Clause 51 - Public authorities: general
Equality Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I was aware of the fact that the matter was covered in two different places, having discussed it with the Clerk. Indeed, I had vaguely hoped and/or expected that the new clause might have been taken under this clause or an earlier one that dealt with school transport, but for reasons that I never understand because it is beyond my capacity to do so, the grouping was set out as it has been. As we always say, I am sure that that was the correct decision.
I shall not dwell on the issue of guidance because the new clause refers to the need for guidance to be issued, but I draw the Minister's attention to school transport, which is mentioned in this clause and a previous one. The Minister will be aware that the issue of school transport and the related exemption is found in subsection (4)(k)(v). The prohibition on a public authority exercising a function to carry out any act that constitutes discrimination does not apply to action in relation to transport to or from an educational institution, which is also dealt with under clause 50(2)(b) concerning the exercise of an authority's functions in relation to transport.
I am not arguing that schools that may choose pupils on the basis of their parents' religious adherence should not arrange transport when they are beyond where those pupils would usually go to school. I am not arguing that that is wrong. My point is that the process should be exercised fairly and in a non-discriminatory way with regard to all people who find that because there is discrimination in admissions on the basis of religion—or a lack of it—they are faced with extra journeys. One would have thought that this matter was straightforward. The Bill should treat equally anyone who, on the basis of their parents' belief or faith or lack of either, has to go further than is indicated to get to school because the school nearest to them—in the range that they would not qualify for subsidised transport—is of the wrong faith or no faith. That is not a difficult concept for the Bill, the guidance—to which I shall come on another occasion—or the explanatory notes to specify.
The failure of the explanatory notes to make that absolutely clear is remarkable. This is evident in, for example, paragraph 186 of the explanatory notes, dealing with clause 50, and paragraph 192, which refers to clause 51. I shall refer to the latter, but they are pretty much identical. It states:
''Transport—an LEA or other responsible body can arrange transport to a faith school for those pupils who live a distance away and they will not be obliged by this legislation to provide a similar service for pupils at another faith or non-faith school.''
Heaven help the parent with no religious belief, an atheist or humanist, who does not want their child to go to the local faith-based school and wants their child to participate in the subsidised or free transport scheme made available—allegedly in a non-discriminatory way—for children to travel further than the distance they would normally because of faith-based discrimination in admissions. That may not happen frequently; non-religious parents might not avail themselves of the freedom not to have their child educated in a faith school as frequently as parents with religious views chose not to have their child educated at a school that does not have a faith ethos or discriminate for admissions on grounds of faith. Nevertheless, we know that it happens. Evidence was given to the Education and Skills Committee when it considered the draft School Transport Bill that suggested that that was a problem.
I will not go into the Committee's conclusions because they relate mainly to guidance, but it agreed that there was an issue. It was well identified that the problem was not only that children of non-religious parents, who wanted to get on the bus that passed them for the same price as the children of religious parents, were not allowed to do so without paying to go a similar distance in the same direction, but that in many cases the local authority at no point—I would be interested to find a local authority that did—told such parents that they were entitled to ask for and receive subsidised transport, if they qualified on the basis of a belief that was not religious. The test should be the same. If there is a test for genuineness of religious belief and the allocation of transport, there should be some test for genuineness of non-religious belief. In neither case is it a particularly difficult test to pass. I do not see why people should have to go out of their way as a religious parent does not to prove their atheism. As long as the tests are equal, that should apply.
Part of the problem stems from the original legislation. The law on school transport is contained in the Education Act 1996. Section 509(4) states that when LEAs are considering whether or not to make discretionary transport arrangements in relation to a particular person, they are required, among other things, to have regard to
''any wish of his parent for him to be provided with education at a school or institution in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which his parent adheres.''
That should be read in a non-discriminatory way and the same should apply to non-religious parents. Although the wording of the Bill should be clear, the fact that the explanatory notes encourage local education authorities to apply the provision in a discriminatory way is extremely disappointing.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that if local education authorities continue to fail to let people know that they can access such transport and to deny subsidised transport to children who are going further than usual in order to avoid a faith school at the wish of their parents, there will be human rights challenges. Legal action has been taken, as the Minister knows. If we have an opportunity to debate guidance, I shall go into that in more detail.
I hope that I have made the point as clearly and politely as I can. I feel strongly about it, because I have had representations from people I know who feel that as the explanatory notes make such an error, if it is an error—and if it is not, it is even worse to feed such discriminatory practice—LEAs will continue as they are doing and we will not make progress. The Bill is an opportunity to sort that out once and for all, if we are to have the sort of education system where schools can choose on the basis of religion. I hope that the Minister can give me some encouragement in words and action as to how we will deal with the problem.