Services funded by public money should be open to all, without alienating anyone.
The recent drive to contract out public services to faith groups risks undermining equal access.
Help us keep public services free from discrimination and evangelism.
The government is increasingly pushing for more publicly-funded services to be provided by religious organisations.
Many faith-based groups have carried out social service without imposing their beliefs. But religious groups taking over public service provision raises concerns regarding proselytising and discrimination.
65% of people have no confidence in church groups running crucial social provisions such as healthcare with only 2% of people expressing a lot of confidence.
Any organisations involved in delivering public services should be bound by equality law and restrictions on proselytisation.
Those advocating for faith organisations to take over more public services risk undermining these restrictions, which exist to protect both the public and third sector.
"We have concerns that some religious groups that seek to take over public services, particularly at local level, could pursue policies and practices that result in increased discrimination against marginalised groups, particularly in service provision and the employment of staff. Non-religious people and those not seen to confirm to the dominant ethos of a religious body, such as being in an unmarried relationship or divorced and being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, could find themselves subject to discrimination."
Unitarian Church (Submission to the Parliamentary Public Administration Select Committee about the Big Society agenda)
There are also concerns about faith-based mental health and pastoral care in public institutions, including chaplaincy programmes in the NHS and the armed forces. Where such services are funded by the state, they should not be organised around religion or belief.
Religious commentators are often keen to document the contribution of religious organisations to the third sector and social activism. But they fail to demonstrate why it should be the state's role to build this capacity or why local authorities shouldn't have legitimate concerns about religious groups running services.
Take Action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to protect secular public services.
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
NSS presses government on non-stun meat as schools row intensifies
Posted: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 15:25
The National Secular Society has called on the government to take action to end the supply of non-stun meat amid growing public opposition to its supply in schools.
The NSS has written to Lord Gardiner, the parliamentary under-secretary for rural affairs, to call for repeal of the religious exemption to the animal welfare laws. The exemption means animals may be killed without stunning for religious reasons.
The NSS also called for a requirement to label non-stun meat while the exemption is in place.
The letter comes after NSS research revealed that at least 17 councils across the UK supply non-stunned halal meat to at least 140 schools.
This week thousands of people have signed a petition to end the supply of non-stun meat to schools in the West Yorkshire district of Kirklees after the NSS's report on the subject. Kirklees Council supplies non-stun meat to at least 40 schools.
The NSS's findings also prompted a report in The Times on Monday which revealed that schools are supplying non-stun halal without telling parents about the origins of the meat.
In the letter to Lord Gardiner NSS chief executive Stephen Evans urged the government "to put a stop to further unnecessary animal cruelty by ending the religious exemption that allows animals to be slaughtered without pre-stunning".
He added that while non-stun slaughter is allowed, the government should ensure "any meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning is clearly labelled".
Mr Evans noted that non-stun meat is "routinely being consumed on the general market by unwitting members of the public who are neither Muslim nor Jewish" as a result of the lack of labelling.
The NSS requested a meeting with Lord Gardiner to discuss the issue.
The petition in Kirklees calls on the council to follow the example of Lancashire County Council, which recently voted to uphold its decision to stop supplying non-stun non-poultry meat to schools.
Petition starter Aleksandar Lukic wrote: "Everyone has the right to observe and practice their religion in a free society, but it is clearly unethical for Kirklees Council to serve non-stunned meat to public schoolchildren. Our council has a duty to treat animals in a more humane way."
The petition notes that the council has refused to name the schools affected and that most Muslims are content with pre-stunning.
The consensus among animal welfare experts is that stunning animals before slaughter is more humane than not doing so. Veterinary experts say non-stun slaughter causes "very significant pain and distress" and raises "serious animal welfare concerns".
This week Simon Doherty, president of the British Veterinary Association, told The Times: "All animals should be stunned before slaughter in order to reduce their suffering and improve their welfare. If slaughter without stunning is still to be permitted, any unstunned meat or fish must be clearly labelled to enable consumers to fully understand the choice they are making."
The Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which advises the government, says animals slaughtered without pre-stunning are likely to experience "very significant pain and distress" before they become unconscious.
The EU's scientific panel on animal health and welfare has stated: "Due to the serious animal welfare concerns associated with slaughter without stunning, pre-cut stunning should always be performed."
The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe has called non-stun slaughter "unacceptable under any circumstances".
The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming also advocate for all animals to be stunned prior to slaughter.
The UK government recently agreed a £25m deal to export non-stunned halal meat to Saudi Arabia, a decision which the NSS said would "normalise the mistreatment of animals".
Meanwhile this week the trade magazine Retail Times noted that the halal brand Humza had tripled its range in Tesco and Morrisons. Humza's website says it applies the "halal principle" that means the animals are "healthy and alive prior to slaughter process".
Humza's meat is certified as halal by a group called the Halal Monitoring Board, which says it does not "work in favour of stunning" and "most" of its outlets are "stun free".
In January the NSS revealed that meat from animals which have not been stunned before slaughter was widespread in UK supermarkets.
NSS reveals councils’ spending on discriminatory coroners’ service
Posted: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:55
The National Secular Society has criticised five north London councils for spending £56,000 on an out-of-hours coroners' service which has been exclusively designed to accommodate religious requests for fast treatment.
The councils in Haringey, Barnet, Brent, Enfield and Harrow will fund a "formal out-of-hours coroners' service for faith communities" at the North London Coroners Court, according to a briefing paper. Haringey Council released the paper in response to an NSS freedom of information request.
It says the service will be available "throughout the evening for urgent faith matters" on weekdays and between 10am and 12pm on Saturdays and Sundays. This will require a coroner and a member of staff to be on duty to provide support.
Haringey Council's paper cited the large Jewish and Muslim populations in north London and gave no justification for the service that did not relate to their wishes. As the 'relevant authority' in north London Haringey appoints the senior coroner with jurisdiction across the five council areas.
The council estimated that the scheme would cost a total of £56,000, not including funds required for the Metropolitan Police to cover the staff on duty. Each of the five councils involved in the new service will be asked to pay a sum proportionate to their total population to fund it.
The paper, which was released last week in response to an NSS freedom of information request, says the amount of work required to run the service "could increase" once it has been advertised and formalised.
As part of its justification it cites a recent High Court ruling that a neighbouring coroner's 'cab rank' policy was unlawful. The NSS said the councils had "misinterpreted" the judgement in that case, which concerned inner north London coroner Mary Hassell's refusal to prioritise requests based on religion.
Haringey is the 'relevant authority' for the north London area, meaning it appoints the senior coroner with jurisdiction over the five council areas.
In a response to the same request Barnet Council revealed that almost 5% of the money it spends on coroners will be for the out-of-hours service. The council said it has contributed £290,540 to the funding of the north London coroner's service in this financial year; £13,540 of this is for the out-of-hours service.
NSS spokesperson Chris Sloggett called the service "discriminatory" and said it would "encourage demand for bespoke treatment".
"Basic frontline public services are strapped for cash but these councils have reached behind the sofa to fund this premium, discriminatory service. The service has been exclusively designed to accommodate the wishes of some Jews and Muslims. And this decision will, by the leading council's own admission, increase demand for bespoke treatment.
"The councils need to explain why they have caved in to pressure from assertive faith groups. They need to explain why they expect all their residents to fund a service when the interests of many of them have been ignored in its creation.
"Those who drew up this policy have also misinterpreted the court's ruling in the case of Mary Hassell, where the judgement specifically said it would be wrong to give automatic priority to requests for religious burials.
"These councils should spend their money on decent public services for all."
In response to the revelations a spokeswoman for North London Coroner's Area told the Evening Standard religious concerns were a factor but the expanded service was for "any member of the community".
Mr Sloggett said this was "inconsistent with Haringey Council's own document" and "an unsatisfactory explanation".
"Haringey's briefing paper explicitly says this is a service 'for faith communities'. It doesn't mention anyone else or give any justification unrelated to that.
"And councils should be able to justify their spending on secular grounds. Can the coroners' service honestly say it has decided this spending will benefit all its citizens fairly, regardless of religion?"
Haringey's paper says the decision to introduce a formal service has been made amid "interest from both faith communities and politicians". Mayor Sadiq Khan and Chipping Barnet MP Theresa Villiers are due to meet the senior coroner to discuss it. During the Hassell case the NSS wrote to the chief coroner to raise concerns about the impact of political interference on behalf of the religious groups.
The councils have run an informal out-of-hours service for "faith communities" for the last 10 years but have been planning to formalise the service since May 2017. The senior coroner for north London, Andrew Walker, announced the launch of the service in July.
Haringey Council says the coroners' service currently receives over 100 requests per year for different treatment for faith reasons.
