Newsline 15 January 2016

Newsline 15 January 2016

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Church of England collapse strengthens the case for a secular UK

News | Tue, 12th Jan 2016

Weekly attendance at Church of England services has fallen below 1 million for the first time – bolstering the argument for a secular state.

New figures released by the Church show that just 1.4% of England's population attend Sunday services with the Church of England. 980,000 people attend church each week, based on figures from a survey carried out in October 2014, and there has been a 12% decrease in church attendance in the past ten years; equivalent to an average decline of little over 1% a year.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, commented: "Church of England attendance now appears to have fallen well below 2% of the population, and looks set to fall further given the preponderance of older churchgoers. This seriously calls into question its privileged access to political power and right to remain the established church. Indeed, it is inappropriate for there to be any established religion in a modern pluralistic society, far less one where the majority do not consider themselves to be religious."

Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, said that there was an "anti-Christian culture" but added that while "many talk of the post-Christian society" the Church of England "educates more than a million children in our schools."

The Archbishop claimed that the "Church of England is still a primary source of leadership for communities" but that culture in the UK was "becoming anti-Christian, whether it is on matters of sexual morality, or the care for people at the beginning or the end of life."

Mr Wood said that "Adults continue to turn away from the church in droves, and even many of those who consider themselves Christian reject the Church's policy on ethical matters such as same sex marriage. Sunday schools have all-but disappeared, so the Church is determined to force its influence on the population though faith schools – and is only able to do this because the running costs are paid from public funds."

Addressing the most recent measure of the collapse in Anglican church attendance, the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt. Revd. Graham James, said he did not expect the trend to change soon, but denied that the decline was inevitable. "We lose approximately 1% of our churchgoers to death each year. Given the age profile of the CofE, the next few years will continue to have downward pressure as people die or become housebound and unable to attend church."

Polling by YouGov around Easter of 2015 found that 62% of Britons says they are "not religious".

NSS backs plans for better safeguarding in supplementary schools

News | Mon, 11th Jan 2016

The National Secular Society has expressed broad support for Government plans to safeguard children and young people who attend "out-of-school education settings", including madrassas, with a system of registration and inspection.

The NSS, which first raised concerns about child welfare in supplementary school settings with the Government in 2011, described proposals to tackle the problem as "long overdue but very welcome."

The Government has been consulting on plans to enable action to be taken where out-of-school educational settings are failing to safeguard the welfare of children, which includes failing to protect them from the harm caused by extremism. The proposal will cover settings providing "intensive tuition, instruction or training" where children attend over six hours per week, including evenings and weekends.

The proposals outlined by the Department for Education will require supplementary schools to carry out background checks on staff and prohibit corporal punishment on out-of-school educational settings – a move long called for the by NSS.

The NSS's response highlighted reports of over 400 allegations of physical abuse in British madrassas between 2008 and 2011, revealed by freedom of information requests carried out by the BBC.

The response also welcomed plans to crack down on "undesirable teaching", stressing that "children in any educational setting should not be subjected to extremist teaching and indoctrination into hateful, intolerant and misogynistic ideologies."

However, the NSS warned that the regulation of out-of-school settings should be focused through the lens of safeguarding rather than security. It also reiterated the need to strengthen and empower civil society responses to extremism and sectarianism, and be mindful of genuine religious freedom concerns.

It is thought that just under a half of British mosques, from which madrassas are often run, are under the control of the ultra-conservative Deobandi movement, with a further 6% estimated to be influenced by Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. The NSS expressed hope that registration coupled with risk-based, rather than routine, inspections of madrassas would empower parents who had previously been worried about raising concerns with their mosque.

Despite recognising a particular problem with some Islamic out-of-school settings, the NSS response noted that other faith-based settings have "the clear potential to incubate divisions and indoctrinate children with views that run counter to British values rooted in human rights."

The Northern Council of Mosques, an organisation which represents 400 mosques, has said the plan "unduly encroaches on the legitimate right of faith providers to teach their children their faith" and that they "unequivocally" reject the proposals to register madrassas. Christian pressure groups have also warned that plans pose "a huge challenge to Christian freedoms".

The NSS restated its commitment to religious freedom in the consultation, but Stephen Evans, the National Secular Society's campaigns manager, rejected the "alarmist" and "vastly overblown" claims from some religious groups that the proposals amounted to an "attack on religious freedom."

In its consultation response the NSS argued: "The state has a duty to protect and uphold children's rights - to ensure that each and every child is safeguarded from harm and gets the best possible start in life. It should fulfil its duty equally for all children and young people, regardless of their religious background."

Mr Evans added: "Out-of-school educational settings, including religious supplementary schools, are a poorly regulated area and there is clear evidence of need for a new system of registration, regulation and inspection to ensure that children in such settings are safeguarded.

"The teaching of intolerance and violence in out-of-school educational settings has the clear potential to cause irreparable damage to the minds of young people and to wider society. It's right that the Government seeks to address this.

"Religious freedom is not absolute and the Government's willingness to balance parental rights and religious freedom against children's' and young people's independent rights – as well as wider societal interests – should be welcomed."

The Government has also insisted that the proposals are "not about regulating religion or infringing people's freedom to follow a particular faith or hold particular beliefs."

"Through this proposal, we are seeking to ensure that those who work in positions of trust and influence with children and young people respect those with different faiths and beliefs and do not, in expressing their individual beliefs, promote intolerance against others," it stated.

In his speech to the 2015 Conservative Party conference, Prime Minister David Cameron told delegates: "If an institution is teaching children intensively, then whatever its religion, we will, like any other school, make it register so it can be inspected."

The National Secular Society's full response to the consultation can be read in full here.

Ultra-Orthodox schools still use corporal punishment, say campaigners

News | Wed, 13th Jan 2016

A charity and support group for former Ultra-Orthodox Jews has warned the Government that corporal punishment is widely used in unregistered Orthodox schools.

In a submission on the regulation of "out-of-school education settings" which provide more than six hours of education per week, the GesherEU support network said that "corporal punishment is still in use in a number of the yeshivot and unregistered ultra-Orthodox primary schools." The group said up to 5,500 pupils could be studying in such settings.

One former pupil quoted in the consultation response reported that "hitting children was part of [the] routine; I personally was hit almost on a daily basis."

Proposals set out by the Government include plans to ensure that corporal punishment is not a practice adopted in out-of-school settings – a move welcomed by the National Secular Society.

In 2011 the NSS called on the Government to implement the recommendations of an independent report on physical punishment and extend the ban on physical punishment in schools and other children's settings to supplementary schools.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "Corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental rights to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. Its legality in out-of-school educational settings breaches their right to equal protection under the law. The lack of progress on this issue has given us cause for concern, especially in light of the well-documented evidence of abuse of children in out-of-school settings, including madrassas and yeshiva. Like GesherEU, we're keen to see children in such settings adequately safeguarded."

In addition to concerns about corporal punishment and poor hygiene standards at Orthodox schools, GesherEU made strong criticisms of the teaching at such institutions.

The group cited anonymous testimony from a former pupil of one Orthodox school, who said that "no secular studies were taught at all" during long school days from 8 until 6, and classes would "sit all day long and study religious texts."

GesherEU said that schools were failing their pupils: "In many cases they do not even teach them to speak English or simple arithmetic. They teach in Yiddish and Yiddish is spoken at home. Many young men leave with almost no ability to speak English. We have to support young men in particular that do not have one GCSE to their name, cannot get a job, and have no skills to manage their lives."

An emergency inspection of one strict Charedi school recently reported that the careers advice "focuses only on steering boys towards continuing with their academic studies in religious institutions."

The inspectorate was criticised by GesherEU for failing to challenge registered Charedi schools which "teach only in Yiddish, indoctrinate the young children and fail to teach the basics."

‘Driving ban’ Charedi school criticised by Ofsted after emergency inspection

News | Tue, 12th Jan 2016

A school which threatened a 'ban' on mothers driving their children to school has been criticised by Ofsted for failing to sufficiently promote "pupils' safety and well-being."

In an emergency inspection commissioned by the Department for Education, Ofsted found that the Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School was failing to meet independent school standards and raised concerns about safeguarding of pupils at the school.

The strict Charedi school's founding principle is described as "unconditional adherence to the Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law)" and Ofsted said that school leaders "are aware that this disregards the protected characteristic of sexual orientation within the 2010 Equality Act."

Inspectors were critical about the provision of non-religious education, and said that the secular curriculum was "variable" at best. While the curriculum policy "makes reference to linguistic, mathematical, scientific, technological, human and social, physical, and aesthetic and creative education" Ofsted found that in fact this was not well delivered.

School leaders "do not consider how all curriculum areas should be developed and taught" and asserted that "English tuition beyond Key Stage 3 is provided at home."

There were further problems with the careers advice provided at the school, which "focuses only on steering boys towards continuing with their academic studies in religious institutions."

"No provision" is currently made for "boys who may wish to progress with other careers," the report said.

Safeguarding concerns were also raised and inspectors wrote that "The school does not promote pupils' safety and well-being well enough."

Dates for when pupils join and leave the school are not recorded and a "lack of information" about pupils' further studies after leaving the schools means "the school does not know if pupils are safe or missing."

Issues such as "child sexual exploitation, faith abuse, forced marriage and preventing radicalisation are not considered" in the safeguarding policy.

Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School attracted significant controversy in 2015 after Belz rabbis said that women driving went against "the traditional rules of modesty" for their sect, and that children would be prevented from attending schools if they were driven there by their mothers.

In June 2015 the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the two schools involved had issued a "satisfactory response" and that the EHRC would not take any legal action over the matter.

Ofsted inspected the school in July 2015, at the request of the DfE.

Bishop Ball case: Questions for Lord Carey

Opinion | Mon, 11th Jan 2016

With the release of some of the letters written in support of Bishop Ball during the 1992-1993 police investigation, particularly those written by prominent people, we're starting to see more clearly how Ball was protected, writes legal specialist on child abuse Richard Scorer.

The spotlight has rightly fallen on former Archbishop Carey, who seems reluctant to discuss the subject. In response to further revelations in The Times, a spokesman for Carey said that he was "abroad" and "unlikely to be able to comment". But the questions mount, and we need to hear from him.

Before itemising those questions, just to recap what we now know: firstly,
that on 5 February 1993, Carey wrote to the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire regarding the allegations against Ball. In this letter Carey described the allegations against Ball as "most improbable" and asserted that "if he is guilty of unprofessional behaviour it is quite unrepresentative of his style". Whilst noting that "special pleading" on Ball's behalf would be "entirely inappropriate", Carey went on to explain to the Chief Constable that he felt "justified in drawing to your attention the excruciating pain and torment " which these allegations have inevitably brought upon Ball, whom Carey described as a "wonderful and honourable man" (if this isn't "special pleading", I'm not sure what is). We also know that in March 1993 Carey wrote to the DPP, Barbara Mills, pressing her to make a decision quickly given Ball's "fragile health" (interesting, isn't it, when "fragile health" is deployed by child abusers facing charges: as it turned out, Ball was well enough to face trial in 2015, some 22 years later).

Secondly, we now know that in January 1993, i.e. the month before Carey wrote this letter, he had been in receipt of a report about Ball's conduct from his chief of staff, the Right Rev Ronald Gordon. We don't have a full copy of this report; all we have is a heavily redacted version disclosed (pursuant to a data protection request) to a man who had written to Carey in December 1992 to express his concerns about Ball's behaviour some 10 years previously. This man, who wishes to remain anonymous (I'll call him AB), has kindly passed this redacted version to me.

Despite the redactions, it's clear that this report followed a long meeting between Gordon and Ball in January 1993 (Gordon's report helpfully records that the meeting lasted from 11.30am to 2:10pm "with a short break for sandwiches"). During the meeting Gordon and Ball discussed "correspondence the Archbishop had received referring to past events in Ball's life". Gordon's report records that he felt no need to ask for more detail of what happened between AB and Ball as "there is already enough evidence to suggest a picture of what has been happening". The clear implication of the unredacted parts of the report is that a number of pieces of evidence about Ball's behaviour had come to the church's attention – enough in fact to "suggest a clear picture of what has been happening", namely, the widespread and systematic abuse of young men.

And yet only a few days later Carey wrote to the Chief Constable claiming that the allegation which the police were investigating (i.e. from Neil Todd) was "improbable" and "quite unrepresentative" of Ball's behaviour.

Further, in September 2015 Carey stated that: "I have seen a number of reports which appear to give the misleading impression that I interfered with the process of justice by contacting the Crown Prosecution Service. I only did so after Ball had been cautioned".

We now know, from the recent release of the letters, that this is plainly not correct: Ball wrote to the Chief Constable on 5 February 1993; he wrote to the CPS on 2 March 1993; and it was only after those letters that the prosecution of Ball was abandoned and a caution administered.

As I told The Times, unless Carey has a very good explanation, this has all the hallmarks of a cover-up. So two things now need to happen: the Gordon report now needs to be released in full, and Carey needs to answer the following questions:

- Why did you tell the Chief Constable in February 1993 that the allegation against Ball being investigated by the police was "improbable" and "unrepresentative" when you appear to have had an internal report suggesting otherwise?

- Why didn't you share the additional information in that report with the police, so they could follow up further lines of enquiry?

- Why did you procure for Ball a guarantee of no further prosecution, despite knowing of other allegations against him? (Maybe this question answers itself...).

-Why did you allow Ball to continue to officiate at services after being cautioned, despite having a "picture of what has been happening"?

- Why did you claim last year that you only wrote to the authorities after the caution, when this wasn't the case?

These questions matter a great deal. With the 1993 caution deal, Ball escaped justice for 22 years. One of his victims, Neil Todd, no doubt bitterly frustrated by the failure of the authorities to accord his allegations the seriousness they deserved, committed suicide. And Ball's other victims were left to nurse their pain, not knowing that many others shared their wounds. Although Carey is no longer Archbishop of Canterbury, he remains a senior figure in the Church of England: so if anyone is going to take seriously Archbishop Welby's claim that the church now puts victims first, Carey needs to give a full explanation of his actions. Those who have suffered so grievously from Ball's behaviour deserve nothing less.

Richard Scorer is Head of the Abuse Team at Slater and Gordon lawyers. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and may not represent the views of the NSS.

NSS Speaks Out

In the past week the NSS has been widely quoted on the collapse in Church of England attendance and its implications for secularism, with executive director Keith Porteous Wood's response appearing in the Guardian, Daily Mail, Mirror, Polish Express and in local papers. Campaigns manager Stephen Evans discussed the news with BBC Sussex and Surrey radio.

Keith was also quoted in the Sunday Times and spoke on Radio 5 Live, Radio Somerset and Radio Gloucester about the actions of the Church of England in the case of former bishop Peter Ball.

The NSS was also mentioned by the BBC in a story about council prayers in Wales, and we discussed this with BBC Radio Wales. Our part in the broad coalition that defended Pastor James McConnell's right to free expression was noted in the Economist.