Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Second Reading

12:16:00

Moved by

That the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, I am humbled to introduce this Bill in your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have joined us today. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group and put on record my thanks to Humanists UK as the secretariat that helped me bring forward the Bill, and to the National Secular Society. More than three years ago, I first stood in this Chamber to put forward the same Bill. Back then, it passed through the Lords but fell in the other place due to lack of time. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who put forward an amendment to introduce inclusive assemblies to the Schools Bill in 2022. So this is a Bill whose time has come. The UK is the only western democracy that legally imposes worship in publicly funded schools. Sections 70 and 71 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act require all state schools that are not of a religious nature already to hold daily acts of collective worship that must be of a “wholly or mainly” Christian character. The Bill seeks to reform assemblies in schools without a religious character to make sure they include all children and contribute to their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. In my opinion, school assemblies can be a good thing. They should foster a sense of community and promote the moral and social development of pupils. But that is not what is happening in many schools today, because the required religious aspect means that many children are withdrawn from assemblies, often to be left in corridors or classrooms, excluded from their peers and without any meaningful equivalent activity, which can make a child feel excluded and different. Some non-Christian children will feel pressurised to attend just to fit in. This is not a radical Bill, and it would not impact on the teaching of religion or belief in schools. It would not affect the ability of the one-third of schools that are religious schools to conduct collective worship, although it does mandate that children withdrawn from collective worship in these schools should be awarded equally meaningful school assemblies instead of being left in corridors. It would allow pupils and teachers at schools of no religious character to organise voluntary acts of worship for children who want to attend, so long as their parents permit them to do so. The Bill would not end assemblies in schools. Rather, it would require schools to hold assemblies focused on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of all children. The British Social Attitudes survey consistently shows that around half of British adults say they belong to no religion and that more than 60% do not identify as Christian. Of those aged 18 to 24, 68% say they are non-religious versus 18% saying they are Christian. Parents welcome the Bill. A 2019 YouGov poll asked parents to rank a list of 13 possible activities that could take place in a school assembly, and they ranked collective worship last. In fact, more than half said that religious worship was not an appropriate activity. Instead, in front of religious worship they ranked the environment and nature, physical and mental health, the celebration of achievements, equality and non-discrimination, charity and volunteering, relationships and self-esteem, exploration of moral and ethical issues, humanitarian issues, historical events, art and culture, education about religions and beliefs, and politics and government. In my opinion, and in that of these children’s parents, those are the topics we should be covering in assemblies. Parents are right that worship is not appropriate. It does not uphold children’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Younger children also have the right to freedom of religion or belief, and this right is not respected if religious worship is imposed on them. Accordingly, the UN children’s rights committee has for years called for the repeal of the UK’s compulsory worship laws and did so again in 2023. Moreover, a recent poll of school leaders found that 70% opposed collective worship and only 12% supported the current law. Finally, I thank all Peers for joining us today. The former Bishop of Oxford, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, wrote to give his apologies and asked me to say a few words on his behalf in support of the Bill. He said that just because he believes in the Christian faith and to him it is of supreme importance, he sees no reason why non-religious teachers should have to conduct collective worship for pupils, many of whom would be of other religions or beliefs. The Bill presents an opportunity to uphold children’s rights to freedom of religion or belief and to enable them to be present and included in their school life. I beg to move.

12:24:00

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on her success in bringing the Bill forward to Second Reading. In doing so, I commend her tenacity because I well remember her first attempt at this legislation just over three years ago. I can only wish her more success on this occasion. In preparation for this debate, I dug out the Hansard for that debate, which was in September 2021, and I noted that the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Meacher, also spoke on that day, so there is an element of déjà vu for some of us in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, before she departs, that I salute her indefatigability in that she is speaking in three of today’s debates. That is quite remarkable, and I only hope that she had an energy drink with her breakfast. I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As a former Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, he will speak with some authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, again introduced her Bill with conviction, and in doing so highlighted the many issues that surround the requirement for collective worship in England. As she said, the UK is the only western democracy with legal requirements for religious worship in schools, and that must be broadly Christian in those without a religious character. I think that is clearly inappropriate in a country where the 2021 census showed for the first time that Christians are now a minority, and where the population are less religious and more diverse than ever before. I see that as a strength of our democracy and a development that should be embraced, and I believe the legislation should be modernised accordingly. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly called for the repeal of legislation concerning collective worship in schools, describing it as incompatible with children’s freedom of religion or belief. With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill due in your Lordships’ House shortly, perhaps there might be an opportunity to use it as a vehicle that brings about change. The law as it stands is, I have to say, widely ignored. A 2022 survey of more than 7,500 teachers recorded 66% as saying that their school did not hold collective worship. This included not just 79% of teachers at schools without a religious character but, remarkably in some respects, 11% of those teaching in faith schools. An investigation by Schools Week last year revealed that in place of an act of Christian worship, some schools now teach pupils about looking after the planet and mindfulness instead. Other schools are replacing Christian worship with multifaith assemblies. There was a time when Ofsted was required to note non-compliance, but it ceased inspecting collective worship some 20 years ago after three-quarters of schools were found to be non-compliant, so the law certainly needs updating to reflect current social trends. The existing guidance on collective worship dates from 1994, in spite of several changes to primary legislation since then, consolidation in the Education Act 1996 and reconsolidation in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. So even if, as I suspect, my noble friend the Minister will say that the new Government have no plans to amend the current requirement for collective worship in schools, at least the guidance relating to the legislation is surely due an update after more than a quarter of a century. My research for this debate uncovered a Question on collective worship in schools submitted by a Conservative. He asked HMG “what action they intend to take in respect of the 70 per cent of secondary schools that do not comply fully with the requirement to have a specific daily act of worship”. The reply he received was: “The department relies on the OFSTED inspection cycle to identify where failure to fully meet statutory requirements is a key issue, and arrangements are in place within that inspection cycle to revisit those key issues on post inspection plans. Schools which have difficulty in meeting their statutory requirements should seek advice from their local Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education”.—[Official Report, 11/10/1999; col. WA 70.] That question was asked in October 1999 by the former Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Lord, Lord Patten. It was answered by the then Education Minister, my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Not much has changed in 25 years, but I believe it should. Assemblies are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, to strengthen the school community and teach children morals. That is a good reason to make school assemblies inclusive for all, with no religious worship. Replacing collective worship will reform and revitalise school assemblies. This, I believe, will enhance pupils’ freedom of religion or belief while enabling schools to foster a shared sense of belonging. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, this is a Bill whose time has come. I agree, and I wish it well.

12:30:00

My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly, but I endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said. It seems to me that morality is incredibly important in our society; we are losing a huge opportunity by having Christian assemblies in schools, which of course exclude the majority of children. Children need to be taught early the importance of generosity, kindness, neighbourliness, community support and so on. All of these values are hugely important; it is vital that children get hold of and endorse them early on in their lives, then put them into practice through their school careers. I regard it as very important that we replace religious Christian assemblies with morality-based assemblies that are completely inclusive. Every child must understand why they are there and the importance of what is being said. This is a hugely important issue, as far as I am concerned. I endorse very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said.

12:31:00

My Lords, I warmly welcome this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her introduction, as well as the other noble Lords who have spoken. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although I understand the intention of the Bill, it may not surprise your Lordships to hear that I will express some reservations about the proposals and say that I believe the current legislation already affords sufficient flexibility. I suspect that I may well be a lone voice in the Chamber today. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness quote my esteemed friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, formerly the Bishop of Oxford. Perhaps it is good to know that there are differences of opinion among Bishops in this House. Collective worship is a vital part of school life. It is key to fostering a sense of fellowship and cohesion; to celebrating festivals, and not just Christian ones; and to strengthening religious literacy. Importantly, the current legislation already allows schools to tailor their provision to suit their pupils’ spiritual needs, and allows schools and academies to develop their ethos and values. Among the many benefits of collective worship is the chance to explore and understand values such as forgiveness, humility, gratitude and justice. Collective worship allows for time away from the target-driven culture of education, creating a space for the possibility of an encounter with the divine or for reflection on the larger questions of life: the meaning and purpose of life. Children need space to ponder these things, which are the province of spirituality. We are spiritual beings, and spirituality finds an anchor in collective worship. Research shows that spirituality has a very strong impact on well-being and mental health, whether religious or not. Some may say that the removal of collective worship would allow schools to allocate extra time to cover themes such as the environment, health, relationships, self-esteem and so on, but it is likely that schools may well end up using this time for extra lessons such as maths and English instead. I worry that the Bill will simply remove the protection around valuable space for reflection as part of the school day. Whether in times of crisis or celebration, collective worship brings the entire community together for reflection. There is no doubt that Britain has become less overtly religious over the past decades, yet, although fewer of us call ourselves practising Christians, the country remains steeped in echoes of our collective faith and many would still describe themselves as spiritual. Worship and spirituality underpin the ceremonies that shape our lives. Often, still, it is the responsibility of the Church of England to capture and make space for expression of the national mood, and many turn to faith institutions in times of life and death. The death of Queen Elizabeth II confronted us all with our own mortality, our losses and the realisation of how little control we have over our futures. The late Queen’s death conjured up a latent spirituality, which brought the nation together in mourning and thanksgiving. The Church of England has always sought to bring to life the rituals that define us. It has long played an integral part in educating our children, from the first monastic schools and the inception of universities to the founding of the National Society and the thousands of faith schools that are dotted around the country today. The Church takes these commitments seriously. Alongside high-quality education, it offers high-quality collective worship that is inspiring, invitational and inclusive, and which exemplifies the principles of Christian generosity. Worship is collective in that it involves meeting, exploring, questioning and responding to others—and, for some, responding to God. It provides a safe space for children to ask questions and learn to sit with difference. Schools across the country used NSE resources created in response to the Southport riots on the themes of “I weep when you are weeping” and “When there is hatred, let me sow peace”. These support pupils to explore issues arising from the news through a lens of community and cohesion, as well as a theology of peace-making. In schools without a religious character, the law is flexible and allows the tailoring of provision to suit their pupils’ needs, considering their ages, aptitudes and family backgrounds. I am concerned that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, one consequence may be to make anything more than a wholly secular assembly illegal and contested in our schools. Most children would not know about the Christmas or Easter stories, nor have the opportunity to learn about other faiths, if it were not for collective worship. The effect of the Bill might be to deprive young people of the chance to experience spiritual, moral, social and cultural development through collective worship. There is already provision for parents to withdraw their children from collective worship if they wish to do so, but, when there is no space for reflection on faith, people of all faiths feel diminished, not just Christians. Although it is right and I am glad that we are having this debate, I very much hope that the Bill will not be progressed—or, at least, that it will be amended in Committee.

12:37:00

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. In following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I assure her that she is not a lone voice in expressing concern over this Bill. I respectfully submit that the Bill in front of us is unnecessary, is overreaching in terms of its provisions and is potentially counterproductive. I say “unnecessary” because, as the right reverend Prelate highlighted, there is already a high level of flexibility in our system. Indeed, there is a complete and sacrosanct opportunity for any pupil, via their parents or as sixth formers, to withdraw from any assembly. If a religious assembly goes against the religious views of a family, or if they wish to express a more secular point of view, there is that complete freedom to withdraw. This Bill does not remove compulsion from anyone; therefore, it is solving a problem that does not necessarily exist. On the contrary, although there is at present the opportunity to withdraw if someone has a fundamental objection, I see no provision in this Bill that allows any parent to object to what they may believe to be a humanist assembly. It makes those assemblies completely compulsory, and reduces rights rather than enhancing them. It is the case that this is a form of overreaching. It does not simply remove the requirement for an assembly with a religious character to it; it actually bans the school from holding any “acts of worship or … religious observance”. How do we interpret religious observance or acts of worship? Clearly, that would constitute a prayer or a hymn, for example, or telling a story from the Bible. In a practical sense, what will this mean in interpretation? It could mean that, if a school were holding its annual act of remembrance, there would be a ban on saying a prayer of thanks for the service of those who paid the supreme sacrifice. That would be outside the law under the Bill. If a school wanted to hold a service of remembrance for a pupil who had sadly died, again, there could be no religious overtones to that. Does it mean that an annual nativity play—which is clearly telling a biblical story—would constitute an act of worship? If there were a desire for the pupils to sing “Away in a Manger” or some such like, that would be banned. Those may seem extreme examples, but let us remember that this is not simply an absolute ban; there is a provision within the Bill that makes it a legal duty on the principal to enforce it. What will happen throughout the country is that many principals will err on the side of excluding absolutely everything, and so religion and Christianity will be something that dare not speak its name. I believe the Bill is counterproductive for a number of reasons. However much it may be unfashionable to acknowledge it now, we have a country that is based, as is western democracy, on Judeo-Christian values. We owe a great deal to those values and they are equally relevant today, perhaps more so than in the past; such values, as has been highlighted, include teaching the sanctity of human life, and love and compassion—and not simply love for your family and friends, or even community, but the Christian ethos of loving your enemy. It strikes me that a system that moves away from those values into something more nebulous is a retrograde step. There is a danger that that leads to greater segregation within our society. If we are to have entirely humanist assemblies, in which no religious element is allowed at all, we will move to a situation that will push a number of parents into a straight choice between a state school and one that is much more religiously based, and that will effectively segregate people even more. There are many conflicts within our society, sadly, and at times our answer is to treat the symptoms of those problems within our community; worse still, there are some who will try to scapegoat communities for the problems that we face, which brings the difficulties of looking to pass blame on to outsiders within our society. It strikes me that we need much more inclusive, ethical values that we can all share. I believe those are provided by way of collective worship. We need a level of inclusion, and this measure would disaggregate people into different camps. The proposer of the Bill has rightly indicated that a situation in which collective worship is abolished leaves a vacuum, and so has sought to provide provision for assemblies that would be spiritual, moral, social and cultural. However, as has been highlighted, we have seen unfortunately within this country over the last number of years a number of culture wars, where there are differences of opinion over issues around gender identification, the environment and socioeconomic matters. This is a recipe for further controversy, because there will be divergences of differences within schools and between parents and schools about the contents of those assemblies. This has a danger of dragging us into a level of controversy. In conclusion, we need to see more cohesion rather than the division that would be brought about by this Bill. We need to ensure freedom of choice, rather than the compulsory attendance and intolerance that would be inadvertently produced by the Bill. We need to have greater shared values as a wider country, rather than controversy and conflict over the content of such assemblies. Whatever the intentions behind the Bill, I think it is ill-judged and that we would be taking a retrograde step if as a Parliament we ultimately endorsed this legislation, certainly in its current form.

12:45:00

As “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” had it, do you have that strange feeling of déjà vu? We have been here before; it is becoming a regular event—but that is quite right. It is an issue upon which I have strong views, and I always welcome the opportunity to express them. I speak as a corridor child, although that was more to do with train timetables than any point of principle. However, I can testify to the pointlessness of being excluded from the life of a school, which is an inevitable result of the current approach. The Education (Assemblies) Bill is a necessary and overdue reform that seeks to replace the requirement for daily acts of Christian worship in non-faith schools with inclusive assemblies that cater for all students, regardless of their religious belief. In my view, the Bill represents a significant step towards ensuring that the education system in England reflects the diversity and inclusivity of modern British society. There is clearly a need for that. I welcome that there has been a genuine debate at Second Reading. I note in particular that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to the flexibility of the current system. We need to be clear that that flexibility is available essentially because of an element of hypocrisy: enforcement of the terms of the law is not always followed through, which is clearly an unsatisfactory situation. The requirement enshrined in the 1944 Act, reinforced in subsequent legislation, does not reflect the reality of today’s multicultural and multifaith society. The UK is home to people of many different religions and to many, including me, with no religion at all. According to the 2001 census, almost 40% of people in England and Wales identify as having no religion, and a growing proportion of the rest do not identify as Christian. Forcing students to participate in Christian worship—because that is effectively what happens—is not only out of step with societal changes but contradicts the principles of freedom of belief. While parents have the right to withdraw their children from these acts of worship, that places an unfair burden on families and can isolate children from their peers. Despite my strong views, I never sought to withdraw my children from collective acts of Christian worship, because they were part of the life of the school. In a sense, you were coerced into participating in what is, essentially, a charade. The Bill proposes a simple but powerful change: replacing mandated Christian worship with inclusive assemblies that promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of all pupils. I note that the right reverend Prelate, in setting the terms for what she wanted to see take place in schools, introduced the word “worship” into what should be regarded as an acceptable school assembly. I do not know how widely held that view is, but it is the worship that is the problem; it needs to be excluded from activities that are part of the collective life of the school. Under this Bill there would still be opportunities for reflection, moral education and community building, but in a way that does not privilege a religious perspective over others. Such an approach would ensure that all students feel equally valued and respected, regardless of their personal beliefs. Schools would have the flexibility to design assemblies that encourage critical thinking, ethical discussions and a sense of community, without requiring participation in religious practices. I very much support this Bill and hope it will progress and, at long last, even possibly change the law.

12:49:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I think the word he used, “charade”, is a description of our current situation. It is worth looking at how, in other debates in your Lordships’ House, we see some very intense discussion about the nature of our schools. We are seeing a lot of debate on mental ill-health among our young people. Having a charade, which is what it very clearly is, at the foundation of this is not good. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, for his kind words and apologise to the noble Lord for leaving the Chamber during his speech. If you do three Bills in a row, you have to time the comfort breaks quite carefully; I apologise for that. As with many people in the debate today, I feel a sense of déjà vu in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for bringing this Bill, as I thanked her three years ago. The arguments for it now are clearer than ever.

I apologise; I omitted from my speech my thanks to the noble Baroness. I want to take the opportunity to say thanks again to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing this Bill back.

I am very happy to give way on that basis. I want to pick up points made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. The Bill the noble Lord described does not reflect the Bill I see in front of me. Arguments were made on the question of representing society. But this is not our society any more. Looking at history, I thought it was interesting that the noble Lord spoke about Judaeo-Christianism as a foundation of democracy. I am not sure if the noble Lord knows that some of the earliest democracy that we know of in the world was the old Assyrian empire, well before even the ancient Greeks. To make a claim of exclusivity to democracy does not stack up. There are three main points I want to make. First, we often hear about how much pressure there is on schools and how much difficulty they have fitting in time for important lessons and activities. Here is a space and time for moral, spiritual and cultural development that we could be using far more creatively and better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, the time that is currently theoretically allocated for worship could be used creatively to learn about nature, and for the consideration of ourselves as human animals in a more than human world. Secondly, we have not made a great deal of this argument today, but it is worth pointing out that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that the imposition of worship undermines children’s rights under Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention and Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As I said in the context of the first Bill I spoke on today, we are seeing the rule of law, human rights and UN traditions under such pressure around the world. That really does help to build the case for this Bill. A 2024 poll showed that a large majority—70%—of school leaders oppose this collective worship. We have this provision, but we know that it is not being delivered. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, this is a charade. The UK is the only sovereign state where Christian worship is compulsory in state schools, including those without a religious character. We are talking about a law dating back to 1944. It really is time that we moved on and provided care and support for our children. During this time, a local theatre group could come in and put on a little play that poses a moral conundrum, which could then be discussed. As I said, the time could be used to discuss nature, or there could be lessons in first aid and how to react in situations where it is needed. This time could be well spent on these really useful things—education for life, not exams—and that is what the noble Baroness’s Bill moves towards. I finish by offering the Green group’s strongest possible support for the Bill, and I very much hope that it progresses.

12:55:00

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I emphasise that I am speaking in a personal capacity today. I was not listed for this debate because I could not get my name on the list in time, but I have listened with great interest. I will make only three points. One is that the widening of what is covered in assemblies is attractive on the face of it, but it should be seen alongside the consequential narrowing of the other attributes of the current system, reducing the space to share values within the majority Judeo-Christian tradition and the ability to hold vibrant discussions about minority relations. I speak as a secular Muslim, and I know that those discussions are undertaken very well in the current curriculum, as well as those of other religious values. My second point is on contested arguments, not least on social media, and disinformation in news, where young people are easily directed to misinformation. The current curriculum offers a safe space for some of these discussions. It is a rare opportunity for people to have some direction on what can be covered, but it still allows for the important value-driven conversations that are not available elsewhere to be imparted for young people to think about. So it is not clear to me how the widening of this space will not increase the ability for greater contestation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has just given several examples that I agree are important, but that are easily covered in other curricula. For example, she mentioned the environment, which is well covered in geography. So, on balance, as a supporter of both Humanists UK and the National Secular Society, I say to the House that two things possibly flow here. One is the danger of making these quite long-term changes in a Private Member’s Bill. The other is that we are well served. Let us have the analysis of which schools are not currently sufficiently wide in their teachings in these assemblies, and come back with more deliberate and considered legislation to see how we may improve that situation.

12:58:00

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on securing a Second Reading for her Bill, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As we have heard this morning, when the Bill was considered in 2021, it did not pass through the Commons due to lack of time. But, at that time, the Conservative Government were unable to support it, and I am afraid—I guess this will not surprise the noble Baroness—our position has not changed. I will briefly outline my concerns, some of which were much more eloquently represented by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. The first point, which other noble Lords have made, is that collective worship is important and gives children in school a time to learn and to reflect but to do that with a sense of community, and religion allows children to learn some of the essential values of life. Many of the topics that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, cited as possible topics for secular collective worship are part of Christianity and often already form part of the collective worship that happens in our schools every day. As the House is aware, there are already curriculum requirements for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of pupils through the PSHE curriculum. As we know, the Government have asked Professor Becky Francis to lead a review of the curriculum and make an assessment, and I am sure that if any changes are required she will bring them to the Government’s attention. As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, both pointed out, the existing legislation is flexible, and I feel that it is unjust to describe it as an imposition or a coercion of children or their parents. As noble Lords know, it is already possible for children or indeed whole schools to be exempted from this practice. Therefore, we believe that this legislation is unnecessary. That of course includes schools where the principal religion is not Christianity. I was interested to hear the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, about removing parents’ right to remove their children if they were unhappy with a new collective worship or reflection—I am not sure what we would call it, but collective assembly—and the risk that it would exclude important commemorations. Obviously, we accept that social attitudes are changing, but one can also then make the argument that it is more important than ever that we have some common core that children understand and learn from, because they are unlikely to learn it elsewhere in modern society, other than possibly at home. The Judeo-Christian principles, which I am sure we could have many good debates about, underpin our culture and have withstood the test of time. We unravel at our peril that understanding and shared sense of who we are as a community, and the commonality across religions of some of those principles. I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, very cunningly—in a good way—finding a Question from 25 years ago. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the question might be the same, but I do not think what we would see in the classroom or school hall would be the same. That is an important point in all this. Our teachers are absolutely aware of how our society is changing; they are aware of the diversity in their communities, and they have the skill and sensitivity to make sure that it is translated every morning to the collective worship—

Just in response to the noble Baroness, I understand what she is saying about teachers reflecting the current situation in classroom. That is why I support the Bill—because things have moved on from the time of that 1999 Question to which I referred. To some extent, that is the whole point of the Bill; that was then and this is now.

I think that equally plays into the argument that the Bill is not needed. If our system is naturally evolving with a strong core, the argument is made for the Bill being unnecessary. As I listened to some of the moral questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the right reverend Prelate posed, I thought that in some way many of those moral questions are exactly the same. We are achieving that in a gradual and evolutionary way in responding to those issues in our schools. Therefore, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill to the House, I am afraid I cannot support it.

13:05:00

My Lords, I congratulate, as others have, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on bringing her Bill to a Second Reading. Of course, as we have discussed during this debate, she introduced a similar Bill in 2021. We all love a tryer and there is real benefit in political life in persistence in the areas that you believe in. We all recognise her commitment to making changes to policy on collective worship in schools. Of course, other noble Lords have also had an encore today in their support for the Bill, including my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett—whom I also commend for her commitment this morning to Private Members’ Bills. We have had a good debate today, with others making different points. My noble friend Lord Davies made a strong case on what is, I think, his first appearance in support of such a Bill. Having said that, and despite the noble Baroness’s persistence, I am afraid that, although I have sympathy with many of the arguments made, I express reservations on behalf of the Government about the Bill. First, on collective worship, which many noble Lords have focused on, I believe that it fosters reflection on belief and societal values. As several noble Lords have said, existing legislation allows schools considerable flexibility to meet their pupils’ spiritual needs while promoting the school’s ethos and values. Despite Britain’s increasingly diverse religious landscape, Christianity remains the principal religion. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I also went back to the Hansard report of the debate in 2021. I was struck by the arguments made by my noble friend Lady Morris, who saw both sides of the argument but made a strong argument at that point about the social significance of the festivities and worship that often brings people together across the country and at particular times of both celebration and difficulty. This was also the point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made. As others noted, it was proven that she was not alone in the arguments that she was making about collective worship. I accept the right reverend Prelate’s observation that fewer people would describe themselves as practising Christians—I think she said that “fewer of us” are practising Christians; I presume she was not referring to the Bishops at that point—but there nevertheless remains, as other noble Lords have said, some benefit in the idea of acts of collective worship. However, it is completely right that there is flexibility for exemptions within the legislation. As has already been stated, non-religious schools may seek exemptions if their community predominantly follows another faith. Although current law does not provide for non-religious alternatives, students over 16 and parents of younger pupils retain the right of unconditional withdrawal from collective worship, which gives them an element of choice. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and another noble Lord—I am sorry, I have forgotten who—also raised a point about the age at which pupils may exercise a right of withdrawal and referenced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is our view that 16 is an appropriate age to have the right to withdraw from collective worship. This is in line with English case law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and we believe it balances the rights of parents and of children. It is consistent with the age at which they can make other decisions on matters affecting their lives, such as consenting to medical treatment, consenting to sexual activity or consenting to get married or register a civil partnership. There was a strong consensus in the debate on the need to ensure that our schools are teaching the spiritual, moral, social, cultural and other inclusive values that various noble Lords identified. The Bill itself proposes replacing daily collective worship in non-religious schools with assemblies focused on that spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. I recognise the concern to ensure that that is being provided for children in all schools. There is a consensus across the House today on the benefit of that. However, as others have also said, under the Education Act 2002, schools must already promote SMSC development through various means, including the basic and national curricula. Collective worship is one avenue, but there are many others—such as religious education, history, citizenship and the arts—that also develop spiritual, moral, social and cultural education, and provide opportunities for pupils to reflect on their beliefs and the world around them. Furthermore, schools can already hold assemblies focused on that development alongside collective worship if they choose, and many already do. I suspect some of the examples used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, are already happening in many schools where, when students are brought together for assemblies, there is a wide range of activities, sometimes alongside collective worship but certainly not involving only collective worship. Therefore, the flexibility to enhance pupils’ spiritual and moral growth already exists. On fundamental values, state-funded schools are also required to promote fundamental British values. We had a very good discussion about this in a recent debate on a Private Member’s Bill. Schools, whether through citizenship or in other places, are promoting democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect for diverse faiths and beliefs—which is important here, as some have suggested that the current law would alienate or make more difficult respect for the diversity of faiths and beliefs in our schools. Once again, these values tend to be taught across the breadth of the curriculum as well, and are reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies and deepened through carefully planned opportunities. All of us would hope that our schools are places where there is respect for the diversity of faiths and for those who have no faith. I have confidence that that is the case in our schools. Other noble Lords mentioned the need for reinforcing shared values of respect, understanding and kindness. That is of course also done in relationships, sex and health education, which equips students with the tools to challenge stereotypes, understand diverse perspectives and form healthy, respectful relationships. Together, these approaches foster an environment of greater tolerance, where differences are embraced and mutual respect flourishes. So, regardless of what noble Lords feel about collective worship, I do not think it would be fair to say that the current legislative situation with respect to collective worship prevents the development of all the other very important learning that noble Lords have rightly identified, and nor does it mean that our schools are not inclusive or not respectful of those with a whole range of faiths or in fact none. The Bill proposes replacing collective worship in non-religious schools with mandatory daily assemblies promoting spiritual, moral and social values. It is probably worth noting that the Bill requires that to be delivered through daily assemblies. The definition of collective worship does not strictly require an assembly, as such. It could be carried out in classes, or through hymns, prayers or other forms of reflection. In this legislation, there is at least the risk of a greater burden or responsibility on schools. This may be what the noble Baroness intends, but would certainly potentially be the case. If collective worship is already infrequent in schools, requiring daily assemblies may impose an unwanted and unnecessary burden. Additionally, requiring religious schools to provide meaningful alternatives to withdrawn students introduces questions of implementation. What constitutes equal educational worth and how long should these assemblies last? The diversity of collective worship practices makes a requirement to organise an alternative potentially complex and onerous for schools. In summary, I have listened carefully to the debate, which reflected a wide range of views both in support of the Bill and not. The Government are not persuaded at this time that there is a need to amend the current legislation on collective worship but very much accept the arguments made about the need for our schools to be inclusive and adaptable, supporting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. I am very grateful to noble Lords today and for the opportunity brought forward by this legislation to be able to debate this, and to be absolutely clear about that for all.

13:18:00

I am very grateful to everyone who has expressed their views today. The variety of different views that noble Lords have expressed has quite surprised me and I am quite delighted that we have at least had the opportunity to make these points. I do think it is a subject we need to address, because the situation we have at the moment is that some schools are doing one thing and some schools are doing another. That does not mean to say that everybody has to do exactly the same thing—I totally disagree with that—but it does mean that we have to be much more open to different pupils’ needs in schools. To my mind, it all boils down to inclusivity. You cannot share values with your colleagues and with your fellow students if you are not there—that is the point. It is all very well saying that you can definitely exclude some children, but I do not want children to be excluded; I want them to be included. That is hugely important, and it is a point that one or two of the speakers today have missed. I will not go into all the details of today’s contributions, but I feel a great sense of empathy with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, being a corridor child. It is he and his descendants that I am trying to include and involve in what is going on in schools today. I also bring to the attention of those who have spoken in less than resounding terms that parents do not want it—this is the point. I ask them to think about how we can bring everyone together. That is all I want to do, because the system we are working on at the moment not only is anachronistic but does not work, because different children are having all kinds of different experiences. I echo a couple of things that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said. If we will not get a change of law, how about a change of guidance? That was an excellent idea. He also held out the leaf of hope that we might be able to fit an appropriate amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to bring everyone together there. With that, I hope that we may still go forward to the next stage.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.