The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke at the second reading of the Education (Assemblies) Bill on 7th February 2025, affirming the benefits of collective worship while expressing reservations on the efficacy of the bill:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I warmly welcome this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her introduction, as well as the other noble Lords who have spoken. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Although I understand the intention of the Bill, it may not surprise your Lordships to hear that I will express some reservations about the proposals and say that I believe the current legislation already affords sufficient flexibility. I suspect that I may well be a lone voice in the Chamber today. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness quote my esteemed friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, formerly the Bishop of Oxford. Perhaps it is good to know that there are differences of opinion among Bishops in this House.
Collective worship is a vital part of school life. It is key to fostering a sense of fellowship and cohesion; to celebrating festivals, and not just Christian ones; and to strengthening religious literacy. Importantly, the current legislation already allows schools to tailor their provision to suit their pupils’ spiritual needs, and allows schools and academies to develop their ethos and values.
Among the many benefits of collective worship is the chance to explore and understand values such as forgiveness, humility, gratitude and justice. Collective worship allows for time away from the target-driven culture of education, creating a space for the possibility of an encounter with the divine or for reflection on the larger questions of life: the meaning and purpose of life. Children need space to ponder these things, which are the province of spirituality. We are spiritual beings, and spirituality finds an anchor in collective worship. Research shows that spirituality has a very strong impact on well-being and mental health, whether religious or not.
Some may say that the removal of collective worship would allow schools to allocate extra time to cover themes such as the environment, health, relationships, self-esteem and so on, but it is likely that schools may well end up using this time for extra lessons such as maths and English instead. I worry that the Bill will simply remove the protection around valuable space for reflection as part of the school day. Whether in times of crisis or celebration, collective worship brings the entire community together for reflection.
There is no doubt that Britain has become less overtly religious over the past decades, yet, although fewer of us call ourselves practising Christians, the country remains steeped in echoes of our collective faith and many would still describe themselves as spiritual. Worship and spirituality underpin the ceremonies that shape our lives. Often, still, it is the responsibility of the Church of England to capture and make space for expression of the national mood, and many turn to faith institutions in times of life and death. The death of Queen Elizabeth II confronted us all with our own mortality, our losses and the realisation of how little control we have over our futures. The late Queen’s death conjured up a latent spirituality, which brought the nation together in mourning and thanksgiving.
The Church of England has always sought to bring to life the rituals that define us. It has long played an integral part in educating our children, from the first monastic schools and the inception of universities to the founding of the National Society and the thousands of faith schools that are dotted around the country today. The Church takes these commitments seriously. Alongside high-quality education, it offers high-quality collective worship that is inspiring, invitational and inclusive, and which exemplifies the principles of Christian generosity. Worship is collective in that it involves meeting, exploring, questioning and responding to others—and, for some, responding to God. It provides a safe space for children to ask questions and learn to sit with difference.
Schools across the country used NSE resources created in response to the Southport riots on the themes of “I weep when you are weeping” and “When there is hatred, let me sow peace”. These support pupils to explore issues arising from the news through a lens of community and cohesion, as well as a theology of peace-making. In schools without a religious character, the law is flexible and allows the tailoring of provision to suit their pupils’ needs, considering their ages, aptitudes and family backgrounds.
I am concerned that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, one consequence may be to make anything more than a wholly secular assembly illegal and contested in our schools. Most children would not know about the Christmas or Easter stories, nor have the opportunity to learn about other faiths, if it were not for collective worship. The effect of the Bill might be to deprive young people of the chance to experience spiritual, moral, social and cultural development through collective worship.
There is already provision for parents to withdraw their children from collective worship if they wish to do so, but, when there is no space for reflection on faith, people of all faiths feel diminished, not just Christians. Although it is right and I am glad that we are having this debate, I very much hope that the Bill will not be progressed—or, at least, that it will be amended in Committee.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP) [V]: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. In following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I assure her that she is not a lone voice in expressing concern over this Bill. I respectfully submit that the Bill in front of us is unnecessary, is overreaching in terms of its provisions and is potentially counterproductive.
I say “unnecessary” because, as the right reverend Prelate highlighted, there is already a high level of flexibility in our system. Indeed, there is a complete and sacrosanct opportunity for any pupil, via their parents or as sixth formers, to withdraw from any assembly. If a religious assembly goes against the religious views of a family, or if they wish to express a more secular point of view, there is that complete freedom to withdraw. This Bill does not remove compulsion from anyone; therefore, it is solving a problem that does not necessarily exist.
On the contrary, although there is at present the opportunity to withdraw if someone has a fundamental objection, I see no provision in this Bill that allows any parent to object to what they may believe to be a humanist assembly. It makes those assemblies completely compulsory, and reduces rights rather than enhancing them.
It is the case that this is a form of overreaching. It does not simply remove the requirement for an assembly with a religious character to it; it actually bans the school from holding any
“acts of worship or … religious observance”.
How do we interpret religious observance or acts of worship? Clearly, that would constitute a prayer or a hymn, for example, or telling a story from the Bible. In a practical sense, what will this mean in interpretation? It could mean that, if a school were holding its annual act of remembrance, there would be a ban on saying a prayer of thanks for the service of those who paid the supreme sacrifice. That would be outside the law under the Bill. If a school wanted to hold a service of remembrance for a pupil who had sadly died, again, there could be no religious overtones to that. Does it mean that an annual nativity play—which is clearly telling a biblical story—would constitute an act of worship? If there were a desire for the pupils to sing “Away in a Manger” or some such like, that would be banned.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab): As “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” had it, do you have that strange feeling of déjà vu? We have been here before; it is becoming a regular event—but that is quite right. It is an issue upon which I have strong views, and I always welcome the opportunity to express them.
I speak as a corridor child, although that was more to do with train timetables than any point of principle. However, I can testify to the pointlessness of being excluded from the life of a school, which is an inevitable result of the current approach. The Education (Assemblies) Bill is a necessary and overdue reform that seeks to replace the requirement for daily acts of Christian worship in non-faith schools with inclusive assemblies that cater for all students, regardless of their religious belief. In my view, the Bill represents a significant step towards ensuring that the education system in England reflects the diversity and inclusivity of modern British society. There is clearly a need for that.
I welcome that there has been a genuine debate at Second Reading. I note in particular that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to the flexibility of the current system. We need to be clear that that flexibility is available essentially because of an element of hypocrisy: enforcement of the terms of the law is not always followed through, which is clearly an unsatisfactory situation.
The requirement enshrined in the 1944 Act, reinforced in subsequent legislation, does not reflect the reality of today’s multicultural and multifaith society. The UK is home to people of many different religions and to many, including me, with no religion at all. According to the 2001 census, almost 40% of people in England and Wales identify as having no religion, and a growing proportion of the rest do not identify as Christian. Forcing students to participate in Christian worship—because that is effectively what happens—is not only out of step with societal changes but contradicts the principles of freedom of belief.
Baroness Barran (Con): My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on securing a Second Reading for her Bill, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As we have heard this morning, when the Bill was considered in 2021, it did not pass through the Commons due to lack of time. But, at that time, the Conservative Government were unable to support it, and I am afraid—I guess this will not surprise the noble Baroness—our position has not changed. I will briefly outline my concerns, some of which were much more eloquently represented by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme.
The first point, which other noble Lords have made, is that collective worship is important and gives children in school a time to learn and to reflect but to do that with a sense of community, and religion allows children to learn some of the essential values of life. Many of the topics that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, cited as possible topics for secular collective worship are part of Christianity and often already form part of the collective worship that happens in our schools every day. As the House is aware, there are already curriculum requirements for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of pupils through the PSHE curriculum. As we know, the Government have asked Professor Becky Francis to lead a review of the curriculum and make an assessment, and I am sure that if any changes are required she will bring them to the Government’s attention.
As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, both pointed out, the existing legislation is flexible, and I feel that it is unjust to describe it as an imposition or a coercion of children or their parents. As noble Lords know, it is already possible for children or indeed whole schools to be exempted from this practice. Therefore, we believe that this legislation is unnecessary. That of course includes schools where the principal religion is not Christianity.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab): Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I also went back to the Hansard report of the debate in 2021. I was struck by the arguments made by my noble friend Lady Morris, who saw both sides of the argument but made a strong argument at that point about the social significance of the festivities and worship that often brings people together across the country and at particular times of both celebration and difficulty. This was also the point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made. As others noted, it was proven that she was not alone in the arguments that she was making about collective worship.
I accept the right reverend Prelate’s observation that fewer people would describe themselves as practising Christians—I think she said that “fewer of us” are practising Christians; I presume she was not referring to the Bishops at that point—but there nevertheless remains, as other noble Lords have said, some benefit in the idea of acts of collective worship.
However, it is completely right that there is flexibility for exemptions within the legislation. As has already been stated, non-religious schools may seek exemptions if their community predominantly follows another faith. Although current law does not provide for non-religious alternatives, students over 16 and parents of younger pupils retain the right of unconditional withdrawal from collective worship, which gives them an element of choice.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.