Labour Humanists debate faith based welfare

Labour Humanists hosted another successful event on in the House of Commons, on the hot topic of 'faith-based welfare'.

Speaking were the BHA's Naomi Phillips, the TUC's Richard Exell and Observer columnist Nick Cohen. The event gave the chance to Labour Humanist members and interested observers to cast an eye over the Government's activities in this arena and consider what humanists can do to effect change.

Naomi Phillips spoke about the BHA's new report, Quality and Equality which highlights the continuing desire of the British population for public services to remain secular, the lack of evidence to show that religious organisations provide better services, and the risk of more inequality and discrimination that goes hand-in-hand with increasing contracting out of public services to such groups.

Nick Cohen traced the history of the group identity politics that characterises 21st century Britain, and underlined the threat of sectarianism inherent in such a model. As people of the Left and humanists, he said, we should concentrate not on these things that divide us, but those that unite us. Emphasis on creed and race - ancient causes of war, bigotry and aggression - will only exacerbate divisions.

Meanwhile, Richard Exell highlighted the timeliness of the debate as the Government embarks on what could form the constitutional settlement for the next century. To illustrate, as the Department for Work and Pensions has drawn its ideas from the USA, it has failed to consider the separation of Church and State that obtains there and the particular provisions for alternative welfare arrangements in place there - provisions which have not been installed here. Without acting now we could end up with at best a wholly unsatisfactory arrangement and at worst one which actively partitions communities and instils division...

Questions came flooding in from the members of the audience keen to discuss the issues, ranging from the extent to which employers should be able to demand certain beliefs as prerequisite, to enquiring as to the best ways to confront the sometime 'unholy' alliance of group identity politics and 'progressives' who view the new arrangements as part of the 'choice' agenda.

And as always, the lively discussion was continued with a talk in the pub afterwards!