Contribution
My Lords, for today and today only, I speak from the Front Bench in the place of my noble friend Lady Cash. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on her success in the Private Members’ Bill ballot and I thank all noble Lords for their powerful contributions to this interesting debate. I very warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Mackenzie, who comes to this House and her new job with years of relevant experience. I join others in looking forward to her maiden speech today and further contributions in the years ahead.
As we have heard, this Bill seeks to mandate a minimum number of hours for creative and cultural education in schools, with five hours weekly for pupils in key stages 1 and 2, and four hours weekly for those in key stage 3. It would also require schools to take steps to ensure that pupils have access to live cultural or creative experiences, to partner with the creative sector and to provide pupils with information regarding creative and cultural careers. On top of that, it would introduce a report on the state of creative and cultural education to be published by the Secretary of State at least once a year.
When school timetables are already very full, there is concern about what schools would have to remove from them in order to accommodate this requirement. I echo the view of my right honourable friend Laura Trott, shadow Education Secretary, who said in relation to the Government’s proposals to change the national curriculum that
“when everything is a priority, nothing is”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 930.]
The Bill risks adding an unnecessary additional requirement that could put core educational lessons at risk. It is critical to focus on these core educational subjects to give pupils the best possible chance of success. It was this strategy under the previous Government that led to pupils in England rising to fourth for reading—the highest in the western world—as well as 11th in the world for maths. Both positions have risen up the ranks since 2018. These rankings speak for themselves and highlight the progress in improving school standards. Sadly, this improvement does not apply in Scotland or Wales.
To include the mandated hours of creative education, schools would have to sacrifice time spent on the most important subjects. It is crucial that pupils are given the chance to excel at these core subjects, as the skills they provide are essential not only for employment but for the life skills they teach.
On top of that, it is flexibility that enables schools to allocate time across subjects appropriately and as they see fit. Adding further rigidity into the national curriculum does the opposite of trusting teachers to decide how much time is right for this creative education. In fact, this flexibility in the current curriculum was praised in Professor Becky Francis’s Curriculum and Assessment Review by art teachers themselves, who commented that they
“relish the flexibility of the present curriculum across all key stages”.
Indeed, the only changes suggested by the review for key stages 1 to 3 was that the programme of study could
“clarify the knowledge and skills that pupils are expected to develop”.
Again, although “further specificity” was recommended for music programmes, there was no suggestion of mandating a set number of hours. Why, then, if these teachers are not asking for this, would another national curriculum requirement be introduced?
To look at a specific example, the school with the highest Progress 8 score in the country is Michaela, in north London—a school that has held that title for three consecutive years. A successful school is able to have flexibility over its curriculum, showing that best practice should not be to introduce more requirements that forces schools to dilute their curriculum.
Pupils need core skills. Mandating a specific number of hours for creative education is not the best way to do that. The Bill risks diluting the curriculum and drawing focus away from the core subjects taught in schools. Despite the many passionate arguments that we have heard this morning, on this side of the House we cannot support the Bill.