Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)

My Lords, fundamental British values were first introduced in 2011 as part of the Government’s Prevent strategy. In November 2014, the Department for Education published guidance on how they should be promoted in schools. These fundamental British values, as at present defined, are: democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. I am absolutely committed to the teaching of fundamental British values in schools. The purpose of my Bill is to make these values clearer and more holistic, and thereby to strengthen the teaching of citizenship in schools. The introduction of these values aroused opposition at the time on two grounds. First, some in the Muslim community felt that their introduction was directed at them in particular. Then there were those who felt that they were asserting British values as somehow superior to those of other cultures. More than 10 years have passed since their introduction, and now is exactly the right time to consider whether the original formulation was adequate and, in particular, whether it is possible to find a form of wording that is more rounded and is independent of the aims of the Prevent strategy. An influential interfaith committee was set up by the Woolf Institute in Cambridge and chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Its report, Living with Difference, published in December 2015, strongly advocated the teaching of British values in schools but regretted that they were brought in as part of the Prevent strategy. In paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14 it looked forward to a more holistic understanding, independent of that strategy. In fact, thought has already been given to these values in a House of Lords Select Committee report, The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. The committee was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and it reported in April 2018. He regrets that he cannot be here this morning but wants it to be known that he supports the Bill. I declare an interest, having been a member of that committee and of that which produced Living with Difference. The whole of chapter 2 of The Ties that Bind is given over to a discussion of fundamental values. What I am putting forward in this Private Member’s Bill is based in particular on the recommendations in paragraphs 46 and 58 of that report. As mentioned, I believe passionately that fundamental values should be taught in schools. At a time when the world has a growing number of dictatorships, autocracies and managed democracies, it is vital that pupils in our schools should understand the fundamental political values on which our society is founded. A first change suggested in my Bill is that these values should formally be termed the “values of British citizenship”. This was recommended in paragraph 46 of The Ties that Bind. This wording avoids the implication that they are superior to the values of any other culture or country; it just states that they are, as a matter of fact, the values of being a British citizen, whether by birth or naturalisation. Being British commits you to these values. They might still be known as British values for short, but tying them explicitly to British citizenship would not only answer one of the original objections but give the concept more legal precision. On the specifics of the values there are, of course, major overlaps between the present wording and what is now being put forward. Most obviously, both affirm the rule of law and democracy—there is no change there. However, whereas the present wording refers to “individual liberty”, the Bill uses “freedom” and, in subsection (3), states that this includes “(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion, (b) freedom of expression, and (c) freedom of assembly and association”. It seems to me that “individual liberty” is far too vague by itself and that what is fundamental to our way of life, as the wording of the Bill suggests, is freedom to think and state what we believe, and to do this, on occasion, in association with other people. The phrase “individual liberty” is individualistic. The freedom of our society includes freedom of the press and the freedom to form a company or a political party. In short, this freedom is social and is as much about institutions as it is about individuals. The present wording refers to “mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. We note that this is all one clause. It does not affirm mutual respect as a separate value; rather, mutual respect, in the formulation, is tied to tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. This is a great defect and shows the clear influence of the time it was brought in, as part of the Prevent strategy. Respect for the fundamental dignity and worth of every person ought to be included in its own right, not simply in relation to different faiths and beliefs. Also, “tolerance” is far too vague. It is far better to say clearly, as in the Bill, that freedom includes freedom of religion—that is the internationally accepted term. It is a case of not just tolerating different views but recognising that freedom of religion is fundamental to our society. As I said, the present wording refers to “mutual respect”, which is a nice way of putting it but, in the wording, is tied to different faith and beliefs and does not bring out what is fundamental—namely, the equal worth and dignity of every human being and the respect that is due to them as a result of that. In this Private Member’s Bill, Clause 1(1)(d) refers to “individual worth”, which is defined in subsection (4) as “respect for the equal worth and dignity of every person”. In the wording we have at the moment, there is no mention of the word “equal”. There are many ways in which we are unequal, but we are all agreed as a country that we are equal before the law, that we all have one vote—no more, no less—and that, whether we are old or young, disabled or a minority group, we should be treated equally by the state, and indeed by all of us at an individual level. It is very important that this should be explicitly stated as one of the fundamental values of our society, but it is not mentioned in the wording that we have at the moment. A major addition to fundamental values as we have them now, which goes beyond what was recommended in The Ties that Bind, is what is set out in subsection (1)(e), “respect for the environment”, which is then defined in subsection (5) as “taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and the planet as a whole, for present and future generations”. For young people, that is often the key moral issue of our times. I believe that the addition of “respect for the environment” would help young people to see the importance of this set of values as a whole. One reason why I believe strongly in this Bill is because I think it would help to strengthen the teaching of citizenship education in schools. Citizenship education is meant to be taught in schools, but the committee that produced The Ties that Bind discovered that, while a few schools do it very well, some do not do it at all, and many more subsume it under spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. While SMSC is eminently worth while, there should be a specific content to citizenship education, concerned with our political system and why it matters, which needs to be taught in its own right. I believe that the more rounded wording of this Private Member’s Bill would give a boost to citizenship education, showing clearly the political values that are to be taught and giving the subject a much sharper focus. I beg to move.