MR NICK JOHNSON AND DR MARC VERLOT

7 JUNE 2006

  Q380  Chairman: Anywhere, and I really rather resent people who pick on northern riots; there have been riots up and down this country. I get rather worried. What this Committee listens to, in terms of the evidence we have had, is there are certain sorts of social behaviour that people do not seem to like; then there is another supposition that if we had good citizenship we could actually eradicate that bad behaviour. What bad behaviour comes within the remit; is it the miners' strike and the riots that happened there? Is it the poll tax riots, that we should have educated people better so that we would not have those? What sort of citizenship would meet different kinds of social behaviour?

  Mr Johnson: I do not think you can ever say you are going to eradicate bad behaviour. I think probably that is too ambitious for anyone to do.

  Q381  Chairman: You have just said, in an answer to Rob Wilson, that "we are concerned with everything." You opened this Pandora's box. For goodness sake, most people in this country still read the Sun; you know? Citizenship is either something focused or it is almost meaningless, if it means everything?

  Mr Johnson: Again, I would not want to be making too much of a false choice between some of the specifics about citizenship, which schools do and it is part of the curriculum, in terms of the political process and those kinds of activities, which are core and will need to be taught and need to be discussed. As Marc said earlier, also having citizenship classes which are done in such a way to have a forum to discuss issues, and you cannot say necessarily that they will be contemporary issues, they will be issues of the day. It may be what is on the Sun's front page, it may be a chance to discuss what is on the Sun's front page and whether it is accurate and whether it is giving a true perception, and countering it with what the Guardian is saying about it.

  Chairman: I hear what you are saying, and can I correct my statement. Most people do not read the Sun: it is the largest-selling daily.

  Q382  Mr Wilson: I am becoming a little bit confused with the sorts of answers you are giving, but let me try to pin you down a bit. The Government clearly sees the citizenship teaching as a response to home-grown terrorism and, I believe, disenfranchisement of Muslim groups. Do you think that is a reasonable view to take?

  Mr Johnson: I think we would say that citizenship was just as important before 7/7 as after 7/7. I do not think it changed the emphasis that we have given, in our work, to the issue. Clearly, the events of 7/7 and the fact that there were home-grown terrorists have an impact on some of the things that need to be discussed within citizenship; but, as Marc said, you cannot say necessarily that having good citizenship classes will stop someone wanting to become a suicide bomber, and I think you should not make that the undue focus of citizenship. Citizenship is important for a number of reasons; that is one of them. An increase in tolerance in society, but there are many other factors to play, in terms of extremism, disenfranchisement of certain faith groups or ethnic groups within society.

  Q383  Mr Wilson: Any proposed curriculum for this which was before 7/7 would be the same afterwards; the bombings have had no impact on what should or should not be included in the citizenship curriculum?

  Mr Johnson: As I said earlier, clearly you will need to change some of the detailed content of it, but the importance of citizenship I do not think was changed by 7/7. I think the focus of it perhaps was, and people's attitude and interest in it was changed by 7/7, but for us at this area the importance did not change overnight. Clearly, some of the issues that will be discussed were brought into greater focus by the events of 7/7. As we talked about earlier, having a forum within a school and citizenship where people can explore differences, discuss some of the issues going on around them that they may not understand fully, and clearly the events of 7/7 and faith groups' disenfranchisement are issues of the day that will need to be discussed perhaps more than they were before 7/7.

  Q384  Helen Jones: Can I just come back to this idea that we can get some sort of workable, agreed narrative of British social and cultural history. We can all have a hazy idea of what that should be but it is terribly difficult to do in practice, is it not, and has always been terribly difficult, it is not new? For example, many people in Lancashire probably have an entirely different view of the impact of the Reformation from people in various other parts of the country. Is it possible to get that agreed narrative and how do you go about doing it?

  Mr Johnson: As I said, you can agree on facts and events which happen but clearly you cannot get a universal interpretation of what this meant, because it meant different things to different people and different interpretations. Surely the point of education is to provide a forum where those differences can be expressed, discussed, and people can recognise that you can have those different interpretations of events. You can do it in a way that you can have a discussion about it, rather than needing to think "That means I am so different from that person I don't want to live near them, I don't want to go to school with them, I don't want to socialise with them," and then leading to just those parallel lives which Marc talked about at the beginning.

  Q385  Helen Jones: I agree with that, but that is not what is being talked about, is it? We are talking about getting an agreed narrative of history which leads on to certain values. I think that is probably a good thing to aim at but a terribly difficult thing to do in practice. How would we go about doing that; how would we go about doing it and encompassing all the differences in society, people's various views of events, and so on?

  Dr Verlot: I think, having a consistent narrative does not necessarily lead to having a homogenous message. I think it is quite important to make that point. Any good history curriculum and/or citizenship curriculum will deal with a number of statements, facts, perceptions which are out there and which you can debate and discuss. As you said, the discussion of the Reformation in Lancashire might be quite different. I think it is quite important that we see that narrative very much as aiming to construct a critical understanding of different realities, rather than have a version of history which needs to be swallowed by everybody and reproduced.

  Q386  Chairman: Is it Marxist interpretation of English history? There are non-Marxist interpretations. If you ever read Christopher Hill and compare him with another historian of the same period, they are totally different interpretations of the cause of the English Civil War. There is great, rich diversity of historical interpretation; there is no agreed version. If I digress into interpretations of the Enclosure movement, what is it, other than some kind of anodyne mishmash of bits of history which you are suggesting we feed kids?

  Dr Verlot: We are not suggesting anything whatsoever. The question was, how do you build a narrative? I just wanted to reply that narrative is about taking into account different perspectives, rather than homogenising or taking out one narrative which burns over all the others. I think it is even more important for the citizenship curriculum that it does not homogenise but that the British identity is in construction and is partly contestable, because it is an ongoing construction and that flexibility is part of the dynamics.

  Q387  Chairman: What would you draw out for citizenship? Some of the most difficult issues we have discussed with other witnesses are an interpretation of what are the rights of people; when a group of people who come to live here have a very different interpretation of the rights of women, for example. You are going to merge with the other equality commissions, are you not; what happens when you have a dialogue with people who do not believe that women have equal rights with men, in some areas?

  Dr Verlot: I think, first of all, what you can do is make it clear, because for a long time women did not have equal rights also in western democracies, and it is not that recent that they have actually had voting rights, for example, showing that evolution, or the argument of how it has come about that people think the way they do today. Also addressing why people think they are not equal, try to analyse the arguments they have, and actually comparing them is not saying "You should not say women have no equal rights." It is saying, "Where does this idea come from, why do you think that? Do you really think that this applies to your sister and to your mother or to somebody who has been very successful and has been supporting you financially?" There are a number of ways in which these fundamental issues need to be debated, and it is the capacity to debate and to weigh up evidence, to go back to the sources and to see, and also the flexibility of learning to change your opinion over time.

  Q388  Chairman: You would not believe that in the school you would teach that there is an inalienable right of the equality of women with men?

  Dr Verlot: I think it is quite important to make clear that at this point in time a number of differences in opinion are seen as a reversal. We need to ask how they have come about and how they are still evolving, because, in all reality, we have a Race Relations Act and everybody is equal before the law but the CRE is still very much in business, so there is a lot of things to do. With a principle stating that and between having the practice, we can state tomorrow, Article 1, all British people are happy; it does not mean they are happy. There is work to be done there, I think.

  Q389  Helen Jones: Do you not then have to move on from that debate and discussion to some very difficult decisions, where, in the end perhaps, we will be having to say to people in school, "It is not acceptable for you to treat girls in this school in a particular way because in this country we don't allow that, we won't accept it"? That is a very difficult point to get to, is it not, with people coming from very different cultural backgrounds? It is all very well to talk about the discussion and debate but there does come a point, on various issues, this is just one example, where a line has to be drawn. Do you accept that is necessary, on some issues?

  Mr Johnson: Yes, absolutely.

  Q390  Chairman: We are just drawing to a conclusion, so is there anything that you would like to say to the Committee that you think you have not had a chance to articulate?

  Mr Johnson: I do not think so, in particular.

  Dr Verlot: I think, readdressing the aspect of segregation in schools, given the fact that CRE is looking at community relations, there is a reality out there that citizenship cannot just engage in principles, it does need to look at the composition of schools and the realities and how people grow up together. If anything, I think it has been a concern of the CRE, in all its complexity, all the reasons it has come about, that this might be an issue which might be highlighted and taken up in practice also in schools.

  Chairman: Thank you, Marc. This has been a good session. Would you remain in contact with the Committee? As I say, we are only part-way through this inquiry, and, on your travel to your day job, if you think of things that you should have said to the Committee, or you think we should know, do give us the further information. Thank you.