31.Before we can begin to trace the civic journey through its life course we must first establish the rules that govern it. These are our key national values which establish our rights and responsibilities to each other. A failure to uphold these values can act as a major barrier to people engaging in civic action. This can be due either to discrimination and prejudice directly stopping them from playing a part, or to the perception that others are not upholding these key values. This can prevent people from engaging because they believe society is unfairly rigged against them.
32.Diversity can be a strength, but only so long as people feel they are all part of one and the same society, rather than many different societies in one country. For this to be the case there needs to be some baseline understanding and acceptance of what being a British citizen actually means in terms of how we behave and treat each other. To make this point is not to focus attention on specific ethnic groups or religions; quite the opposite. The vast majority of ethnic minorities and immigrants adhere to British civic values; by contrast some people who are neither ethnic minorities nor immigrants fail to do so.
33.The values that we discuss in this chapter represent the core of our civic identity as represented in the laws of this country. They are the red lines which define being a United Kingdom citizen and which underpin our common citizenship.
34.This is not to say that all people in the UK must be assimilated into a single monoculture. There are many different national, cultural, religious and social identities across the UK, and many people with multiple identities. Some people see themselves not just as a British citizen but as a British Muslim, a British Christian, a British Pakistani, or a British Pole, and some people will identify as a mix of these identities. However important these identities may be to an individual, they cannot subvert the obligations that go with being a British citizen, their civic identity. As explained by Dr Henry Tam:
“When we talk about integration we need to clarify that there are two senses of identity which, again, tend to play into each other. One is what I would call a sociocultural identity—people’s customs, tastes and so on. The other is a civic identity, which is often what we are talking about; that you are a part of this country and under the rule of law of this country. In terms of civic identity, it is very important for there to be very clear integration. People must learn to accept that we are all citizens of the UK, and that identity is non-negotiable. … Separate from that is what I call the sociocultural identity: what people like, how they dress, what they celebrate as festivals, and so on. On that, far from wanting an integrated, single culture where everyone is the same, what is important here is getting people to understand people’s different perspectives, cultures, customs and preferences.”
35.For many their religious identity (one aspect of a sociocultural identity, in Dr Tam’s words) will be paramount, but for the vast majority of religious believers this will support rather than supplant the duties that are entailed in their civic identity.
36.When it comes to civic values, the Committee’s view aligns with that of Dame Louise Casey:
“… you do not pick and choose the laws of this country. The laws that protect religious minorities are the same laws that say I am equal to a man. You do not pick which ones you want. It is not a chocolate box of choice; it is something you have to embrace. If you are uncomfortable with that, I now say that is tough.”
37.The epithet ‘racist’ has rightly acquired particular force and opprobrium in modern day Britain. Those who seek to continue to promulgate approaches that are not in line with our values, such as the value of equality, have been known to make use of this phrase to rebut criticism of their approach. Where necessary society must be sufficiently strong and confident not to be cowed into silence and must be prepared to speak up. Fear of being labelled “racist” is never a reason for those in authority not to uphold the law, or for citizens not to raise their concerns. The faiths and customs of individual communities can never override compliance with the law. It is not good enough to look the other way. Civic engagement demands no less. It is disappointing that the Integrated Communities Strategy neglects to address these issues clearly and directly. “Nudging” by central Government is likely to prove to be an inadequate response, more direct action is therefore needed.
38.The Government set out its definition of Fundamental British Values (FBV) as “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”. The Government’s counter terrorism strategy, Prevent, was introduced in 2003, but it was only when it was revised in 2011 that extremism was defined as opposing these values. In 2014 this negative definition of extremism was “inverted to become a positive value” as Rt Hon Nick Gibb MP, the Minister of State for School Standards, told us. In this chapter we consider whether this definition is adequate and whether the association with the counter terrorism strategy is helpful.
39.One criticism of the Government’s attempts to promote Fundamental British Values is that they are not exclusively British. Many witnesses stressed that Fundamental British Values were not unique to Britain and were shared across societies. For example, the Conservative Muslim Forum told the Committee: “Most fundamentally, there is nothing exclusively British about them and they are just as much French values, German values, American values or indeed Islamic values.” Nevertheless, whilst many countries share this list, they put this jigsaw of values together in different ways. As Voltaire put it, “every people has its character as well as every man”.
40.However, it does not seem that the Government intends the values to be read as exclusively British. The reasoning given by officials for the term “Fundamental British Values” was that they were the “things we value in Britain” and that “British values is shorthand for that.” Dr Muhammed Abdul Bari, who advised the Citizens Commission on Islam, Participation and Public Life, preferred to describe them as shared values due to the fact that they are shared with people who are not British citizens.
41.There are also positive arguments for using the word “British” in a description of our values. Dame Louise Casey stressed the importance of using the word British in order to reclaim the word from far right activists.
42.The word “British” also helps to identify that the values are ours, and are values to be proud of. The Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, explained: “We are British and are proud of our Britishness and it is important for us to highlight the elements of our way of life, which perhaps distinguish us, in some respects, from others due to our history.”
43.He also identified problems with the word “fundamental” in the Government’s description of “Fundamental British Values”. It is a word with troubling connotations. As the Chief Rabbi told us, “fundamental values can lead towards fundamentalism, and that would be in the event that they prompt people to adopt an extremist approach, whereby those who are championing fundamental values have no tolerance for the particular values of a particular entity within our society.”
44.In October 2017 we attended a citizenship ceremony at Westminster City Hall. During that ceremony the values were described as “the values of British citizenship”. This roots the values in our shared citizenship of this country, and mirrors the German approach which roots their values within their constitution and basic law. Mira Turnsek, an official of the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, told us that: “There are discussions on that which would probably include German values and what it means to be German, but we would always go back to the constitutional values and the human rights approach and the basic law.”
45.In the same way we believe that our values should be rooted within our shared citizenship.
46.The Government should stop using the term Fundamental British Values and instead use the term Shared Values of British Citizenship. It should recognise that the values are both shared with people from other countries and are essentially British.
47.The use of the term “Shared Values of British Citizenship” does not imply that no other country can share them in whole or in part, but that they are civic values which should be adhered to by all people in Britain. Values that stand in opposition to these Shared British Values (SBV) cannot and should not be described as British. All social and cultural identities that fit with these civic values are British, and should be proudly thought of as British. So it is perfectly possible for a devout Catholic or Muslim to believe in Shared British Values simultaneously. However, this is not true of a person who for example, discriminates against women or who is Islamophobic.
48.Beyond the description of the Shared British Values there are also problems with the Government’s chosen list of values. The Chief Rabbi thought that “the vast majority of people are not familiar with what British values are. If you were to stop somebody in the street and say, ‘What are the four key elements of British values?’ I am sure they would not even know there were four and would have no clue.”
49.That does not mean that there is not a broad understanding of what the key principles are that the values reflect. Pupils 2 Parliament asked 281 primary school children aged 9 to 11 what values they believed that everyone living in Britain should share, think are important and support. Their top three choices were “Mutual respect—Caring—Democracy and voting” followed by “Fundraising and charity—Equality—Individual liberty and freedom—Rule of law—Kindness”. Although they do not use the same words, they quite closely reflect the Shared British Values. If primary school children have a good understanding of these values it is very possible that there is some level of understanding across the population as a whole.
50.However, word choices do matter in selecting and promoting a series of values. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, criticised the values for being “a bit rootless”, suggesting that they call for tolerance but do not identify the root of that tolerance:
“I have a stance towards another person that enables me, because I understand something, to be tolerant of them because I recognise their dignity and the importance of difference. If we keep picking the fruits of tolerance and not attending to the roots of the tree, it disappears, which is what we see: tolerance becomes cynicism, cynicism becomes indifference, indifference hardens and we end up going down the road that leads to hate incidents and hate crimes … There is something very important about being ready to explore what lies behind the fairly arbitrary selection of British values, that they need roots.”
51.Tolerance plays a key part in the Government’s current formulation of the Shared British Values. However, the idea of tolerance needs to be examined to find what the core value is beneath it, as explained by the Chief Rabbi: “The concept of tolerance … does not imply acceptance. The Hebrew word for ‘tolerance’ is ‘sovlanut’, from the root ‘sevel’, which means discomfort. We are not at ease with this, but we allow it to take place out of respect for others to have their space and the opportunity to express themselves how they wish.”
52.The crucial value here is respect for other citizens. As the definition currently stands, “tolerance” and “respect” in the Shared British Values are reserved for those of “different faiths and beliefs”. However, respect for our fellow citizens should not be based only upon their faiths and beliefs. Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the Committee: “the things that do underline our approach to values should certainly include respect for the rule of law, to ensure that there is equality in relation to matters of race, religion, sexuality and so on.”
53.In spite of what the Minister said, race and sexuality are not expressly covered under the current definition of the Shared British Values, but the Minister’s description of the values fits with how Ofsted has been interpreting the values as they evaluate schools’ promotion of them. For example, Ofsted has sanctioned schools which fail to teach about LGBT people. This is entirely right, and the Shared British Values should cover these, and others; Nazir Afzal, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England and so responsible for the prosecution of the high profile Rochdale grooming cases, highlighted “gender equality” as an example, but all the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are just as important.
54.There is a need to recognise the core issues that are at the heart of British values, and place them within an understanding of what it means to be a citizen of this country. Certain groups are failing to respect the autonomy of women, LGBT people, and the religious practices of other groups. This is against the values of British society. We recognise each individual as inherently worthy of respect. We have a duty to respect the dignity and autonomy of all people. The state has a duty to treat all its citizens with equal respect and concern. As residents of the UK we also have a duty to respect our fellow residents in the same way. A person has a right to this equality of respect whatever their wealth, race, social standing, gender, sexuality, abilities, caste, religion or belief.
55.We agree with Cardinal Nichols that the values should not be seen as rootless; they should be seen as rooted in our shared humanity.
56.This is well expressed in an analogy from the Chief Rabbi:
“The best analogy I can think of is the symphony orchestra in which we have separate instruments, each one making its own unique sound and, under the baton of the conductor, blending together to produce perfect harmony. Surely this is what we should strive towards achieving within our society … We need to respect people for who they are and where they come from and, under the baton of human co-operation, we need to blend together to produce that harmonious society, not through uniformity but unity, which means respecting differences and enabling us to thrive in that way.”
57.Witnesses had specific concerns not just about the content of the values, but also about the top down way in which the content was decided upon. Dr Neil Hopkins told us that “There was not a period of public discussion and national debate on Britishness and what values (if any) this encapsulated. This lack of debate has made it difficult for Fundamental British Values to be accepted in many quarters of British society.”
58.The Government should initially change the existing list of values from “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs” to “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and respect for the inherent worth and autonomy of every person.” The rule of law ensures that every individual has freedom under the law (and hence enjoys individual liberty) and equality before the law (which entails a respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person). The Government should encourage a broad public debate across the country on both the Shared Values of British Citizenship and the other values we share, and how they fit together.
59.Currently the only area of Government policy with an explicit duty to promote FBV is education. Schools are required to “actively promote” FBV and are inspected on this by Ofsted. There is no such obligation in respect of the vast majority of citizens, including those who are new to this country, and it is unclear whether the Government is doing anything to promote FBV in their case. Dr Jill Rutter, Director of Strategy and Relationships at British Future, pointed out that there was room for the Government to promote values more widely:
“The state … reaches people through lots of different ways, through the arts, through publicly funded art through libraries and art through leisure centres. We could think about how these different organisations of the state could gently promote shared values, perhaps by encouraging volunteering and bringing people of different communities together. It would be lots of different small things. … and everybody contributing in different ways and reaching different groups of people. It is people who are more isolated who are less likely to participate in arts, leisure, sports and volunteering, whom we need to reach. … Perhaps … through further education and apprenticeships, through football and through the institutions that they use and visit. It is a very big task.”
60.We have heard repeatedly in the course of our inquiry that sports provide an opportunity to reach people who are disengaged, and this is discussed in more detail in the chapter on Integration. Sports, leisure and arts all represent areas where the Government could promote the Shared British Values and reach those that would otherwise be hard to reach.
61.The Government should set out what the Shared Values of British Citizenship mean for Government policy in each Government department, and outline how they can promote them, especially through areas of Government policy like sport, leisure, arts and culture that reach groups which may otherwise not engage with the Government.
62.The positioning of Shared British Values was also called into question. Whilst the Home Office, like every other department, should be clear how it is promoting the Shared British Values, there are questions of whether Shared British Values are too close to the counter extremism agenda. The Department for Education is consulting to create new curriculum materials to help teachers in teaching FBV, and it plans to put them on its Educate against Hate website providing advice on counter-extremism. Our evidence suggests that many people see FBV as part of the counter-extremism agenda.
63.Shared British Values are fundamental to the life of the country and should be promoted in their own right, not simply as an adjunct of counter-extremism policy. As summarised by Dame Louise Casey, there are better reasons for promoting them: “At the moment, we are saying that women are equal to men, that it is okay for gay people to get married and that we should respect that even if we do not condone it within our religion. If we are saying these things only because of something called extremism, we are getting something wrong.”
64.When questioned, witnesses outside Government unanimously agreed that making the promotion of Shared British Values part of the counter extremism agenda was a mistake, and thought it harmed the perception of the Shared British Values.
65.The Government needs to be careful that “Britishness” is not used as a counter-narrative to religious extremism, as it can exclude those it most needs to inspire. Dr Jill Rutter emphasised this:
“we should caution against using the word [British] too much and using it as a counter-narrative to religious extremism. We were told, when we met a group of young people in Newham, east London ‘The more they talk about British values, the more we feel we don’t belong’. We have to be sensitive and cautious about how we use it and we need to use it in positive contexts, not as a counter-narrative to religious extremism.”
66.There is also a danger that the Prevent strategy and other elements of the counter-extremism agenda are part of a toxic debate. Associating Shared British Values with the security agenda risks tainting it with the concerns of that debate. Dr Theresa O’Toole, Reader in Sociology at the University of Bristol, explained this to us:
“Like many things, if we were to debate British values under the rubric of the Prevent agenda, it would be likely to have quite harmful and toxic implications for that debate. You can see that replicated across a range of different domains, whether cohesion or integration. There is a risk that the very valid debates about gender equality will become contaminated by concerns about securitisation in those debates, because they are being tied or hitched to the counter-extremism or Prevent agenda. We could have a debate about British values—it would be good if it was a debate and not simply a prescription handed to us from the Home Office—and to have it in a way that is autonomous from the security agenda.”
67.Counter-extremism programmes can be divisive amongst those communities which see themselves as unfairly targeted. Associating Shared British Values with those programmes risks making the values themselves divisive. Saskia Marsh from the Commission on Islam, Participation and Public Life, found that they were perceived as such, and that this had toxic effects:
“Among respondents to the commission this discussion on British values has been perceived as divisive, again because the term is being perceived as focusing on very exclusive values rather than on universal values that individuals of different cultures hold. That effect is obviously counterproductive to the safeguarding aims of Prevent, and I suppose also to the original aims of wanting to define British values, which for me are about defining acceptable standards of engagement towards one another in a multicultural, multifaith society.”
68.In his evidence the Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP, then Minister of State for Immigration, supported the link between counter-extremism and values because he perceived that this helped counter-extremism to be more effective:
“… promoting those core values is absolutely essential in the work we are doing to defeat extremism, and we should be quite unapologetic about that. If we are not focused on defeating the evil ideology of extremism in all its forms, we will miss out on dealing with one of the biggest challenges of our time. It is not easy, it is complicated, but we have to stay focused on it and not allow ourselves to be taken off piste by people having a problem talking about British values. We need to be very clear about that and we have to make sure that our narrative about that tolerance and belief in the rule of law is something that we drive through, as I say, very unapologetically and be quite forwardstepping about it.”
69.We agree on the need to champion Shared British Values. However, the Minister did not seem to consider the effect of the negative connotations of counter-extremism on the promotion of Shared British Values. Counter-extremism is directed at only a few thousand people, whilst the promotion of Shared British Values seeks to create an integrated society for the whole population. Shared British Values can present a positive vision of what people in Britain believe, and could help prevent the need for counter-extremism intervention.
70.The promotion of Shared British Values should be separated from counter-extremism policy. The Government should not place guidance on teaching Shared Values of British Citizenship on the “Educate against Hate” website. Guidance to teachers should make clear that the primary objective of promoting Shared Values of British Citizenship is to encourage positive citizenship rather than solely aiming to counter extremism.
71.In the evidence we received there have been some concerns about the promotion of FBV in faith schools. Approximately 1.9 million pupils are taught in 6,813 state funded primary and secondary designated faith schools in England. This represents 28% of all primary and 18% of all secondary pupils.
72.The term ‘faith school’ can be confusing. A school can have a specific legal designation as being a school with a religious character. A school with a religious character can be a maintained school, academy or independent school. These schools have greater control of their Religious Education curriculum, ownership of school buildings, the ability to take religious considerations into account in staffing, and the ability to include faith-based criteria in their admissions policy when they are oversubscribed.
73.Although they have this ability to include faith-based criteria in their admissions policy, many designated schools with a religious character have an intake which is primarily or entirely of a different faith or no faith at all, and have a different ethnic mix from the local population of that faith. For example many Church of England primary schools in Bradford are majority Asian or British Pakistani. At St Philip’s Church of England Primary Academy in Girlington, Bradford, 90% of the pupils are Asian or British Pakistani and fewer than 5% are White British. At Westminster Church of England Primary Academy in Bradford 66% of the pupils are Asian or British Pakistani. Other designated faith schools use their faith based admissions criteria to help ensure that they have pupils of a particular faith.
74.There are 300 independent schools designated as schools with a religious character. Although many of these schools are of a high standard, in a recent report, Ofsted stated that some leaders at these schools “do not sufficiently promote fundamental British values.” The private orthodox Jewish schools which have caused controversy over failing Ofsted inspections due to not teaching FBV adequately fit within this group.
75.In addition to these schools, other schools have chosen to describe themselves as having a faith based ethos despite not having that legal status. This applies to schools like the Oasis Academy South Bank which is a regular academy, rated as Outstanding by Ofsted, run by the Christian Oasis foundation.
76.Our evidence suggested that a majority of faith schools are adhering to British values and setting good examples as schools. We heard from the Chief Rabbi that Jewish faith schools are setting a positive example:
“From the point of view of the Jewish schools you have mentioned, there is a very keen desire to champion British values within the schools while being true to the religious principles which they follow. … I am exceptionally proud of our faith schools and the extent to which our faith schools are always close to the top of the leagues with regard to secular excellence and the extent to which our pupils are encouraged to become outstanding, responsible citizens.”
77.This agreed with the picture presented by Sean Harford, Ofsted’s National Director for Education, who said that only a small minority of faith schools have a problem teaching British values, and that there are some examples of excellent work on British values being done in other faith schools:
“The vast majority of schools are doing well in this area. However, we have concerns about a very small minority of schools in the independent sector … it is not, as you may well know, the full cohort of independent schools—it is about 1,000 to 1,100 of the non-association independent schools. A small number, about 40 or 45, have been identified as providing inadequately and failing the independent schools standard for promoting fundamental British values. They are predominantly from the faith sectors. Clearly, that is of concern, because where that is most acute they tend to be in communities or serving communities that are quite insular anyway, so, ironically, they probably need more promotion of fundamental British values as set out than other places where there is more connection with the wider community.”
78.He also told us about an example of good practice within faith schools:
“I have a quote here from the Jamiatul-Ilm Wal-Huda school in Lancashire. The inspection report picked up in particular that ‘Pupils have very recently completed a joint project with pupils from a school in a rural part of Cumbria. Such work gives pupils a broad understanding of the range of people and contexts in modern Britain. Aspects such as democracy and the rule of law are taught formally and … emphasised in the daily life of the school’. We can see that there is good and great practice and that it is an outstanding school overall.”
79.There are nevertheless a small number of schools where there has been a serious failure to act in accordance with Shared British Values. In an interview in The Times Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman highlighted teaching and books in a number of faith schools that are blatantly in violation of British values:
“As [Ms Spielman] flicks through a dossier of material found in Islamic schools, she points to the cover of a book called Women who Deserve to go to Hell, filed next to a text on the ‘rights of beating women’. It is ‘absolutely’ clear to her that misogyny is being drummed into children at an early age in such schools. ‘It flows very directly from some strands of religion,’ she says.”
80.Since 2010, where a new faith school is created and it is oversubscribed, it cannot recruit more than 50% of its intake on faith-based criteria. However, in 2016 the Department for Education consulted on removing this cap, and in the 2017 Conservative Manifesto there was a commitment to doing so. There are concerns that this could cause greater social segregation within faith schools.
81.The Integrated Communities Strategy commits the Government to trial new approaches to admissions that balance the principle of parental preference and decreasing segregation in their five selected Integration Areas. We believe this is a good approach; the results from these trials should inform future decisions on admissions.
83.Although religious groups are not bound by anti-discrimination law in the practice of their faith, promoting discrimination has no place in schools. Ofsted’s annual report rightly highlights the importance of Shared British Values and stresses their importance:
“A core function of education is to pass on what one generation knows to the next. Part and parcel of this is spreading the values and culture that bind us as a society. There is no tension between this and religious pluralism. In fact, any proper teaching of fundamental British values encourages respect and tolerance for others’ views.”
84.If the Government does ensure that existing schools adhere to Shared British Values, parents wishing to opt out of British society may remove their children from those schools. They may then send their children to unregistered schools under the pretence that they are being home schooled. We have not investigated unregistered schools and the tools needed to tackle them. However, in the Integrated Communities Strategy the Government has undertaken to review its guidance to Ofsted and Local Authorities, and to consider whether Ofsted needs additional powers to tackle unregistered schools. This is a promising start. The Department for Education must ensure that unregistered schools are not used by communities as a way of avoiding learning about Shared British Values.
85.Faith schools, and other schools attended primarily by the adherents of one faith, should be no exception to the requirement to teach Shared Values of British Citizenship, still less the requirement to abide by the rule of law. We are glad to see Ofsted focusing on this important issue. They should not look the other way.
86.Whilst it is admirable that Ofsted are tackling this issue, it is possible for it to be addressed at an earlier stage. It is not clear that the Department for Education is sufficiently considering whether a faith school will promote Shared British Values before the school is opened and instead are relying on Ofsted to inspect these schools further down the line. Dame Louise Casey suggested that this was a case of acting after the horse had bolted. However, in the Integrated Communities Strategy the Government has announced a new approach where all new applicants to set up free schools will be required to show how they will prepare children for life in modern Britain and how they will promote fundamental British values as well as how they will encourage pupils from different communities to work together.
21 The Glossary of the Government’s Prevent duty guidance states: “ ‘Extremism’ is defined in the 2011 Prevent strategy as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” However the early education funding regulations in England refer to “the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”. Privately funded independent schools in England which fail to promote those values do not receive funding from local authorities for the free early years entitlement: see paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2010, () as amended by regulation 2(2) of the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, (). This is therefore the current statutory definition. An earlier amendment in 2012 referred to “tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs”. (Emphasis added)
22 This is explained in more detail in Chapter 7 on integration.
24 Written evidence from Conservative Muslim Forum ()
25 Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, Tôme III: “En effet, chaque peuple a son caractère comme chaque homme.”
31 See Appendix 5.
33 From this point on Shared Values of British Citizenship will be abbreviated to Shared British Values.
35 A project to enable school pupils to consider and feed in their views to parliamentary, government and national public body consultations and inquiries.
36 Written evidence from Pupils 2 Parliament ()
40 ‘Jewish school faces closure for refusing to teach its young girls transgender issues despite its religious ethos being praised four years ago’ Daily Mail (13 July 2017) [accessed 9 March 2018]
43 Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Bedfordshire
44 Written evidence from Dr Neil Hopkins ()
45 Department for Education, Guidance on promoting British values in schools published (November 2014): [accessed 9 March 2018]
48 See for example the evidence of Dame Louise Casey, Dr Theresa O’Toole and Saskia Marsh.
53 House of Commons Library, Faith Schools: FAQs, Briefing Paper, , June 2017
55 Ofsted, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2016/17, (December 2017): [accessed 9 March 2018]
56 ‘Private Jewish school fails third Ofsted inspection for not teaching LGBT issues’, Independent, (26 June 2017): [accessed 9 March 2018]
57 Oasis Academy South Bank, ‘About us’: [accessed 9 March 2018]
61 ‘Amanda Spielman interview: ‘There are Children in this country for whom British values are meaningless’’, The Times (16 December 2017): [accessed 9 March 2018]
62 Department for Education, Schools that work for everyone (September 2016): [accessed 9 March 2018]
63 The Conservative and Unionist Party, Forward Together, Our Plan for a Stronger Britain and a Prosperous Future (May 2017): [accessed 12 April 2018]
64 HM Government, Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper (March 2018): [accessed 15 March 2018]. The five selected Integration Areas are Blackburn with Darwen, Bradford, Peterborough, Walsall and Waltham Forest.
65 Ofsted, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2016/17, (December 2017): [accessed 9 March 2018]
66 HM Government, Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper (March 2018) p 27: [accessed 15 March 2018]
68 HM Government, Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper (March 2018) pp 28–29: [accessed 15 March 2018]