a)    By Councillor Richards:

This Council expresses concern that Ofsted will be given new powers to inspect church premises to assess whether teaching in an out-of-school setting complies with British values and urges a review of this policy.

a)    By Councillor Richards:

Councillor Richards introduced his motion. He stated that he believed in limited government, the right to privacy and freedom of worship. He had also brought the motion as a Christian and a lay church leader on behalf of Christian groups who would be affected locally.  His church represented 600 people of diverse backgrounds. The government proposal was an unprecedented attack on religious freedom and a worrying increase in government power. Never before had government authorities entered churches to assess their teaching of the bible. Councillor Richards felt this was a step towards a fascist or Soviet model where government officials sat in on church services, which was contrary even to the Magna Carta. The proposal was contrary to the meaning of equality. Extremist and intolerant measures should not be the reaction to extremism and intolerance. The church should remain separate from state interference. He questioned what incidents there had been of British Christians being radicalised by churches? The focus had moved from equality of opportunity for all to equality of concern. The Christian church was at the forefront of Big Society; it was in danger of being replaced by ‘Big Brother Society’.

Councillor Richards acknowledged that there were challenges in the modern world but they would not be overcome by drawing one group into the problems of another. It was constantly said that terrorists were not people of faith and therefore this was not really a religious problem at all. He had been accused of being anti other faiths, however some of his closest friends were of other faiths or none at all. The last motion he brought to Council was to support refugees, who would likely have been of another faith. He did not presume to know how the proposals would affect other faiths. Churches were already regulated as they were registered as charities and, where necessary, had safeguarding policies. Church schools were already inspected by Ofsted.

Councillor Bathurst stated that as a fellow Christian he was obligated to support the motion. It was a difficult argument to make because Christianity was in the modern day a minority pursuit. It may not have been the case that everybody’s pursuit or beliefs were being attacked but if the state was allowed to expand without check everybody would suffer sooner or later. Councillor Bathurst felt that the government’s proposals were a classic piece of bureaucratic creep. To a legislator, all the world's problems could be solved by writing more laws. Despite the lack of obvious success of OFSTED in improving school standards, people were now expected to believe that Ofsted was best-qualified to tell non-schools how to run themselves.

For reasons of political correctness, the government was extending inspections to all establishments without mentioning any in particular. The problem was that, once implemented, the very reasonable balance and good judgement that ministers expected would be lost once contact was made with reality.

In some ways, the arguments against the proposals from the government were similar to the objections that many people had to the Prevent programme. It was too broad-brush, smeared or implicated entire faiths and diluted efforts away from where the real problems were. These were arguments for not applying inspections to any religion. There was a particular reason, however, why the Christian church should be given special protection. In theory, the government's approach was very even-handed, treating all religions the same. In practice it was a very different matter. Councillor Bathurst referred to the Birmingham case where concerns over radicalisation were not reported or acted upon. He hoped that people of all faiths and of none would join him in voting for the motion.

Councillor Rankin stated that the state defining a set of vague and subjective values and then monitoring adherence to them seemed to him to be draconian. He seconded the motion.

Councillor McWilliams commented that the issue had nothing to do with the local authority; it had already been extensively debated in Parliament. The Government was not proposing to regulate institutions teaching children for a short period every week, such as Sunday schools or the Scouts. The proposal would also not apply to one-off residential activities, such as a week-long summer camp. It was looking specifically at places where children received intensive education out of schools, where they could be spending more than six to eight hours a week.

The proposals were all about making sure that where there were concerns raised by parents and others about issues of extremism, child cruelty or inappropriate teaching in unregulated settings, government could take action to protect children and empower parents. As the Prime Minister had made clear in his party conference speech in 2015, such concerns had been raised, including around extremism in some Madrassas. 

The Government had no intention of seeking to regulate religion or to interfere in parents' right to teach children about their faith and heritage. Protecting religious liberty was a fundamental principle. For example, Sunday schools would not be under any requirement to teach non-Christian values. The Government was working closely with the Church of England and other faith communities to ensure that the system was targeted, proportionate and focussed on those settings which were failing to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Those discussions had been productive, and Ministers had made clear the focus was on establishments that were preaching hatred or putting children at risk.

 
It was not extremist to oppose same-sex marriage, and the Government's counter-extremism work was emphatically not intended to cover legitimate debate on such issues. All schools were now expected to actively promote British values, which were defined in 2011 as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. Teaching respect for other people, even if you did not agree with them or their way of life, was a fundamental part of preparation for life in Britain, and a principle all schools should be able to support.

No teacher would be expected or required to promote lifestyles that they did not agree with. Equally, it would be unlawful for any teacher to discriminate, harass or victimise someone in contravention of the law. The conduct of inspectors was the responsibility of Ofsted. If a school was concerned about either an inspector's conduct, or that an inspection was not being carried out in accordance with Ofsted's guidance, it should follow the formal process for raising this.

Councillor Sharma stated that he found it difficult to support the motion. The proposals were being made to crack down on minority schools where children’s heads were being filled with passion and their hearts filled with hatred. There was a variety of religions in the borough and it would not be right to exclude one piece from the jigsaw.

Councillor Ilyas commented that nobody would disagree that British values should be taught to young people. In fact, British values were common in the universal values of humanity which stressed the need for respect of core values of all people. As a teacher himself, it was his responsibility on a daily basis to inculcate such values in young people. As far as he was aware, Ofsted proposed to inspect all religious premises, not only church premises.

The Mayor and many former Mayors present had witnessed first hand the excellent community links that had been established in the Royal Borough between people of many different cultures, faiths and backgrounds. The Royal Borough was blessed with a diverse community having excellent community cohesion between the many faith and non-faith groups. The Windsor and Maidenhead Community Forum (WAMCF), which had been running in the Royal Borough for more than 30 years, did a great deal to promote dialogue and community relations between all members of the community, those of faith and those with no faith. Its work had been recognised by the Queen when she awarded an MBE to the Chairman and a founder member of WAMCF .

Councillor Ilyas believed that the wording of the motion as it stood, focussed on one religious community and excluded those of other faiths and those who had none in the Royal Borough. In principle the motion was asking Ofsted to review its policy, and therefore he believed that the policy should be reviewed for all premises of all religious communities. He was concerned that should the motion be tabled as it was then the message elected representatives would be communicating was that the council favoured one particular religious community more than others, which would be discriminatory. Councillor Ilyas proposed that the words ‘church premises’ be substituted with the words ‘all religious premises’ in order to be inclusive of all faiths and not just one.

Councillor Werner commented that Sir Michael Wilshaw had commented in a radio interview that where young people attended any religious setting, the premises would have to be registered and inspected. Originally Ofsted said inspections of pre-school premises would not involve a full inspection, but then they had downgraded them on minor issues such as lunch being held in group situations or not. A light touch from Ofsted often turned into interfering in all aspects. Sunday Schools were run by volunteers.. His wife ran a session for young people; not many attended but they benefitted from the session. He was concerned that such small settings could be closed down when the bureaucracy of Ofsted became involved. He stated that he would be happy to second the amendment to the motion.

Councillor Saunders commented that on reading the consultation proposals he had concluded that they were very sensible. The proposals sought to apply regulation focussed on those who could not help themselves, were vulnerable or could not speak for themselves. He highlighted that the consultation related to ‘any out-of-school education setting providing young people with more than 6 to 8 hrs each week’. It was intended to enable risk based inspections only in response to specific concerns raised by children, parents and the community or sampling particular settings by type or location. It was focussed on the physical safety of children, including safe premises and no corporal punishment; safeguarding children from adults barred from working with children; and protecting children from vocal or active opposition under well-defined, clearly-acknowledged British values including the ability for individuals to pursue their own religious beliefs.  This was exactly what schools did and what the council would hope the parental community would also do. He questioned why any school in whatever setting would be exempt from a perfectly rational set of principles. No new powers were recommended; the only new power the consultation asked about was what penalty should apply if relevant education settings did not register.

Councillor Richards accepted the proposed amendment by Councillor Ilyas, therefore Members continued to debate the following motion:

‘This Council expresses concern that Ofsted will be given new powers to inspect all religious premises to assess whether teaching in an out-of-school setting complies with British values and urges a review of this policy.

Councillor E. Wilson commented that the consultation was not about churches but about children. He felt that the issue did affect the borough because all Members had a responsibility to ensure all children were safe and receiving the right education. The council could not turn a blind eye. It was important to ensure whatever teachings were given were not against British values.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that this was a national issue that was contentious, a religious issue that was personal and a security issue that was complex. The council was not a second chamber to the legislature and could not second guess something that was dynamic. He would not be able to support the motion.

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the Council’s Constitution, the Mayor called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 10.00pm.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the meeting continue past 10.00pm.

Councillor Dudley highlighted the need to keep children safe. He supported the teaching of British values but had reservations over the reach of the state.

Councillor D. Evans commented that the issue directly involved the local authority as local authorities were asked to respond to the consultation. He felt the issue should have been discussed by a Task and Finish Group to produce a measured response. There was no need for Ofsted to go into all institutions. The consultation was about particular problems in particular parts of the country therefore he was uneasy at the blanket approach.  He was not convinced that there was a need for the full panoply of an Ofsted regulatory system. Sir Michael Wilshaw had stated that the whole system was intended to allow intervention when a whistleblower came forward. A regulatory system was not needed to allow this to happen. Councillor D. Evans stated that he would abstain.

Councillor Kellaway stated that free speech and freedoms required constant vigilance. The British had a unique genius for red tape, interference and inspection systems.

Councillor Clark commented that there genuine concerns over safety in the country, teaching in certain areas and the ability to shape minds in a misdirection. It was important not to differentiate sectors of the community. The consultation was clearly aiming to protect children. He would support the principle of the right to inspect to ensure tolerance was being promoted.

Following a named vote, the motion (as amended) was denied.

(9 councillors voted in favour of the motion – George Bathurst, Mohammed Ilyas, Richard Kellaway, Eileen Quick, Jack Rankin, Wesley Richards, Hari Sharma, Leo Walters, Simon Werner. 20 Councillors voted against the motion - Councillors Malcolm Alexander, Christine Bateson, John Bowden, Paul Brimacombe, Stuart Carroll, Gerald Clark, John Collins, David Coppinger, Carwyn Cox, Judith Diment, Jesse Grey, Geoffrey Hill, Ross McWilliams, Gary Muir, Nicola Pryer, MJ Saunders, Claire Stretton, Lisa Targowska, E Wilson and Lynda Yong. 21 Councillors abstained – Councillors Malcolm Beer, Hashim Bhatti, Phillip Bicknell, Clive Bullock, David Burbage, Simon Dudley, David Evans, Dr Lilly Evans, Marius Gilmore, Maureen Hunt, Lynne Jones, John Lenton, Paul Lion, Philip Love, Sayonara Luxton, Asghar Majeed, Marion Mills, Derek Sharp,  Shamsul Shelim, John Story and Derek Wilson)