Education Regulations and Faith Schools

Debate between David Amess and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess]

Yes, that is absolutely what I am saying.

A leaked internal Department for Education document shows that there has been a significant breakdown in trust between the DFE and Ofsted over this issue. The document describes Ofsted’s controversial drive to carry out British values inspections, and accuses the regulator of sending “confused and mixed messages”. However, the Government put the British values agenda in place and they have been quick to say that complaints about inappropriate questions are a matter for Ofsted, apparently without taking any steps to rein in the regulator. There are therefore questions for the Minister to answer today, and I am sure that we are anxious to leave him plenty of time to deal with them.

The Secretary of State sent a letter to colleagues stating:

“The changes we are making were first outlined in a letter to the Education Select Committee by Lord Nash in March of this year. In that letter, Lord Nash explained that the rationale was: ‘to tighten up the standards on pupil welfare to improve safeguarding, and the standards on spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils to strengthen the barriers to extremism’.”

The letter went on to state:

“The Prime Minister’s Extremism Task Force was clear in its December 2013 report that ‘Islamist extremism…is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice’—but the vague school standards allow Ofsted to treat social conservatives as extremists.”

That is absolutely ridiculous.

The Secretary of State also told us that there are

“twin aims that lie at the heart of the reforms.

The most significant change strengthens the reference to fundamental British values, requiring schools not only to ‘respect’ but to actively promote them. This gives force to a policy first set out by my predecessor in response to events in Birmingham.

The fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs are not new.

They were defined in the Government’s Prevent Strategy in 2011”.

However, the Secretary of State also said:

“The new standards, which require the active promotion of British values, mark a dramatic change in education policy. The previous standards simply required respect for British values and made no mention of the Equality Act 2010…

No pupil should be made to feel inferior to others because of their background. This has long been a central tenet of British education. But it is of course also essential to protect freedom of speech and it is in no way true to suggest that these changes would fetter the views of individual teachers or censor the discussion of relevant matters. A teacher who, for instance, disagrees with same-sex marriage because of their Christian faith will not be prevented from expressing that view by these changes any more than they would now.”

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend has spoken about the changes in these standards, but what has been an important change is that the Secretary of State now has power to take regulatory action where a school is in breach of these requirements. That is why it is so important that we seek clarification and that the Minister gives it, because the repercussions on a school if it is in breach of these standards, in the inspector’s view, are devastating.

[Sir David Amess]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice, and I am sure the whole House will reflect on what she has said. Let me return to what I was saying before she intervened. The letter continued:

“The experience in Orthodox Jewish schools has been that inspectors were actively hostile to traditional Jewish beliefs about marriage held by children and staff.”

That is absolutely shocking.

In conclusion, I believe that tolerance and inclusion are some of the most important British values, but the way in which they are passed on to young pupils should not be imposed on schools. Ofsted needs to cease making unannounced inspections on our brilliant, wonderful faith schools, and stop questioning pupils in a way that is not considered age-appropriate by parents.

Human Rights: Iran

Debate between David Amess and Fiona Bruce

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, as I do on so many other matters.

Some 1,000 prisoners—yes, 1,000 prisoners—are currently on death row in prison. The regime has appointed a death panel to expedite the implementation of the death penalties for prisoners on death row, yet the world remains absolutely silent.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the passion with which he is making his case. Does he agree that it is right that the world should not remain silent? Iranian citizens are not the only ones affected; as the case of Saeed Abedini shows, so are citizens of countries around the world. If my hon. Friend will indulge me, let me explain that he is a 32-year-old US citizen who lives in Idaho with his wife, who is also a US citizen, and their two children. He was visiting Iran to see his family and was taken off a bus, arrested, put in prison for several months, tortured and, this very week, is due to appear before a judge. He risks 18 years in prison or even the death penalty. For what? It would appear only for holding the Christian faith.

[Mr Amess]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done the House a great service in bringing that terrible issue to our attention. I compliment her on the wonderful work she has done ever since she was elected.

The mullahs have at least 60 repressive institutions in the country, including several types of anti-riot agencies, several sections for torture and at least 12 others for filtering websites and controlling e-mails. Not only has this regime meddled in the affairs of Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza; it has recently interfered with the BBC Persian TV service, which experienced deliberate and illegal interference from within Iran from the first day of the 2009 Iranian presidential election. The former director-general Mark Thompson—for whom I do not usually hold a candle—highlighted the issue of BBC Persian staff and their families facing harassment and intimidation at the hands of the Iranian authorities, which has naturally put BBC staff under immense pressure. I know that the noble Lord Patten is trying to do the best he can to sort out that mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amess]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that matter to my attention, and I applaud the wonderful work he, too, does as a Member of this place.

Those staff deserve praise for their bravery in spite of danger, and they deserve the protection of this Government. I ask the Minister to dwell particularly on that point in his reply.

On the 27 November, the UN General Assembly’s third committee condemned Iran for widespread human rights abuses—but what has happened? It is all very well condemning them; what has happened in reality to change the system? The committee cited the

“continuing alarming high frequency of the carrying-out of the death penalty in the absence of internationally recognised safeguards, including an increase in the number of public executions.”

As we have already heard, a 35-year-old dissident blogger was arrested by Iran’s cyber-police on 30 October at his home in Robat Karim. On 6 November, his family was told to collect his body from Tehran’s detention facility, and he was buried the following day. He had been brutally tortured to death while in detention in an attempt to obtain a forced confession—a method used extensively by the Iranian regime against the opposition and dissidents. Witnesses said his body was “crushed”, based on the torture marks. Yet again, however, the world does nothing. The case of Khosravi illustrates the arbitrary nature of the regime’s judiciary, and its mistreatment of political prisoners.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend talks about the arbitrary nature of the judiciary, and is it not true that in Iran it can be difficult to find lawyers to defend such individuals, especially as on occasions not just the accused but their lawyer can be thrown into prison?

[Mr Amess]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; yet again the world remains silent.

In 2008, following arrest by the Intelligence Ministry, Khosravi was given a six-year prison term for providing support to the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, the largest Iranian opposition group.

Charitable Registration

Debate between David Amess and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

That is a valid point; indeed, the Christian Institute, which is a non-denominational charity representing 3,800 churches from almost all Christian denominations, is concerned about the issue. It says:

“If the Charity Commission can now find against the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church in the case of Preston Down Trust, this would appear to have grave implications for other Christian churches and groups, the majority of which apply some restrictions on access to sacraments and benefits… We believe the time is ripe for an Attorney General’s reference to properly clarify the law on public benefit with regard to religious charities. Furthermore, we would like to see modifications made to the role and structure of the Charity Commission, to prevent it adjudicating on theological matters, a function which it is ill-suited to discharge.”

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend, who is a very good woman indeed, agree that the Charity Commission has behaved absolutely disgracefully in this regard? Does she further agree that, rather than waiting for some ministerial diktat, it should admit that it got its decision wrong and overturn it immediately?

[Fiona Bruce]

One way of resolving this immediate issue would be for the charity commissioners to look at all that is in the public benefit. That alone should be sufficient for them to review the case.