Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Amendment 456 in my name would require new state schools opened after this Bill enters the statute book to have a limit on faith-based selection for admissions of 50% when the school is oversubscribed. This has been a requirement since 2011, but, as it stands, the Bill would end that requirement. We often hear amendments being dismissed by Ministers who warn of unintended consequences, but this appears to be an example of a Bill itself in danger of causing unintended consequences.

The determination by a succession of Tory Governments, initially hand in hand with the Lib Dems, to undermine maintained schools while promoting academies and free schools vigorously has meant that, since 2011, all new schools had to be free schools. There was one benefit of that policy, because free schools are subject to the 50% faith-based cap on admissions as part of their funding agreement. Clause 57 would remove the presumption that all new schools should be free schools and would instead allow other types of schools to be opened. That includes voluntary aided or foundation schools, which can be 100% religiously selective. Those types of schools will be allowed to open for the first time since the cap was introduced 14 years ago.

Was that an unintended consequence? If it was initially, it seems that the Government were not greatly concerned by it. When the issue was debated in another place, an amendment similar to Amendment 456 was voted down by the Government in Committee, and the same thing happened on Report. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that, on deeper reflection, that is a position that she does not want to defend.

I say that because a cap on faith-based admissions has been demonstrated to strengthen ethnic integration. Analysis of data on faith schools shows that religiously selective schools operating under the 50% cap were significantly more ethnically diverse than schools that were 100% religiously selective. We should bear in mind that, at a time when the far right is seeking to divide communities on grounds of ethnicity, it is surely inappropriate to allow schools to entrench differences. This is a time for the Government to be promoting social and ethnic integration, not facilitating a means by which children grow up potentially not knowing anyone of their own age who is different from themselves. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want to see happening.

Faith-selective schools remain less inclusive across multiple factors. Compared to other schools, faith-selective schools admit fewer children eligible for free school meals than would be expected for their catchment areas, and 100% faith-selective admissions would only exacerbate inequalities in the school system. Last year, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator said that disadvantaged children, including those in care, miss out on school places because of faith-based admissions. Studies by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics reached the same conclusions. We know that 100% faith-selective schools will open if the provisions of Clause 57 remain. The Catholic Church and the Church of England will certainly do so, and it may be that Jewish, Muslim and Sikh groups would wish to do the same. They already exist.

In Committee in another place, the then Schools Minister Catherine McKinnell MP said,

“on the faith schools cap provision, we want to allow proposals for different types of school that will promote a diverse school system that supports parental choice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/25; col. 454.]

Supporting parental choice is admirable, but allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open would not expand parental choice. It would actually limit it for parents in an area who do not adhere to the faith of the new school or indeed any faith. According to the British Social Attitudes survey, 53% of people now have no religion. Thus, potentially more than half of all parents have fewer choices for state-funded schools than their religious counterparts, and 100% faith selection allows their children to be rejected from an oversubscribed school on their doorstep in favour of the child of a parent in a home possibly miles away whose choice—that is, the religious affiliation—is the factor that allows them to be selected for admission.

I suggest that that is neither right nor fair. Lifting the 50% cap on admissions would be a regressive move, and not one that I believe should be sanctioned by a Labour Government. I suggest that Amendment 456 offers a means of avoiding that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my own Amendment 457 and to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, both of which deal with the issue of faith- based selection in school admissions.

My Amendment 457 speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools, and therefore we do not know how many parents are missing out on their preferred school placements because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils and whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice.

Amendment 456 should, I hope, be uncontroversial. Since 2011, all new faith schools, as all new schools, had to be free schools, and have been subject in their funding agreements to a 50% cap on faith-based selection in admissions when oversubscribed. In this situation, Amendment 456 is a simple tidying-up exercise—that is how I read it anyway—extending a standing policy for free schools with a religious character to all new state-maintained schools with a religious character that could open under Clause 57.

The Government have not in any way suggested that they oppose the 50% cap in principle. Following a consultation on the cap that showed overwhelming support for it to continue, the Government have stated that they will maintain the cap for free schools with a religious character. If the Government are supportive of allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open, I ask the Minister to state that clearly before the Committee.

I wish to be clear that neither of these amendments oppose the opening or continuing service of faith schools in this country, many of which provide exemplary education for their pupils. What the amendment seeks to do is ensure that faith schools cannot limit parental choice and pupil diversity by hand-selecting whom they wish to accept.

Using selection of faith leads to less inclusion. Church of England and minority religion schools, subject to a 50% cap, have higher ethnic diversity compared with those not subject to the cap. Faith schools compared with schools without a religious character in the same catchment area have been found to accept fewer children on free school meals, according to the Sutton Trust; fewer children in care, according to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator; and fewer children with additional learning needs, according to research from the London School of Economics. Amendment 456 and my Amendment 457 would promote fairness and parental choice in the schools admissions policy. I commend them both to the Committee.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to my amendment in this group and leave the summing up to my noble friend. I use the term “off-rolling” in this. It may be out of date and unfair, but the fact of the matter is that there has been an increase in the number of children not in school over recent years. A Commons report on the issue came out in 2020, but it has been exacerbated by the Covid situation. It is about time we had a real, in-depth dive into why more and more pupils are not within the mainstream system.

There has been some suggestion that the academy system wanting to get rid of bad pupils is to blame or that the greater emphasis on special educational needs has led to the thought that people might be more trouble for the school. I would like to know. I know that some of the academies—the better ones—have fought against this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, getting extremely annoyed about the idea of that practice in a Committee stage debate on another Bill. If there are academies that are avoiding it or some that are falling to this, we should know. If academies are here to stay, under this Bill, whether we like it or not, because we have accepted them, can we find out whether there is a specific problem there or if it is something else? The increased number of people not in school is a problem that we have referred to throughout Committee, and it is about time we had a decent and in-depth look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey, who has unfortunately had to leave to get the last possible train home.

I want to say just a few words, as the hour is so late, on Amendments 471 and 465, which seek to clarify in legislation the requirement for schools to teach about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, in religious education at all stages. I am aware of the ongoing review into the national curriculum. It may be that, through the review, it is recommended that religious education becomes part of the national curriculum. This would be welcome, to ensure that the subject becomes impartial, objective and balanced, with clear national minimum standards that teach children about all the main religions and non-religious belief systems within our country.

However, as this may not come to pass, my amendment seeks to ensure the teaching of non-religious beliefs in religious education. In 2015, the High Court ruling in R(Fox) v Secretary of State for Education declared that religious education curricula should include the teaching of non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, to comply with the rights of freedom and belief under the European Convention on Human Rights. Nearly a decade later, in 2024, Ofsted released Deep and Meaningful? The Religious Education Subject Report. It reported that half of all secondary schools and a majority of primary schools still did not teach about non-religious world views in their RE lessons.

It is vital that children and young people learn about non-religious belief systems alongside the major religions. Humanism has a long and significant history in the UK, stretching through our sciences, arts, culture and politics. Many people in the UK live their lives around the values of the scientific method, making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and a concern for all living life, and that in the absence of a God or afterlife we must strive to improve ourselves and our communities in the time that we have.

My Amendment 471 would ensure that religious education must teach about non-religious beliefs, providing clarity and direction to schools and local authorities. Amendment 465 seeks to remove the requirement for collective daily worship in all state-funded schools without a religious character. It would not remove the ability for schools without a religious character to provide collective worship if they choose to do so, nor, as some noble Lords have seemingly misunderstood, would it ban prayers, Christmas carols or any religious holidays.

It simply removes the legal requirement of mandatory Christian worship in these non-faith schools. While faith schools will still be required to provide collective worship, schools without a religious character will have to provide an assembly once a week that furthers the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of all pupils, regardless of their faith or belief.

This amendment is about freedom of choice and respecting the diversity of our society. It cannot be justified, when in the recent census over a third of the population in England and Wales had no religion, rising to over half of those in their 20s, that when non-religious parents send their children to a non-religious school, the school is still legally obliged to perform Christian worship. When the alternative is to pull children out of lessons or assemblies and leave them sitting in classrooms or corridors by themselves, this is not a real choice.

The current situation demands that parents choose between ostracising their children and forcing them into religious worship they do not want for their family. I know that there are many noble Lords who deeply and sincerely believe in the values of Christian worship, and I respect that belief. That is why my amendment does not remove the requirement of collective worship in faith schools. In return, I ask noble Lords to respect those of us in society who do not believe in any faith, and to allow parents the equally valid choice to have their children attend schools that do not require daily worship. Children should also have the right, as under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to remove themselves from worship if they do not believe in it.

Maintaining the daily collective worship obligation for state-funded schools without a religious character is not respectful to those families from other religions or with no religion. We should provide more choice, not less, to schools and parents, to reflect the needs and beliefs of children.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, at this late hour, I sound a slight note of caution and concern over Amendments 465 and 471. I do not have any particular problem with Amendment 463, which is something all of us should be able to embrace, in terms of ensuring education around prevention of sexual violence and promoting respectful relationships.

Amendment 465 in many ways transposes the proposed Private Member’s legislation and tries to put it within this legislation. By removing the requirement for collective worship, what is put in its place seems to be quite vague and ill-defined in its nature. It talks about assemblies that have to promote

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural”

aspects. It strikes me that it almost replaces a religious assembly with what is, in effect, a humanist assembly. That is a conclusion which a lot of people will draw.

The vagueness of what is being proposed to, in effect, replace the collective worship will lead a lot of schools into trying to find other forms of lectures and lessons that they will try to put across within an assembly. There is no doubt that this will lead to a widespread and vast difference of interpretation. There is also no doubt that many of the subjects, while very merited, can be quite controversial. We would be naive if we did not believe that this would create a situation in a number of schools in which there were levels of friction, perhaps between parents and the school, or between governors and the school. There is a certain element of the hornet’s nest being stirred up.

The proposer of the amendment also then talked about choice. It is absolutely right at present that no child or family is compelled to attend religious or collective worship. The right to opt out is enshrined in legislation and, as such, clearly will remain, and I think everyone would accept that. However, the way the amendment before us today is drafted creates this alternative form of assembly, which is compulsory for everyone. It would mean that if a parent objected to a particular assembly, to a lesson, there is no right for them to withdraw their child because there is no provision directly to do that.

There is a danger of unintended consequences as a result of this. Mention was made on a number of occasions today of not wanting to go down the route of Northern Ireland education. Without going into the details, some of what has been said was a bit oversimplified and wrong. But leaving that aside, Members made the point that they see the best social mix of education where there is a wide range of faiths—where, indeed, there is a considerable level of mixing. Removing collective acts of religious worship will actually push some parents much more towards faith schools, feeling that perhaps the faith of their children is not being represented. That will create a situation that makes integration less likely, albeit perhaps in a relatively small fashion. So there is that question of unintended consequences.

I do not believe that Amendment 471 is necessary. The curriculum already at times reflects non-religious topics within RE. This, to some extent, supercharges the non-religious issues within RE. Whether we have faith or not, I think everyone in this House probably, in different ways, holds non-religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell is gone. I share with him one unfortunate trait, in that I am a lifelong Manchester United supporter. I have a belief that within the next few years, Manchester United will win the Premiership again. Perhaps that is not a non-religious belief, because the amount of faith required to hold that belief is such that it perhaps tips over into being much more a matter of faith over hope and experience.

Nevertheless, we have seen that the definition is tied to the provisions of a particular part of the ECHR. We know that, as a result of that clause, there has been quite a lot of case law, not just here but throughout Europe, in relation to the definition of non-religious beliefs. A very wide range of topics has come into play and been defined in case law. Again, all those are perfectly legitimate topics. However, it raises the prospect of the non-religious belief side overwhelming the religious side of RE. I may be quite literalist in my view, but I think religious education should principally be about religion, and this clearly dilutes that to an unacceptable extent.

In conclusion, I appreciate, given many of the figures that have been quoted, that we are becoming an increasingly secular society, so I suppose what I am saying may be regarded as a bit unfashionable. But I believe that, in an age when perhaps there are a lot of unnecessary divisions within this country, a lot of our laws and collective values ultimately rely on Judeo-Christian values and traditions. We should not abandon those in a school setting, on a casual basis without specific consultation. These amendments take us too far in that direction.