§ Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit discrimination on religious grounds in admissions to maintained schools.I begin by welcoming the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House. I accept that it is a controversial issue that has implications for the way in which we organise our school system and for race relations, among other things. I am very keen to put on the record my interest in this issue as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. In terms of my own education, I am Jewish by background but I went to Church of England schools.This Bill is not about whether faith schools are good or bad schools. Currently, faith schools are mainly voluntary aided. Although the Church or religion concerned does not pay the school's salaries or running costs, it is allowed to run its own admission policy independent of the local education authority. Where the school is over-subscribed, it is allowed to admit only children of a specific religion. Indeed, the contribution that religions make to schools relates only to capital costs, and has been reduced from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent.
The Bill would not close faith schools, convert them to community status or prevent them from being run with a religious ethos, but it would prevent them from selecting by, or discriminating on the basis of, religious background. There are several reactions for seeking to do that. First, it is self-evident that such discrimination against children is wrong in and or itself. Why should a child living next to a school be excluded from it, even though his neighbourhood friends attend it, solely because he or his parents either have the wrong religion or no religion—or, indeed, because his parents are unable sufficiently to persuade the school that they are religious enough to justify their child's attendance? Why should a child be punished by bung prevented from attending a school, which they would otherwise have an opportunity to go to, on the basis of the views or culture of his or her parents? Why should the child be denied fair treatment in school admissions?
Such criteria also encourage hypocrisy, as many in the Church and other religions recognise, when parents become church attenders purely to get their child into the local school. A recent newspaper report stated:
Parents who want children to go to a top Church of England school face having to 'sign in' for 48 church services a year. They must present signed notes from vicars to prove they have worshipped the necessary number of times. Headmaster the Rev. Peter Shepherd's crackdown at Canon Slade secondary school in Bolton is in apparent defiance of C of E policy allowing local children… to be admitted … He defended his actions, saying demand for places … had rocketed. 'We have to find ways of being more discriminating', he said.Those words speak for themselves.Even if the application of such criteria causes long-lasting religious adherence, should the state be sanctioning religious recruitment by permitting those sorts of admissions policies in state schools? Is it right to segregate children according to their religion? The 286 Cantle report into the causes of riots in northern cities expressed clear concerns about the make-up of many of the state secondary schools—in this case, Church of England schools—in the area, which were nearly 100 percent. white, as children were bussed across cities at the taxpayer's expense despite the wide mix of races and religions in the catchment area. On the basis of observations on visits, the Cantle report said:
We…found other schools where the intake was almost 100 per cent. of one ethnic background. This was often the result of the school's catchment area being composed of one particular ethnic make-up but that it could also arise as a result of the school's admission policy. One C of E school… had a policy whereby pupils had to produce a letter from their local vicar to prove that they and their parents were regular church goers. Consequently, Muslims rarely bothered to apply to send their children to the school and were effectively excluded from it.I understand that the Government and many hon. Members supported the conclusions of that report.If we are to stop the sort of racial segregation that we have witnessed in some cities we must either stop religious schools existing, or—a lesser step—stop them segregating and discriminating on religious grounds. Have we learned nothing from Northern Ireland, where we know that if children do not mix in school it becomes much harder—though not impossible—to tackle inbuilt and inculcated prejudice?
Why should religious parents, who tend to be more middle class, be allowed a greater choice of schools than non-religious parents? Community schools do not give preference to atheists or the non-religious, so why should state-funded schools discriminate? The disadvantage to non-religious parents in respect of the choice of school increases with every new faith school that is permitted to select on the basis of religious adherence.
It has been argued that faith schools are better schools and it is alleged that the results demonstrate it. However, that has always been alleged to be the product of their ethos rather than selection. If people and hon. Members who oppose the measure believe that faith schools are better schools because of the way in which they are organised, why not make it clear that they should not use selection as a means—directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently—of selecting on a better educational background or on a social class basis?
Answers to parliamentary questions provide clear evidence that the proportion of children eligible for free school meals is significantly lower, on average, in faith schools than in community schools. That is clearly a factor in faith schools achieving better results, regardless of their social mix. Therefore, it is clear that the policy cannot be defended on the basis of good results.
Many religions share the concerns that I have raised. Although they want their own schools, they do not feel the need to discriminate and segregate. I do not believe that support in public opinion is needed before one can propose something that is right, but I will always point it out when public opinion supports a measure. Polls show that up to 80 per cent. of people feel that it is wrong for state schools to select on religious grounds. When children are asked whether they feel any religious adherence, the majority say that they do not. They do 287 not see why selection should be made on the basis of their religious belief—or on the basis of the belief that their parents have, or claim.
There are strong arguments—improved race relations, better mixing, and non- discrimination—for a ban on state schools being able to allow discrimination on religious grounds in their admissions criteria.
I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North) (Lab)I rise to oppose the Bill, based on my experiences as a practising Catholic, as someone who was taught by the Irish Christian Brothers—I shall take those stigmata to my grave—and as a former teacher in a Catholic school, where I am now a governor. As a Member of Parliament for the past 38 years, I have witnessed numerous examples of faith schools' commitment and dedication to the achievement of excellence, both in school and in the wider community.
I feel it necessary to express my opposition to this Bill as it aims to undermine one of the longest established traditions in our education system—that Children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, as far as is compatible with the effective and efficient use of resources. I believe that the attack on faith schools, which have gained a reputation for high educational standards, should be disregarded. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is seeking to disown the view that respect and tolerance of different religious beliefs are essential for positive community cohesion.
In introducing this Bill, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is clearly not interested in school standards. He is not even interested in the fact that many parents want the choice to send their children to a faith school, be it Catholic, Church of England, other Christian denomination, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. However, his true intentions are uncovered in his association with the National Secular Society. His ultimate goal is to impose secular dogma on all children, regardless of the wishes of their parents. He camouflages his main objective in this Bill, knowing full well the profound implications that it would have on faith schools.
My first concern surrounds the assault on human rights mounted by the hon. Gentleman. We live in a multicultural, multi-faith society, and yet the hon. Gentleman is attempting to restrict the general principle that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That is guaranteed in the protocol to the European convention on human rights and in legislation passed by this House. Furthermore, he intends to restrict the right to a religious education that is enshrined in the UN universal declaration of human rights and the declaration of the rights of the child. These instruments outline the concepts that parents are, first and foremost, educators of their children, and that the state should be a facilitator to ensure that all children, as far as is practical, can be educated in line with their parents' religious and philosophical convictions.
288 I find it surprising that a Liberal should wish to take away such rights. It is often stated that faith schools are exclusive,—a view also held by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knansborough (Mr. Willis). He has stated his belief that faith schools
have become exclusive, erecting barriers against children who cannot meet the faith testHowever, if he were to look at the findings of the Catholic education service census of 2003 he would see that 18 per cent.—nearly one in five—of pupils attending Catholic schools are non-Catholics. Is that what Liberal Democ-ats mean when they label faith schoo ls exclusive and talk about faith tests?By basing the Bill en the false premise of exclusivity, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon denies the rights of many non-Catholic or non-Christian parents, or parents of other faiths, who want to send their children to Catholic or other faith schools because they are attracted to the robust spiritual and moral value systems of such schools. He would undermine schools that take a proactive approach to inclusiveness and respect for religious beliefs. To see that, we have only to study the findings of a recent survey of ethnic minority students in Catholic secondary schools, which highlighted the fact that 80 per cent. of them believe that their schools encourage respect for people of different races and religions.
The guidance of my Church shows a desire for inclusion and a respect for diversity. Catholic secondary schools have a higher percentage of black pupils than other maintained schools. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the bishops' document, "Catholic Schools and Other Faiths", he would see that it highlights the need both to respect other faiths and have an understanding between the Catholic faith and other faiths. All other faith schools uphold the same philosophy in relation to their beliefs and understandings.
My second concern is about educational standards. The Bill would do nothing to improve educational achievement in our schools; its only achievement would be to unpick one of t he most successful aspects of our education system—faith schools, which have gained a reputation for high standards and educational achievement. I should have thought that all Members would applaud that, rather than seeking to destroy it.
The available evidence shows that, in general, attainment in Catholic schools is higher compared with other sectors. Furthermore, despite accusations about selection, Catholic schools cater for pupils with greater levels of poverty. An analysis of GCSE results from 1966 to 2001 for boa 11–18 schools and 11–16 schools found that, for nearly all levels of disadvantage, Catholic schools ha a higher percentage of pupils achieving the required standard in each year. When something is successful we should support it and expand best practice, not attack it.
My third concern is centred on the opportunism of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon in trying to exploit today's uncertain world climate. He is jealously pursuing his own secular agenda by trying to divorce the teachings of different religions from our society. By doing so, he risks creating the exclusion and alienation of certain communities that he claims to be trying to prevent.
289 It is easy to place the blame for horrific incidents such as 11 September, the disgraceful incidents around Holy Cross primary school and the racially motivated violence in some of our northern towns at the door of religion. To do so is a mistake, however. Such events are born of ignorance, prejudice, poverty and fear of the unknown, not of religion. If we take the route advocated by the hon. Gentleman, it can only increase prejudice and bigotry.
The UK is rich in diversity—from which our society has significantly benefited. The 2001 census found that 77 per cent. of people belonged to a religion, so it is right for the state to act as a facilitator to enable everyone to live out their religious beliefs in public as well as in private. Faith schools are based on the value of universal respect. Despite the claims made about their contribution to segregation, there is no evidence to support the view that they contribute to social segregation in this country.
In the teaching of my own and other religions, we talk of loving strangers and of loving our neighbour as ourselves. Such values are at the heart of Christian teaching and of faith schools, Muslim schools and Jewish schools. The Catholic bishops stated in the document, "Catholic Schools and Other Faiths", that Catholic schools
should be ready to share resources with other schools and with other faith communities—especially if the Catholic school is situated in an area of deprivation and racial tension. That attitude is shared by other faith schools.Inter-faith relations have progressed over the past few years, and we must continue that journey. Faith-based education and schools have an important role in eliminating the stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry that exists in our society. Faith schools are not isolated institutions—they are part of our communities. They are part of the solution, not the problem. We must make further progress with inter-faith relations, both locally and nationally, not exclude them as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
The introduction of the Bill is purely opportunistic. It is not difficult to establish the hon. Gentleman's true motive for introducing it. Indeed, he admitted it himself. It has nothing to do with improving educational standards—it is an attack on the rights of those who wish to lead their lives in accordance with a particular religious belief. It is a case based on a list of inaccuracies. It is an attempt to deny parents the right to decide what is best for their children. It is an attempt that, I hope, the House will reject.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —
§ The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 157.
291| Division No. 58] | [12.50 pm |
| AYES | |
| Barnes, Harry | Cryer, Ann(Keighley) |
| Berry, Roger | Davey Valerie(Bristol W) |
| Blunt, Crispin | David, Wayne |
| Carmichael, Alistair | Davidson, Ian |
| Challen, Colin | Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E) |
| Chaytor, David | Gibson, Dr. Ian |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hancock, Mike |
| Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Abingdon) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & | Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F) |
| Atcham) | Tonge, Dr. Jenny |
| Marshall-Andrews, Robert | Trimble, rh David |
| Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & | Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall) |
| Dinefwr) | Williams, Roger(Brecon) |
| Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute) | |
| Rendel, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Sanders, Adrian | Malcolm Bruce and |
| Sawford, Phil | Paul Holmes |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey) | Harvey, Nick |
| Amess, David | Hawkins, Nick |
| Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E) | Hayes, John(S Holland) |
| Atkinson, Peter(Hexham) | Heath, David |
| Bacon, Richard | Hermon, Lady |
| Barker, Gregory | Hoban, Mark(Fareham) |
| Beard, Nigel | Hogg, rh Douglas |
| Beggs, Roy(E Antrim) | Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale) |
| Berth, rh A. J. | Howard, rh Michael |
| Bell, Sir Stuart | Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot) |
| Benton, Joe(Bootle) | Hoyle, Lindsay |
| Bercow, John | Hughes, Simon(Southwark N) |
| Best, Harold | Iddon, Dr. Brian |
| Boswell, Tim | Jenkins, Brian |
| Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW | Johnson, Boris(Henley) |
| Surrey) | Jones, Kevan(N Durham) |
| Brady, Graham | Kaufman, rh Gerald |
| Brazier, Julian | Keetch, Paul |
| Breed, Colin | Key, Robert(Salisbury) |
| Burnham, Andy | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Burns, Simon | King, Andy(Rugby) |
| Burstow, Paul | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
| Calton, Mrs Patsy | Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire) |
| Cameron, David | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Cash, William | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping | Laws, David(Yeovil) |
| Barnet) | Leigh, Edward |
| Chope, Christopher | Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E) |
| Clappison, James | Liddell-Grainger, Ian |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Lidington, David |
| Cohen, Harry | Lilley, rh Peter |
| Collins, Tim | Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C) |
| Colman, Tony | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Conway, Derek | Loughton, Tim |
| Cook, Frank(Stockton N) | Luff, Peter(M-Worcs) |
| Cotter, Brian | McFall, John |
| Crausby, David | Mclntosh, Miss Anne |
| Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire | Mclsaac, Shona |
| Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & | Mackay, rh Andrew |
| Howden) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Dismore, Andrew | McNamara, Kevin |
| Djanogly, Jonathan | McWalter, Tony |
| Doughty, Sue | Malins, Humfrey |
| Duncan, Alan(Rutland) | Marshall, Jim(Leicester S) |
| Evans, Nigel | Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian |
| Fallon, Michael | May, Mrs Theresa |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | Meale, Alan(Mansfield) |
| Flook, Adrian | Mercer, Patrick |
| Flynn, Paul(Newport W) | Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton |
| Forth, rh Eric | Coldfield) |
| Foster, Don(Bath) | Oaten, Mark(Winchester) |
| Francois, Mark | O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury) |
| Gale, Roger(N Thanet) | Olner, Bill |
| Gapes, Mike(IIford S) | Osborne, George(Tatton) |
| Garnier, Edward | Ottaway, Richard |
| Gerrard, Neil | Paice, James |
| Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis) | Paterson, Owen |
| Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Pickles, Eric |
| Grayling, Chris | Pollard, Kerry |
| Green, Matthew(Ludlow) | Pound, Stephen |
| Grieve, Dominic | Prisk, Mark(Hertford) |
| Pugh, Dr. John | Swire, Hugo(EDevon) |
| Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N) | Syms, Robert |
| Redwood, rh John | Taylor, David(NW Leics) |
| Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & | Taylor, Ian(Esher) |
| M-Kent) | Taylor, Matthew(Truro) |
| Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry) | Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Russell, Bob(Colchester) | Vaz, Keith(Leicester E) |
| Selous, Andrew | Viggers, Peter |
| Sheerman, Barry | Vis, Dr. Rudi |
| Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian | Webb, Steve(Northavon) |
| Whittingdale, John | |
| Simmonds, Mark | Wiggin, Bill |
| Simon, Sion(B'ham Erdington) | Wilkinson, John |
| Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk) | Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon) |
| Smith, Sir Robert(W Ab'd'ns & | Willis, Phil |
| Kincardine) | Wilshire, David |
| Spelman, Mrs Caroline | Winterton, Ann(Congleton) |
| Spink, Bob(Castle Point) | Young, rh Sir George |
| Spring, Richard | |
| Streeter, Gary | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Stunell, Andrew | Jim Dobbin and |
| Swayne, Desmond | Mr. Ronnie Campbell |
§ Question accordingly negatived.