---

Education and Skills Bill

The provision for a daily act of collective worship in schools dates back to 1944. All pupils must take part unless withdrawn by parents. In 2006, after much discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other noble Lords, we introduced an amendment to allow post-compulsory school-age children in maintained schools to opt out of collective worship without the need for the consent of their parents. She welcomed that change at the time. These amendments, however, would extend our proposed right for sixth-formers to withdraw to all competent pupils and would allow them to opt out of religious education as well as collective worship. This is a step too far. We had a long debate on this issue on 17 October 2006 during the passage of the Education and Inspections Act. The Government’s position has not changed since then. On the Gillick competence principle, I said then and repeat now that, while Gillick competence is a relevant consideration, competence does not necessarily arise all at once, nor does each pupil become competent at the same time. Different people develop at different rates. The noble Baroness recognised this in her remarks, but the need to balance the Gillick competence test with the need to deliver a practicable and workable solution for schools, so that they can function effectively, requires the maintenance of the status quo. Assemblies and collective worship are important elements of school life in establishing their ethos and collective character. It is therefore right that those under 16 continue to be required to take part unless their parents specifically wish otherwise, and the arrangements described by the noble Baroness would simply not be practical in a school setting. The status quo strikes the right balance, and we do not intend to propose further changes. Religious education is a distinctly different issue relating to the curriculum in schools, as the noble Baroness recognised. I notice that she was not against compulsory religious education in schools in principle; her issue was with the content of that religious education and the extent of the age range across which it was compulsory. It is appropriate for schools to impose reasonable curriculum requirements across their age range, including in religious education. Apropos her remarks, I simply note that there is now a non-statutory national framework for religious education which seeks to ensure that it constitutes a broad and balanced understanding of religion. More local standing advisory councils on religious education are now adopting syllabuses based on the framework. We welcome that development, but there is currently no case for changing the law.