My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate, although it has been an all too short discussion on such an important and interesting topic. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken. We have heard about the personal experiences of Members of your Lordships' House with history and history teachers which I am sure were the foundation stones for the thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions made today.

It is clear that as a nation there is a subconscious reaction to a deep-seated desire to know our history; we need only to look at the popularity of history programmes in the media and the wealth of historical novels on the shelves in bookshops. Yet there is an underlying nervousness that when it comes to teaching history in schools and universities, this Government are going down what my colleague in another place called "the drab, utilitarianism route". An example that springs to mind is that of the comments made by Charles Clarke three years ago when he was the Education Secretary. He reportedly described medieval historians as ornaments and suggested that their departments did not deserve state funding. While he claimed that his words had been misinterpreted, it is wise to remember that it was during those Dark Ages that classical learning was lost in the West. As Anthony O'Hear said,

"to be ignorant of the past is to make us impotent and unprepared before the present".

Without a sense of medieval history, how can we fully understand the current impasse the West finds itself in with regard to its dealings with Islam?

My noble friend commented on the announcement made in April this year that A-level history is now to focus on Britain's past in a broad and balanced manner. Members on these Benches welcome the measure, as has the Historical Association, but I will hold judgment until we see how the new rules from the curriculum advisers pan out. As noble Lords have highlighted, the Government's stance on the value of history is sometimes a little misleading. I hope that the Minister will take on board much if not all of the brilliant speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who suggested that there should be a chronological survey of what has happened in our realm.

It is clear that some teachers need the confidence, in this era of political correctness gone mad, to teach British history without the fear of getting involved in political interpretations of the acts of our forebears. But one of the joys of history is that it is open to interpretation and should stimulate thought and analysis. It should stimulate a student's ability to form an argument which supports their interpretation and to communicate that argument fully. Indeed, in this regard I share the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. When he referred to the late and much lamented Lord Russell, I have to say that I wished he was in his place tonight. I miss his brilliant speeches and he would have made a very valuable contribution to this debate. I have referred to just a few of the skills one learns through the study of history, not the least of which is the ability to explore. I worry when noble Lords talk about what they were not taught at school. Something I remember is being taught to want to learn, to read and explore around a subject. We must appreciate that we are talking about skills that are vital in adult life, particularly in politics.

One should not consider a rounded history of our sceptred isle too complex or diverse in our multi-ethnic classrooms, but be proud of the significant and all too relevant links and themes it can provide. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Pilkington who passed the comment that history is rather like the study of other religions. A person can understand other religions only if he has some understanding of his own. I noted too the thoughts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. He spoke of the sense of belonging to a common humanity that he learnt through studying and taking a degree in history. I agree entirely with him that in terms of the woolly concepts of national identity and citizenship, a proper teaching of history would provide the much stronger connection that is so desired and needed in this country. My twin sons are sitting the AS-level in history. I am worried that their learning has become very specialised and narrow, and that what they are being taught is how to pass examinations. It is a huge problem. Students are not being given the time and space in which to learn and to be excited by their subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to the need to excite. I agree too that having brilliant teachers, which my sons are lucky to have, really does make all the difference.

As my noble friend Lord Luke surmised, history is the most important building block for our society and citizenship. It enables students to have a sense of time and progress and provides a foundation of knowledge that can only underpin a greater intellectual richness, and that is something we should all aspire to.

I well recall attending the opening of the wonderful Commonwealth and Empire Museum in Bristol a few years ago. I noticed that there was not a Member of this Government in sight. When I inquired who from the Government had been invited to support this brilliant initiative, I was told that the Government had declined all invitations; it was felt to be too politically incorrect. How ridiculous is that? Young people, in particular, want and deserve to know more about their history, their ancestors' achievements and challenges, and their sense of place in today's world. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, young people in particular need to learn about the consequences of empire—some good, some bad. Whatever happens, we should not be ashamed to admit what was bad.

Much of British history needs to be celebrated as well as taught. The role of the British Empire in abolishing slavery, of such physicians as Jenner and Lister in fighting disease, and of heroes such as Nelson in protecting Britain should be taught in ways that encourage a sense of pride, and shared ownership of our great country. In essence, we should also not be shy of accepting the need for children to gain, through learning history, a sense of national identity. My noble friend Lord Luke talked about an important building block of our society and citizenship. We cannot expect young people from different ethnic backgrounds to integrate and thereby become integral to our nation's future unless we give them an identity in which they can ground themselves.

I was one of those who, many years ago, had to give up learning history at 14. Since making that difficult choice between history and geography—and choosing geography—I have always felt somewhat on the back foot. Like many, I have taken time and a lot of effort to learn around the subject. I believe that it is so important for children to have the opportunity to learn as much as possible in school, and to be given not only the chance to study history, but for it to be a compulsory part of the curriculum up to the age of 16. Those two extra years would have made a huge difference to me, so I will do all I can to influence thoughts in relation to changes to the curriculum. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the concerns and questions put to him by your Lordships' House on this matter. I hope that this time the reply will be enough for my noble friend not to feel the need to table his question again in a year or two.