21 Mar 2007 : Column 1221
House of Lords
Wednesday, 21 March 2007.
The House met at three o’clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Schools: History Teaching
Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they will consult with opposition parties on the provision of a more coherent narrative of national history in English schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): My Lords, it is a statutory requirement that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority consults widely about changes to the school curriculum in England before offering advice to Ministers. The QCA is currently consulting on changes to the key stage 3 national curriculum, including history. It would welcome, as would the Government, representations from Members of both Houses.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We all recognise the delicacy of trying to teach British history when the curriculum arrangements in England and Wales are different from those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister recall that, from Mrs Thatcher’s attempts to impose a new definition of British history, the working party concluded:
“Many people have expressed deep concern that school history will be used as propaganda; that governments of one political hue or another will try to subvert it for the purpose of indoctrination or social engineering”.
Mrs Thatcher precisely wanted to use it for those purposes and therefore did not accept the conclusions of that working party. Will this Government make sure that the same fate does not happen to it?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I was not around in those days. I was studying history at university indeed, so I did not have responsibility for these matters. It is fair to say that there are not real concerns out there about indoctrination; the question, which was rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, a few weeks ago, is how we encourage more of our young people to study history. I do not think that there is a concern about indoctrination in our schools.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does not history itself teach us that it is at odds with the values of a liberal society for any politicians to seek to impose their favoured narrative of history? However wide the consultation, will there not always be passionate differences about how national history should be presented to the next generation as we are
21 Mar 2007 : Column 1222
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I broadly agree with my noble friend; we study the parameters within which history should be taught, including, for example, a requirement in both GCSE and A-level that at least 25 per cent of the content should be British history and a requirement as to chronological coverage. I entirely agree with my noble friend that whenever you get three historians in a room together you get at least five views, which is somewhat fewer than when you get an equivalent number of economists in a room together. The idea that a consensus will be forged in these areas is of course illusory.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, the view of history of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is fine by me and everybody on our Benches. The Conservative Party has already stressed the importance of history in schools and has recently unveiled the names of a dozen people who are responsible for building six of the nation’s great institutions. We would be delighted if the Government would adopt these proposals, as they have so many of our education policies. The Minister sets great store by citizenship classes. Does he agree that the teaching of historical events in isolation leads only to a partial understanding and grasp of history?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree. I also agree that it takes more than six people to create the history of a nation.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, in view of the exchanges we are having, and doubtless will continue to have, does the Minister think that involving more politicians in the construction of a school syllabus is a sensible idea?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, that is precisely why we have an arm’s length agency to give us advice on these matters, so that we, as politicians, are not in the business of writing the school curriculum. We would be accused of undue interference if we sought to do that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does not part of the Chancellor's concern about people's lack of understanding of what Britishness is about arise from the practice of not teaching history in a narrative way, rather than topic by topic? Leaving aside the noble Lord’s disgraceful comments about the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, should not the Chancellor’s current views and the views of the noble Baroness be respected? The practice of teaching history topic by topic means that people do not know where they have come from and therefore cannot have a full appreciation of our culture and history.
21 Mar 2007 : Column 1223
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that students have a good chronological awareness. The revised key stage 3 curriculum, to which I referred in my initial Answer, places special emphasis on that. In the description of the range and content of the teaching of history, it states:
“In order to give pupils a secure chronological framework, the choice of content should ensure that all pupils can identify and understand the major events, changes and developments in British, European and world history covering at least the mediaeval, early modern, industrial and twentieth century periods”.
It then sets out specific topics that can be covered within that, but it places great emphasis on the secure chronological framework precisely to meet the point raised by the noble Lord.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the history curriculum and other subject curricula are firmly based on the five Every Child Matters outcomes and they develop confident young people with strong thinking skills, no kind of propaganda would have any effect?
Lord Adonis: Yes, my Lords, I agree.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have a somewhat confused view of history, having been taught it first in Scotland and then in England? Will he join me in sending a message to the people of Scotland that they would do far better on 3 May to look at the recent history of the past 10 years than at that portrayed in films such as “Braveheart”, which have nothing to do with the reality of history?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I know nobody with a more coherent and clear-sighted view of all the subjects that he addresses than my noble friend, as exhibited by the rest of his question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, illustrate the great desirability of having the bodies that advise government on the history curriculum talk to each other across the English-Scottish border, so that we learn a common history, not two divergent histories?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, they do talk to each other. Whether they always agree is another matter.
Houses of Parliament: Visitors’ Centre
3.07 pm
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in 2006, the House of Lords Information Committee and the House of Commons
21 Mar 2007 : Column 1224
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Chairman for that reply. As he says, an inquiry has taken place jointly between the Information Committee of this House and a House of Commons committee into a parliamentary visitor and information centre. Can the noble Lord confirm that a confidential feasibility study was commissioned and produced before Christmas? If so, will he now make that available to Members of your Lordships' House, so that we can know what has been discussed? Secondly, can he confirm that the Joint Committee is no longer meeting because it has broken up in disagreement? If that is the case, can he assure us that that is not because representatives of this House are lacking in support or enthusiasm for the project?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there was never a Joint Committee of both Houses discussing the matter. Both Houses had separate committees, but they met together quite frequently. That was not as such a Joint Committee. I understand that the House of Commons committee will produce a report very shortly, next month. I think that our committee will also produce a report shortly. I cannot comment on the noble Lord’s first question because I do not know about any feasibility study that might have been done. However, as I said in my original Answer, both committees are now in step and are looking at ways of improving educational facilities for both Houses.
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, the Palace of Westminster is a member of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, an organisation of which I have the pleasure and privilege to be chairman. I very much support the thrust of my noble friend’s Question. Having experienced the pleasures of a traffic-free Abingdon Street on the day of the State Opening, I wonder whether any consideration is currently being given to the pedestrianisation of Abingdon Street and the creation of a piazza, for the obvious benefit to security, safety and tourism.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, no is the short answer to that. I answered a Question on this subject on 7 December last year, and I can only repeat what I said then: the World Squares for All steering group envisages no plans to close Abingdon Street. Closing Abingdon Street to traffic in order to increase security would be in the long-term interests of the House, but there are no plans to do so at the moment.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, bearing in mind that all sorts of initiatives, such as the one just suggested, have great merit, is it not about time that the two
21 Mar 2007 : Column 1225
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is exactly what I have been saying. The committees of both Houses have been meeting one another and are about to produce reports that will indicate the way forward. Following that, it will be for them to report to both Houses and no doubt for both Houses to debate the issue and to get costings and so on for what is planned. I do not think that we are far away from some sort of conclusion.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, in February 2004, two Commons committees jointly produced a report called Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament, which talked about,
If the Chairman of Committees and the various bodies involved are now talking only about an educational facility, is it not a blow for those who recognise that this city is the main tourist attraction in this country and that this building is the main tourist attraction in this city?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there might be some argument about the latter part of the noble Lord’s question. We do, however, need to separate out the educational aspect of this building, for visitors who are here to learn about parliamentary history and so on, from the heritage and tourist attraction of the building. The building is, of course, open during the Summer Recess for tours and so on, but there needs to be a separation of those two aspects of it. In the opinion of the committees, the educational aspect is much the more important.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is there a build-up of items that have been offered to both Houses? I know, for instance, that a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber offered a coat belonging to King Charles I. What is happening to these objects while all the talking goes on about whether there will be a room or a place where items of interest can be shown to the general public? And is anyone aware that Lord Adonis ran at Cheltenham last week and ran very badly? I backed it.
The Chairman of Committees: Sadly, my Lords, many of us who would rather have been at Cheltenham last week—I think it was Gold Cup day—were here for matters slightly more closely connected to the future of the House of Lords. On the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, I am aware of the item to which she refers. Although it was
21 Mar 2007 : Column 1226
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government please keep in mind that the principal function of the Palace of Westminster is as a Parliament, not as a tourist attraction or anything else?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not answer for the Government but I am sure that they will have heard the noble Lady’s remarks, with which I wholly agree.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, can the Minister assure us not only that the centre will be fully accessible for people with physical and sensory disabilities but that the information will be available in accessible formats?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that that will be the case, but we have not got to that stage yet.
Vulnerable Adults
3.15 pm
Baroness Neuberger asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government have jointly commissioned research with Comic Relief looking at the nature and prevalence of abuse of older people living in the community. These data will help to inform decisions about the need for new legislation.
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The lack of overarching legislation on this issue means that some local authorities are not counting financial abuse as “harm”. Does she consider financial abuse to be harm, both when the individual has the capacity to be aware of it and, perhaps even more important, when the individual lacks such capacity? Would she be willing to issue a statement to local authorities clarifying the position?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we indeed believe that financial abuse constitutes harm. As to whether the Government will release a statement to local authorities, I shall certainly ask my colleagues in the other place. However, I suggest that, while we often talk about the need for new legislation, perhaps what we must look at more closely is whether the legislation that already exists is properly implemented and therefore effective.
21 Mar 2007 : Column 1227
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, the dreadful instances of the physical and sexual abuse of vulnerable old people both in institutions and in the community are to be regretted. Does the noble Baroness agree that legislation alone will not stop it unless we train the staff who look after vulnerable adults far more comprehensively, with agreed qualifications being essential? Are the Government prepared to do something about this as soon as possible?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we absolutely deplore any physical or social abuse of vulnerable adults, and training is crucial to good care, as is leadership. The regulations are clear and there are national minimum standards to back them up. The Commission for Social Care Inspection considers training in its inspections and can close down a home if the training is not felt to be adequate. Training is the responsibility of care home owners and employers. However, as the noble Baroness says, legislation is not enough. We have to ensure that it is fully implemented and that employers are properly fulfilling their obligations. Again, training is crucial.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of another area of uncertainty in the current law? When an investigation takes place in a case where a vulnerable adult is believed to be suffering abuse, there is no definition of what a “satisfactory outcome” might amount to. For example, apart from ensuring that the abuse has stopped, it is not clear what the responsibilities of the statutory authorities are to provide help to enable people to overcome the effects of abuse. Will the Government look at that?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I understand that there are variations in how local authorities and their partners deal with reports of abuse of older people. No Secrets, the statutory guidance for local authorities, sets out the parameters for dealing with individual cases of abuse and defines a vulnerable adult, which provides a trigger for the involvement of multi-agency adult protection arrangements. It was not the intention of No Secrets that local authority adult protection arrangements should deal only with older people receiving social care services. We will look at this to ensure that the definition is adequate and properly interpreted at all times.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister accept that vulnerable adults need not necessarily be old, as all the questions seem to be implying? Many parents—for example, parents of autistic children—are reluctant, once their children become adults and, in many cases, difficult to handle, to consign them to care organisations because they are not sure of the treatment that their children will get. Have Her Majesty’s Government given any consideration to helping such people?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |