Memorandum submitted by the British Humanist
Association (ST 17)
In view of the imminent School Transport Bill
and the widely reported case of Laura Abbott, whose LEA agreed
in March to pay for her travel to a non-religious school, we are
issuing this updated and revised briefing on school transport.
The BHA considers that current LEA school transport
policies, which offer subsidised transport to pupils travelling
to some faith-based schools but not to non-religious pupils travelling
to secular schools for reasons of belief, contravene the Human
Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination by public authorities
on grounds such as religion or belief. We note that the current
Draft Bill and Prospectus on School Travel Schemes seeks to perpetuate
this discrimination against the non-religious by citing denominational
schools as a special case (Para 8, page 6) even though the document
refers elsewhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and
to "Issues of equity and fairness". (See http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conDocument.cfm?consultationId=1242)
The recent report of the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Transport ignores this religious discrimination altogether
(see http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/318/31802.htm).
However, we hope that the Education Select Committee will bear
it in mind when considering the draft School Transport Bill, and
that all those that believe in equity for the non-religious as
well as the religious will take up the matter.
The case of Laura Abbott, a Lancashire sixth-former
and an atheist, may prove a turning point. It has been widely
reported (eg Observer, 4 April 2004; Church Times,
8 April 2004; TES, 9 April 2004) that Lancashire County
Council has agreed to pay for Laura's travel to Hodgson High Technology
College, the school her family had chosen on conscience grounds,
having turned down a place at a nearer Church of England high
school. The family had been previously been refused a bus-pass
and have spent a total of £2,000 over her secondary school
career to send her to a non-religious school. Lancashire County
Council is reported (in Church Times) to have said "that
any policy should reflect and demonstrate an even-handedness in
taking philosophical convictions into account." The BHA agrees,
but observes that this "even-handedness" is rarely practised.
In our 2003 survey of Local Education Authorities
in England and Wales, we found that 33% of responding LEAs provided
help for pupils going to a faith-based school chosen in preference
to a nearer community school on grounds of religion—but
not to pupils going to an equally distant community school in
preference to a nearer faith-based one on grounds of belief (whether
non-religious belief or belief in a different religion from that
of the nearer school). Another one in three LEAs acknowledged
other forms of discrimination such as giving preferential treatment
to religious believers or (sometimes) applying different rules
to different belief groups. See http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=
1376 for a report on the survey.
Most LEAs have apparently failed to revise their
policies on school transport since the Human Rights Act was passed.
Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority—such
as a local education authority—to "act in a way which
is incompatible with a Convention right." The First Protocol,
Article 2, of the European Convention states: ". . . In the
exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education
and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to
ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own
religious and philosophical convictions." Article 9 guarantees
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and couples religion
with belief. Article 14 applies to the enjoyment of these rights
and states that such enjoyment shall be secured without discrimination
on grounds of religion. Case law has clearly established that
Humanism and other non-religious life stances are to be treated
without distinction as equivalent to religions.
We have been corresponding with LEAs and the
DfES on school transport since last summer (see http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1533).
The DfES maintains that provision of transport is a discretionary
matter for LEAs and that discrimination against the non-religious
is not covered by the Human Rights Act. The BHA contests the second
point and has continued to press for new guidance to LEAs on the
matter.
While we broadly support the environmental and
health objectives of the School Transport Bill, we believe it
should be amended to remind LEAs that school transport policies
should not discriminate in favour of or against any group on grounds
of religion or belief, in accordance with the Human Rights Act.
British Humanism Association
April 2004
| 
