A Statement that Demands Scrutiny

My Formal Submission to the House of Lords on the Schools Bill:

A Written Statement Submitted for Consideration by the House of Lords Committee: Legal, Ethical and Procedural Grounds for Amendment

This morning, I formally submitted a written statement to the House of Lords Committee examining the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The statement, now entered into the official Committee record, raises what I believe are urgent constitutional concerns surrounding the way this Bill has been conceived, supported, and promoted.

The stakes could not be higher. The Bill, if passed in its current form, threatens to dismantle long-standing principles of parental autonomy, educational diversity, and freedom of conscience. It does so under the banner of “wellbeing,” but in practice grants sweeping, centralised powers to the Secretary of State—powers that, as peers across the political spectrum have noted, lack both precedent and justification.

Yet perhaps more troubling than the provisions themselves is the deep procedural rot that has accompanied this Bill’s development.

Contradiction at the Heart of Government Assurances

In my statement—reproduced in full below—I lay out a documented contradiction that goes to the very heart of government credibility.

On 22 November 2024, Minister Stephen Morgan assured the community in writing that a controversial policy paper by the advocacy group Nahamu “does not constitute government policy.” Yet just weeks later, that same paper was explicitly cited as supporting evidence in the Department for Education’s official Impact Assessment (DfE-CWSB-RP-06).

Meanwhile, a reasoned, evidence-based rebuttal from the British Rabbinical Union—submitted in good faith and representing over 10,000 children—was entirely omitted from consideration.

This is not a small oversight. It is a fundamental breach of trust, and it calls into question the neutrality, transparency, and fairness of the entire policy-making process.

When Policy is Driven by Ideology, Not Evidence

The Bill’s supporting documents lean heavily on the perspectives of lobbying groups such as the National Secular Society, Humanists UK, and Nahamu—all of which advocate against faith-based education. These organisations have every right to participate in public discourse. But when their materials are elevated to evidentiary status while voices from religious communities are excluded, a line is crossed.

We no longer have consultation. We have orchestration.

And when Parliament is misled—by omission, or by contradiction—it is not just the Orthodox Jewish community that suffers. It is the principle of equal treatment before the law that is eroded.

What the Statement Calls For

In my submission, I respectfully ask that the Committee:

• Recognise the procedural irregularities underpinning the Bill’s development;

• Omit or substantively revise any clause that reflects reliance on discredited or ideologically biased material;

• And reaffirm the principle that religious communities must be consulted, not caricatured, in the formation of law.

This is not merely a debate about curriculum, registration, or school structure. It is a question of whether religious minorities will be afforded dignity, voice, and fairness in modern Britain.

Read the Full Statement

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RABBI ASHER GRATT

Submitted for the House of Lords Committee Stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Date: 15 May 2025

1. Introduction

I am Rabbi Asher Gratt, of [xxxxxxx]. I am the President of the British Rabbinical Union, the principal rabbinic authority defending traditional education and advocating for the right to authentic Torah education for over 10,000 children. I formerly served as Principal of the largest Haredi school in the country and have worked for decades to advance the rights of minority communities to educate their children in accordance with their faith and conscience.This statement is submitted for consideration by Members of the House of Lords during the Committee Stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, in support of amendments to the Bill and in the interest of procedural integrity, religious freedom, and equality before the law.

2. Executive Summary

The process underpinning the Schools Bill has revealed a deeply concerning pattern of ideological bias, procedural inconsistency, and disregard for community consultation. The Government has, on the one hand, explicitly disclaimed any reliance on partisan advocacy materials such as the Nahamu Education Briefing, while on the other hand citing those very materials as evidence in official documentation that supports the provisions of the Bill.Meanwhile, evidence-based rebuttals submitted in good faith by religious stakeholders—particularly the British Rabbinical Union—have been excluded from consideration entirely.This contradiction, and the broader context of reliance on groups with secularist or anti-faith agendas, seriously undermines the legitimacy of the legislative process and raises questions of constitutional fairness and equal treatment under the law.

3. The Nahamu Document and Government Contradiction

On 8 September 2024, the organisation Nahamu published an “Education Briefing” which cast the entirety of the Orthodox Jewish education system in disparaging and unjust terms. It made sweeping claims without empirical evidence, failed to reflect genuine community realities, and presented a narrative hostile to the continuation of faith-based schooling.On 5 November 2024, the British Rabbinical Union submitted a detailed rebuttal of this report to the Department for Education, identifying factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and clear signs of ideological prejudice.However, in an official response dated 22 November 2024, Minister Stephen Morgan MP stated unequivocally that “Nahamu’s Education Policy Position Paper is not government policy.”Yet, in clear contradiction, the Government’s own Impact Assessment for the Bill (DfE-CWSB-RP-06, dated 30 January 2025) explicitly cites Nahamu as a supporting reference (Footnote 12, Clause 67, p.15). This citation directly undermines the Ministerial assurance and raises grave concerns as to the credibility of the consultation process and the transparency of policy formulation.

4. Exclusion of Religious Stakeholder Input

The British Rabbinical Union’s rebuttal—submitted through formal channels and reflecting the considered position of a large segment of the Orthodox Jewish community—was completely omitted from the Department’s documentation and appears to have been wholly disregarded.This omission is especially troubling in light of the disproportionate reliance placed on materials from groups such as Nahamu, the National Secular Society, and Humanists UK—organisations that openly campaign against religious schooling and advocate for a radically secularist agenda.The reliance on these groups—while excluding reasoned responses from directly affected communities—raises serious questions about bias, due process, and the treatment of religious minorities in the public policy arena.

5. Broader Constitutional and Democratic Implications

The use of advocacy-led and ideologically-driven materials—particularly when disavowed by Ministers yet relied upon in official assessments—strikes at the very heart of constitutional governance, ministerial accountability, and equal treatment under the law.The following fundamental concerns arise:- A breach of legitimate expectation, whereby the community was misled as to what sources would inform policy;- A failure of procedural fairness, excluding major stakeholders from the consultation process;- An erosion of trust between government and faith communities, particularly when reassurances are demonstrably contradicted;- The risk of institutionalising discriminatory assumptions under the guise of regulation.

6. Supporting Evidence

I respectfully submit the following documents in support of this statement and to assist Members in their deliberations:Appendix A: Nahamu Education Briefing (8 September 2024)Appendix B: British Rabbinical Union letter (5 November 2024)Appendix C: Ministerial letter from Stephen Morgan MP (22 November 2024)Appendix D: DfE Impact Assessment – DfE-CWSB-RP-06 (30 January 2025)Appendix E: Follow-up letter requesting clarification (5 February 2025)

7. Conclusion and Call to Action

This is no longer a matter of policy disagreement; it is a matter of democratic integrity. It is the duty of Parliament to ensure that any legislation—especially one that affects the rights and lives of faith communities—is built upon a foundation of truth, fairness, and inclusion.The Bill, as presently supported by tainted evidence and influenced by ideologically hostile actors, does not meet that standard.I respectfully urge Members of the Committee to give this matter the fullest scrutiny during the Committee Stage proceedings and to ensure that its constitutional and communal implications are reflected in the Marshalled List of Amendments. In light of the documented procedural inconsistencies, the reliance on ideologically driven materials, and the exclusion of faith-based perspectives, I respectfully request that all clauses within the Bill that rely upon, reflect, or are informed by such flawed and discriminatory sources be either omitted in their entirety or substantively revised. It is essential that no provision be enacted which risks undermining the rights of religious communities to educate their children in accordance with their traditions, or which embeds prejudice within regulatory or statutory guidance. Members of the House have a responsibility to uphold the principles of fairness, due process, and respect for diversity in law-making—particularly where fundamental freedoms are at risk.

Affirmed by:

Rabbi Asher Gratt

Dated: 15 May 2025

A Final Word

Legislation built on flawed foundations does not simply risk poor outcomes—it damages trust in our institutions. If we are to move forward as a pluralistic democracy, we must ensure that all communities, however small, are heard with respect and truth.

That begins now—with scrutiny, transparency, and moral courage.