My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for this opportunity to discuss the current state of history teaching in our schools. Like almost all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I was a history boy at school. I studied history at university and the study of history has remained a central part of my life. I have written books on the history of your Lordships' House, which, I have to confess, have not proved bestsellers. In this debate, we all share a passion for history and, indeed, for historical controversy—which is in the very nature of historical study—and a concern that schools should transmit a strong and rich historical consciousness to the next generation.

A straightforward answer to the question on the order paper can be found by quoting Ofsted's most recent report on history teaching, published last autumn:

"Teaching is good or better in well over three quarters of lessons in Key Stages 3 and 4, making history one of the best taught subjects in the curriculum".

This figure is even higher on post-16 courses. To give further statistics in support of Ofsted's conclusion, I should say that at GCSE and A-level the number of pupils taking history has risen notably since the late 1990s, and indeed since the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. Last year 66 per cent of GCSE entrants achieved grades A* to C, compared with 60 per cent in 1999. At A-level, just over half of all entrants achieved a grade A or B last year, a substantial improvement on 1998, when 38 per cent achieved grades A or B. History also remains a very popular choice at university level, with over 60,000 students choosing the subject. Ofsted reports that the teaching of history in primary schools is improving. Therefore the short answer to the noble Lord's question is yes, the teaching of history in our schools is broadly satisfactory. Of course, we should not rest content. The Government are alive to the scope for further improvement—including in many of the areas raised in the debate—and we have measures and training to bring that about.

Let me start with the early years of secondary education and the provision for 11 to 14 year-olds within the key stage 3 phase, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred. A review of key stage 3 is under way, looking at each national curriculum subject for the appropriate balance of knowledge, skills and understanding, with a view to revising the curriculum content and the accompanying programmes of study which the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority makes available to schools. In respect of history, the QCA has been consulting closely the Historical Association and others about improvements—in search, I suspect, of that elusive broad consensus which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, urged on us—and the agency has submitted first drafts of revised programmes of study to my department. These draft programmes propose to reduce the degree of central prescription, particularly the perceived requirement to teach history in chronological blocks rather than by developing themes, and deal with the study of local history as teachers feel appropriate, in the way set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.

Progression from key stage 3 to GCSE is a critical issue so that fewer have the misfortune to suffer the fate of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, of having to give up history at the age of 14. While 30 per cent of pupils go on to take history GCSE, these pupils tend to be from the higher end of the ability range. With the Government's strong encouragement, the QCA and the examining board, OCR, are developing a new pilot GCSE which will enable schools and pupils to approach history from a more vocational angle. The pilot, to run in 70 schools, will start in September and the full GCSE should be available to all schools from September 2008.

Within this new GCSE, pupils will, for example, be able to consider history from the viewpoint of running a museum, curating a collection, or presenting to the public a National Trust property—or, indeed, Norwich Cathedral or some of the ancient sites of Yorkshire. The pilot GCSE will allow pupils to look at the way in which history is presented through documentaries, films, plays and other media—an important theme raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—rather than only through textbooks as in the past. This is not, I should stress, about creating a soft option but about providing an alternative and, in some ways, more modern course, offering more choice and relevance to history teachers and their pupils.

Two frequently raised issues of concern about school history—these have been mentioned in the debate as well—are, first, that the curriculum is too narrow and, secondly, that there is no requirement whatever to study history, even recent British history, beyond the age of 14. Perhaps I may deal with these two issues in turn.

On the issue of breadth, concerns have been raised that school history from key stage 3 through to GCSE and A-level is sometimes too narrowly and repeatedly focused on limited topics, not least the hardy annuals mentioned today of Tudor England and Nazi Germany. To encourage a greater breadth of study in 20th-century European history, the QCA has produced a new unit for key stage 3 on modern German history from the end of the Second World War to the present day. This unit has been developed with assistance from the German Embassy and I thank the previous German ambassador, Thomas Matussek, for his help in developing it.

Materials for teaching post-war European history at GCSE and A-level are also now increasingly good. Speaking personally, I cannot, for example, think of a better book for A-level or undergraduate students than Tony Judt's brilliant new book Postwar, not least its concluding chapter on the theme of the Holocaust and its long-run impact on post-war European ethics, institutions and politics.

The new pilot GCSE I mentioned earlier also encourages a broader approach to history. It offers broad options in British medieval history, local history and international history. In this context, I should mention that the Government have commissioned the Historical Association, together with leading university departments, to prepare materials on the teaching of important but emotive issues in history—for example, slavery and the slave trade and perceptions of Islam, both issues specifically mentioned by my noble friend Lord Parekh, and the Holocaust. We expect these materials to be available next year and to encourage a much wider sense of historical study than often applies in schools at the moment.

The QCA has just finished consulting on the new draft criteria for A-level, with a view to ensuring that the history specifications are broader. This will be achieved partly through the reduction of the A-level from six discrete units down to four units, which we hope will lead to less compartmentalisation. Ministers have also agreed with QCA a new requirement that A-level candidates study at least 25 per cent British history, which I was glad to see welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We wish to see a similar 25 per cent British minimum observed at GCSE, although I am assured that the exam specifications for GCSE achieve this in most cases already. We hope that all these measures that I have outlined will help teachers acquire the knowledge, confidence and skills to teach a more diverse and inclusive history syllabus.

Let me turn, secondly, to the compulsory study of history, particularly modern British history, beyond the age of 14. There have been repeated calls for history to be compulsory through to the age of 16 instead of 14, as has been the case since the national curriculum was put in place by the previous government. We have given serious consideration to this issue, particularly in the context of the concern, which we share, that young people in our increasingly diverse and multiracial society develop a strong sense of shared British values, which can come from an understanding of the development of Britain's modern political institutions and society. Rather than make history itself compulsory until 16, which would be a major reduction in the flexibility of the curriculum, particularly for young people wishing to pursue vocational courses, we are looking instead to embed a British history element within the already compulsory requirement to study citizenship until the age of 16. I should stress that our aim is not to concoct a "potted history" course tagged on to the end of citizenship, but rather—precisely to take up the points mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—to consider how including modern British cultural and social history in the citizenship curriculum can strengthen young people's understanding of British values and institutions, including those of its devolved institutions and the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Parekh so rightly said, these British values are indeed civilised values which have much wider roots and hold sway internationally.

To this end we have asked Keith Ajegbo, the head teacher of Deptford Green School, which has an outstanding reputation in the teaching of citizenship, to report to us, after wide consultation, on how such an historical element could be incorporated within the citizenship curriculum, and within the teaching of history itself before and after the age of 14. Keith Ajegbo will also be reviewing practice and presenting advice to us on how the school curriculum promotes an understanding of the diversity of modern Britain. QCA states in its 2004–05 report on history,

"in many schools too little attention is given to the black and multi-ethnic aspects of British history".

That is another theme raised by my noble friend. Keith Ajegbo's review will look at that, too.

We have also asked the QCA to review the role of coursework at both GCSE and A-level. I know that some are concerned about the possible elimination of a coursework option in A-level history, which is widely regarded as an effective means of enabling students to start to deal with source material and historical records directly, not least with the aid of ICT as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Many in higher education support the retention of coursework at A-level as it provides a good model preparation for university history in these ways. The QCA has yet to report on this issue, but it is one in which I shall take a keen and close personal interest, to ensure that opportunities for students to engage in original research are encouraged, not discouraged, by changes.

In primary schools, pupils' achievements and teaching standards of history have improved since 1998. History teaching is now good or better in just under half of all primary schools, with only a small percentage rated unsatisfactory. Primary history promotes an understanding of the richness of ancient civilizations—the broader sweep of history invoked by the right reverend Prelate, including the Greeks, the Romans, ancient Egypt and the Aztecs, among others. The evidence is that children and teachers find this highly enjoyable. A local history study and a broad component of British history, such as Victorian Britain or Britain since 1930, are also within the primary syllabus. In the best primary schools, history is taught across the curriculum. Our policy is to encourage this approach in the support provided for primary-level teachers, who are more than likely to be non-specialists themselves.

In conclusion let me pay particular tribute, as have other noble Lords, to the work of the Historical Association, not least as a subject association of immense value to history teachers and in upgrading their own skills in teaching their subjects. I was glad last year to be able to support the association's successful petition for a Royal Charter to coincide with its centenary.

At the celebrations for the centenary last month, in the magnificent if sombre historical setting of the Banqueting House in Whitehall, Professor Barry Coward, the Historical Association's president, quoted the great Geoffrey Elton's words,

"History is endlessly exciting and a lovely way to spend one's days".

And so it is. He added:

"All who study history gain skills that are vital in all aspects of life, like the ability to think critically and formulate and present clear arguments. History matters too because it provides a sense of the past, an awareness of the development of different values, systems and societies, and the inculcation of critical yet tolerant personal values. In short, history matters because it contributes to the development of responsible active citizens".

I endorse that view entirely. History matters. It is a vital element of the school curriculum, and our policy is to see it strengthened further still.