Schools: Academies

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I think that I have in the past alluded to the fact—without wishing to rise to the challenge too much—that for many years many schools in this country have undoubtedly been allowed years to languish in failure. We now have many successful chains, such as ARK, Harris, Outwood Grange, REAch2, Greenwood Dale, Aldridge and Perry Beeches, which are turning round inner-city schools that were previously just written off. Some of their performance statistics are really quite miraculous.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I should like to return to the issue of inspection. In as much as the multichain bodies are involved in the governance of all the academies in their chain, and Ofsted inspects governance, why does Ofsted not also inspect the chains themselves?

[Lord Nash]

Ofsted looks at the support that chains are giving to their schools, and we have a very tight grip on the governance of all the chains. We have been in discussions with 50 chains to strengthen their governance arrangements and have a network of non-executive directors whom we have been introducing to chains to support them.

Education: Personal, Social and Health Education

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, no debate on this subject in your Lordships’ House would be quite complete without a bishop talking about sex. To adapt my right reverend friend’s remarks: how do we light the fire for this subject in our schools?

There is a difficult background to the sexual—by which I mean the mainly heterosexual and relational —chaos that is all too evident in our society, which impacts in particularly negative ways upon children and young people. We have heard reference to the statistics for sexually transmitted diseases—I think there are more than 1 million consultations a year in this country; quite horrendous—and then divorce, the abortion rate, underage pregnancy and much more. All this points to a great deal of misery; in fact, probably the greatest source of poverty in our society comes from relational breakdown and all that goes with it. In addition, we have the distasteful flood-tide of pornography, to which the noble Lord, Lord Eden, rightly referred, which cheapens sexuality in all sorts of ways.

So what do we do? Improvements to sex-and-relationship education must be part of the answer. Of course, some call for a curriculum that is determined by central government. Alongside this there is a demand for compulsory sexual relationship education in primary schools, which, as I understand it, is currently at the discretion of the governing body although it needs to have a policy on the subject. For my part, I can see the case for sex-and-relationship education in the late primary years so long as it does not feed the premature sexualisation of children and childhood, to which the noble Lord, Lord Eden, referred. That is a real problem today, driven largely by commercial interests. These are sensitive issues and I believe that it would be a mistake to centralise the approach in schools even if the Government have a very important advisory role in communicating good practice.

Consultations on PSHE clearly support the crucial role of parents. Schools should have the flexibility to ensure that this sensitive subject is tackled in line with both the ethos of a particular school and the parental wishes, which need to be determined. The law as it stands provides for this and the challenge is to improve the operation of the current law rather than to try to force solutions by a change to it. There are widespread problems with parenting in our society but the answer is not to lessen parental responsibility and involvement but to renew our efforts to improve and educate people about the role of parents. The centralised nature of the curriculum provides scope for this in theory but in practice its implementation is very patchy. In some schools, governors and head teachers consult parents and let them know when the subject is to be taught so that parents can follow it up appropriately at home. However, it seems that best practice is often not followed and governors as well as parents can get frustrated as they are bypassed and as local authorities advocate perhaps controversial material for schools to use. Will the Minister comment on this and respond to three suggestions for any revision to the circular which was referred to earlier?

The first is the need for governors formally to consult parents on this matter and take that seriously before determining with school staff the curriculum for a school. The second is the need for local authorities to make clear that any advice which they offer is advice, that the governors have the responsibility for this issue, in dialogue with the best expert and professional advice, and that governors cannot shirk that responsibility. The third suggestion concerns the need to communicate regularly with parents in determining the curriculum and in letting them know how it is being delivered and when so that it can be followed up in the parental home. That, I believe, would at least make a start in the right direction.

Schools: Well-being and Personal and Social Needs

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, you would expect me to make a contribution to this welcome debate from the perspective of church schools. However, those who are expecting a learned discourse on sex education from these Benches will be disappointed. Some of my fellow bishops are much better qualified to speak on such matters.

While the church school movement has always given a proper emphasis to the three Rs, and is valued as such by parents and educational authorities, church schools have always aimed for a wider development of character in young people—the well rounded and thoughtful young people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred in her excellent opening speech. It is the notion of character as a virtue that encompasses the well-being, personal and social needs of which the Motion speaks.

Church schools would also wish to include a reference to the spiritual and moral development of young people as being an intrinsic aspect of being human. To be a human being is unavoidably to be a moral agent, for good or for ill. We see the spiritual and moral education of children as more than merely religious education as such, although it has a part in it. A proper excellence in religious education is of course one of the aims of church schools, but in the broader spiritual agenda. This is also implied in the Motion.

Perhaps I may say a word about a subject which has been much discussed in recent years but which has not been referred to yet in the debate—that is, the role of schools in promoting community cohesion. Since 2007, it has been a statutory requirement on maintained schools to promote community cohesion. There has been some criticism of church schools that they may work in the other direction by concentrating upon a particular section of society or by approaching education from a particular direction and point of view.

Fortunately, we have been able to commission an independent report into the issue which looked at the comparative outcomes of different types of schools in promoting community cohesion. This has been possible because Ofsted is now required to report explicitly upon this. We commissioned a report from Professor David Jesson of the University of York, using Ofsted data. The report was published a couple of years ago now and is entitled Strong schools for strong communities. It demonstrated that at primary level there is little difference in the outcomes of different types of schools, although church schools are as good as or better than other primary schools. However, at the vital secondary level, interestingly, the report showed that faith schools had a noticeably better outcome in the Ofsted report conclusions in promoting community cohesion. The report states that,

“there are relatively few Community or Foundation schools that are graded anywhere near those of Faith schools”,

in promoting community cohesion.

Ofsted also reviews the performance of schools in the promotion of equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination. Professor Jesson, in the report, also reviewed those outcomes in relation to different types of schools. The report states:

“Here again the contrast between Faith schools and Community schools is clear. Faith schools achieve higher gradings on this aspect of their contribution to their pupils and their community”,

than other types of schools. I hope that those who, for understandable reasons on the surface, are drawn to potential criticism of faith schools will pay attention to these hard research findings in this area.

Why is this the case? It is because schools are most effective when they avoid a sausage-factory mentality, when they are clear about their own distinctive values and the position from which they approach the task of education. That does not exclude others, but typically nurtures a shared sense of belonging to the wider community. When we know where we come from, we can more easily reach out and engage with other groups and sections in society, be that locally, nationally or, equally important, internationally and globally.

Let me offer a final quotation from the report:

“Promoting community cohesion is not about diluting what we believe in in order to create a pallid mush of ‘niceness’. Nor is it about trying to make all schools reflect exactly the economic or cultural make-up of the nation”.

There has been a temptation in recent decades to adopt a sausage-factory mentality in relation to maintained education, so there is a lot of promise in contemporary developments.

I have spoken rather generally about “church” or “faith” schools, and I believe that it is right to do so, but an interesting development over recent years has been the emergence of all sorts of partnerships and a greater variety in the sector itself. I welcome the range of schools now sponsored or supported by different faith communities and different combinations. In my own diocese we now have joint Anglican and Roman Catholic primary and secondary schools, whereas when I became bishop, we had none at all. Often the churches themselves are now in partnership with other institutions. My diocese is in partnership with the University of Chester in sponsoring an academy that will replace two failing secondary schools in a particularly difficult area. There is also potentially to be a new free school based at Chester cathedral with a music specialism. So the term “faith” school now embraces a wider variety of partnerships and activities, which is thoroughly welcome.

We also should not overlook the contribution of the independent sector. A lot of independent schools have either a faith foundation or to one degree or another a faith character. The work of chaplains in independent schools is often overlooked, but typically they are regarded as significant people in the school community because they help the community to look beyond the narrow academic focus. The thread that holds all this together is a commitment to the common good. Faith schools may have different outlooks—Roman Catholic schools tend to put a slightly closer focus on nurturing Roman Catholics, which is understandable—but, as I say, the thread is a commitment to the common good. That is what really counts. The common good lies, as we have already discovered in this debate, beyond a narrow academic focus.

Some noble Lords will have read in the press or heard on the radio discussions about Martin Amis’s new novel, which apparently is an exploration of the triviality of much of modern society. We live in a world that has a tendency to be too dumbed down, and that can easily affect our education. Alongside academic excellence, you need the soft skills we have heard about, the emotional intelligence that used to be nurtured primarily in families. With the decline of family life for various reasons, more pressure is put on schools, so it is important that in the future schools should look at the soft elements, including emotional intelligence in education.

Education Bill

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Paisley of St George's]

My Lords, there are thousands of parents in our country today who do not have a Bible in their homes and who do not read it to their children. School is the only place where these children are given any light at all into the word of God. This is the 400th anniversary of the printing of the King James version of the Holy Bible in the English language. We are a Christian country and it is our duty and responsibility to see that the word of God is placed in schools for the benefit of the children. The Psalmist David said:

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”.

If people want proper guidelines for life, they are to be found in the word of God. I leave that with your Lordships tonight.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I will clarify one point if I may. I have not spoken before. We on the Bishops’ Benches sometimes look alike; I promise that it goes no further. There is a very clear distinction between collective and corporate worship. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to corporate worship. That is not what is provided in schools. The act of collective worship is appropriate to the collection of people who are there. It needs to be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. In practice, schools with significant numbers of members of other faith communities have managed to work within the degree of flexibility that the law allows, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds suggested. It is very important to realise that this is not ramming worship down people’s throats. That is not what school worship is like. It is part of an educational experience and preparation for life. You never know when you will go to a Remembrance Day service, a wedding or to many other places. When the regiment based in Chester came back from Afghanistan for the presentation of medals, the soldiers wanted an act of worship. It was collective worship in the context of the Armed Forces. There are many contexts in life where some experience of collective worship earlier in life is an important preparation.

My second point is that the amendments are too tarred with secularist intent. Probably there is a case at some point for a cool, considered look at the provisions of collective worship. However, it must be done in a way that enhances the spiritual experience of education. This goes much further than religious experience, but religious experience is part of it. The amendments push too quickly in a particular direction. There is a case for a proper review and full consultation in due course. However, let us not be misled. Collective worship is exactly that: worship appropriate to the collection of people who are present.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for coming to see me and talk about this and other issues that we will come to later on Report. I thank my noble friend also for setting out the issues and his position with his customary clarity and from a position that we all recognise is one of high principle. He knows from the conversation that we had where the Government stand on these issues, which is pretty much where the previous Government stood. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, our starting point is that the requirement is long-standing. It is difficult to dissociate that from the history of the country and the role that the church has played over a long period in individual schools and also collectively in society.

The Government believe that the experience of collective worship makes a contribution to the spiritual and moral development of young people, not just for those who attend religious schools. Collective worship in schools is different from the worship people choose to attend in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship. The purpose of this requirement is not to force pupils or school staff to worship a deity but rather to understand and experience the benefits that joining together, inspired by the positive values found in Christianity and other religions, can bring to the individual and to the community. The guiding principle is that these arrangements should be flexible and fair to pupils and parents, as well as manageable for schools.

It is a matter of historical fact, as argued by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Anderson of Swansea, and by my noble friend Lord Cormack, that the Christian traditions of our country have influenced and underpin our systems of law, justice and democracy. It is true, as has been said, that they have inspired and supported a tolerant and inclusive culture that welcomes and celebrates diversity. In the British Household Survey of 2010, more than 70 per cent of people said that their religion was Christian, and we think it right, therefore, that these values should underpin the ethos of our schools.

The law requires schools to provide collective worship that is relevant to all pupils, no matter what their background or beliefs, which should ensure that collective worship is presented in a way that benefits the spiritual, moral and cultural development of all children and young people. The requirement is for “broadly Christian” provision. It does not preclude the inclusion of other religions or consideration of the values that inform the practice of worship, which are common to many religions, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, rightly pointed out. Schools have the freedom, under the Education Act 1996, to apply for a determination from the local authority if they judge that it is not appropriate for the requirement for collective worship to be of a broadly Christian nature to apply to their school. That safeguard is in place. The Government respect the right of parents—

Schools: Funding Reform

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will not be joining us tomorrow but I am looking forward to our debate on school governors. I agree with all her points. I agree that involving the children or the students in what is going on in a school is jolly important. Her point about the upkeep of it and people taking pride in it is also obviously right. Getting input from architects will also be extremely important when we are trying to come up with our standardised set of designs.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was not entirely right to say that it was only the Labour Benches that had not yet contributed. We do not like to be overlooked too much, small though we are. I have another question for the Minister about new buildings, and about the procurement process. I speak as the chair of a new academy that has gone through the procurement process for new buildings. I have been struck by just how complex it is and how the costs of that must be built in to the end cost you have to pay when you get to the final preferred bidder. I agree that simplification in the design process should not go too far, but could that simplification also be applied to the procurement process?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The remarks made by the right reverend Prelate echo my almost daily plaint. I agree with him entirely. It is our hope that with the new scheme we will be able to deliver it faster, perhaps up to 12 months faster, which will obviously save money. I agree that these processes can seem extremely complex. If he has experience from the academy with which he is involved, I would be interested to talk about that because we are keen to learn and try to do it better.

Education Bill

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

My Lords, in response to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, about inspections, as I understand it, Ofsted will continue to conduct inspections in academies and other schools as part of national surveys of particular aspects of education. I rise simply to say to our two Ministers that surely the issue of PSHE would be top of the list of priorities for Ofsted in terms of a national survey of what is actually happening. Its report would tell us what is really going on in our schools across the country.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I should like to make three brief points. First, I join in the general applause for the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on the application of the law of diminishing returns in this area: the more you specify, the more you tend to lose. My second point may also relate to later debates. As far as possible in education, we should try to maintain one framework that covers all schools. There may be some adaptation in schools of different character, but it is in the spirit of our educational system to aim for a framework that brings a Church of England school, a Roman Catholic school, a Jewish school and a local authority maintained school under the same umbrella. We are one society, and it is important to make that point in our education system.

Finally, and perhaps more significantly, I suppose that a Bishop would have to comment on sex and relationships, but sometimes I think that people get obsessed with this area. Generally, the debate has been skewed too much towards it. I also think that linking sex and relationships, while I understand entirely why we do it—we do not want to disentangle sexual relationships from relationships—we do not want to get into the way of thinking that all relationships are therefore fundamentally sexualised as an outcome. I read Frank Field’s report to the Government on children in our society, which is a serious issue. Surveys show that one of the things that children most want to learn is how to be good parents. There is something of a lacuna in these proposals in the area of what I would call parenthood, quite apart from the issues of sexualised or sexually related relationships. I rather agree with the right honourable gentleman down the corridor that what is key to our society is how we hand on civilisation to the next generation. There is some wisdom in the observation in his report that children want more than anything else to learn to be good parents. However, I do not see that coming through, and I certainly do not want to see this education reduced to sex and relationships.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, all the contributions have reflected positive attitudes and have contained many positive words. The danger is that if someone like myself dissents from what I consider to be the main thrust of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Massey, they are portrayed as dinosaurs, male chauvinists and all the litany of abusive terms that suggest discrimination against women. However, let me declare my credentials from when I served in another place because they will totally contradict that kind of attitude towards me. I voted for the equal age of consent. I voted for civil partnerships. Even when there was a free vote, I voted for every single equality measure. It was not a case of being whipped to vote for something because the Government said so. I hope that if that attitude has been inculcated, it will have been quickly dispelled by my record. Perhaps I would carry more credibility with my noble friend Lady Massey if she took into account the fact that the Roman Catholic church attacked me for those votes, but as far as I am concerned, it establishes my independence.

I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to turn to page 6 of the Marshalled List, which sets out the proposed new section. Subsection (6) states:

“The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that”—

as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment. Subsection (7) also has three paragraphs.

However, I worry about the practicality of that. The practicality is that new Section 85B(8) says,

“Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9) from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious character”.

Who decides? Who judges? Who makes a judgment if someone objects to the way in which that has been done at a school?

Education Bill

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Benjamin]

I, too, support what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said about the wonderful work that teachers do in school and how they use their gift of imparting education to make a difference to children’s lives. That is very evident in the many schools that I have visited. However, when I go into schools to give inspirational talks, many children automatically want to hug me. We need to be clear that this amendment is directed not just at teachers but at people like me who go into schools. We need to be sure that we are not committing a criminal act if a child hugs us and we want to hug that child back.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I want to pick up the reference of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to professionalism. Over the past 25 years since 1986 we have seen a whole torrent of legislation on schools, which has had a cumulative effect of undermining the professionalism of teachers. In many ways, I see the Government trying to reclaim that ground. It seems to me that fundamental to any guidance on this issue is that we start from the position that teachers are professionals and that they use their judgment. The rest is a case of trying to fill that out, as it were, rather than tackling the matter the other way round, which subtly undermines the very professionalism that should be at the heart of education. I hope that in due course that approach will result in fewer education Acts.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I wish to refer to a body of people who have not been mentioned in the debate thus far but are mentioned in the amendment. Since the thrust of the Bill as a whole seems to be pushing towards more free-standing governance of schools, we should consider what ought to be the remit of schools’ governing bodies in respect of this matter. We can all agree that we must pay tribute to teachers’ excellence and recognise the natural affinities that lead to physical contact at different times, which have been mentioned. However, if the governing body is to pick up tangible responsibility for interpreting and applying conduct in this area, not only must teachers be supported by senior members of staff and head teachers but the relationship with the governing body has to be addressed.

This can be a touchy business—sorry, that was not meant to be a pun—if there has been a recent incident in the locality and emotions can be highly charged. I have sat on governing bodies which have dealt not just with the case before us but with all the accumulated stuff that arises from a consideration, and often press reportage, of things that may have happened outside the remit of the school but in the locality. The systems devised in this Bill and in the previous Bill do not give enough attention to governing bodies. If we are to have more free-standing schools and academies, we must be sure that governance by the governing body is given adequate consideration.

I have been a governor for 30 years and am a chairman of trustees and know that even gathering the relevant skills round a table is difficult in the inner cities. Giving governors the remit and guidance on how to apply various aspects of their functions is difficult and will also be difficult in this area. To state on the face of the Bill that the governing body,

“may adapt and promulgate rules on physical contact”,

may be enough but governing bodies have to be equipped to apply that statement adequately and responsibly.

Education Bill

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On that specific point, I do not have those figures in my head and I will try to find them and send them to the noble Earl. In response to my noble friend’s first question, the new arrangements are intended to apply to permanent exclusions. So far as his other points are concerned—again, they are generally not in the Bill—in terms of the way forward with the exclusion trials and with a point that we are trying to take forward and which we will come to later on about improving the quality of alternative provision available, the responsibility for a child in the situation he describes is unchanged and remains with the local authority.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

Can I press the Minister on one point, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who drew attention to the philosophical difficulty of new subsection (6)? I notice that the review panel will have the discretion to impose a fine for an adjustment in budget but it is not a requirement that the review panel would do so. I am puzzled as to how a review panel is going to decide between one case and another and on what basis. You almost then have the prospect of review panels grading the substance of their requirement that a responsible body review it according to a scale of fines. This strikes me as odd. It is in the subjunctive—that the review panel,

“may, in prescribed circumstances, order an adjustment”—

and I wonder whether the Minister would expand a little more on what the “may” represents.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

It is our intention to publish guidance to cover these issues which we will be able to then share with Peers so that they can see how that is proceeding. That will address some of these issues.

Children: Parenting

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the question of what those economic incentives might be is clearly a matter for my friends at the Treasury. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider any proposals there might be for such incentives and bring them forward at the appropriate time.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, international surveys of child happiness show the experience of childhood in this country not to be as positive as in many other countries, particularly in Europe. Therefore, I wonder whether there is not at least some case for codifying the proper expectations of a child in relation to parenthood, as has been the case, for example, in the Napoleonic Code in France for many years. Is there a case not for the nanny state but for some codification that might help the process of personal and social education in schools?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

To revert to my earlier answer, I am not convinced of the need for a codification. I do not know how one would set about it or, in practical terms, the benefits it might bring. The priority should be to focus on and to help those families who most need help, rather than to draw up an approach for all parents and families, as I am not aware that there is a particular problem in most families and with most parents.

Marriage

Lord Bishop of Chester Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

To call attention to the role of marriage and marriage support in British society 12 years after the report The Funding of Marriage Support by Sir Graham Hart; and to move for Papers.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, at the outset of this debate I should declare an interest in that I am married—or at least I was when I checked my e-mails first thing this morning.

In many ways, I see this debate as a natural sequel to the debate last Thursday, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to which reference was made at Question Time. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the way in which he has raised these issues over a number of years in your Lordships’ House.

It is a happy coincidence that the ballot has favoured this debate to take place in National Marriage Week. It was perhaps the most distinguished of 20th-century Archbishops of Canterbury, William Temple, who once said that, if you prayed hard, coincidences might happen.

I say at the outset that, in calling attention to the role of marriage and marriage support in British society, I do not intend any general criticism of those who choose not to marry or of those who, for any reason, are single parents. Nor do I wish to enter the debate over the precise relationship between marriage and civil partnerships or what wider legal protection ought also to exist for those in a variety of relationships outside marriage who have obligations to each other or to their children. These are very important questions but for another day.

Rather, my purpose is to focus upon marriage itself. It is possible to advocate the place and importance of marriage in society in its own right. There has been a tendency in recent years to express indifference over whether or not people marry, as though it is simply a private choice. At one level, of course, it is a private choice, but it is a private choice which the evidence overwhelmingly suggests has public consequences on which any Government cannot merely express indifference.

In recent years, we have often heard the expression “broken Britain”. Statistics never tell the whole story but perhaps I might refer to a few figures from an OECD report published last summer. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and the highest proportion of children in single-parent households —no less than 23 per cent for those under the age of 14, with the percentage being even higher if all children are counted. Notwithstanding the higher rate of teenage pregnancies, the average age at which mothers in the UK have their first child is the highest in Europe, at 30, with all the attendant risks for both mothers and children.

It is in the family courts that the damage is often most visible, and I am pleased to see that some members of the judiciary are willing to sound the alarm bells. In 2009, Mr Justice Coleridge, from the Family Division of the High Court, said that,

“the breakdown of families in this country is on a scale, depth and breadth which few of us could have imagined even a decade ago ... almost all of society’s … ills can be traced directly to the collapse of the family life”.

He also said:

“It is a never ending carnival of human misery”.

Sir Paul Coleridge called for a return to marriage as the “gold standard”, which would mean the arresting of the trend of seeing marriage simply as one arrangement among others to be picked from the human supermarket shelf. In moving this Motion, it is my proposition that this can be done, although I accept that in a free society there will always be those who choose to—or indeed have to—organise their relationships and their children’s nurture in other ways, and who deserve the support of society.

There is now a good deal of research on the impact of relationships, and in particular the relationship of marriage, on the well-being and life satisfaction of those concerned. I am grateful to the Cambridge-based Relationships Foundation for collating the results of a wide range of research projects. The conclusion is clear: while almost any good relationship increases health and happiness, the benefits are disproportionately clear with marriage, with lower levels of psychological illness, greater longevity, better general health, greater wealth and income, lower suicide rates and so forth. Of course, the causality can be assessed in different ways but the overall societal benefit of marriage seems to me to be unarguable.

Equally, the outcomes for children are much better because, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, argued last week, young children flourish best when they feel safe, loved and valued. Marriage is especially conducive to promoting just this, because cohabitees with children are at least twice as likely to break up as married couples.

Certain biological and socioeconomic realities need to be acknowledged here. I understand that young elephants, as an example of a species with a similar lifespan to that of human beings, are able to be independent of their parents much sooner than is the case with human children. A key test for any society will be the quality of the nurture of its children and, for the human species, that puts a premium on encouraging stable, healthy and long relationships among parents. As many noble Lords will know from their personal experience, and indeed their personal cost, children in today’s complex and advanced societies are often dependent on their parents even longer than was the case in the past: the need for stable parenting relationships is even greater today.

It is possible to agree with most of what I have said so far and yet to press the question: why does all this point to marriage? Why could a society not evolve in which the benefits of the marriage bond were enjoyed by those who cohabit on the basis of equally strong private and personal commitments? The difference, it seems to me, lies precisely in the social context in which the vows and promises at the heart of a relationship are expressed. Perhaps I may make an analogy—not an exact analogy but, I think, a helpful one—with war: after all, we are told that all is fair in love and war. Going back to 1939, could the British Government have sent a note to Berlin declaring war but saying that they wanted to review things at Christmas? They could, of course, have reviewed how things were going at Christmas but not as a pre-condition of the declaration of war. You cannot really have a trial war; nor can you really have a trial marriage. I suggest that there is a certain contradiction in terms in both cases. The problem with the current fashion for cohabitation is that it tends to devalue the underlying currency of marriage. There is indeed a sense in which the social institution of marriage is the gold standard for all relationships.

Individual marriages have always failed or become unhealthy. I have no desire to promote an image of marriage as a potential millstone. I have always supported the possibility of divorce and, for that matter, the possibility of marriage in church after divorce. But, equally, giving a certain precedence to supporting the underlying social institution of marriage for the good of society as a whole needs a clearer acknowledgement than has sometimes been the case in recent years.

The role of government here is limited, but nevertheless vital, and I briefly want to point to some practical things that Governments can, and should, do. The first would be to revive the recommendations of the report by Sir Graham Hart, which was commissioned by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The noble and learned Lord accepted its recommendations. That report built upon the enabling Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996, which was promoted by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who expresses his regret that he cannot be present because of attending a funeral in Scotland.

Grants towards marriage support services were made, but seem to have disappeared into a more nebulous grant scheme which does not specifically target or even mention marriage support. The new Government have identified relationship support as a key area, with the Prime Minister, as recently as 10 December, pledging £7.5 million towards that. But the papers for funding applications fail to make any direct reference to marriage. The social institution of marriage will be recovered in our society only if we are bold enough to refer to it in public, and in public policy, as a unique and distinctive bedrock of society. We need to recover the perspective of marriage and relationship support, as set out in the Family Law Act.

I suggest that would support the Government's broader intention to foster a society which moves beyond the dialectic of state or government activity on the one hand to private choices and rights on the other. This requires a sustained recovery of the place of intermediate social institutions, between the state and the individual. Marriage, I submit, is just such a social institution in a way in which relationships could never be. It is a key social institution, arguably the key social institution, and needs to be named more clearly as such in public policy.

If noble Lords, or the Government, are not convinced by my arguments thus far, I would refer to the financial cost of the breakdown of marriage and indeed of cohabitation in today's society. I refer again to the research done by the Relationships Foundation, published in Counting the Cost of Family Failure. The extraordinary figure is offered of more than £40 billion a year. The purely economic case for marriage support services is overwhelming. Those services should include marriage preparation for those who are planning to marry, marriage enrichment for those who are married and marriage guidance counselling for those whose marriages are in difficulty.

I turn finally to a second area where the Government should act and where the Prime Minister, in his first Prime Minister's Questions after the election, stated his own convictions. He said:

“I am an unashamed supporter of families and marriage, and I simply do not understand why, when so many other European countries … recognise marriage in the tax system, we do not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/10; col. 428.]

Apart from the UK, only 18 per cent of OECD citizens live in states that do not recognise marriage in their tax system. Most of that 18 per cent live in Mexico and Turkey. In 2008-09, a single-earner married couple with two children and on the average wage bore a tax burden which was a third greater than the OECD average. The comparative figures for 2009-10 will show a further deterioration. They will be the subject of a seminar I will host in Committee Room 4 on 9 March, at 1 pm. I pay tribute to the work of the charity CARE in sponsoring the associated research and to the wider role which it plays in support of marriage and human flourishing. I declare an interest as an active supporter.

The Conservative Party manifesto at the last election promised the introduction of a transferable allowance for one-earner couples, a promise which is in the coalition agreement. I hope that this can be introduced without delay and I look forward to the Minister's reassurance on this.

I do not believe that people should be offered financial inducements to marry against their will, but I think that public policy on taxation carries a social and moral message, as do all laws, concerning, in this case, the value which society puts on the institution of marriage. In unintended ways, public policy can contribute to a climate which subtly undermines marriage.

I look forward to this debate. I am delighted that so many noble Lords have entered the speakers list, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who is to make her maiden speech. I have avoided any reference to the religious or theological symbolism of marriage, to which the various religious traditions of our world would bear eloquent witness. Perhaps other Members of your Lordships' House will be bolder than the Bishops’ Bench in such matters. However, with the indulgence of the House, I will end by quoting one of my favourite verses from the Bible, from the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, in the King James version:

“It is not good that the man should be alone”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I am delighted that I was able to provide the perfect opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to make such a brilliant maiden speech.

I have closing comments on two areas. The first is that I was struck by the contributions from different religious and racial traditions, from the noble Lords, Lord Sacks, Lord Ahmed and Lord Parekh. One of the enduring contributions which immigration will prove to have made to our society is the recovery of some proper understanding of marriage and family life gained from those different traditions. That is not sufficiently recognised in our public discourse.

As an individual on these Benches, I would not begin to speak for the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that there should be a completely level playing field for different religious and non-religious traditions in relation to marriage. The Minister did not respond to that point but I express my personal support for that.

The focus of our debate has been on marriage, and rightly so, but I end by emphasising that there must also be proper support for relationships other than marriage. In that sense, at least, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, although I thought he still gave some evidence of the nervousness of using the “m” word, which possibly characterised the previous Government. I encourage the present Government to plunge headlong into studying this debate and all that has been said this afternoon.

I have a final comment on cohabitation. It suits men. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, drew attention to that. I have two daughters, one of whom is a successful lawyer here in London and one of whom is qualifying as a doctor. They both had complete equality of opportunity, but it has been on men's terms. They have had to conform to a male world, and our society needs to think deeply about what will genuinely support women in our society. That has been an underlying theme of our debate. On that note, I ask the indulgence of the House to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.