---

British Humanist Association: Reports

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing a most thought-provoking—he has already provoked the noble Lord, Lord Patten, into the oxymoron of liberal intolerance—and particularly timely debate. Yesterday, the Minister John Denham announced that the Government have set up a new £1 million fund to help faith groups get their voices heard by government and public bodies. This is occurring just at the moment when other public services and local councils are facing real and deep cuts. Council tax will rise by the lowest amount possible since it was introduced and certainly well below the inflation level. It is extraordinary that the Government have £1 million to dispense in this way. In addition to that fund, the Government have set up a £50,000 social action prize fund to help publicise and reward faith-based projects, and only faith-based projects, that are finding new ways of meeting local problems, bringing people together and meeting the needs of local communities. This debate is therefore extremely timely. This is a particularly interesting issue and I think that, essentially, there are two possible approaches to it. The first is that voluntary services, by which I mean the extra services, can be delivered by people who see that extra service to the community as part of their faith. That is an entirely valid approach which is much to be welcomed. The second is that public services should be delivered by public servants who are bound by a common public service code of values. That is what I understand as a public service. I went to a Quaker school and, during my formative years, I learnt just what the first of those approaches—extra voluntary services delivered by people of great conviction—can mean. For me, Elizabeth Fry was perhaps the most powerful example of such an approach. In 1818 she became the first woman to give evidence to a House of Commons committee, on the conditions then prevailing in British prisons, and with her brother she persuaded Peel to introduce a series of prison reforms that ended with the Gaols Act 1823. As your Lordships will be aware, she was active not only in prison reform; they both also took up the causes of abolishing capital punishment and establishing hostels for people with nowhere to go. I am glad to see that there are still so many living memorials to her, particularly in Islington, where the Elizabeth Fry Institute and the Elizabeth Fry probation hostel are still located. I would therefore not decry this sort of effort made by people of faith, whatever faith it might be. Perhaps my deep concerns about a model which relies on delivery by people of faith stem from my time as a district councillor. I remember a time when well-intentioned councillors who wanted the best for their communities had the power to approve or disapprove housing allocations. Of course they tried hard to be objective and to allocate on the basis of housing need. Inevitably, however, they bore in mind what they believed was the best for their communities. That could include not housing those whom they regarded as undesirables or who they thought would not fit into the community. The ramifications were that the same people were constantly turned down despite their evident housing need, and their children suffered a life of constant moving through no fault of their own. I am pleased to say that we as a council got rid of that councillor discretion long before the Government decided to do so nationally. Those councillors were acting in good faith and on what they believed, but they were not acting on objective criteria. My worries could be slightly lessened by the evangelical Faithworks movement, which has been heavily involved in contracting. It has produced a charter which calls for Christian groups to be non-discriminatory, principled and non-proselytising in how they operate. That might be adequate, except for the Government’s increasing propensity to make exemptions in law for faith groups on fundamental points of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has outlined those very adequately today and we debated them very recently in your Lordships’ House. This debate is particularly timely because we have learnt that the Government are willing to make exception after exception on important points of principle. We need to be deeply concerned about that. Earlier this week I asked a group of American students what their opinion was of today’s debate and they drew on the experience of the creationist element that has managed to take over swathes of the American educational establishment. That should sound a warning to us. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, outlined the dangers very well. I welcome these two helpful reports from the British Humanist Association. However, I wish that the conclusion of the second report had been even stronger precisely because liberal values are not wishy-washy. It concludes: ""We believe that the case for secularism is sound, that it can be defended with arguments"." It should say that the case for secularism is overwhelming precisely because we want to live in a harmonious and tolerant society.