We want to ensure that where religious groups join others in delivering public services, they do so in an entirely secular manner to ensure equality, fairness and human rights are kept at the forefront of the services we all pay for.
The government has been increasingly proactive in trying to involve more faith groups in delivering public services. In 2021, it launched a £1 million 'faith new deal' grant exclusively for religious groups to provide public services. Groups without a religious ethos was ineligible. We have already raised concerns about some of the groups funded by the grant over proselytising and expressing hate about other religions.
An increase in religious organisations becoming providers of publicly-funded services brings with it the risk of some services not being equally open to everyone and free from discrimination.
While one of the aims of outsourcing public services has been to decentralise power, we are concerned that by handing that power over to religious groups, the government has effectively been re-centralising it and making religious community leaders the gatekeepers of public funding.
Many faith-based groups have demonstrated an ability to carry out public service provision without imposing their beliefs on service users. But two main concerns remain about religious groups taking over public service provision: proselytising and discrimination.
An obvious conflict of interest comes out of the government paying a religious group to provide a public service. One of the ways this may manifest is through proselytising.
Some religious groups may use their position as service providers to evangelise to their clients, who will often include people who are particularly vulnerable. In 2020, Danny Kruger MP, in a report for government into maximising the role of civil society in contributing to the government's levelling up agenda, dismissed such concerns as "faith illiteracy" and "faith phobia".
However, research carried out by New Philanthropy Capital suggests such concerns are legitimate. NPC found that around a half of Christian charities in Britain agreed with the statement: "Through our activities we aim to increase the number of people who share our faith".
Many faith groups, however, recognise the importance of respecting reasonable boundaries and agree to deliver public services without proselytising. According to the 2020 Faith responses to modern slavery report from the Universities of Sheffield and Leeds, a number of religious organisations helping survivors of modern slavery have self-imposed safeguards that warn against discussing faith with clients. The report mentions one such organisation which employs "a careful separation of faith" from "day-to-day operations". The report concludes that all organisations in contact with potential survivors of modern slavery should implement the 'non-proselytisation clause' of the Human Trafficking Foundation Slavery and Trafficking Survivor Care Standards.
Additionally, religious ideas concerning, for example, marriage, relationships, sexuality, gender roles, contraception and abortion must be prevented from infiltrating the provision of services or the treatment of both those served and employed.
In its submission to the Parliamentary Public Administration Select Committee about the Big Society agenda, the Unitarian Church said: "We have concerns that some religious groups that seek to take over public services, particularly at local level, could pursue policies and practices that result in increased discrimination against marginalised groups, particularly in service provision and the employment of staff. Non-religious people and those not seen to confirm to the dominant ethos of a religious body, such as being in an unmarried relationship or divorced and being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, could find themselves subject to discrimination."
There are increasing incidences of religious groups or individuals claiming their right to proselytise as freedom of expression. For example, the Christian GP Richard Scott who claimed it was his right to preach to his patients. In this case, the General Medical Council disciplined him for infringing on his patient's rights and breaching best practice guidelines. While expressing religious views is a right, it is one limited by context and by whatever other rights it may impinge on.
No. The opposite is true.
In a 2022 study, over half (55%) of non-Christians who had conversed with practising Christians about Christianity disagreed with the statement, "I felt more positive towards Jesus Christ". Even more, 60%, disagreed with the statement "I wanted to know more about Jesus", and 73% disagreed with "I felt I was missing out by not sharing their faith". Nearly a quarter (23%) indicated that the conversation made them feel uncomfortable. Over half (51%) disagreed with the statement "I felt closer to the person in question" after having a conversation about faith with a Christian.
Exemptions from the Equality Act 2010 allow religious groups to discriminate, both in employment policies and service provision, even when working under contract to provide a public service.
We have found many examples of religious groups funded by local or national government to provide a public service which will only allow members of their religion to work or volunteer for them. This excludes the majority of the general population.
Additionally, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) may not apply to religious groups, since it is not clear whether they constitute 'public authorities'.
There is also a threat to community cohesion. Religious communities themselves are not homogenous but represent a spectrum of beliefs and practices so allowing a religious group to run a service could even disadvantage members of its own religion.
Not particularly – especially when it comes to public services:
- A 2016 YouGov survey found 55% of people have little or no confidence in Church groups running "Crucial social provisions such as education". Only 6% have a lot of confidence. Meanwhile, 65% have no confidence in Church groups running "Crucial social provisions such as healthcare" with only 2% of people expressing a lot of confidence.
- When asked about the support that was available from ten different agencies in a 2021 survey, only 29% of UK adults claimed to feel supported (either highly or somewhat) by religious and faith groups. This was the lowest figure of perceived support from any of the ten agencies mentioned in the questionnaire.
- In 2021, just 24% of Brits claimed to have any trust in the Church of England or organised religion (4% having a great deal of trust and 20% a fair amount). The figure did not exceed 34% (for the over-65s) in any demographic subgroup. Two-thirds of the national population either had not much (36%) or no trust (29%) in the Church or organised religion.
- One person in seven in England and Wales thinks the Church of England should have no social role whatsoever.
- In a 2019 YouGov survey, only 4% of Britons said they would consult a religious leader on any big worries or personal issues they have. In comparison, 54% would consult a friend, 35% their parents, 29% their siblings and 32% other family members.
What's more, British people generally feel negatively, or at least apathetic, about religion:
- In a 2023 YouGov survey, the majority (56%) of Brits said religion has an overall negative influence on the world, against 21% saying it has a positive one.
- A 2017 Ipsos survey found more than six in ten under-65s in Britain think religion does more harm than good.
- 63% of Brits say religion has brought more conflict than peace around the world.
- Just 10% of Brits claim that their religious or spiritual wellbeing can give them greatest happiness. This was the lowest proportion of any of the 27 countries surveyed in 2020. The worldwide mean was 27%.
- 85% of people in Britain think their society is 'very' or 'fairly' divided, and 47% think differences 'between different religions' are among the most significant divisions in the country.
These misgivings about religion are likely rooted in valid concerns rather than often cited 'faithphobia' or 'religious illiteracy'. Despite prevailing mistrust of religion, 82% of Brits would "definitely" or "probably" accept someone from a different religion marrying in to their family, according to a 2019 NatCen survey.
And in a 2020 UK survey designed to measure tolerance towards people who held opposing views on eight different topics, 61% of respondents indicated that it would not matter to them if somebody held the opposite view to their own on whether God exists or not. This was the most tolerant position for any of the eight topics.
Furthermore, Brits draw clear distinctions between religious institutions and religious people. According to a 2022 study, the top qualities non-Christians ascribe to Christians they know are "friendly", "caring" and "good humoured". But the two traits non-Christians ascribe to the church are "hypocritical" and "narrow minded".
The 'faith covenant' was developed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on faith and society in order to guide interactions between local authorities, faith groups and the general public.
The National Secular Society previously supported the faith covenant, because it contained clauses which would help prevent faith groups proselytise or discriminate against people while delivering public services.
But in around 2021, the faith covenant was quietly changed to remove a clause that stipulated faith groups should refrain from proselytising. This change was made following a meeting of the APPG where one religious leader said this clause was a "stumbling block for a couple of churches".
This essential clause was removed, the covenant can no longer be relied upon to protect people from unwanted evangelism. For this reason, we cannot support the current version of the faith covenant and cannot recommend that local authorities use it in its current form.
We recommend:
1. All contracts with religious providers of publicly funded services need to have clear equality, nondiscrimination and non-proselytising clauses in them.
2. The Equality Act should be amended so as to suspend the exemptions for religious groups when they are working under public contract on behalf of the state.
3. The Human Rights Act should be amended so that contractors delivering general public services on behalf of a public authority are defined as public authorities for those activities, and equally subject to the Human Rights Act legislation.
4. Public records of contracts with religious groups should be maintained and appropriate measures for monitoring their compliance with equality and human rights legislation should be put in place.
We want to ensure equal access to healthcare and associated NHS services for all patients and NHS staff irrespective of their religious beliefs. It therefore makes little sense to organise patients' pastoral care around religious identities, especially in a diverse and increasingly irreligious society such as ours.
We therefore think hospital pastoral care should move from a religious service to one equally welcoming to all members of the public. The appointment of NHS chaplains or pastoral care workers must become separate from the faith group or religious affiliation of the applicant.
The present system of hospital chaplaincy services leads to unequal care; many patients do not share the particular religion of the appointed chaplain. Whether or not chaplains offer their services to all, this is not an acceptable compromise for a large proportion of our diverse society who rightly expect and deserve the state to fund non-discriminatory services. Nowhere is this more important than where people are at their most vulnerable: in a hospital environment.
We are also concerned at the lack of formal training afforded to chaplains. Nearly all hospital chaplains are appointed for their religious affiliation rather than for their counselling skills or knowledge of hospital procedure. Chaplains can be called on both by distressed relatives and by highly trained medical and nursing staff following traumatic events. At the very least, their training should be equal to that of the people requiring their services. Unskilled workers can cause harm by involving themselves in situations for which they lack the necessary expertise, however good their intentions.
The major religious bodies in the UK are some of the wealthiest organisations in the country. We contend that if churches, mosques and temples wish to have specific representation in hospitals to visit those patients who want some religious support whilst in hospital, this should be funded by the religious organisations themselves. The role of a non-denominational pastoral care worker might reasonably include signposting patients or relatives at their request to the local faith communities.
Whilst there is little doubt that some patients and relatives receive comfort from visits from clerics, this is not a sufficient condition for NHS funding. There is a wide range of other services which provide support and comfort to patients but lie outside the protected NHS budget. For example, the services provided by Macmillan cancer care nurses, by the Air Ambulance Service and by the Alzheimer's Trust are all funded by charity, not by the NHS. The decision as to which services should be funded by the NHS and which by charities is one for society and the NHS management to make. However, all services deemed suitable for NHS funding should be non-discriminatory both in terms of employment and service provision.
Alternatively, if patients and hospital trusts feel that the pastoral support provided by chaplains is indispensable, we would support the development of secular pastoral support or hospital visiting schemes. Some trusts already provide "Bereavement Centres". These centres can help families with the practicalities of dealing with the death of a relative, can offer a certain amount of emotional support, and may usefully signpost people to other sources of appropriate support outside the hospital.
While seem as an interim measure by some, the creation of one or two humanist or non-religious chaplains is not a solution. It legitimises the current system of religious discrimination and privilege.
There is no more reason for an atheist or humanist organisation to be involved in the appointment of NHS staff than religious organisations. There is no more reason that a non-religious person (who is unlikely to identify as 'humanist') would need pastoral care to be delivered by a specifically humanist/non-religious chaplain, any more than a person of faith.
Finally, we are concerned that the chaplaincy system holds the door open for religious clerics with more sinister agendas to access patients, including Jehovah's Witness elders who wish to stop Jehovah's Witness patients from receiving blood transfusions.
We question the need for religious chaplains in any publicly-funded setting, especially when those chaplains are funded by public money. At present, there is growing awareness that chaplaincy services in prisons are providing an unequal service, where Christians are far more likely to benefit than those of other beliefs.
