I would like to reply to the debate, which has been very interesting, and to make very clear that I also am a secularist. I have never disguised that fact. However, like most secularists, I also believe in equality. We also believe in freedom of religion. All we object to is that beliefs that we and other people do not share are simply imposed on us whether we like them or not. That is really what a lot of this is about. These amendments seek to protect the position of people who do not share a religious point of view but who nevertheless may be very good teachers and are appointed to teach their subject because they have training in their subject and are good teachers. However, they may not be participants in the religion that is designated to run a particular school.
Of course, we also support what the Government tried to do originally with academies. In fact, what we are trying to do in this Bill is to transfer that system throughout the education system. In the case of academies the Government established that there should be reserved teachers. What they could and could not do was precisely defined; and if teachers were not reserved, no pressure could be exerted on them to join a religion or be bound by any of its precepts. The advice that we have had, which was clear, was that unless we amended it in some way, there was a danger that the Bill now before us would not be regarded as complying with the EU directive. It was for that reason that we put down our series of amendments.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response because I understand that he is going to look at some of these things again. We are happy to hear what he has to say. Of course, we are in Committee; we still have Report to go through, and we will take careful note of what has been said. I thank my noble friend Lord Peston for his support. In reply to his comment about who is breaking the law, as far as we can see, unless this Bill is amended, the green light will be given to people on the floor, so to speak, in education to apply what they want to apply because the law that we will then have will not prevent them doing so. If people objected, the only thing to do would be to go to Europe with it, and that is not a good idea. That is the situation and that is one of the reasons we wanted amendments before the Bill leaves this House.
In the mean time, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and other noble Lords for their comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 127 withdrawn.
Amendments 128 to 130A not moved.
Amendment 131 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Amendments 132 to 134 not moved.
Amendment 135 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Amendments 136 to 137A not moved.
Clause 60 agreed.
Amendment 138 not moved.
Clause 61 agreed.
Amendment 139 not moved.
Schedule 14 : Academies: land
Amendments 139A to 139G
Schedule 14 : Academies: land
Amendments 139A to 139G
Moved by
Education Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Turner of Camden
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Education Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c257-9GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:09:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_769516
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_769516
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_769516