LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 21 July 1998)

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A to Lords Amendment No. 50. I speak also to Lords Amendment No. 52 and the reason numbered 52A.
I hope that the House will recognise that the Government have shown themselves ready to listen to genuine concerns in this House and to respond positively, while at the same time not cutting across other aspects of government policy. We listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I note that the noble Baroness is not in her seat today, although I understand that she may well be there tomorrow.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, it is unfortunate. My noble friend Lady Young understood that the Statement was going to be taken after the preceding amendment. She is not present because she thought that there was to be another Statement. I think it unfortunate that we have pressed on with the amendments without informing this Front Bench.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, we would normally break at the appropriate point in the Bill. I regret that any misinformation has been spread, but I do not believe that that went through the normal channels.
Before I begin on the amendments themselves, I can announce that we have inserted a reference to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development into our draft statutory guidance on home-school agreements in recognition of the concerns of the House on that front.
The main considerations which have helped us to frame the amendment are, first, that the Government acknowledge the importance of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and the right of parents to have an opportunity to discuss such matters at the annual parents' meeting.
Secondly, we recognise that parents have many other concerns about their children's education which deserve equal treatment. It would not be appropriate, in our view, to send a message that those other matters are of secondary importance.
The Government's first amendment builds on the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in Committee by adding to the list of items that parents may discuss at their annual meetings. The noble Baroness's reference to the school's aims and values remains. Her other reference—to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—is reflected in the wider description of the purposes of education set out in subsections (d) and (e) of the revised clause.
We have added two further items which we believe are of particular concern to parents: pupils' standards of achievement and the school's contribution to their behaviour, discipline and general well-being. The final word would embrace concerns about, for example, pastoral care, health and safety, and security.
It may be helpful if I explain why we have not simply adopted the noble Baroness's words. We wanted to describe pupils' entire educational experience in as clear 732 a way as possible. While Section 10 of the 1996 School Inspections Act uses the phrase, spiritual, moral, social and cultural development", the broader description in Section 351 of the 1996 Act refers to, the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school, and of society", and preparation for, the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life". We have used that wording here, but with one addition. Subsection (e) of the revised clause refers to preparation for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life and citizenship. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear over the past year his commitment to the development by schools of a proper sense of citizenship in their pupils, and I know that that is welcome to many noble Lords. We believe that this approach removes any doubt that this provision covers social development in its fullest sense.
We have also applied this wider description to the school, rather than just the curriculum. This makes it consistent with the noble Baroness's amendment, which reflects the whole-school approach to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. We believe that the revised clause will help signal to parents the range of issues in which they have an interest. We hope that it will help encourage as many parents as possible to attend these meetings, and to contribute their views on the way their schools are run.
I believe that that is a generous and constructive response to many of the points made by noble Lords in Committee. But I am afraid that we have not been able to go so far in considering the noble Baroness's other specific proposal for a statutory requirement to produce an annual statement by the governing body on these matters. The Commons' amendment therefore deletes that responsibility and I ask the House to sustain it.
Writing a proper annual policy statement is not a "back of the envelope" job. It demands careful thought, discussion and consultation. And the accumulation of such duties rapidly becomes a burden on governing bodies—particularly the most conscientious—which we owe it to them to police with vigilance.
In any case, we would prefer to encourage schools to tackle the issues, rather than have them divert their energies in producing a standardised report. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's draft guidance, currently being piloted in schools, sets out a thorough approach to developing and implementing a whole-school policy. We are not convinced that a statutory requirement to produce an annual statement would add any significant value. Governing bodies can produce such statements should they so wish.
The QCA pilot is just one of the elements feeding into that part of the national curriculum review concerned with "preparation for adult life". The Government intend that the curriculum should give higher priority to this in future. We attach great importance to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural 733 development. And we are left in no doubt about the importance your Lordships attach to moral and spiritual development in particular.
I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments in the spirit they are offered. I commend them to the House.

§ Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
My Lords, it is with great regret that my noble friend Lady Young cannot be here to discuss the amendment. She expected a Statement to be made at this time and, unfortunately, is at a meeting. I believe—as perhaps does my noble friend—that the Commons amendments dilute the original intention of her amendment.
Traditionally in English history, the first style of education was purely Church-based. Spiritual, moral and social development was seen within the context of revealed Christianity. When state education was first introduced in 1870, the schools took spiritual, moral, social and cultural development still within the context of Christianity. Even those teachers in the new state schools who did not believe in revealed religion still saw their teaching as within the ethic of Christianity. Many noble Lords who are of my age will remember that their teaching, even in a secular state school, was of this type.
The Commons amendment is more in the tradition of French secular education and is therefore a break with the English tradition. In France, after the Revolution, there was an absolute division between the religious Catholic schools and the state schools. In the state schools there was introduced at the beginning of every morning a pattern of teaching which I believe was called morale. It was designed to give republican secular virtue with no mention of the Christian basis. It sprang from good citizenship.
I am not against good citizenship; nor am I against people jumping around in gymnasiums and being fit; nor am I against good discipline. But my noble friend's amendment was not about all those virtues. It was about developing what can only be described in the old phrase as "the interior life". Schools devoted themselves to developing a sensitivity to the richness of the world and to all that lay in it.
I do not want to give a sermon. I believe that there is a strong secularisation within the amendment. It is very much against the traditions of English education. We have never had a tradition of republican citizenship and for better or worse it cannot be built up at a time of moral confusion such as now exists. It would have been far better to have stayed with my noble friend's amendment and allowed it to develop in the schools.
I cannot but remember that many noble Lords opposite, with notable exceptions, voted against my noble friend's amendment. Therefore, one must be somewhat mistrustful of its expansion, which to my mind appears to dilute its intention. Furthermore, I hope 734 that your Lordships will not think me cynical in saying that if one wants a school to value a certain aspect, it is often good to require that it should report on it.
In conclusion, the amendment is a dilution of my noble friend's amendment. It turns to a secular tradition which has no roots in this community. It is outside the context of what my noble friend proposed. It is unfortunate in coming from a party which owed more to Methodism than Marx and I believe that it is a bad amendment. I shall press it no further.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has given us an interesting exposition of British and French educational history. However, he is reading far too much into the amendments which we propose. I cannot see that he can draw the conclusion that we are seriously diluting the decision of this House on the basis of the amendment tabled by his noble friend Lady Young. Indeed, in most respects the wording is the same. Our amendment clearly refers to spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. I believe that the noble Lord is reading too much into it.
Statements made in another place and elsewhere by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State show clearly that we attach great importance to spiritual development, as does the House. As I indicated in my opening statement, we must bear that in mind in developing the national curriculum and its outcomes. If behind the noble Lord's accusation of secularisation he believes that we are squeezing our religious education, it is no part of our strategy. I am happy to confirm that we have no plans whatever to get rid of statutory religious education in our state schools. Apart from anything else, it can make a significant contribution to the spiritual and moral development we are discussing here.
The decision of the Commons and of the Government not to require a report on the matter does not in any sense undermine its importance. In other instances, noble Lords opposite have argued that we are imposing too many bureaucratic report-writing duties on schools and we have applied that criteria in this and other respects.
The new clause in Amendment No. 50A recognises the main concerns of this House. We have considered them and tabled an amendment which in no way represents the revolutionary change in our school curriculum that was suggested by the noble Lord. As one who, one way and another, owes a great deal to Methodism and to Marx, I believe that we have struck a balance between the secular and spiritual aspects, both of which are important in a child's development and preparation for adult life. That is why we have written both spiritual development and citizenship into the clauses. That is the correct indication that we should he giving to schools and the noble Lord greatly exaggerates the implication. I commend the amendment.