When I was eight my father gave me a book of world history. It was full of stories with wonderful quirky drawings. I loved it. It was the start of a lifetime relationship with history — a relationship which, sadly, too many children are denied.

After reading it I am supposed to have said, “Here is the clue to the riddle.” Deep down I still believe this — though it’s not the only clue. I have tried to pass on my love of history to my children, with varying success. All three studied history at state schools and my younger son, William, now 29, read history at Oxford. But, because of the way the subject is now taught at school there are huge gaps in his knowledge. Things that were part of my history are not part of his.

Children who study history today are not taught the broad sweep — their curriculum is a thing of shreds and patches, like “Hitler and the Henrys” in secondary school, and the “princes in the tower” in primary school. A searchlight is shone into corners but the bulk of the historical landscape is left shrouded in darkness. The sense of narrative is lost. Some schools are even merging history and geography into something called “ humanities”.

We are the only country in Europe (bar Iceland) in which the study of history is not compulsory up to the age of 16. Here one in two pupils drop the subject at the age of 14. I don’t know which children are opting out of history, but I would argue that, since the terror bombings of last summer, the need for all children to study British history at least up to the age of 16 has become even more compelling.

This is particularly true for the children of immigrants. And it is not jingoism. For immigrants, even more than natives, history is the way to catch the spirit of the country in which their families have settled.

The study of a country’s past is a crucial element in developing its people’s sense of identification, belonging and patriotism. Unless immigrants can learn what it is to be British (while contributing to the development of Britishness) the multicultural society is going to break down. I would scrap citizenship lessons and tests. I would just give children history.

But this would be history with a difference. No more of the disjointed scrappiness that has blighted the syllabus. Pupils should take in the narrative sweep of British history. They should be taught the highlights: Magna Carta; the armada; the civil war and glorious revolution; the industrial revolution; the two world wars; the rise and fall of the British empire. The history of our country explains so much about our attitudes to the continent of Europe today.

I have always been struck by the opening sentence of L P Hartley’s novel The Go-Between: “The past is a foreign country — they do things differently there.” The great thing about history is that it releases us from the tyranny of the present. Through its study one learns that at other times people thought and felt differently in many ways from what they do today, not that they were wrong, just different. This saves us from the hubris of believing that the latest beliefs are always correct.

If you lack a sense of history you are liable to do foolish things. Tony Blair is a clever and decent man, but he has no sense of history, no sense of the constitution of which he is temporary guardian. Otherwise, he would not have come forward with back-of-the-envelope schemes for abolishing ancient offices like that of lord chancellor, or for a supreme court.

A person with a better sense of the “rights and liberties” of Englishmen would surely have been more careful about defending liberty.

Next month I believe that history teachers are holding a conference to debate some of these ideas. It is time they were taken seriously.

I would like to write a children’s history book like the one I enjoyed as a child. I just hope that there is a readership out there if I come to do it.

Lord Skidelsky was talking to Sian Griffiths. He made some of these points at a conference last week at Brighton college

TOP HISTORIANS SAY

Should the study of British history be compulsory up to the age of 16 to create a sense of national identity?

Andrew Roberts: It is a crucial element of assimilation in any society to know that society’s past. This proposal is being discussed by the Conservative party.

Niall Ferguson: I have argued this for a while.

Lisa Jardine: Yes, alongside the study of the classics of English literature.

Tristram Hunt: Events like last summer’s bombings make it even more important to emphasise the ties that bind us as British.