Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Places of Worship: Covid-19

Monday 16 November 2020 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Government acknowledges the efforts of faith communities in making places of worship covid-secure.
  • The scientific community, including SAGE, advises that the virus spreads more easily indoors and during gatherings.
  • The Minister disagrees with the assertion that the places of worship taskforce has been ignored or not consulted.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Andrew Rosindell Reform Romford
Religion & Faith
Context

In the context of social distancing measures, there is concern about the transmission rate of COVID-19 in places of worship despite existing safety protocols.

Question

What assessment has the Government made of the transmission rate of covid-19 in places of worship where social distancing restrictions were in place?

Answer from Kelly Tolhurst

We are grateful to our faith communities for their efforts in ensuring that their places of worship are as covid-secure as possible. However, the view of the scientific community, including the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, is that there is a greater risk of the virus spreading indoors and where people gather.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific assessment requested was not provided; only general statements about risks were given.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Andrew Rosindell Reform Romford
Community Security Religion & Faith
Context

There is serious concern about the criminalisation of worship activities due to pandemic-related restrictions, affecting religious communities significantly.

Question

Given the serious implications of criminalising worship and the hardship it has caused churches and religious communities, will the Government commit to publishing their evidence base and to consulting fully and widely with faith groups before any future decisions on applying restrictions to worship are made?

Answer from Kelly Tolhurst

I do not underestimate the concern that this has caused for our religious communities, but the evidence from the scientific community, including SAGE, shows that the virus spreads quicker indoors and where people gather and interact. We are incredibly grateful to those who have taken part in the places of worship taskforce for their support and advice.

Partly answered

Not addressed: While acknowledging concerns and referencing scientific evidence, no commitment was given to publish evidence or consult widely with faith groups.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Janet Daby Lab Lewisham East
Community Security Religion & Faith
Context

The Government established a taskforce in May to address concerns related to religious communities during the pandemic, but there is criticism that this group has been ignored.

Question

The Government created a places of worship taskforce in May, but the taskforce has been ignored and has repeatedly not been consulted on these very consequential decisions during the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that our people of faith do not deserve to be an afterthought for the Government but must instead be respected, and will she commit to the Government meeting weekly with the taskforce to avoid this problem being repeated?

Answer from Kelly Tolhurst

I have to disagree strongly with the hon. Lady's assertion that the taskforce has not been consulted. It has been led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have listened to the views of the community leaders and individuals around the table, and evidence has been shared.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The minister disagreed with the claim but did not fully address whether weekly meetings would occur or if faith communities were properly consulted.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)