Peers challenge Government on plans to allow 100% religious selection in schools

Cross-party members of the House of Lords challenged the Government’s plans to allow 100% religious selection in schools as part of the ongoing scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Amendment 456 would have applied the 50% faith cap to other types of schools allowed to open under the Bill. It was laid by Lord (Mike) Watson, a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) and supported by peers from across the House. Humanists UK welcomed the amendment, and has previously led successful campaigns to keep the faith-based admissions cap in 2018 and 2025.

Since 2011 all new state schools have had to be free schools and they have been subject to the 50% cap. But the Schools Bill is set to do away with that free school presumption. That means the door has been opened to a new wave of 100% faith-selective schools unless the cap is reapplied, which is what Lord Watson’s amendment sought to do. 

Impacts on poorer families, non-white pupils, and children in care

Speaking to his amendment, which was backed by Baroness Burt and Lord Alf Dubs, Lord Watson described any lifting of the 50% cap as a ‘regressive move’ and highlighted the benefits of it and its role in promoting community cohesion:

‘A cap on faith-based admissions has been demonstrated to strengthen ethnic integration. Analysis of data on faith schools shows that religiously selective schools operating under the 50% cap were significantly more ethnically diverse than schools that were 100% religiously selective. We should bear in mind that, at a time when the far right is seeking to divide communities on grounds of ethnicity, it is surely inappropriate to allow schools to entrench differences. This is a time for the Government to be promoting social and ethnic integration, not facilitating a means by which children grow up potentially not knowing anyone of their own age who is different from themselves. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want to see happening.’

Analysis by Humanists UK found that ethnic integration in schools improved significantly as a result of the cap. Research by Sutton Trust found that faith schools accepted fewer pupils on free school meals, while the Office of Schools Adjudicator found that looked after children were disadvantaged in faith school admissions.

Attempts to persuade the Government

Referring to previous attempts in the Commons to amend the Bill and extend the cap to all schools and the Government’s opposition to it, Lord Watson said:

‘I hope that my noble friend [the Minister] will be able to say that, on deeper reflection, that is a position that she does not want to defend.’

The amendment was supported by APPHG vice chair Baroness Burt, who described it as a

‘simple tidying up exercise […] extending a standing policy for free schools with a religious character to all new state-maintained schools with a religious character that could open under Clause 57.’

Baroness Burt also spoke to the contradiction of the Government keeping the cap for free schools but not refusing to extend it to other types of schools, telling the House:

‘If the Government are supportive of allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open, I ask the Minister to state that clearly before the Committee.’

Lord Storey, Education Lords Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats also warned against religious segregation in schools and its wider negative impact on society:

‘If you just put the Catholics there, the Anglicans there, the Jews there and the Muslims there, you divide people. I do not want a divided society. I want children to celebrate their faith and their culture, and the best place to do that is in school when they are learning and growing up. You only have to remember what happened in education in Northern Ireland.’

Describing herself as an ‘active humanist’, APPHG member Baroness Thornton also voiced her support for Lord Watson’s amendment and called on the Minister to bring together ‘those of us who are interested and committed to this to talk about it’ before Report Stage. Conservative peer Lord Lucas also spoke in favour of extending the cap.

Government refusing to act

In response to the amendment, Education Minister Baroness Smith sidestepped the issue of extending the cap. Instead the Minister simply reiterated that the Government ‘greatly value(d) the contribution that faith schools make to our schools system and support the ability of faith schools to set faith-based oversubscription criteria’. The Minister added that ‘it is for the admissions authorities of individual schools to decide whether to adopt such arrangements’.

Baroness Burt also proposed amendment 457, which would collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools. This, Baroness Burt said, would ‘shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils and whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice’. However the Minister responded that the government believed the current arrangement for schools to publish their admissions information on their website was proportionate, despite the UK Government admitting that it does not know to what extent parents and students are having their preference of school refused on the basis of their religion and belief because it does not collect that data.

Commenting on the debate, Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:

‘Faith-based admissions are discriminatory, unfair, and contribute to a less integrated and cohesive society. They drive ethnic, social, and religious segregation. 

‘There was a clear call from cross-party peers for the Government to rethink its opposition to extending the faith cap to all types of schools. We thank Lord Watson and Baroness Burt for bringing this motion, and for those peers who spoke in favour of it. 

‘The UK Government is wrong to allow 100% religious selection in schools. Now more than ever the UK Government should be promoting cohesion and championing integration. One positive step towards this would be to extend the cap.’