Further to our observations about secularists' comments on the Government's flagship Academies Bill, it is noteworthy that the National Secular Society's honorary associates Baroness Massey of Darwen and Baroness Flather are to move three amendments to the Bill in the debate to be held later today and tomorrow.

One introduces an opt out for faith schools converting to Academy status that means they need not automatically retain their religious character. While answering the complaint of the British Humanist Association that the Bill as originally introduced gave them no option to change, they also specifically move that non-faith schools may not adopt a religious character, if they so desire. This is a clear case of double standards and, as I stated previously, any such change should surely first require much broader consultation among parents, staff and governors.

Another of their amendments proposes that 'Personal, Social and Health Education shall be a curriculum requirement.' However, as Lord Northbourne observed in his response to Baroness Massey a week ago, 'Whether PSHE should become compulsory is not a yes or no question. It tremendously depends on what is to be taught and who is going to teach it. We need to know not only what the government guidelines say but what is going to be taught.' (Italics mine.)

He went on to note 'contrary to what the noble Baroness said, recent research shows that the sort of diet of sex and condoms delivered to 14 to 16 year-olds in most schools today makes absolutely no difference at all to the number of teenage pregnancies among the group.' Surely he is right to 'hope that [the Government] will reject or substantially revise the guidelines produced earlier this year by the previous Government, which concentrate mainly on contraception and largely ignore the role of cementing relationships and creating a stable family. The guidelines make no more than passing reference to the importance of supportive parenting, of a whole-school ethos or of respect for others and for self. I also hope that the Government will delay making SRE compulsory until they are satisfied that there are enough well trained teachers available to deliver this sensitive coverage.'

The actions of Massey & Flather are clearly an attempt to reintroduce some of the more controversial measures from the last government's Children Schools and Families Act, such as the possible centralised prescription of same-sex education, that have no place in the Academies Bill. The Lords should be giving their attention to questions raised by various parties such as whether existing freedoms might not be lost by schools converting to Academy status--not least by ourselves, on issues such as whether faith schools will still be permitted to teach in accordance with their school ethos. Will existing legislative provisions, for instance, be applied to Academies to ensure that schools comply with collective worship requirements, that parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons, and that a ballot of all parents must be called if grammar schools are to become change their status?

We have been told that the Government's intention is to introduce greater freedom to parents, teachers and governors. Supposedly, 'Only when people and communities are given more power and take more responsibility can we achieve fairness and opportunity for all.' Let us hope and pray that they do not rush through ill-considered changes that actually result in even greater bureaucracy and 'Big State' control.

Watch out for our 'Big Society' report later this summer, which builds on our research into the biblical pattern for civil society and includes an original new measure designed to track the changes in distribution of power across society.

• 
• Share