Gov\'t deaf to dissent on faith schools

31st March 2002

THE GOVERNMENT IS DEAF TO DISSENTING VOICES ON FAITH SCHOOLS

The great faith schools debate reached a climax in the House of Commons on 6 February, when FRANK DOBSON MP (Lab) and PHIL WILLIS MP (Lib Dem) sought to amend the Education Bill to require faith schools to take a proportion of their pupils from other faiths and none. A further amendment, moved by Dr Evan Harris, was intended to remove the discrimination on religious grounds in the employment of teachers in faith schools.

MPs took impassioned stands on this important topic throughout the six-hour debate on 6 February. But with Labour whipping its members to vote against the amendments and the Tories being against them anyway, any rebel victory was doomed from the start. Nevertheless, such was the strength of feeling on the issue that around 45 Labour MPs defied the whip and voted against the Government.

The Bill is massive: 200 pages long, and so complicated it necessitated explanatory notes running to around 100 pages. (Incidentally, the National Secular Society's response was referred to in the official research paper prepared for MPs.) Yet only two days of debate were allotted to it. Given that it was only in amendments rather than the Bill itself that faith schools were referred to, we were fortunate they were debated at all. Incredibly, in the event, the majority of the debate-to the Government's dismay-was devoted to faith schools.

Suspicions were expressed that the Government had tried to manipulate the business timetable of the House to curtail the debate on faith schools, or at least delay it (and the anticipated rebellion) past the copy deadline for the daily newspapers. These delaying tactics backfired, however, and the faith schools debate took up almost the entire second day. A disturbing consequence of the long faith school debate was that the remaining 30 pages of amendments to the Bill were not be voted on until late at night, without any debate-either in committee or the floor of the house. Another example of our democratic deficit was so little interest being shown in the opinions of the dissenters or the public by the Government, and by its attempts to stifle publicity.

In other respects though, it was reassuring to see that when such a great matter of conscience arises, the House of Commons can rise to the occasion. It was also refreshing to hear full-blooded expression of secular sentiments in Parliament.

Indeed, in moving the amendment (to reduce the exclusivity of selection to those of the 'appropriate' faith) Frank Dobson set out by describing himself as being of "no religious belief whatever". Readers may be surprised, however, that the co-mover of the amendment, Lib Dem Education spokesperson Phil Willis, is a believer and not really a secularist. He told the House that there were some "hon. Members who would frankly like [faith] schools to go altogether. They have that point of view and they support [a] secular society. I do not and that is not Liberal Democrat party policy". Nevertheless, for believers to support this amendment, as many did in the interests of fairness and cohesion, was very much to their credit. Many of those supporting the amendment did not (openly, at least) oppose faith schools in principle. Others, less keen about faith schools and perhaps with an eye to their constituencies, were anxious not to be seen as too hard line. Glenda Jackson had made some excellent secular interventions but vociferously rebutted Conservative accusations that the motive of those supporting the amendment seeking to open up school admissions was "based on some sort of hatred of religion. ... Nothing could be further from the truth", she said.

And some who opposed faith schools in principle, thought that-as we already have so many of them-it would not be practical to convert them into secular schools. Then, thankfully, there were those MPs who expressed total opposition-most notably Alice Mahon, Piara Khabra, Dr Ashok Kumar and the NSS's own Dr Evan Harris.

Some supporters of the amendment were goaded for their stance, but I think only by the Conservatives. Their Andrew Turner fulminated that Evan Harris and other LibDems "want to end not only exclusivity in church schools, but church schools altogether".

FRANK DOBSON

Frank Dobson's continued: "Some ... would question the very basis of a Church-state relationship in which the taxpayer funds religious schools at all. Money taken from taxpayers of all faiths and of none is handed to various groups who knowingly discriminate against certain children and exclude them on the basis of religion. ... People would agree that if we substituted the words "race" or "colour" for the word "religion", such discrimination would be unacceptable."

He debunked the presumption that religious schools are superior, or that they exclusively promote "the spiritual, moral, social, and cultural well-being of children".

Mr Dobson drew attention to the substantial reduction since 1944 in the contribution required from the churches towards buildings costs of the schools they control, (from 50 per cent to 10 percent) and that the amendment was a reasonable quid pro quo for this.

Mr Dobson characterised the main criticisms directed at the selection amendment as being:

1. "an unwarranted, draconian interference, which would cause huge problems and a major upheaval"; and

2. "are wholly unnecessary because religious schools are already doing what we propose."

"One or other of those propositions might be true, but both cannot be, and as it happens, I think that they are both wrong", he insisted. He concluded by referring to opinion polls critical of faiths schools and pointing to religious organisations who state they aim for 'inclusivity' but do not achieve that aim. It is only in cases where they do not achieve it that the amendment would make any difference, he noted.

The Secretary of State is challenged by ALICE MAHON

Alice Mahon had already played an significant role in the run up to the debate by sponsoring an Early Day Motion critical of faith schools. When it came to the debate itself, she intervened during a speech being made by the Secretary of State for Education, Estelle Morris, to contradict her, despite both women sitting on the Labour benches: "My right hon. Friend knows that the admissions policy in most Church schools is built on a lie. She talks about the commonality between the Church and the school. Why, then, do only about 8 per cent. of adults in this country attend church, whereas in America, where there is a separation of Church and state education, the churches are full?"

Mrs Mahon's intervention provoked Estelle Morris into a candid declaration of her own beliefs: "People do not have to go to church to say that they belong to a particular faith. For the record, I am a confirmed member of the Church of England but, to be open about it, I do not attend church regularly; I go only at Christmas-and [to laughter]-for constituency carol services."

Ms Morris's tone was far for strident. She may privately have accepted that, despite the whip, this issue really was a matter of conscience. Also, the Westminster rumour mill suggests that the Government's almost defiant encouragement of faith schools emanates from the No.10 policy unit, rather than her own department.

Could another reason for the charm offensive, and at times her turning to directly address her own back benchers have been that the members she was most anxious to win over were the potential rebels in her own party? One of their number, Jon Owen Jones, rather let the cat out of the bag when he referred to "the numerous calls that I and other [Labour MPs] received at the weekend. The Government are clearly somewhat sensitive about how we might wish to vote on the matter of faith schools."

What an extraordinary debate this was: the 'enemy' was behind her and the Conservatives opposite, her friends.

Apart from Estelle Morris's rebuttal of the amendment, the longest and most sustained attacks on it were from the Conservative benches by Andrew Turner and John Selwyn Gummer (a former cabinet minister, former CofE Synod member and a late convert to Roman Catholicism). He considers "It is important for the House to understand that for many people the religious content of education is the most important part of education. ...To deny children the right to go to a school where that is the central tenet upon which all depends is a very sad denial of freedom."

He also asserted, contentiously, that: "all major social advance in this country has been carried through by those who have been motivated by their religious faith. ..."

The Established Church's representative, MP Stuart Bell, referred to the Church's "historic partnership with the Government" and the concordat of 1944." He did not point out that, since then, church attendance had halved.

ALICE MAHON'S own speech

When Mrs Mahon got her own turn she really let rip: "The most important thing we can do is to help [pupils] to live together in understanding-not segregated and attending different schools. We shall then have a more cohesive and decent society.

"I also want to speak up for the 40 per cent. of people who admit to no religion. By and large, they have been excluded from the debate until now-and possibly from [Labour's] manifesto." (Frank Dobson had also bemoaned earlier the "rejection and exclusion" from religious schools of the children from non-religious families.)

"I am the child of humanist, socialist parents", Mrs Mahon continued. "I went to a Church primary school because it was the only school in the village, so I had early experience of how it feels to be treated differently in school-because my parents were different.

"Like [Estelle Morris], I want a level playing field, but perhaps mine would be different: I want all our schools to be secular. Newfoundland has just got rid of its Church schools. That is a good thing and will enhance integration. I realise that that course is not possible for us, but [the amendment] will help us to progress to greater integration.

"I challenge the notion that religion is a precondition for morality. It is not. A child brought up without religion can be a moral human being who knows the difference between right and wrong. We must challenge the notion that religion and morality are necessarily the same.

"My experience of life shows me that many agnostics, atheists and humanists are often more tolerant than religious people. Many of my non-believer friends do not believe in capital punishment and do not want to drop bombs on civilians. However, I have many friends who are Christian or Muslim or from other faiths who hold the opposite view. We should not assume that just because people are religious they are superior to us. If we extend the number of faith schools, we are making the assumption that their religion makes them superior.

"I want to sing the praises of teachers in community schools. Their moral values are no less than those of someone who opts to teach in a religious school. We should praise those teachers for their teaching about humanity and human values. When they talk about inclusivity, we should praise them-not denigrate them.

She also attributed church schools better results to their creaming off the best pupils. Frank Dobson had been even more pointed: "They take less than their share of deprived children and more than their share of children from middle-class backgrounds".

They both expressed concern about the adverse implications of faiths schools for race and religious relations, citing the north west England riots and Northern Ireland. LibDem David Rendel also referred to Northern Ireland, most movingly. He recalled politicians rejecting integrated schools there 25 years - a generation - ago because they wanted a much quicker solution. Asian MPs Piara Khabra and Dr Ashok Kumar also hammered home during the dangers of single faith schools impeding racial integration.

"I recognise that I am in a minority in the House", Alice Mahon went on, "in saying that I want secular education in all our schools. Obviously, we will not get it with the new clauses and the amendment. Faith schools are about division and I have had personal experience of that. They are also about selection. They encourage parents to lie about attendance at church. Only 8 per cent. of adults attend church in this country. People who do not agree with faith schools and do not want any more of them often ask me why the rest of us should pay to indoctrinate children in only one religion when our churches are empty. They ask why the churches are not doing their job. If their religion is so good, let them fill the churches. ... Religious schools discriminate against everyone who is not of their faith."

"I urge the Prime Minister to listen to this debate and to those of us who have spoken against having more faith schools. Let him, for once, listen to us, especially after 11 September. The last thing that we want is more division and segregation in society." Mrs Mahon concluded: "I have come to believe that in 2002 we must try to work towards a secular state education system that is bothered about education and not indoctrination."

Alice Mahon, House of Commons 6 February 2002

Discrimination against Teachers - Dr EVAN HARRIS

When the National Secular Society first brought to Dr Evan Harris's attention Sections 58 and 60 of the Schools Standards & Framework Act 1998, which licenses discrimination against teachers in publicly funded faith schools, he resolved then to move the amendment to repeal them. He was most gracious about the help the NSS had given the LibDems in making these amendments, although we made clear that they did not go nearly far enough in that they do not abolish faith schools, an objective which Dr. Harris also supports. (I should note here that the Society will work with any party if it seeks to progress our agenda.)

Dr. Harris opened by referring to one of his constituents, Professor Richard Dawkins, whose excellent open letter to the Prime Minister on faith schools had been referred to earlier. "He is, like me, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, which I want to declare as an interest. I am grateful to the NSS for advice on the issues covered by [the amendment he was moving]".

This prompted a question from the Conservative benches: "As a member of the National Secular Society, does the hon. Gentleman find it odd that he secured his place for today's debate by using a prayer card?" Dr. Harris responded with a wry smile: "I am not sure that I am guilty of that, because the prayer card is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). I have views on the use of Prayers to obtain a seat, but I do not want to try the patience of the Chair, so I shall stick to new clause 2."

He tore the offending sections of the Schools Standards & Framework Act apart: "The provisions are ... discriminatory in that teachers of faith can teach anywhere. They can apply for any job in any school-religious and non-religious-but a secular or atheist teacher cannot teach in some schools and is therefore deprived of certain opportunities. The legislation in effect gives the small number of teachers who teach from a religious perspective privileged access to a large number-100,000-odd-of publicly funded jobs. That number would become even larger if more faith schools emerged from the Government's proposals. That amounts to institutionalised discrimination, as there is no counterbalancing body of community schools where teachers who are not committed to some faith are favoured over teachers who are religious. ... It is possible that teachers in some localities, especially rural ones, will have difficulty in obtaining employment unless they are or claim to be of the requisite faith. "The provisions militate against the best interests of pupils because what matters to the education of our children is having the best teacher at that subject and not the church attendance of a teacher.

"How religious in any school does one need to be to teach mathematics, French or science? Does one need a working knowledge of Genesis to teach geology?

"Given that there is ... a specific shortage of faith-based teachers, given the small proportion of the population who are members of the Church of England, for example-there is a worry that teachers who are not as good as others will be appointed, especially if the number of faith schools increases.

The NSS feels particularly strongly about this issue, and coincidentally just the day before the debate I had a private meeting at the Cabinet Office with Barbara Roche, the Minister dealing with equality issues. One of the matters I raised was the injustice of this discrimination against teachers who are not of the requisite faith.

The outcome

Despite Evan Harris's moving and excellent speech, there was no Division on his amendment because, sadly, it had no prospect of success. The debate was guillotined just before 10pm, (deliberately?) precluding the Government from having to address the points made by those supporting the amendments. There was, however, a division on the amendment on selection; it was lost by 87 to 405 votes.

It may have been a walkover, but it was also the largest Labour Commons rebellion in this Parliament.