not that what they want for their children?

How do teachers manage to explain to their pupils, when they get to the age of 13 or 14, the great European architecture, the magnificent Gothic cathedrals, the paintings of Michelangelo—the Creation, the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel? How does one explain Bach, or the B Minor Mass—all the greatest works of art which showed man at his best when he was creating art for the glory of God, and not for his own satisfaction and enjoyment? How can a teacher really explain the beauties of these great works of art without knowing that his pupils already know about the basic beliefs of Christianity and the existence of a creator?

I do not see how they can really approach the subject with anything but humility, in order to be able to teach the children the real understanding of the intrinsic values of these matters. The Education Act itself was brought in at a time when there was obviously a great spiritual feeling in this country, when by 1944 we had already had our backs to the wall and realised that it was a struggle between a totalitarian regime and a world in which we believed, a world of freedom, as has already been mentioned by other noble Lords. Surely the basis of the Education Act was a very simple one. The two obligatory subjects were RI and PE. I was always taught mens sana in corpore sana—I think a fairly old Latin tag, and if PE was essential to the natural development of a child it was always understood that religious education, a spiritual background, was also part of the natural education of a child.

Under the other part of the Education Act parents are also meant to have choice. Most parents, of every kind of condition which I have come across, have always wanted religious education for their children. The very few who do not have always had the right under the Education Act to withdraw their children. So I really wonder on what basis religious education is now falling down in the schools. It has been admitted, I think by nearly all noble Lords from all sides of the House, and with all points of view, that religious education in the schools is in a very serious decline. This is most extraordinary. So far as I know, there has been no Act of Parliament to change the relevant section in the Education Act. There has been no campaign in the Press to the effect that there is any unfairness, no equal opportunity, or any discrimination.

Why is it that religious education has fallen by the wayside? I must ask the Government whether it is perhaps because they are failing in their duty to ensure that religious education is being taught in accordance with the terms of the Act. Parents are certainly not demanding that religious education should no longer be taught. But I think it is regrettable that in the colleges of education there has been a condemnation of confessional teaching; that is, the teachers are now afraid to talk of Christianity, they are afraid to talk of the Bible, they are afraid to use the Bible in their teaching. I should like to know why this has happened. We have had a very long debate, but nobody has been able to say why there has been this change in the colleges of education. Why is it that teachers are afraid to teach Christianity? Why is it that they want to teach what has so frequently been called the mish-mash of comparative religions, or whatever it might be?

I still cannot understand what it is in the colleges of education that has made teachers take this new attitude to the teaching of Christianity. Even dedicated Christians say, "Of course, I mustn't teach Christianity as such, because it would be indoctrination. It would not be fair. It would not be objective." But, my Lords, life is not fair, it is not objective, and it is not just; and it is precisely for those reasons that, to survive in this world we need Christianity to be taught. The very fact that you teach a non-committal form of religion is in itself a commitment to nihilism. The very denial of teaching Christianity is exerting an influence, it is expressing a view. So you are already, by your very denial of teaching Christianity as a way of life, denying Christianity itself. This is one of the main points I should like to make, because it is certainly one which is supported by the vast majority of parents in this country.

My Lords, I should like to say a word about the multiracial problem, because I think it has been used very dishonestly by so many people as an excuse for saying that we have a multi-creed country. We have not got a multi-creed country. As has already been pointed out, there is a vast number of immigrants to this country who are in fact Christians. Let us be quite clear about this. We believe in racial equality—nobody in this House would deny that; but let us also remember that immigrants come voluntarily to this country. They choose to come to this country; and, if I may say so, very often they choose to come to this country precisely because we are a Christian country, and precisely because we retain Christian values in our society. Whether or not they are Christians themselves—and I may say that I have quite a lot of experience of knowing very many people, of all races, who have come to this country—I have never heard one word of criticism from them about the Christian religion or about having had their children taught Christianity.

I would very strongly support the view which has already been expressed by, I think, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, that many Moslems would say, "We would rather our children were taught Christianity than nothing, or than atheism. We accept that it is different from ours, but it is a standard of values which we can understand". So I think this excuse of multiracialism is just another subversive way of trying to denigrate Christianity and stop it being taught.

My Lords, if Christianity is to be taught in schools—and I think the vast majority of your Lordships have shown your firm belief that it is essential for our children and for society that this should continue—there must be sufficient teachers. I would strongly support the suggestion that the standards of teaching religious education should be supervised by the Department of Education and Science, through Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. Surely that is what they are there for. How many inspectors go round the schools to see how many hours are spent on religious education, what are the contents of the curriculum and whether the children are up to standard? This is a job for the Department through their inspectors. Certainly, if religious education is to be taught, I think that Christianity is the form of religion that the vast majority of parents in this country would wish their children to be taught, and I do not consider that there is any more democratic form of expression than the wish or rights of parents to choose for their children the education that they need. My Lords, much has been spoken about human rights, and in the UN Convention on the rights of the child one of the clauses is that children should have the religion that their parents wish for them, and that it cannot be forced on them by the State. I would regard this as a basic human right of any parents for their children. But certainly we know that in this country we cannot do anything without the support of the Government; so I very much hope that when Lord Blake winds up he will press his demands on the Government, knowing that he has the full support of the vast majority of your Lordships in this House.

9.45 p.m.

Viscount BARRINGTON

My Lords, like others I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing so admirably this immensely important subject. I think your Lordships also owe a debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who has said so much better almost everything I should have liked to say that she has shortened what I shall say by at least 50 per cent. Therefore, I am going to make only a very few remarks. But before making them I should like also to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on his excellent maiden speech. I heard most of the speeches and I was particularly interested in his. We all have our own private heroes, and the first Lord Alanbrooke was one of the people at the time of the war for whom I had, without knowing him, a very particular respect.

I remember, at the time of Dunkirk, the shortest leading article that The Times has ever had which is relevant to this debate. I should like to recall it. It is almost the only quotation from a poem of immense length by Chesterton called The Ballad of the White Horse, which most people know. The verses were: I tell you naught for your comfort and naught for your desire Save that the sky grows darker yet And the sea rises higher. Night shall be thrice night over you And Heaven an iron cope. Do you have joy without cause And faith without a hope? My Lords, it does not sound a very optimistic promise to be given to King Alfred, as it was in the poem, a vision; but it was on the basis of that that he went out to collect people to win the battle of Ethandune. At that time, not unlike this time, he believed, with considerable justice, that Christianity was being threatened for the first time, perhaps, since its introduction into Britain by some very heathen and unpleasant powers. In order to show that that is not entirely inappropriate to the debate I should add that the poem ends, after he has, not perhaps miraculously but against all odds, won that battle, with another vision. A young man rushes in and says, "This is intolerable. The Danes have returned".

And he points to the White Horse and says: Do you expect weeds not to grow up again? Then there is a passage which I shall not weary your Lordships with, which includes the lines: I have a vision and I know the heathen will return. They will not come with warships They will not come with brands But books be all their eating And ink be on their hands. But though they come in learned guise As grave as a shaven clerk, By this sign you shall know them: That they ruin, and make dark". That is the gist of what I want to say about the content of this debate which is concerned, first, with what should be the content of Christian education, and secondly whether it should be compulsory. There have been differences of opinion. It has been suggested that Christianity in this country is threatened by a sort of invasion by Islam, plus Africa, plus Confuscianism, et cetera, from all the immigrants coming in.

My Lords, I side very strongly, though more ignorant than most of your Lordships, with the view that the immigrants are no threat at all to Christianity in this country. I know that in the church which I go to when I am in London—not as often as I should—the treasurer of that branch of a society of which I have the honour to be chairman, the Society for Protection of Unborn Children, not a specifically Christian society, is a Pakistani. I think that over and over again one finds that with the later immigrants, as always happens in this country —and King Alfred himself (although I am speaking under correction) was an immigrant, or rather his parents were, the ancestors of Henry II. I agree that the threat has been coming for a very long time from—I think that the name of Professor Leavis was mentioned. I do not blame him but a lot of admirable, literary and scientific men with the best intentions have been undermining what Christianity has been saying.

That brings me to the subject of the content of what is Christian teaching. Tennyson is one of my favourite poets but I do not think he was always clear. There is his line: There is more faith in honest doubt, believe me, Than in half the creeds. He was meticulous about natural phenomena. Whether he counted all the creeds there are including Oogli, the Snake Goddess, and Oogli, the Frog Goddess, to see which had more faith or less faith, I do not know. I find that difficult to believe, in the same way as I find it difficult to believe the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who is another of my heroes. I can boast having been the only person in this House ever to have gone through a Lobby alone when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was a Teller. The other Teller was the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I felt rather alone in doing that. I admire his views and courage on all these points. When some time ago he told us that he was an Agnostic and atheist, I found that difficult to reconcile, just as if somebody said: "This is a motor-car and bicycle".

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I never said that I am an atheist. I am not. I am an Agnostic.

Viscount BARRINGTON

My Lords, I am glad it did not get into Hansard. But the words I heard were: "I am an Agnostic and an atheist", but I will take the noble Lord's view of it. I think that he is the best kind of Agnostic that I know. He is ready to listen to questions of doubt. One of the most honourable positions one can have, short of opting for one of the great religions, is that. It is not something that can be taught in schools. You cannot teach people to become Agnostics. I think that it was Ronald Knox who wrote an Agnostic prayer which went: Oh Lord, for as much as without Thee; We are not enabled to doubt Thee; Help us all by Thy grace; Shows the whole race; Knows nothing whatever about Thee. That was a good limerick but was also a serious statement about the Agnostic point of view. I should like shortly to question the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that there is not so much difference in the forms of education that one hears about.

Religion is partly education and partly ceremonial ritual. If one is going to make fun, as one reasonably can, of a compulsory ritual like church parades—which have been abolished now, but which were once compulsory—some of your Lordships will remember in the Navy the routine for funerals was: As the corpse passes on its way to the mortuary, cemetery, deadhouse or what not every man will lower his head on his breast and assume a mournful yet 'opeful aspect. Another one was: The words ' I believe' are purely cautionary. On the words In God the Father Almighty ' I want to hear them heels come together with a ruddy great click. It seemed to me that the first of those was something which no serving sailor could object to: showing reverence to death, if he was good enough an actor to assume "a mournful yet 'opeful aspect". But I sympathise with "The words I believe ' are purely cautionary," because if I am told to bring my heels together I am presumably giving assent, and I want to know what I am believing in. If the words are followed by, "God the Father Almighty", and I know what is meant by that or have had a chance to learn at school, I am ready to do it. If it is to say that I believe in the perfection and infallibility of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—much as I admire him—I should be more doubtful about it. If it was in the complete integrity of President Amin, I should like to have the courage not to bring my heels together. I should not have that courage if I were in his power and I would probably do it.

Clearly, the words, "I believe" are quite a different matter. What we have been talking about is what Christians believe, what they ought to believe. It is a difficult question, because we have had so many different views of what is included in Christianity. My Lords, if there was time—

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, before the noble Viscount moves away from that point, he mentioned me and I think he has misunderstood what I was saying. In case other noble Lords may also have misunderstood my point, I should like just to say briefly that I was not saying that moral education is the same as Christian education. I think it is entirely different, but I was saying that there should be both in schools. The point about moral education is specifically that it should be there for those who do not accept the Christian religion. I should like to go on to a very quick point mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles: what would G. K. Chesterton have said of Christian education which an imam actually thought would not harm his pupils? There must be something very wrong with Christian education if it is like that.

Viscount BARRINGTON

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for telling me that I have misunderstood what he was saying. What Chesterton thought of them is to me neither here nor there. The question of Mohammedans being allowed to hear about Christian education seems to me as reasonable as saying that Christians should be allowed to hear about the Mohammedan religion. In this country, as has been made very clear, the priority of religious education should be given to Christianity only in so far as to show what it is. In their homes and in other places, other religions are going to be given full scope.

What I would suggest is that it is entirely wrong for people to be taught what is said to be Christianity, if it is not. The noble Lord is nodding his head, and I think he would agree. If one were as frivolous as Ronald Knox and introduced a prayer of an ultra Protestant saying: Jehovah, whose service was sweeter When we've humbled Rome's harlot and beat her In our strength be your hope, And to Hell with the Pope, And St. John and St. James and St. Peter", that would not be a Christian education. At the other extreme—a more dangerous one—here I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. If you have a prayer which said: Great Trend which no dogmas express Except more or triumphantly less, Prove thy sympathy deep by not falling asleep While invoking his timid address. One may say that any religious view can be made ridiculous by being turned into a limerick, but I am not sure that that is so. One could have the limerick: Oh God, in your Fatherhood, bless us, Oh God, in your Sonhood, confess us; God's Spirit of Love, Descend from above, And pardon, and heal, and possess us. That seems to me to put the doctrine of the Trinity, which would have to be explained. All I am trying to say on that subject is that the form and the content obviously ought to agree, but the content is what we are talking about now.

My last point is that teaching of Christianity, either because it is too watered-down or because it is too extreme in one direction or another, can also be bad, as has been pointed out, if it is not well taught. Here I entirely agree; but the difficulty, of course, is to get enough people who can teach it, who really believe it and who are capable of putting their case to us. Here, if I may, I should like very shortly to back up a point which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. He mentioned the teacher outside St. Alban's Cathedral. He was asking a pupil what a martyr was, and was given the right answer, "Somebody who is prepared to die for his faith". The right reverend Prelate said that the teacher replied, "Yes. I wish I would have the courage to do that myself". That seems to me—and I think that the right reverend Prelate was making the point—not to disqualify that teacher from being a teacher of religion, because—and here I want to emphasise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—the unique thing about Christianity is that it is meant to help people who cannot help themselves, as better people can. So far from being a religion only for the good, it is a religion for the bad— I came not to heal those that are well, but those that are sick". An interesting example, I suppose, of the first Christian proselytiser, the first statement of the Christian faith, is in four words of one syllable from St. Peter, when he said, "Thou art the man". The next phrase that is remembered by everyone is in five syllables, saying, "I know not the man". In fact, he did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said, behave in an exemplary Christian way then. Nevertheless, he did not despair of that, and we know the part he played in Christianity. If I may once again quote Chesterton, partly from memory, he said: When our Lord was looking around for a solid foundation on which to found His Church, He chose neither the brilliant Paul, nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a liar, a coward, a snob—in a word, a man. That was the rock upon which he founded His Church, and the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed against it.

I have spoken for too long, but of course it goes on from there to St. Paul who gave the answer, "Not I, but Christ in me". That seems to be the summing-up of Christian education; that is telling, rightly or wrongly, what it can do. This is the last quotation that I should like to give, from St. Paul: I am persuaded"— not "I am compelled"— that neither death nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature is able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. To me, that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and to all the questions which have been put. I do not pretend for a moment that I know it is the right one. I believe it to be.

10.4 p.m.

Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE

My Lords, the man who goes in last wicket down is not expected to stay for very long, and I hope that I shall not he an exception. First, may I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this wonderful debate. Before it began a noble Lord said to me that Lord Blake would say everything that had to be said, and certainly at the end of his speech I felt that that was so. Now, after another 31 outstanding contributions from noble Lords who know far more about the subject than I do, there is mercifully very little left for me to say.

I should like to express my admiration for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Alanbrooke, and I should also, respectfully, like to say how thrilled I was by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. I am grateful, too, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester alerted your Lordships' House to the strength of conventional wisdom: that it is impossible to teach Christianity meaningfully within religious education. I find in discussions in local church circles that this feeling is quite surprisingly strong.

Of the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, made, the one that I should particularly like to support is his plea for a circular to LEAs emphasising the centrality of Christianity and a study of the Bible within RE. I do so because I feel that RE should be God-centred, not man-centred. I believe that the prime function of RE should be to lay before pupils, from the Bible, the facts about God and His purposes for us and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and their meaning for us, and to give pupils the opportunity to make up their minds on the claims, challenges and new perspectives involved: an opportunity that may very well exist only through the teaching that they receive at school.

I should also like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said earlier about instances of one-sided teaching, which at times I feel borders on indoctrination—in particular, the teaching of the Bible and the miracle stories. As the noble Lord says, there are divergent views. Some people accept without question the description of these events and regard them as signs of God's salvation. Others hold that God acts only in accordance with the so-called laws of nature and that therefore these events must be either reconciled with the laws of nature or their occurrence denied or explained away. Those of us who have experienced the power of the risen Christ in our own lives naturally tend towards the first school, but we must acknowledge that there are scholars who, after much thought, incline towards the second point of view. In any case, in academic study questions must be asked and must be allowed.

It is natural that the point of view held by a teacher should colour his teaching. However, I would support what the noble Lord said: that there seems to be evidence that on occasion—here I refer in particular to college courses—only one side of the question is presented and teachers endeavour to impose their own views rather than leave students to make up their own minds. When this form of indoctrination has involved scepticism about the miracles, the effect has been serious. Students realise that to try to explain away the miracles of Jesus must inevitably lead to an attempt to explain away the greatest miracle of all, the Resurrection. To do this, as St. Paul pointed out in his Letter to the Corinthians, is to try to undermine the very basis of Christian faith and, I may say, the very basis of Christian ethics.

There seem to me to be two main effects that this can have. First, it places a grave strain on individual faith. Some students may be strengthened in their faith, but others may fall by the wayside and be lost as potential teachers of RE. Secondly, a number of students of lively Christian faith may feel that there is little future in teaching RE if they are to be pressurised into conforming with views which they find it hard to accept. These are the very people upon whom the future of an adequate Christian content in RE depends. Therefore I suggest that any circular to LEAs might specify that within RE the Bible should he presented and taught with fairness and educational integrity.

So far as the Church is concerned, apart from doing all it can to encourage its own members to become teachers of RE, it may be that the best way it can help is by further involvement of theological colleges and Bible colleges in the training of RE teachers, on the lines of the link already formed between Oakhill Theological College and the Middlesex Polytechnic. I would hope, too, that the Government would encourage the building up of such links.

Finally, my Lords, the attendance here, and the interest and the speeches in this debate, have emphasised the importance with which your Lordships regard it, but as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said in his opening speech, RE can easily become a "Cinderella" subject. I feel this is a great mistake. We live in turbulent times. There are struggles sometimes under the surface, and sometimes they come to the top. These struggles we may regard in various forms: we may see our society, our political institutions, our very way of life threatened, but I believe—although obviously I can speak only for myself—that many noble Lords would agree with St. Paul that the real struggle is not against flesh and blood; it is not an earthly battle but a spiritual battle for which, if we are to stand, we need the whole armour of God. I am convinced that it is of the highest importance that we should see that our children are offered this armour and not denied it by our own default. Therefore I feel that, even if this debate were to achieve nothing else, it would fulfil a purpose if we sent out the message to RE teachers that the work in which they are involved is of paramount value.

10.12 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough said that he marked the halfway point in this debate, I found myself murmuring Drake's prayer, that it is not the beginning but the carrying through of any matter in which lies the true glory, for it is true that we really have had a very long debate and I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, cut short what I thought was a most interesting speech and I thank him for doing so. But I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blake, feels that it really has been worth it. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said that it is very important that Parliament should underline its support for the 1944 Education Act and I think your Lordships have been doing just that during the seven and a bit hours in which we have been debating.

This debate has had one other advantage: it has given us the benefit of hearing a really splendid maiden speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke. He spoke as a trained teacher; he had some views to give us and, better still, he backed up his views with some statistics. Those are three excellent qualities for ally speech, not least a maiden speech, and it really was a splendid performance. I only have one criticism: if the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, I think he has waited rather too long before he has opened his mouth in your Lordships' House and I know I shall be speaking for all noble Lords if I express the hope that he will return here soon and speak again.

Nearly 420 years ago, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, Members of the House of Commons—rather as we are doing now—metaphorically wiped the sweat from their brows and included these words in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer: And having thus endeavoured to discharge our duties in this weighty affair, as in the sight of God, and to approve our sincerity therein to the consciences of all men, although we know it is impossible to please all; nor can expect that men of factious, peevish and perverse spirits should be satisfied with anything that can be done in this kind by any other than themselves; yet we have good hope, that what is here presented will be also well accepted and approved by all sober, peaceable and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England. Perhaps the present Lord Butler and Mr. Chuter Ede felt a little like that when, after intensive discussions, they concluded the religious settlement of the Education Act 1944. I think it is worth bearing in mind, as other noble Lords before me today have done, that this happened at a time when this country had just experienced five years of total war. Churchill once wrote that as a young man he passed through an aggressive anti-religious phase, but his attitude, he found, was always restored by frequent contact with danger.

Churchill wrote in his book My Early Life: I found, whatever I might think and argue, did not hesitate to ask for special protection when I was about to come under the fire of the enemy, nor to feel sincerely grateful when I got home safe to tea. Many of the people whom he led through five long years of war must have had their faith in a source of strength greater than themselves similarly restored. Therefore, I am one of those, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who think that it was natural that the one item, apart from physical education, which was included in what today we call the common core of curriculum in the 1944 Act should have been religious education.

My Lords, if over 30 years ago there was then no body of opinion which ultimately questioned the 1944 settlement, the same is no longer true today. I think there are two questions which are heard frequently and have been heard in this debate again today. The first is: should not children be encouraged to make up their own minds? The second one is this: in a plural society, should not religious education be taught by way of the many world religions? I join with the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in believing that the reasons which prompted the authors of the 1944 Act to write in the religious clauses remain valid today, and I really do not think that the apprehensions which prompt those two questions have any grounds.

First, as noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, clearly it is desirable that parents should influence their own children religiously as well as socially and educationally. As my noble friend Lady Flies said, this is as much a part of parenthood, surely, as providing food and a home. Therefore, the question as to whether a child should be brought up in the faith of the parents really does not arise.

What does arise is what are the proper functions and limits of a religious upbringing to be. It is at this point that some people will cry halt and will assert that parents who practise the Christian faith are a minority of the population. This has been dealt with. It may very well be so. I thought that one of the interesting things which emerged this afternoon was that, in addition to the rather out of date statistics with which many of us are probably armed, we also had evidence from the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, who was able to tell us that the findings of the Cheltenham survey showed support from both parents and teachers for the Education Act provisions.

Whether it starts in the home, with the Church, or at school, a Christian upbringing surely has got to involve some knowledge, knowledge of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. I agreed very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, when he said that this must be taught well. I am no authority on this, but surely both our Lord and also the religion are both simple and complex at one and the same time. There has surely got to be knowledge of what Christians have believed in and what they have died for, and there has got to be a knowledge of the Bible. Lord Blake and many of your Lordships have so well shown that if a boy or girl does not have a knowledge of Christianity it is difficult to understand even the history of our own country or of the Western World. It is not just a matter of political history, but of art and of architecture, music and literature, and indeed social development as well. As Lord Home reminded us, Christianity is also an essential ingredient in the development and maintenance of democracy.

Of course, again at this point some people call halt and assert that the Christian religion should not be imposed on other people. Lord Brockway and Lord Ritchie-Calder have put to us very strongly today the Humanist case: that to teach ethics within the context of religious education really is to teach with an unwarrantable bias. Perhaps that case was replied to most effectively by Lord Vaizey who said in essence that religious education is not ethical education, or by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who put it, I thought, very succinctly and touchingly when he said, To love justice is not enough, to walk humbly with your God is a different thing. I think also an answer was given two years ago by the Chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, who is a Roman Catholic, Father Barry, the headmaster of Ampleforth, who said this in his address to the Headmasters' Conference: Many have recently drawn attention to the demands of a pluralist society and to the fact that compulsory Christian religious education cannot and should not be imposed on non-religious or other religious minorities, whether they are Jews, Mohammedans or Hindus. While there will be general agreement with that premise, there are grave doubts about the validity of the conclusion, that the right thing would be to abolish all specific religious teaching in schools. A syllabus for the comparative study of religion and of secularist philosophies is far from carrying conviction as a substitute for religious education. Such a study has much to commend it at the appropriate age, but as a substitute for religious teaching of the young it is likely to produce nothing but a confused vacuum. The argument that the syllabus will include a section about Christianity will not be wholly reassuring to Christian parents. It is one thing to teach Christianity. It is quite another to teach about Christianity with all the detachment appropriate to the study of the life cycle of the fish. A more useful suggestion might have been to bring religious teachers into the school at appropriate times to teach their own adherents. At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, also charged religion with being irrelevant in the modern world of science. He said, "Let religion give a glib answer to the problem of the atom bomb". He added words to the effect that he might be impressed by that. I wonder whether the noble Lord—if he were still here—really meant what he said. I believe that if there were a glib answer to the nuclear problem, a man of the noble Lord's integrity, which I know very well, would not be impressed by it at all. I venture to suggest that he is not taking account of the true nature of Christian teaching.

I am no authority at all. Today I think I have learnt a great deal more than I could ever possibly impart, but I rest my case on a recent publication of the British Council of Churches called The Child in the Church which says: What does it mean to seek to create the Christian future? A religion can only encourage the personal freedom of its young people towards the future if the religion is free with regard to its own future". Seven years ago the Durham Report put a very similar view when it held that if the teacher is, to press for commitment, it is commitment to the religious quest, to that search for meaning, purpose and value which is open to all men". In that search, as many of your Lordships know very much better than I, pupils and students are absolutely bound to ask fundamental questions about such matters as life and death, hope and suffering, faith and doubt. To those questions the teaching of Jesus provides answers. Sometimes they are in the form of analogies and at other times they are in the form of further questions, leading to more knowledge and better understanding but never forcing the way.

Education is often referred to as being a continuous process—how well the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, knows that. I find it surprising that a Christian education should be regarded as other than compatible with this process and compatible also, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, I think, said, with a programme of moral education. Therefore, I believe that the nature of Christian teaching certainly is not indoctrination because, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said so eloquently this afternoon, although Christian teaching has so much to give, ultimately it leaves the individual free to decide.

However, in practical terms what does that mean for the teaching profession? As the noble Lord, Lord Ingleby, said, it means a very great responsibility upon the teaching profession. For surely the art of the teacher is how to communicate reliably and consistently with pupils while at the same time treating each individual pupil as a different person. In addition, unless the religious education teacher believes that he is a plaster saint, he will have many self-doubts about dealing in any depth with the questions that are bound to arise in any religious education syllabus. In addition to that, although I must say that I am one of those who has very great admiration for many of the materials that are being produced these days, those teaching materials are never produced in the form of a rigid syllabus. Nor can the teacher of religious education sit back like a chairman at some committee meeting and discharge his or her function with fine impartiality. It is always a privilege as well as one of the problems of the teaching profession that they are bound to bring their personal influence to bear on those whom they teach. Anyway, young people will soon see through anyone who refuses to be committed to any values or who hands out a religious education syllabus with no personal commitment whatsoever.

These responsibilities presuppose a sufficient supply of religious education specialists, and the fact is, without going into any detail at all, that the supply is inadequate. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the inquiry which the Religious Education Council is undertaking at the moment with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the Christian Education Movement. Although that report is not yet complete, some of the findings are already becoming clear, and are cause for a considerable anxiety in terms of initial training, in-service training, and particularly for the future training of secondary school specialists.

My own conclusions from this debate are twofold: first, that although the questions which my noble friend Lord Blake has asked of the Government are all questions which call for a response, I should like particularly to support him in his call for an independent inquiry. But one word of caution: I well remember that before the Warnock Committee of Inquiry into the teaching of handicapped children was set up in 1973, one persuasive argument against a full-scale inquiry was that several reports on different aspects of teaching the handicapped had recently been published and it was arguable that this was a better method of proceeding.

But that same argument cannot be used about religious education. There is some marvellous work, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leciester was saying, in what one might call the development of religious education, but I am not sure that there is a great deal of pure research, and anyway, unlike the teaching of the handicapped, there is no advisory committee to the Secretary of State on religious education. I believe that my noble friend's question should prevail, because there is so much we do not know and which the Government do not know in this field. The fact that this is the only subject statutorily taught, and is deficient in numbers of those qualified to teach the subject, must justify an objective inquiry.

This calls into question how seriously the Government—and I do not just mean this Government; I mean Governments of years back as well—have been taking their responsibilities for training and supply in this field. We have heard more than enough today to know that we need an inquiry into how the religious education sections of the 1944 Act are being carried out, and my goodness! there are many other questions which would keep a committee busy for probably a long time.

My other conclusion is that the religious education clauses of the 1944 Act should not be altered, for one very good reason. I wonder what on earth we would put in their place? With his sureness of touch, over 30 years ago Lord Butler provided for religious education with statutory arrangements which are flexible in that, if discharged properly, they can meet different needs in different schools in different parts of the country.

May I end, as I began, with the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer: It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England"— Parliament said in 1558— ever since the first compiling of her public liturgy to keep the mean between the two extremes of too much stiffness in refusing and too much easiness in admitting any variation from it". This debate has shown that, "to keep the mean between the two extremes", is not an easy task: it requires not only determination not to give way to every pressure group, it demands also sound common sense. It gives rise to questions of genuine and pressing concern, and for the opportunity to raise those questions we have the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to thank for this debate today.

10.29 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, must be pleased with the result of his Motion. We have had a serious and, on the whole, very good debate. My noble friend Lady Phillips, it seems a long time ago now, said something about the danger of cotton wool, but I think we have had less than usual in a debate of this kind. I think that one can thank noble Lords for, on the whole, having spoken about realities rather than what one often gets in a vague and difficult subject of this kind. At our last debate on this subject I expressed my astonishment at the certainty with which everybody spoke, and described myself as a stumbling Anglican with very little certainty in any direction. I feel tonight like Dean Inge who, when that eminent neo-fatalist was interviewed at the age of 96 by a rather brash journalist who asked, "And what do you think of your future, Mr. Inge?" replied, "To be quite honest, I am more confused than ever."

We have had three Humanist speakers, because I class the noble Lord, Lord Platt, as a Humanist; he confused us by his beginning, but he cleared us up by his end. We have had three Catholics and one Liberal. The three Humanists and the one Liberal were all against the 1944 provision, but everybody else, the Anglicans supported by four right reverend Prelates (who I thought made very distinguished speeches) were all in favour of no change. I will begin by answering the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who asked whether I could confirm on behalf of the Secretary of State that there was no question of altering it. This I do. My Secretary of State is quite clear that she has no intention of fiddling about with the 1944 Act religious provisions, at any rate for the moment.

I was very pleased not only with the quality of the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, but with some of the facts he gave us. He said that teachers, as a result of the Cheltenham Survey, were in favour of these clauses (the 1944 Act religious provisions) whereas many people have been saying that teachers were not in favour of them. Although we do not have total evidence—and, as I shall say later, that may be very difficult to get —he gave a piece of evidence of importance; and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, told us that in the West Country the people concerned were all solidly in favour. So I think there has been a slight feeling on the part of—if I may so describe all of us—the militant Anglicans, of some shouting before we are hurt. That is not entirely the case of course, because there is something to complain about; but I do not think the teachers are in a conspiracy to do this down, and it would be wrong to suppose they are.

I intend to make only a few points because, with 36 speakers in a debate, it is absurd to try to answer them all at this time of night, and nobody wants one to do so. I wish to speak briefly about the suggestion by the noble Lords, Lord Sudeley and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, about, as it were, the wrong selectivity of books—the suggestion that books on one side were being provided while books on the other side were not. Noble Lords will realise that it is, and must be, for college authorities and lecturers in a subject, to decide on the most useful and appropriate selection from the books available. I do not think anybody would think that this is a matter for direction; it is certainly not a matter for direction by the Department, still less by the Secretary of State. However, I hope and believe students have not lost the ability to disagree with their teachers or to read books of their own choice. I thought the point was one that I had to answer as well as I could, and that is the best I can do. In so far as it is true, it is totally regrettable, but the remedy is to beg, borrow or steal a book oneself, and I think that is right.

In any debate about the Christian content of religious education one must acknowledge the major contribution which the Churches have made to education in this country over a very long period. For centuries, clerks in holy orders were the only men of learning and culture when those attributes were thinly spread, though over a population which had little doubt about the validity of what they had to teach. Today, mass education has turned the Christian Churches into a minority movement in this country.

A number of noble Lords do not agree on that. None of us has real evidence, but I feel absolutely certain about it. In my walk of life there is absolutely no doubt that it is a minority movement, and there is no doubt about it in many other walks of life which I observe; and if one goes to country churches there can be no doubt about it either. But if it is not really true it does not really matter, because this country is still a Christian country and, as Lord Home said, the Jubilee celebrations and so on are, though I think a very slender link with Christianity, nevertheless a link. I think that people who go to look and cheer possibly have a faint feeling of the religion behind it. I do not think that it is more than that but, if it is, so much the better. Certainly, there is a reality there.

It is lucky that, when elementary education for all was introduced in the last century, the Churches had a central role in providing that education, at least so far as England and Wales were concerned. They had the experience; they often provided the buildings, and even the teachers. Their material contribution and dedication to the education of our children were acknowledged in the Education Act 1944, which recognised that Church and State each had responsibilities for primary and secondary education: the arrangements then agreed, which are still valid, reflected the concept of partnership between the various Churches and local education authorities. As I have already said, I reaffirm that there is no intention of dissolving this partnership.

One of the statutory requirements of the 1944 Act is that concerning the daily act of worship. This has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords and I feel that I should spend a minute on it. It provides a necessary reminder that religious education is more than a classroom subject and that it ought also to have some practical expression in the way the school community orders its life and in the ideals it brings before the pupils at the start of the day. Of course, the act of worship in schools can fall into that arid formalism which Samuel Butler so vividly conveyed in his description of family prayers in The Way of All Flesh. I am, however, persuaded from my own educational contacts that this gathering of the school community need not provide simply an overture of cheerful music, a formal roll call or an opportunity for school notices. Instead, it can be a rewarding occasion which brings staff and pupils together in reflection upon life's deeper purposes and sets the day in a context of shared experience, in which all alike can learn to respect the views of others and to create something of value to the school.

I am interested by what has been said by a number of noble Lords today about parents from the minority communities being only too pleased for their children to take part in this kind of gathering. We know that, under the Act, if conditions are such that it is difficult for the headmaster to arrange, it is open to the local authority to arrange something on similar lines for smaller groups. Of course, parents have the right to withdraw their children if they want to.

The Christian Education Movement, of which my right honourable friend is a vice-president, has suggested that the way in which a school is organised and run carries messages about the values it supports and advocates, and has emphasised the importance of the school's task in social education. There may well be some common ground here with the Humanist view expressed in your Lordships' debates when noble Lords argued for the teaching of morals and ethics, of love and tolerance, of compassion and human fellowship. Here, I must say that I think that certain noble Lords—I believe that my noble friend Lord Longford is one of them—are quite wrong in suggesting that moral education cannot be divorced from religion. Clearly, it can. Whether it is exactly the same if it is, surely is a different point, but one cannot speak of many of the extremely good living Humanists who totally deny religion and insist that the two things must be connected. They must be for the Christian.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, if my noble friend says that I was clearly wrong, he is clearly wrong. Obviously, that is a matter of argument. I shall not stop my noble friend at 10.40 at night, but perhaps when he looks more carefully at my remarks he will see that I did not say what he thought I did. He may have been distracted while I was speaking.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Well, my Lords, my noble friend said so in the last debate, if not in this one. So many of these values stem from the ethics of the ancient religions, and particularly of the Christian religion, that I am encouraged to think that our aims and those of the Humanists are not too dissimilar. They are that a large majority want young people to be given a code of conduct that will stand them and the community in good stead at a time when moral standards are under siege.

Ever since the passage of the 1944 Act, there has been continuing discussion over the nature and purpose of religious education. In that period one can see at least three changes of emphasis in the development of principles and practice in the subject, particularly in the county schools. These changes are also to some extent reflected in the agreed syllabuses prepared over that period. First, the "received tradition", so to speak, in religious education, which was embodied in the earlier agreed syllabuses, viewed the subject predominantly as the study of the Bible, which over the ages most devout Christians have regarded as the rock on which their religion was founded.

However, some teachers found in practice that they needed to relate religious teaching more directly to the experience and concerns of the pupils. This approach sought to relate Christian beliefs to the actual life experience of the pupil. This change of emphasis may be helpful in itself, but it can pass very easily into a study of personal and social problems in which it is hard to see what is distinctly religious, let alone Christian, about the work, or how it differs from social studies which might be undertaken by other subject teachers in the school.

It was perhaps in part a wish to establish more clearly the distinctive territory of religious education, as well as a growing awareness of the multiracial nature of our society, which has led more recently to a third development—a view of religious education as a study of man's religious quest, which should include not only an account of that quest, as expressed in the Christian tradition, but other major world faiths, too.

These three differing approaches are not to be seen as simply succeeding each other chronologically, each supplanting its predecessors. Rather, what has happened is that teachers have taken elements from all three into their teaching and their programme of work. The degree of prominence given to this or that aspect may vary with the experience of the teacher and his judgment of the needs and capacities of his pupils. However, in the experience of Her Majesty's Inspectors these three elements are the common features of religious education in the county secondary school, and it is the Christian tradition which provides the major source material for the lessons.

Throughout these developments in the subject since 1944, there has been a general movement towards seeing the aim of the subject in the county school not so much in terms of an induction into the Christian faith, but rather as an introduction to the religious realm of experience, particularly, though not exclusively, through the study of Christianity. There are of course still differences of emphasis between, for instance, those like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who would see the subject as being principally concerned with the Christian tradition, and those who would wish religious education to range more widely or to concentrate upon the ethical aspects of religion.

Today, my Lords, we have asked ourselves whether Christianity has a special contribution to make in this aspect of the work of our schools. With all respect to those of other faiths, or of no faith, I have no doubt that it has, nor do I think have most noble Lords present. It has been so entwined with the culture of this country as it has developed over the past century that it is necessary for pupils to understand the one so as to appreciate the other. No one religion has a monopoly of ethics, but many systems of ethics have distant origins, as, for instance, those recorded deep in biblical history. There is another very topical reason for advancing this view. In a country which has long had a Christian background, Christians have a special responsibility to teach reconciliation and the brotherhood of man so that we may welcome to our community those from other cultures and religions. This is indeed just as true for the voluntary schools as for the county schools.

It is already clear that a joint effort will be required if we are to fit our children to find their place in society with an acceptable code of conduct. In this we must not underestimate the influence of either the Churches or parents. Churches play an invaluable part in the conferences called by local education authorities to consider agreed syllabuses, and in inspiring their more committed members to take up teaching. At the centre of every religion there are mysterious depths of belief which can be accepted only as an act of faith and, whereas these are of added significance in denominational schools, some awareness of their impact and influence ought also to be communicated within the agreed syllabus. Here I think I must pause to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I am sorry; he has gone.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked me especially to say, and asked me to perform the Christian service of saying, that he had to leave, and to make his apologies.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, I wanted simply to say to him that he had got stuck, clearly, on the problem of evil, which better men than he or I have been stuck on in the past. I was going to suggest that he might find Dean Rathbone's book—I think it is called The Theory of Good and Evil—helpful, but there is not an easy answer to the problem of evil.

My Lords, pupils are quick to sense insincerity in their teachers, and a teacher who is enthusiastic about the study of religion is more likely to arouse the interest of his pupils. There have been some very interesting comments on this from noble Lords. I think the right reverend Prelate spoke about the impossibility of stopping a committed man from speaking in a committed way. I do not think you can, and I do not think it is necessary to do so, although clearly he has to be careful exactly what he says.

My Lords, parents plainly have a major role in the education of their children. Though for all too many children the school is the only source of information and encouragement in setting moral and spiritual values, the example parents set in the home may be far more influential than tuition in school. For that reason it is good to see that many schools now have active parent-teacher associations which stimulate a healthy exchange of views and provide a welcome means of co-operation with common objectives; and in an increasing number of schools parents have an opportunity to contribute to the life and work of the school as managers or governors. Several noble Lords and noble Baronesses have said how important it is that local people should do local work of this kind, and I could not possibly endorse this more strongly. I should also like to endorse what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said about the family. I spent a great deal of the early part of my life in an organisation which thought it was fundamental in human life, even though it was not a religious organisation; and it is probably common ground to most of us that the proper unit in society, I think, whether Christian or not, is the family.

Local education authorities, too, of course, have very special responsibilities relating to agreed syllabuses, and once again this is where the local individual can come in and pull his weight. Since the contents of these syllabuses should be widely known as an aid to understanding, authorities should satisfy themselves that, at the very least, all their teachers of religious education are aware of their terms; and, at a time when parents are increasingly wishing to be more involved in the education of their children, that copies, either for reference or sale, are generally available. Authorities may also wish to bear in mind the provision in the 1944 Act which gives them power to constitute a standing advisory council on religious education to advise them on the implementation of the agreed syllabus. These are all ways in which people locally can change the field in a way in which, in my opinion, Governments cannot.

I turn now to the specific proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and other noble Lords. I do not expect to give the noble Lord, Lord Blake, complete satisfaction, but I shall do the best I can. Noble Lords have urged the Government to initiate an independent inquiry into religious education in the county schools and the place of Christianity within it, possibly with the addition of a survey of parental feelings about religious education. I recognise, of course, the very real concern that underlies those objectives, but must tell noble Lords that such an inquiry would not be practicable, timely or, indeed, very appropriate. Because the circumstances of each school vary, both for religious worship and teaching, an inquiry of this kind would involve the collection and interpretation of information from some 30,000 schools, and would soon be out of date. Assessment of this information could not be undertaken either by the Department or by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

I also question the appropriateness of such an inquiry into so sensitive a subject, where, as I have indicated, a good deal of discretion must and should rest with the teachers, with the managers or governors of voluntary schools and with local education authorities, which are responsible for the adoption of an agreed syllabus and for ensuring that maintained schools comply with the law. But, in any event, a period when the entire curriculum and objectives of schools are under review within the context of the forthcoming Green Paper is not the time to consider in advance a more detailed examination of one aspect of the curriculum.

The current wide-ranging public debate on education was indeed the subject of the noble Lord's second point. As he suggested, some people have felt that the place of religious and moral education in schools should have been included. However, to concentrate attention in the first stage of the debate the emphasis was quite deliberately placed on the secular curriculum and educational performance. The importance of the religious and moral aspects of education was, none the less, fully recognised; those taking part in the debate included representatives of the major religious organisations in the country, and, as I am glad to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blake, this aspect of the curriculum is being taken into account in the preparation of the Green Paper.

The noble Lord, Lord Blake, went on to suggest that my right honourable friend might issue a circular to all local education authorities declaring that the centrality of Christianity in religious education, together with the study of the Bible is in her view a clear requirement of the 1944 Act in the spirit, if not in the letter, of the law. While I am sympathetic to this view, we cannot consider the place of RE in isolation in advance of the Green Paper, where, as I have said, it will be recognised as a central part of the curriculum and will no doubt be considered in this light in the ensuing discussions. The evidence is that the operation of the 1944 Act regarding agreed syllabuses has encouraged and disseminated curriculum development and fresh thinking in religious education. Moreover, it has provided for the decisions about this important area of the curriculum to be arrived at through local discussion and to reflect the particular religious and social character of the area for which the syllabus is prepared.

This principle of local determination means that the syllabuses may well vary in their emphasis. I am sure, however, that the view that Christianity should retain its central place in religious education would be widely shared and is reflected in virtually all syllabuses, including some new ones. Even so, if religious education is to assist in the educational task of preparing children for life in contemporary society, it is important to ensure that as well as introducing them to the Christian tradition, it at least acquaints them with the fact that there are other major world faiths by which men live.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked for an estimate of numbers here. I have asked the Department to do a calculation. It is not a guaranteed one. There are a number of not absolutely certain pieces of data. Their guess is that the number of non-Christian immigrants in schools would now probably be in the region of 200,000 and, in addition, there will be some 11,000 Jewish schoolchildren in Jewish schools and another 30,000 in non-Jewish schools. If you say 250,000 children out of a total of 9 million, this is about the figure. This emphasises the point the noble Earl was making that it is, indeed, a small proportion of the total educational problem.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, I had no idea that the noble Lord would be so forthcoming.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, I am surprised that it was a surprise to the noble Earl.

I should like to venture some personal views at this stage. I feel fairly clear in my mind that we have to steer a narrow course between evangelism on the one hand and aloof philosophical neutrality on the other. The central tenets of Christianity, as of all worthy religions, are versed in mystery and justified by faith. The whole question of redemption of the sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist, are not subjects which can be dealt with adequately except by someone intellectually capable and spiritually convincing. This usually means a priest, as noble Lords and right reverend Prelates have said, and the appropriate time is in prepapation for confirmation, not in school. But a real study of the Bible is entirely suitable for teaching in class. Not only all branches of the Christian Church, but also all Muslims and all Jews believe in the unique significance of the Old Testament. Christians go further and believe that the New Testament is inspired.

Be that as it may, I certainly believe that the Authorised Version was an inspired translation and a knowledge of it is a priceless part of our heritage. I am all for it being included in English literature studies, as suggested yesterday by Mr. Howarth, but this should not be at the expense of its primary place in religious education. So, although I do not think lay teachers would or should normally try to teach the innermost mysteries of Christianity, they should, I am sure, study thoroughly and here and there criticise the Bible—pace the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley—so that their pupils know it well and know a little of what scholars think about it. This is something much more positive than a discursive treatment of religion in general, and if that is what the noble Lord is asking for, then I agree with him.

The noble Lord's fourth point touched on a whole range of matters relating to the employment of professional staff. My answer here has to be that this is not in the hands of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will be aware that the organisation of schools and the appointment and conditions of service of teachers and advisers are the responsibility of local education authorities, many of whom have already appointed advisers on religious education. The noble Lord also drew attention to the need for a more attractive career structure for religious education teachers: this means that they should receive a proportional share of the more senior graded posts. But the formula devised nationally by the Burnham Committee for the allocation of graded posts to schools determines, in effect, only their number in relation to the size of the school and the age ranges of the pupils. Local education authorities might usefully bear in mind, when they are allocating graded posts, the wider responsibilities of some teachers of religious education.

I ought to add a word about academic courses in religious education teacher training institutions to allay doubts that Christianity does not occupy a sufficiently large place in these courses. In fact, the student who is taking religious education as the major subject will usually have a substantial element of biblical study at some point. He will also be introduced to Christian theology, and although the range of studies has increased over the past 10 years, it remains the case that Christian studies, whether biblical, theological or historical, occupy a major part in these courses. This is an important point which has been questioned.

Lord ELTON

My Lord, there was a point on this area which I raised which is the great doubt that some of us have that students are being sent out qualified in theology but not in fact qualified to teach it in that they have not had method courses. I wonder whether this is a proper area for examination.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I will certainly put this to my colleagues and see whether I can give a reasonable answer.

In the General Certificate of Education examinations, the number of pupils taking religious education at Ordinary and Advanced levels has remained fairly steady over recent years, and there are also substantial entries for this subject in the Certificate of Secondary Education. Through its religious education committee, the Schools Council has given active encouragement to the development of new advanced level syllabuses in religious education, and no one who knows about these would have any doubt about the academic status of this subject at this level. It is for secondary schools to arrange their option schemes for older pupils in such a way that they provide pupils with genuine opportunities to take religious education as an examination subject, though one must recognise the constraints of organisation, staffing and the size of teaching groups which, as some noble Lords mentioned, affect decisions about the range of examination courses which can be offered. We cannot afford to have teaching groups which are too small.

As part of his fourth question, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, asked that there should be proper opportunity for in-service training. My Lords, I gladly agree with those speakers who have stressed the importance of in-service teacher training in improving the quality of teaching. The Government are doing what they can. They have urged local education authorities to expand this form of training and it has made allowance in the rate support grant settlement for 1977–78 for some expansion. It is now for those authorities to respond: the Government cannot dictate local priorities or, within the present grant arrangements, earmark amounts for spending in particular directions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, wanted to know how many training places for religious education there will be in the proposed total of 45,000, and what degree of contraction there will be in this subject as a result. The amount of provision two years ago was enough to provide about 580 newly qualified specialists a year. The Government asked the colleges last year for planning forecasts of provision in 1981. These indicate a corresponding output figure of about 460. That is a 15 per cent. reduction, which compares with a planned reduction of 30 per cent. in all the specialist subjects taken together. There may be changes if the total is changed.

Obviously, initial teacher training is also of great significance. In our last debate on this subject on 16th February, many speakers drew attention to the importance of teacher training, which would equip young teachers, and not only teachers of religious education, to help their pupils to cope with the moral and ethical questions of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, expressed anxiety that provision for teacher training in the subject will be inordinately hit by my right honourable friend's recent proposals to reduce teacher training numbers. These proposals are still the subject of consultation with the local education authorities and voluntary bodies concerned; representations are being carefully considered, and decisions have not yet been taken. It is, however, unavoidable that some initial training provision will disappear in a contraction of the total system from 110,000 places in 1974 to a proposed 45,000 places in 1981, but the Government have already asked the colleges collectively to increase if possible the proportion of their total provision going into this subject and others, like mathematics, where teachers are short. There are indications that this will be done.

For reasons of ethics, history and culture, Christianity has a major part to play in education, and not only in religious classroom teaching; but it cannot now, and probably never could, claim an exclusive proprietary right to those aspects of our civilisation. In a shrinking world, to exclude the very real contribution of others would tie the hands and fetter the discretion of the teachers in those very subject areas which Christians are most keen to strengthen. Its inclusion need not diminish the Christian content: but it can emphasise its significance.

It seems to me that broadening the scope of religious education and giving its teachers a more demanding and relevant syllabus will do more for the development of a living Christianity than any retreat to the narrower dogmas of the past. I think that this, too, is what most parents want. It is what the community needs. Above all, it seems to offer all the children the best hope of a secure and enlightened future based on Christian values on which to build an integrated and multiracial society. Although I cannot ask the Secretary of State to institute an inquiry or circularise local authorities for the reasons I have given, I hope very much that this debate will itself act as a stimulus in these directions and be widely read, in particular by all local authorities, teachers, and other responsible bodies and that they all will consider carefully what has been said.

My Lords, may I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing this debate, for asking very clear questions and for making an extremely moderate, clear and interesting statement. I think he will be pleased with the debate that we have had.

11.4 p.m.

Lord BLAKE

My Lords, I shall be very brief, I promise, at this late hour. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his speech and for his courtesy. Of course, I am not going to pretend that I am anything but disappointed by some of his replies to the specific points raised. It is a very defeatist attitude to take the view that an inquiry could never be made, that it is just impracticable for the foreseeable future. Also, I certainly do not think that the fact that the subject is a sensitive one, as the noble Lord put it, is a reason for not making an inquiry. I am relieved at his reply about the core curriculum; that seemed to me more hopeful.

I am disappointed at the noble Lord's reply on the third point that I raised; namely, the possibility of the Secretary of State's issuing a circular about the centrality of Christianity and the Bible. This would in no way preclude people from knowing about other religions. I wanted this particular emphasis to be made, and I think the Minister said that it would probably be generally agreed that Christianity should take a central place. In that case, I do not quite see why the Secretary of State should not say so in a circular. I should have thought that it would do nothing but good. I will not go into the points that he made about career prospects. It is rather a complicated and technical question. I would rather study in Hansard, in due course, what the noble Lord has said. I appreciate the point that it may not be entirely the responsibility of the Department. I was relieved and pleased at some of the things the noble Lord was able to say on the teacher training facilities, and the promises that he put forward.

I should like to end simply by thanking all the noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have taken part in this debate. People of the utmost distinction have bothered to do so, and have stayed till a very late hour. It is very good of them to have done so, and I do not want to keep them any longer than need be. I would end by saying that I think that this debate has been worth while, and that there is a lot in what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said—that the mere fact of the debate, which will get publicised and known about, may have an effect on what is happening as regards the Christian content of religious education in State schools. I thank all of your Lordships very much, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.