Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 225A: 225A: Clause 127, page 70, line 28, leave out from ““education”” to end of line 29 and insert ““— (i) in the case of a pupil of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding, in accordance with the pupil’s own wishes, and (ii) in any other case, in accordance with the wishes of the pupil’s parent.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 225A, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The amendment would ensure that a child could withdraw from religious education on his own say-so if he is of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding, while keeping the right of his parents to so withdraw him. Amendment No. 225B would allow a child of sufficient maturity, who has become known in common parlance as a ““Gillick competent”” child, also to withdraw from religious worship. Amendment No. 225C removes the definition of a sixth-form pupil, since the other two amendments would make it unnecessary, and Amendment No. 225D would include pupils at academes in the rights outlined in the earlier amendments. I refer your Lordships to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its correspondence with Ministers on its legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The committee’s 19th report, published on 13 May 2008, stated at paragraph 1.40: "““Clause 127 seeks to amend the Education Act 1996 to allow regulations to be made permitting sixth-form students to opt-out of religious worship and for younger students to be withdrawn from religious worship by their parents in non-maintained special schools. The regulations will also permit a child to be removed from religious education on the request of his or her parents. During the Public Bill Committee, John Hayes MP linked this provision with the clause 2 participation duty, suggesting that the Government’s position was ironic. He stated: ‘It is the Government’s contention that it is okay for someone at the age of 16 to say that they do not want to study religion, but not okay to say that they do not want to study everything else’””." The report continued: "““We are pleased to note that the Bill proposes to permit sixth-form pupils to optout of religious worship in non-maintained special schools … However, we question whether the Bill gives sufficient weight to the rights of a child to freedom of thought, conscience and belief under Article 9 ECHR and to Article 12 of the UNCRC … We wrote to the Minister to ask about the human rights compatibility of these provisions””." The committee then referred to its report on what is now the Education and Inspections Act 2006. That report recommended that sixth-formers and younger pupils who are Gillick competent should be able to opt out of religious education and collective worship. Currently sixth-formers do not have to take RE. It is compulsory up to the age of 14 and the Government agreed to allow sixth-formers to opt out of collective worship of their own volition. That was as far as the Government were prepared to go at that time. We accepted that step forward and did not press the Government any further on that occasion. We regarded the Government’s concession as a bird in the hand and felt that we should review our position later, if an appropriate occasion were to arise. This Bill is that occasion, since it brings non-maintained special schools into the framework of the previous Bill. The JCHR report states at paragraph 1.44: "““In response, the Minister stated that the intention was to align the position of maintained and non-maintained special schools. Responding to our question as to why the Bill did not go further and follow our earlier recommendation, the Minister stated: ‘Currently only pupils above compulsory school age have ""the right to withdraw from religious worship. Schools must have clear criteria for making arrangements for curriculum matters and to have procedures for making judgements which are not disproportionately burdensome. We do not believe that it is practicable to require schools to conduct the individual assessments which a right to withdraw based on sufficient maturity would require. Such one-to-one assessments may well require professional advice in considering whether children have sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence to make an informed decision’””." However, school nurses have to make such assessments every day of the week when asked for contraceptive services by underage girls who do not want their parents to know. While I do not understate the time and care taken over these deliberations, they do not bring schools to a halt. I return to the JCHR report at paragraph 1.45. It states: "““As we have stated in previous reports, provisions which fail to guarantee a child of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding the right to withdraw from compulsory religious education and collective worship are incompatible with the child’s human rights””." The report continues: "““Administrative burdens alone do not meet the necessity requirement for interference with the rights of children to respect for their Article 9 ECHR rights. We therefore recommend that the Government reconsiders its objection to permitting a child of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding to withdraw from religious education and takes into account our previously expressed views on this issue””." That is what Amendment No. 225A does. The committee goes on to say: "““As for religious worship, we recommend that children who are not in the sixth-form but who have sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding be permitted to withdraw””." It then suggests how that could be simply remedied in the Bill and, indeed, that is what Amendment No. 225B does. The Government’s response to this appears in the JCHR’s 23rd report, of 26 June of this year. It quotes from a letter from the honourable Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools and Learners in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. After restating the Government’s position, the Minister said: "““There is a proper distinction to be drawn between participation in collective (religious) worship and attendance at religious education lessons on the grounds of the nature of those activities. We do not believe that teaching children about religion in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner in religious education lessons (especially where, as here, there is a parental right of withdrawal from RE) is a breach of their human rights””." Thereby hangs the problem. If all RE lessons were of the kind described by the Minister in his letter, we would probably not be speaking to these amendments today, but they are not. In many schools, they are mainly or even fully directed at one particular religion, and, instead of teaching about religion, they teach that the religion in question is the one true religion. We fully uphold the right of all faiths to teach their religion to willing children but that is not the role of RE lessons. That should be done at another time, and possibly in another place, with the full co-operation of all of us. I also believe that the right sort of RE lessons are a very good thing, particularly in the light of our need for social cohesion and schools’ duties in that regard. Perhaps I may be clear about what I would like to see. I should like to see five things. First, pupils should all take RE up to the age of 14, as now. Secondly, the curriculum should teach about a range of world religions and belief systems. Thirdly, there would be no parental opt-out from this course, as there would be no more need for it than an opt-out from any other academic subject considered necessary for a child’s understanding of the world that he lives in. Fourthly, in consideration that in a Christian country schools may feel it appropriate to teach more about the dominant religion, no more than half the time should be spent on teaching about any particular religion. In a predominantly Muslim school, half the timetable for RE might well be devoted to teaching about Islam, but the other half should be spent teaching about other religions. Fifthly, Ofsted would have to inspect against the curriculum and timescales that I have outlined. However, in the light of the fact that we do not currently have the situation that I have just outlined, I feel it necessary to support the JCHR’s recommendations. If the five-point plan that I have outlined were in place, I do not think that the JCHR would believe it necessary to call for any opt-outs from RE. Collective worship, of course, is a different matter. I hope that I have made it clear that we are not anti-religion, nor against the teaching in schools about the religions of the world, even with an emphasis on the religion chosen by the school. I hope that my five-point plan makes that very clear. However, we believe that many schools are not teaching about religion in this way and therefore we have found it necessary to table this amendment. I beg to move.