Copyright: (C) BHA 15
Michael Gove told MPs on the cross-party Commons education committee: ‘There are concerns about inappropriate faith groups using this legislation to push their own agenda, but we have been working on the regulations to ensure that we don't have any extremist groups taking over schools.’ The Secretary of State additionally assured the committee that there would be no creationism taught as part of a school's science curriculum.

Gove also told MPs that he ‘recognised that there are some people who explicitly do not want their children educated in a faith-based setting’ and encouraged atheists to start their own schools.

BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said:

‘We are pleased that the Secretary of State has finally responded to some of the concerns that humanist MPs and peers have raised throughout the Academies Act’s passage through Parliament. We welcome his assurances in relation to the dangers of the influence of fundamentalist religious groups in our school system.’

‘However, there is nothing in the Academies Act itself that will prevent children being exposed to religious indoctrination, nor to stop any particular group from applying to run a state-funded free school. We want to see the government introduce robust safeguards, such as legislative change and statutory guidance, to support today’s assurances.’

Commenting on the question of “atheist free schools”, Mr Copson continued:

‘The BHA campaigns for totally inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none. In our view, many inclusive community schools are already more or less humanist in their ethos and values. If compulsory collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced, community schools would indeed be humanist in all but name, open and accommodating to all.’]]>
Throughout the passage of the Bill the BHA worked closely with parliamentarians, particularly members of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. The Group’s secretary Lady Massey tabled a number of amendments in the Lords, as did its vice chair Dr Julian Huppert MP in the Commons. These covered issues such as discrimination in admissions policies and the risk of extreme religious views being included in the new Academies’ curricula. Other MPs, including David Ward, Caroline Lucas and committed Catholic Tom Blenkinsop, also spoke out against ‘faith schools’ following extensive briefing by the BHA.

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips commented:

‘The BHA has continually warned that the Academies Act will increase the power of religious groups in the English schools system but the government has largely ignored our concerns. We are dismayed that the Academies Act has passed into law with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, but there is still much we can do to fight the expansion of “faith Academies”.’

‘The Act contains the loosest of frameworks for how the new religious Academies will operate so we will seek to influence accompanying guidance to minimise their negative impact. We will scrutinise the curricula of new ‘faith Academies’ and raise awareness if it appears religious dogma, such as creationism, is threatening pupils’ rights to a balanced education. We will also support local campaigns against new religious Academies as they are proposed.’]]>
Each year the Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) produces its State of Children's Rights in England report, a detailed analysis of government progress in complying with the Convention on the Rights of the Child over the last year. CRAE called upon organisations working in the field of human rights to contribute information they felt relevant to establishing the extent of government progress on children's rights over the last year.

The BHA contributed an analysis of recent government guidance, policy initiatives and legal judgements related to three key areas: religious discrimination in 'faith schools', Sex and Relationships Education and Religious Education. The BHA found that, while progress has been made in the last year, these advances need to be reflected in statutory provisions. The BHA's contribution also warned that the coalition government's education reforms may significantly weaken the protection of children's rights.

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips said:

'We work through our campaigns and with other organisations, including children's rights organisations and those directly representing young people, to secure robust legal protections for children’s rights not least in the field of education. There are a number of key human rights issues in education and we have concerns that some education reforms of the previous and present governments may in effect have a deleterious effect on children’s freedom of expression and belief. All organisations working to protect children's rights must be especially vigilant at this time of fundamental change in the school system.'
]]>
The government response acknowledges the lack of evidence supporting homeopathy but insists that patient choice, rather than the efficacy of a medicine, is a guiding factor in the commissioning of services, and that decisions concerning the use of homeopathic services are to be deferred to local Primary Care Trusts. Although the government recognises that the majority of independent scientists have found ‘evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy to be weak or absent, and that there is currently no plausible scientific mechanism for homeopathy’, this informed body of evidence has not been adopted as government policy.

Naomi Phillips, the BHA’s Head of Public Affairs commented, ‘We believe the government should be sending a clear and unequivocal message that homeopathy does not work and that it should stop NHS funding of homeopathic remedies altogether, instead of permitting continued funding for homeopathy under the rubric of patient choice. The commissioning of services that are known not to work is irrational, ethically questionable, and it may divert funds away from services that are of proven value.’
]]>
Naomi Phillips, BHA Head of Public Affairs, said, ‘PSHE and good SRE are important subjects that, as part of a broad, balanced and objective curriculum, helps to equip students with skills, knowledge and confidence they need for healthy, fulfilling and safe relationships now and in later life. Parents, teachers, and young people themselves have long called for PSHE to be made a statutory part of the National Curriculum in all state schools, understanding that change would significantly improve the standard and quality of the subject. It was with great regret that legal reforms set to do so were dropped at the end of the last parliament.

‘As part of our commitment to promoting and ensuring children’s rights to a good education and unbiased information, we are working closely with a wide range of other organisations, as well as with our supporters in parliament, to seek ways to improve the provision of SRE in all schools. From our perspective, making PSHE statutory, with no parental right of withdrawal, is a vital first step.’]]>
The Council for Learning Outside the Classroom was established by the previous government to promote educational visits for schoolchildren. Its Quality Badge is intended to assist schools in identifying external organisations, such as museums, who are 'committed to providing high quality teaching and learning experiences'. The Quality Badge was awarded to Noah’s Ark Zoo following a visit by assessors in June.

The BHA is writing to the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom urging them to retract the award.

BHA education campaigns officer James Gray said:

‘This is an appalling decision. It is entirely inappropriate that the Council should support an establishment that advances creationism and seeks to discredit a wide variety of established scientific facts that challenge their religious views, such as radio carbon dating, the fossil record and the speed of light.’

‘Teachers and parents look to the Council for assurance that children will experience high quality educational visits that meet the relevant government guidelines. Awarding this particular zoo a Quality Badge risks exposing hundreds of children to anti-scientific dogma.'

‘This is not a freedom of speech or freedom of religion issue. The question is whether the information displayed by this zoo meets the tests of accuracy and truth that parents, teachers and other educational professionals expect.']]>
Amendments tabled by Dr Julian Huppert MP, vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, would have prevented or restricted religious discrimination in the new Academies’ admissions policies. Dr Huppert said ‘Many state-funded ‘faith schools’ use privileges to have highly selective admissions criteria, giving preference to the children of parents with particular beliefs... Separating children by religion, class and ethnicity is totally antithetical to the aims of social cohesion.’

Speaking in support of the amendments, Karen Buck MP asked why ‘across the piece and on average, faith schools have an intake that is substantially less deprived than maintained schools’.

In response, schools minister Nick Gibb confirmed that the government will allow existing ‘faith schools’ to continue operating discriminatory admissions policies when they become Academies, while refusing to protect the inclusive nature of community schools. Mr Gibb also confirmed that existing ‘faith schools’ which do not currently discriminate could increase the proportion of faith places after becoming Academies. Mr Gibb defended such discrimination by saying that many ‘faith schools’ ‘maintain their strong religious ethos by ensuring that a significant proportion of their children are faith adherents’.

Responding to Mr Gibb, David Ward MP said ‘Frankly, to hear people talk about the special ethos of faith schools makes me quite angry, because it is a slap in the face for all those other non-faith schools that have a fabulous ethos, are loving and caring, and provide a good education for children.'

Concerns were also raised about the restrictive curriculum that could be taught in new ‘faith Academies’. Caroline Lucas MP said ‘there will be no requirement on academies to teach evolution, and the Government do not even appear to have plans to prevent the teaching of creationism in academies.’

Speaking in support of an opposition amendment which would have made PSHE compulsory in Academies, Dr Lucas went on to say ‘The British Humanist Association has asked, legitimately, whether a new, state-funded, Catholic academy would be allowed not to teach sexual reproduction in biology lessons, let alone wider and more objective sex and relationships education. Again, as far as we can see, nothing in the new, deregulated system proposed by the Bill would seem to prohibit that from happening. ‘

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips said:

‘The reality is that new religious Academies will be able to discriminate against children on religious grounds, excluding those of the ‘wrong’ or no religion. It will prevent many existing ‘faith schools’ from ever becoming inclusive and could lead to some discriminating in admissions when they didn’t before. By freeing these new ‘faith Academies’ from the national curriculum, the Bill could also expose children to extreme religious views, including creationism.’

‘The majority of the public are concerned about the influence of religious groups in our schools, but the Government has simply refused to address their concerns. It has rushed through this legislation without proper scrutiny and in doing so risks permanently entrenching religious discrimination and privilege in our schools system. It will be parents, teachers and children themselves who will be left to pick up the pieces.’
]]>
Naomi Phillips, BHA Head of Public Affairs, commented, ‘We need a law on assisted dying that is sensible, ethical and forward-thinking. Legal cases highlight the need for the law to distinguish between where a person has compassionately assisted another to die, and where that was done with malicious intent or murder. However, it is for parliament to legislate for that change and it has thus far failed to do so, leaving those who help a terminally ill or incurably suffering loved one to die facing life imprisonment, and taking away autonomy and choice for people at end of life.

‘Ultimately, we want assisted dying to be legalised in the UK. Without those legal reforms, those who are vulnerable remain at risk because legal safeguards, which would accompany the legalisation of assisted dying, are not in place to protect them from coercion or other malice. Now is the time for parliamentarians to reform the law to one that upholds people’s fundamental human right to die with dignity, in a manner of their choosing, and protects those who are motivated by compassion to assist another’s death.’

]]>
Pepper Harow, BHA Campaigns Officer, commented, ‘It is of some concern that the government has again chosen to focus on “faith groups” in its vision for the “Big Society”, with no mention of the contribution of non-religious people to local communities and wider society. There is a myth that religious individuals volunteer more, give more to charity and are more active in local communities but that is simply not the case. We know that non-religious people are hugely active in equality work, education, community development and many other areas.’

‘To suggest that Christianity and other religions were somehow sidelined or suppressed by the last government is ridiculous. Aside from the continuing privileges in law for religious groups and individuals, religious organisations received millions of pounds in public money and the Communities and Local Government Department gained a dedicated “Faiths Directorate.” Their policy encouraged religious groups to run public services and the government spent a huge budget on “interfaith week.” This is a policy that we would not like the coalition government to pursue itself. Only by recognising the contribution to civil society of the voluntary sector as a whole can the “Big Society” agenda be truly inclusive.’]]>
An ICM poll commissioned by the BHA found that 72% of the public are concerned that the Academies Bill could lead to taxpayers’ money being used to promote religion. The figure includes over a third (35%) of the public who said that they were “very concerned”. The poll also found that 67% think religious Academies should be required to teach pupils about other beliefs, including non-religious ones.

BHA Head of Public Affairs Naomi Phillips said:

‘Before MPs have had a chance to debate the Academies Bill, the government has already stated that it has no plans to prevent creationist teaching in its new “faith” Academies, citing its desire to free schools from prescriptive curricula. This is remarkable given the fact that it is nonetheless requiring all of its new Academies to teach RE and hold daily acts of collective worship.’

‘The reality is that new religious Academies will be able to discriminate against children and staff on religious grounds, excluding those of the ‘wrong’ or no religion. It will prevent many existing “faith schools” from ever becoming inclusive and could expose children to extreme religious views, including creationism.’

‘The results of our poll show that there are widely shared concerns about the government’s new “faith Academies”. Time and time again parents tell us that they want an inclusive local community school for their children. By rushing this Bill through Parliament the government risks permanently entrenching religious segregation in the school system, against the wishes of parents, teachers and local communities.’

Over 300 ‘faith schools’, including a number of fee-paying schools, have already registered their interest in taking on Academy status. Religious Academies and ‘free schools’ created by the Bill would be free from local authority control, allowing them to teach their own curriculum, set their own admissions and employment policies and change the lengths of terms and school days. The government is protecting the privileges that “faith schools” currently enjoy to allow them to discriminate on religious grounds and some schools may even be allowed to discriminate more against teachers, non-teaching staff and in admissions than they are currently permitted to.

The BHA’s concerns are outlined in detail in its briefing for MPs on the Bill, ahead of this afternoon’s “second reading” of the Bill in the House of Commons.
]]>
The BHA has been working closely with members of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group to investigate the potential impact of new religious Academies that will be created as a result of the Bill. The BHA has identified a number of areas – such us admissions, employment and curriculum – where the Bill could significantly increase the power and influence of religious groups in the schools system. BHA supporters have begun writing to their MPs to urge them to raise these issues.

The member action follows the release of an ICM poll commissioned by the BHA which found that 72% of the public were concerned that the Academies Bill could lead to public money being used to promote religion.

BHA Head of Public Affairs Naomi Phillips said:

“The Government is attempting to steamroller this legislation through Parliament so we have very little time to make an impact. What’s at stake is the very principle of inclusive education which ensures a broad-based and objective education to all children, regardless of their parents’ beliefs.”

“Campaigns work best when persuasive arguments are backed by strong public support. It is vital that everyone concerned about the expansion of religious Academies contacts their MP as soon as possible.”]]>
The BHA’s response was submitted through the Sex Education Forum, a collaborative network of over 50 member organisations committed to ensuring young people experience objective and non-judgmental sex education. The BHA’s head of public affairs Naomi Phillips is a member of the forum’s policy working group, helping to set its strategic direction and formulate its responses to government policy.

Naomi Phillips commented:

“The BHA welcomes the draft guidance as an important contribution to the evidence base on sex and relationships education. We did however raise a number of concerns about the language used in the guidance, which we feel gives undue prominence to religious views. The BHA would also like to see NICE tackle the issue of ‘faith schools’ directly, as we know that many struggle to provide good sex education. We are particularly concerned how crucial issues such as contraception, safe sex, and different sexualities are taught in religious schools.”

“Ultimately the BHA wants to see sex and relationships education become a statutory part of the curriculum, with no religious opt outs. We hope that this guidance represents a significant step towards this goal.”]]>
The poll is released ahead of the Bill’s “second reading” in the House of Commons on Monday 19th July and follows the government’s acknowledgement in the Lords last week that there is a risk that creationism could be taught in religious Academies.

Over 300 ‘faith schools’, including a small number of fee-paying schools, have registered their interest in converting to Academy status. Religious Academies created as a result of the Bill would be free from local authority control, allowing them to set their own admissions and employment policies and change the lengths of terms and school days. The Bill as it stands would not require these new Academies to follow the national curriculum.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:

"These results demonstrate that a majority of the public share our concerns about religious Academies. The message from this poll is very clear - there is no public appetite to increase the power and influence of religious groups in our schools. The state-funded education system should not be viewed or used as a vehicle for religious organisations to promote their beliefs."

"Time and time again parents tell us that they want an inclusive local community school for their children. By rushing this Bill through Parliament the governments risks giving religious groups, some of whom hold extreme views, a permanent foothold in our education system. We urge the government to respond to this high level of public concern by amending the Bill to include greater safeguards against undue religious influence."]]>
The current 'opt in' system means that only 28% of people are on the donation register, which in turn means that 10,000 people currently need a transplant in the UK, and three people die every day whilst waiting. Changing the system to opt-out has been successful in increasing the number of organs donated in countries such as Belgium and the Czech Republic, where rates of donation are almost double that of the United Kingdom.

BHA Campaigns Officer Pepper Harow commented, ‘As humanists do not believe in a continued existence after death or place an additional spiritual value upon the human body, there is no reason to object to allowing ones organs to be used to help others after death, except for when an individual has expressed a personal wish otherwise. There are also positive moral reasons for organ donation as it will help save lives and improve the quality of life for others.

‘Today’s news is a step forward to helping many more people receive the organs that they need. We hope that any change in the law is supported by good public information, education and awareness of the new system, such that anyone who wishes to opt out will be sufficiently informed that they have the right to do so.’]]>
An amendment proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York would have seen the creation of a separate male-only class of bishop to look after parishes which do not wish to have female bishops, and was only narrowly defeated by 5 votes.

However, a Measure was passed that seeks to increase permitted discriminatory actions against women bishops and priests. For example, the Measure, whilst not establishing a separate male-only class of bishop, would allow male bishops to refuse to ordain female priests, and allows parish councils to restrict certain activities to male bishops, such as episcopal ministry and pastoral care. In order for these policies to become Church law, the Government will have to amend the Equality Act 2010, and the Government Equality Office has already indicated that they will do so.

Naomi Phillips, BHA Head of Public Affairs, stated, ‘In view of the Church of England’s position and influence as the established church and of its control of a third of our state schools, its own internal policies are significant to the rest of society, and its continuing discrimination not least on grounds of gender and sexual orientation should be matters of wider political and social interest and concern.

Naomi continued, ‘We should be concerned by the misogynistic amendment attempted by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and by the new Measure which would afford second class status to women bishops. That the amendment was defeated shows the Church leadership to be out of touch with its own flock as well as with the majority population. Moreover, the continuing anti-progressive tendencies of those at the top of the Church hierarchy and influential others highlights again why we should seek actively to abolish the remaining and significant ties between Church and State.’]]>
The BHA has responded to a speech made earlier today by Communities Minister Andrew Stunell to the Inter Faith Network for the UK in which he stated that ‘Inter faith activity is more important than ever in our work towards the Big Society’ and commented on the value of faith communities to national life, local communities and their role providing a moral outlook.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, said, ‘We know from experience with similar policies under the previous government that making a fetish of “faith” and “interfaith activities” in this way excludes not only non-religious people from dialogue and activities, but many religious people too. In our diverse and increasingly secular society, it is alarming that the government is seeking to pursue and resource policies that can only be damaging for social cohesion.

‘This trend begun by Labour and now continued by the coalition government seeks to promote the alleged virtues of “faith”, such as its promotion of moral values, with virtually no critical analysis. “Faith” is seen and treated by many politicians and policy makers as a panacea: an intrinsically good thing which imbues those associated with it with some special goodness unattainable by the rest of us. Not only is this insulting to non-religious people, there is no evidence to support it.

‘Moreover, policies that focus exclusively on dialogue and activities that only some religious people can access gives greatly disproportionate and privileged access to government policy and decision making, effectively raising the importance of religious opinion above that of any other voice in the public sphere. This is already happening at all levels of government via the Faith Communities Consultative Council and various ‘interfaith’ forums across the country and it is deeply worrying that the coalition government wants to increase this unnecessary pattern. We will be raising our concerns with CLG directly.’
]]>
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive stated, ‘The inclusion of this object illustrates the importance of Humanism in the historical narrative of the UK. Blackham was an important social reformer, making substantial contributions to 20th century humanist thinking in his many articles and books.

‘The BHA is immensely proud of the contributions made to society throughout history by humanists. We celebrated this last month in our annual Humanist Week and continue to collect information on our website about Humanist Heritage.’
]]>
The EDM comes just days after a suggestion to repeal the law on collective worship became one of the most popular ideas on the Government’s “Your Freedom” website.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson stated,

‘We welcome this EDM calling for an end to compulsory collective worship and urge all MPs to sign it. The law is a clear infringement of the right to freedom of belief, forcing pupils to take part in worship regardless of what they personally believe. Teachers too are put in a very difficult position, having to lead acts of worship which may not represent their own beliefs.’

‘Teachers, parents and pupils themselves have consistently opposed compulsory collective worship. In scrapping this outdated and discriminatory law, schools will be free to hold inclusive educational assemblies which can build shared values and a sense of community.’]]> The first Parliamentary debate concerning the reform of libel laws takes place in the House of Lords today (Friday 9th of July). The British Humanist Association (BHA) has briefed Lords ahead of the debate to stress the need for improvements in the current system.

The Defamation Bill takes the first step in addressing flaws within the libel system by seeking to protect individuals and organisations that report on activities of public concern. It also compels claimants to justify their claims by substantiating the harm or financial loss an accusation has caused them, and also encourages speedier proceedings to reduce costs.

Campaigns Officer Pepper Harrow, explains, ‘Under the current laws, journalists, human rights campaigners and scientists are effectively censored from conducting and reporting enquires and analysis on a wide range of subjects due to the threat of hugely expensive legal action.’

‘As a supporter of the Libel Reform Campaign, the BHA believes that freedom of speech is a prerequisite for an open and democratic society. Unreasonable restrictions on expression undermine debate and progress. We believe this Bill goes some way to redressing the balance, and will help to foster a culture of open inquiry, where issues may be resolved through debate in the public sphere, rather than through drawn out and costly legal proceedings.’

]]>
BHA distinguished supporter Lady Massey tabled an Amendment to ensure inclusive community schools could not take on a religious character when becoming Academies and so begin discriminating on religious grounds. Lady Massey said she feared a proliferation of state-funded faith schools that could lead to religious and economic segregation. In response the Schools Minister Lord Hill said that the Government will not prevent new Academies from becoming “faith schools” after converting to Academy status, providing that they meet relevant tests.

Lady Massey also raised concerns about the greater flexibility that Academies will have over their curriculum, and the risk of creationism and other religious mythologies being taught as fact. Responding for the Government, Lord Hill said: “I share her concerns about creationism, but one of the core aims of the [Academies] policy is precisely that the Secretary of State should not dictate to academies what they should teach … I fully accept that if you trust people things do go wrong, but that is the direction that we want to try to go in.”

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:

‘It is disgraceful that the Government refuses to protect the inclusive nature of community schools. There is a very real risk that the Bill will lead to a proliferation of new “faith schools” by allowing community schools under religious influence – from religious organisations offering financial support, for example – to take on a religious character after conversion. This would be a hugely retrograde step, extending the discriminatory and divisive effects of “faith schools” to many more areas of the country and removing inclusive schools from local communities. The Academies Bill is supposed to be about freedom and choice, yet it risks removing parents’ freedom to choose an inclusive school for their children.’

Commenting on the issue of curriculum, Mr Copson continued:

‘Once a state-maintained “faith school” has become a religious Academy, it will have much greater flexibility over the curriculum. The BHA is deeply concerned that some religious authorities will use this new freedom to pursue very restrictive teaching in line with their religious ethos. The Government has admitted that it shares our concerns about the teaching of creationism, for instance, yet it is unwilling to do anything about it. It is simply not good enough to say “things go wrong” – it will be parents, local communities and pupils themselves who will be left picking up the pieces.’
]]>