Supplementary evidence submitted by the
British Humanist Association (ST 41)
1. The British Humanist Association (BHA)
is the principal organisation representing the interests of the
large and growing population of ethically concerned but non-religious
people living in the UK. It exists to promote Humanism and support
and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious
or superstitious beliefs. The census in 2001 showed that those
with no religion were (at 14.8%) the second largest `belief group',
being two-and-a-half times as numerous as all the non-Christian
religions put together. Other surveys consistently report much
higher proportions of people without belief in God—especially
among the young[2].
By no means all these people are humanists and even fewer label
themselves as such, but our experience is that the majority of
people without religious beliefs, when they hear Humanism explained,
say that they have unknowingly long been humanists themselves.
2. The BHA is deeply committed to human
rights and democracy. We advocate an open and inclusive society:
one "based on the recognition that people have divergent
views and interests and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate
truth"[3].
In such a society, the government, other public authorities and
social institutions would seek to maximise individual freedom
(not least of belief and speech) while building on common interests
and working to reduce conflict so that people may live together
constructively.
3. Thus while we seek to promote the humanist
life-stance as an alternative to (among others) religious beliefs,
we do not seek any privilege in doing so but rely on the persuasiveness
of our arguments and the attractiveness of our position. Correspondingly,
while we recognise and respect the deep commitment of other people
to religious and other non-humanist views, we reject any claims
they may make to privileged positions by virtue of their beliefs.
THE DRAFT
SCHOOL TRANSPORT
BILL
4. The BHA welcomes the intentions of the
Bill in seeking to prompt new thinking about ways to help pupils
who live beyond walking distance to get to school, especially
if such schemes increase walking or cycling to school or reduce
the environmentally damaging use of private cars. We have no technical
expertise to comment on the type of scheme that may succeed but
wish to comment on two aspects of the subject.
PERVERSE EFFECTS
OF THE
POLICY OF
DIVERSITY
5. The Government is wedded to a policy
of choice in education, with schools divided between maintained
and independent (including publicly funded local academies), community
and voluntary (subdivided between aided and controlled), of no
religious character or of religious character (subdivided between
an increasing number of different denominations and religions),
comprehensive or grammar, non-specialist or specialist (subdivided
between many different specialities) and so on. The number of
possible combinations is far beyond the ability of any local education
authority to provide, and the effect of such diversity of provision
is far more to increase the complexity of administration and to
frustrate comparisons than to increase choice, since for most
parents there will rarely be more than two or three schools on
offer, and for many, especially in rural areas and at primary
level, there will be only one. Instead the effect is to restrict
choice for pupils, since the diversity and choices that were available
at various stages in a school career within a good comprehensive
school are now increasingly removed to one single and restricted
choice by parents at 11+.
6. The relevance of this policy to transport
is obvious. To the extent that it works, it increases average
travelling distances, with major implications for cost and environmental
damage. (To the extent that it does not work, children are compelled
to attend schools offering a biased approach or choice of subjects
not suitable for them.) We wish the pilot schemes well, but the
best way of reducing the many millions of miles children travel
to get to school is to reverse the policy of increasing diversity
of schools and switch to a policy of ensuring that all schools
meet the differing needs of a diverse population and increasing
the choices within each local school. Such a policy would have
other advantages, including a benign effect on community cohesion
by minimising middle class desertion of local schools and (insofar
as it discouraged the burgeoning of religious schools) limiting
the religious segregation of children of minority faiths, often
coincidentally on ethnic lines.
UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION
IN PROVISION
OF TRANSPORT
7. We are glad to see that in the circular
to LEAs the DfES has included references to the need to avoid
discrimination under the Human Rights Act, since we have hitherto
found the Pupil Well-Being and Transport Team at the DfES deaf
to all such considerations. We attach copies of our letters of
21 August, 17 October and 24 December 2003 and of the DfES replies
of 30 September and 17 November 2003, and 23 January 200[4],
from which it seems clear to us that the Department has failed
completely to address the issues we raised about the Human Rights
Act and the current provisions on school transport.
8. The Act requires (section 6) that public
authorities should not discriminate between religions and beliefs,
including Humanism and simple unbelief, which both current law
and practice do; but it also requires (section 3) that current
law be interpreted so as to avoid such discrimination, which in
this case would be easy. It is in our view incumbent on the DfES
to draw the attention of local education authorities to the implications
of the Act rather than leave them to discover and take action
on the Act by themselves. References to the Human Rights Act in
the circular about pilot schemes under the draft Bill are not
enough: the need, and for many years yet, is to avoid unlawful
discrimination in the administration of the current law. (For
a fuller exposition of the law, see our letter of 17 October 2003.)
9. This is not a theoretical concern. A
survey we conducted—sent to the Department with our letter
of 21 August 2003—showed that two out of three LEAs that
responded to a simple questionnaire were arguably in breach of
the Human Rights Act, and one in three were definitely discriminating
against humanists and conscientious unbelievers by refusing to
pay for transport for their children to go to a community school
chosen on grounds of conscience and belief in circumstances where
they would certainly pay for children of a religious believer
to go to a faith school. Evidence given to the Education and Skills
Committee on 12 May 2004 by the BHA's Education Officer and the
General Secretary of the National Secular Society bore out this
contention, and Mr Ian Abbott, a parent, described his personal
experience (not yet resolved despite some concessions by Lancashire
LEA), which is similar to that of many of the parents who contact
the BHA for advice. Evidence by LEAs to the Education Committee
for its enquiry on school admissions policy provides further proof
of how widespread unlawful practice is.
10. We remain firmly of the view that the
DfES should recognise the obligation to issue guidance to LEAs
on the interpretation of their obligations to provide school transport
in the light of the Human Rights Act. Current practice plainly
discriminates against humanists and all who conscientiously reject
religious beliefs.
British Humanist Association
24 June 2004
2 In a survey of 13,000 13-15 year olds, 61% declared
themselves atheist or agnostic (RevdProfessor Leslie Francis and
Revd Dr William Kay, Trinity College Carmarthen, TeenageReligion
and Values, Gracewing, 1995). Back
3
George Soros: appendix to The Bubble of American Supremacy
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004). Back
4
Not printed. Back
| 
