---

Education and Inspections Bill

Quite so, and community schools that are not faith schools have an ethos that is not religious. I would not call for them, and they do not seek, to apply a non-religious test to the teachers applying to work in those schools to ensure that they uphold a non-religious ethos. What sort of society are we becoming when teachers in state schools are required to be of a faith, or not be of a certain faith, in order to teach? Those who wish to teach religious education in a Catholic school may well be Catholic. That may be why they have gone into it, and there may be a wide pool of such applicants. That is fair enough, but when the state is employing people, it is no one’s business to ask the religious belief of the people concerned. The Minister said that head teachers can already be subject to a faith test by virtue of section 60(4) of the 1998 Act. I put it to him that section 60(4) is not a faith test. It states:"““In connection with the appointment of a person to be a head teacher of the school (whether foundation or voluntary controlled)””—" referring to a case where the head teacher is not to be a reserve teacher, which is the status quo—"““regard may be had to that person’s ability and fitness to preserve and develop the religions character of the school.””" I hope that the Minister will accept that that is not the sort of faith test that is being introduced by making that person a reserve teacher. Instead, the new faith test is a version of"““persons—""(i) whose religious opinions are in accordance of the tenets of the religion and religious denomination specified in relation to the school under section 69(4)””" in section 60(5) of the 1998 Act. There is no mention of ethos in that faith test. It is a faith test, not a test of ability to uphold the ethos. I hope the Minister will accept that that is the case. On the question of consultation, the National Association of Head Teachers and the National Union of Teachers are the two unions which almost exclusively represent head teachers, and the NUT is a major representative of potential head teachers. When the matter was debated in the Lords, the Government gave the impression that the trade unions principally concerned had been consulted. In response to Lord Avebury’s suggestion that they knew nothing about the proposals until the last moment, Lord Adonis, a decent man whom I like, said:"““My Lords, that is simply not true.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2006; Vol. 686, c. 53.]" He claimed that they were ““thoroughly consulted””. The NUT, however, says that it was not consulted. Its letter to the Secretary of State, which has been distributed to Members, states:"““I wrote to you yesterday concerning amendment 54…I have now had the benefit of reading the comments of Lord Adonis in Hansard. It is my view that the manner of the development of this amendment is an example of poor Government…Neither the NUT nor the NAHT have been involved in any consultation. This situation is totally unacceptable””." It goes on to complain further about the Minister’s representations in the House of Lords as to whatever discussions took place. It continues in very strong terms:"““No attempt is being made by Government to involve all representatives of the teaching profession in taking forward these important matters. It seems to me that the way the Government is conducting this matter is likely to lead to division and poor decisions.””" I do not mean to echo criticism of the Government per se. However, does the Minister accept that consulting after the statute has been passed is not the appropriate way to consult, that it is not in line with the Cabinet Office guide on consultation, and that ideally it should have been brought in separately rather than as it was? Unison and the GMB have given us press releases in support of the support staff involved. Will the Minister confirm that while those unions may welcome the measures in terms of any post facto consultation on the detail of transitional arrangements, they remain opposed in principle to their introduction? This is a question of principle about whether the existing discrimination provisions should be extended and whether the career prospects of non-religious teachers and support staff, or teachers or support staff of a different religion, should be curtailed in this way. The Minister said that in respect of non-teaching support staff, the measure will apply to teachers in a pastoral role. I suggest that that is exactly the sort of role where an obvious religious leaning might not be helpful. I do not know how many pupils come to their teachers with religious crises, but I know that a large number do so with crises regarding their personal lives and health, particularly their sexual health. It would be entirely possible for a faith school to have a non-religious figure doing that job who can refer pupils who turn up with a religious crisis to the appropriate faith-based person in the school. The proposals are ill thought out, wrong in principle and rushed through, and I will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House.