rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the teaching of history in schools in England and Wales is satisfactory.

My Lords, I thank in advance all noble Lords for taking the time to participate in this debate. I look forward immensely to their contributions, and in particular to the speech of my noble friend Lady Buscombe and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

I begin by declaring an interest as an amateur historian; indeed, I would argue that no one can be a Member of this House without acquiring a due reverence for its history, the way in which it may influence our country's future and the role we play within it. History is continually happening. As George Santayana wisely said,

"those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

I would extrapolate from that the view that those who do not know their history will inevitably make the same old mistakes. I mentioned that we have debated this issue before; perhaps Mr Santayana's words are about to ring true.

The year 2000 was a time where the numbers of pupils aged 16 taking GCSE in history had been declining by 5 per cent each year since 1997, and many felt and argued at the time that the subject was beginning to be edged slowly out of the curriculum under a Government who had come to power promising "education, education, education". We discussed then the importance of chronology and of a broad and balanced approach addressing success and failures, and the advances in the study of social history and how its study as prescribed was being diluted in the name of flexibility. The then Minster, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, undertook to assure us that we should not be concerned and that,

"the Government value the teaching of British history very highly indeed".

He went on to say:

"We fully recognise the important role that the subject plays in a broader education".—[Hansard, 27/3/00; col. 589.]

Despite that promise, the spring of this year witnessed Mr Bill Rammell, Labour Minster for Higher Education, stating that the sharp fall in the number of university applicants wanting to study subjects such as history, philosophy, classics and fine art was "no bad thing". A Higher Education Minister? Your Lordships might think that "lower education" would be a more apt title.

This is a completely contrary view towards the teaching of history from that which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, implied or it at least shows an inconsistency of views between the higher levels of education, which the Historical Association has roundly condemned, calling it "very short sighted"—hence the fact that I have felt the need to retable this debate six years on.

A poll accompanying the recent Channel 4 series by David Starkey on the history of the monarchy highlighted the fact that fewer than half of adults knew that Henry VIII had six wives, let alone that they were subsequently "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived". I find this most surprising and infinitely depressing when, as I remind your Lordships, the Tudors, together with Nazi Germany, is the most likely topic to be included in today's history classes. Even more worrying was the fact that only one in 10 younger people could name King John as the monarch who signed Magna Carta. I fear that a much smaller percentage even than that would know what Magna Carta was and what it has meant in the development of human rights, society and institutions down the ages.

History is knowledge. If you are lucky enough to have been taught it, you will be a more rounded and complete person than if you have not. I was lucky enough to have been taught it, and perhaps more importantly, taught how to appreciate history, starting with the all-important structure of dates, political events and people who have influenced events. As Anthony O'Hear so aptly summed it up recently:

"A person with no sense of the past is a person who is a stranger both to his own roots and to the human condition more generally. For human beings are not creatures of nature; we are inheritors of the history that has made us what we are. Not to know our history is not to know ourselves".

We are at present much concerned with Islam and how to reconcile its values with those of the largely Christian West. I therefore ask the Minster whether the history of the growth of Islam is part of the national curriculum. I also ask whether he is satisfied with the current state of culture in this country, obsessed as it is with celebrity, football and reality television. Most of our population seem to have no other interests and have no yardsticks from history.

In April the Daily Telegraph reported:

"History A-level students will have to spend at least 25 per cent of their time studying Britain's past under new rules proposed by the Government's curriculum advisors".

Surely that is a sign that our British heritage was not placed at the heart of teaching history as we were assured it would be six years ago when the school curriculum was revised. However, I must welcome the fact that this fundamental mistake has now been recognised and appears to have been corrected.

Years ago my noble friend Lord Patten said:

"Our history has been formed and changed by the individual actions of great people; heroes and villains; saints and sinners; generals and sea-farers . . . all these have stamped their mark on British history".

At the same time as the last debate, a new textbook for national curriculum history included extraordinary examples, such as that Wellington never fought Waterloo but merely opposed the Chartists, and that Churchill never led this country from defeat to victory—all he did of note was to lose the 1945 election. Clive of India, Wolfe, Nelson, Florence Nightingale, Gordon, Pitt the Younger, Peel and Palmerston are not even mentioned at all. Can the Minister reassure me that this travesty of a textbook has long since been withdrawn? I hope so.

I finish in the same way that I did six years ago. I am enormously proud of my country, of its traditions and of the many great and noble people who have forged our history. They made mistakes but made things happen. They were sometimes kings and sometimes commoners. I want all children—and even more so, those of foreign parents—to learn, to appreciate and to profit from proper teaching of our history, which is the most important building block of our society and citizenship. Without it, we cannot appreciate the past, cannot adequately fulfil our lives during the present, and have no hope of introducing the next generation to a successful future.