Education Bill

I was going to come on to the question of who is entitled to make this decision. I do not believe that there can be, as I think the noble Lord said, a diktat from on top, which is what we have in the Education Act 1944. This should be a matter for the schools themselves, and they should consult the parents and the pupils. If you want localism, if you want the decision to be made freely by the people who are intimately concerned with it, the pupils and their parents, this is the right way to do it. I also detect some division among us as to whether it is indeed the parents or the children who are entitled to make the decision. I pointed out that the JCHR has ruled on this. In the Gillick case, it decided that a child was competent to make very important decisions concerning her treatment, particularly whether or not she should be entitled to ask for contraceptive treatment at below sixth-form age. The committee’s age of Gillick competence was likely to have been 15. However, as I argued, any child who says that this is his or her belief and that he or she does not wish to take part in the act of worship should be deemed competent to do so. Therefore, no age is stipulated in my amendment. We are not going to resolve this today, as I said at the beginning. However, I would say to the right reverend Prelate that this is going to happen in the end. If I may quote St Augustine: "““Petant aut not petant, venire habet””—" whether they like it or not, it is going to come. Sooner or later we shall get rid of the act of compulsory worship in schools, and the sooner the better. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 92 withdrawn. Amendments 93 and 94 not moved. Amendment 95 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 96 to 98 not moved. Clause 30 : Duties to co-operate with local authority Amendment 99 Clause 30 : Duties to co-operate with local authority Amendment 99 Moved by