Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Official Report 587KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Airgun Licensing (PE1485)

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, of which there are three. As previously agreed, the committee has invited two of the petitioners to speak to their petitions. The first is PE1485 on airgun licensing. Members have a note by the clerk and a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing.

I welcome David Ewing, who is the petitioner, and Dr Colin Shedden from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation Scotland and Tam Parker from the Scottish Association for Country Sports. I invite Mr Ewing to make brief opening remarks. I will then start the questioning before passing over to my colleagues.

I hope to demonstrate through my statement that there is absolutely no requirement or public support for an airgun licensing scheme. A licensing scheme will not work and will impose an unfair financial and administrative burden on law-abiding shooters, the taxpayer and the police service. I have many figures with me—I have provided some of them to the committee—that demonstrate how costly such a scheme would be.

We have worked out, using official figures, that the scheme could potentially cost—in the worst-case scenario—£100 million to implement. There are, of course, variations to that amount. Furthermore, there is little airgun crime, so the proposal is disproportionate and has no justification.

Since starting the campaign, I have spoken with many individuals in the UK and abroad, and everyone feels that, in the light of the figures that have been presented, the proposal is totally unjustifiable in any way.

Thank you for giving that opening statement—I know that it is always tricky coming along to committees. Why should law-abiding airgun owners worry about licensing?

Airguns themselves are reasonably straightforward to obtain; they are one of the first ways in which many people are introduced to shooting and many of them go on to obtain licensed firearms. They also provide a very easy way for people to carry out pest control on a casual basis at reasonably low cost. Once costs start increasing, that will have a knock-on effect on the people they do the pest control for. People might not be able to afford the costs, which could perhaps price lower-income people out of the market of shooting.

What is your assessment of the Scottish Government consultation on the issue?

I thought that the consultation was very unfair. The Scottish Government did not, apparently, consult on the principle of licensing and has decided that the measures are to go ahead. The consultation result was that 87 per cent of respondents are against licensing altogether.

I should have said that Mr Parker and Mr Shedden should feel free to intervene at any time, if they wish to make a contribution or point. Do you gentlemen wish to say something now?

An estimate by the industry has shown that the most common use for air rifles and the pellets that are used in them is general recreational shooting—“plinking”—which a lot of people regard as shooting at tin cans or targets in the back garden. That has, I would say, taken place safely and harmlessly for many decades. One of the fears of those who use airguns in Scotland is that licensing would involve a “good reason” requirement, and it has been made clear that general recreational shooting would not be regarded as good reason. Therefore, the vast majority of people who have airguns now could be excluded from the licensing system because of their failure to comply with that requirement. Those are the areas that cause those who have responded to the petition most concern.

As an association, we have a lot of member clubs that are specifically based on airguns. They bring a lot of youngsters into the sport and train them to use airguns safely and to be aware of the dangers involved. They can do that reasonably cheaply at the moment. However, if the burden of the cost of a licence is added on top of that, it would for many people prohibit that activity.

People who go shooting are possibly the most law-abiding section of society; they tend to be less involved in anything else, basically because they have to keep their noses clean. If airguns are licensed, activities such as a father and son using airguns, so that the son can be introduced to a bit of gun safety before climbing the ladder, would all be stopped, as Dr Shedden said. As with everything, education is always the best policy, as far as our association is concerned.

Good morning, gentlemen. Have you ever been shot by an air rifle? I have. It is very unpleasant. There is no licensing, no care, no education.

That would be quite illegal, I might add, whether the airgun was licensed or not.

It might be quite illegal.

I was intrigued by the statement that Mr Shedden made, which was that airguns are for general recreational use. I have a short finger here that proves that they are not for general recreational use. I was lucky that it did not surpass the hand and hit the rosette that was on my chest at the time, during an election campaign.

I return to the consultation, Mr Ewing. Do you believe that the 1,000 responses were general from across the populace, or were they from people who were either specifically for or agin airguns?

I believe that everyone who had an interest in the proposal responded.

Who are more likely to have an interest in the proposal?

People who are for airgun licensing and people who are against it would be interested.

That might account for the 87 per cent figure.

11:45

Everyone had an opportunity to respond; it was a public consultation. Most people are not interested in the proposal and there is absolutely no justification for it.

In 2011-12, the police force recorded 514 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been involved. Regrettably, we know that there have been fatalities, particularly of youngsters. Are you still convinced that airguns are for general recreational use?

Some 195 of those offences were airgun offences, which was a 71 per cent drop since 2006. If we saw the same drops in the next five years, there would be no airgun incidents. That would involve very little to no cost to the taxpayer, as opposed to implementing an expensive licensing scheme.

I know that Mr Parker was going to come in, but I have a final question. How did you arrive at the figure of £100 million?

We took figures from the Association of Chief Police Officers, which stated that the average cost of processing a shotgun or firearms certificate is around £200. We assumed the same cost for an airgun licence. If there were individual airgun applications for the 500,000 airguns in Scotland, the figure could be up to £100 million. To take a lower figure, if we assume that there would be 125,000 applications, which is more reasonable, the cost would still be £25 million.

The incident in which Chic Brodie was shot by an air rifle was a totally illegal act that was carried out by somebody who would not apply for a licence anyway. Criminals do not tend to apply for licences. They do not need them, because they get things “off-ticket”, as it is put.

How will they be excluded?

They cannot be excluded. You are not trying to exclude them; you are tying to exclude the lawful use of airguns. That is what licensing tries to do.

You are saying, “We’ll do away with licences and it’s okay. It’ll be an open house, and some people will use airguns illegally.”

At the end of the day, that is an enforcement problem. They are not currently licensed, there are very few incidents, and the number of such incidents is dropping. It looks as if somebody has taken a huge sledgehammer—probably a powered sledgehammer—to hit a very small nail. That is what the proposal appears to be.

I do not consider the death of a child from a shotgun or air rifle to be a small matter.

Nor do I. Again, that would be a totally illegal act carried out by a criminal. We cannot legislate for what those people do. You can try to, but they do not obey the law. If another law is brought in, it will be another law that they will not obey. That is their mindset. That is not what we in civilised society do, but I am afraid that there are people who act outwith that.

We all agree that the death of a child is a tragic incident. However, there was a case in which a child was beaten to death with a golf club by its mother, and there does not seem to be the same outcry against golf or an attempt to regulate golf clubs. At the end of the day, we are talking about the death of a child, and there is no point in blaming an inanimate object; it happens because of a person’s will. Therefore, I do not see how licensing is relevant.

The important thing to understand is that the Scottish Government is not proposing to ban air weapons; it is proposing to license them. I think that you are asking what material effect licensing will have. I have some sympathy with the view that Mr Brodie’s finger would not necessarily have been protected if those products were licensed. Let us remember that handguns and firearms were licensed when they were used in some tragic incidents in Scotland. The licensing itself is not a guarantee that airguns will not be used inappropriately by individuals.

The question then is, I suppose: what is the practical effect of licensing? I have been struck by some of the relative figures that you have quoted—in particular by the fact that the number of airgun incidents is fewer than the number of people who are treated for dog bites in one hospital in Scotland alone. Therefore, the burden of evidence and proof on the Government when it introduces legislation will be to explain what the practical benefit of licensing will be relative to the effect that it will have.

When you quoted the figure of £100 million, I wondered whether it is rather lurid, because it is essentially an extrapolation from various existing figures. It is not from anybody who has calculated what the overall cost of a licensing regime could be. Nonetheless, your argument is that the cost would be significant and that Police Scotland would bear an inherent additional cost that it does not currently have to carry. I imagine that you consider that that cost would be considerable and would divert funds from other areas. What efforts have you made, either individually or collectively, to go a little bit beyond the figure that you cited to establish a general overall likely cost? Have you contacted Police Scotland for advice?

We have not received information from Police Scotland but, as I said, we have made a more conservative estimate based on 125,000 airgun licence applications. We have again used the average cost of £200 for firearms licensing that was provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers. We found that the figure would be around £25 million if the costs of licensing airguns were the same.

I will make a point that is important from a policing perspective. About 60,000 people in Scotland are currently licensed to have firearms or shotguns. That is done over a five-year cycle, which means that Police Scotland will be dealing with about 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000 people a year. The indication, given the ownership of 500,000 airguns in Scotland, is that in one year a pulse of people would come through for licensing. Whether it was 10,000 100,000 or 200,000 people, a lot of people would come through at once. Administration of that system will place a severe burden on the police and on the civilian resources of Police Scotland.

We do not know how many people will come forward, so we cannot give an accurate cost, but the question is a good one. We should all strive for better regulation that is evidence-based. The principal argument behind the petition is that the number of offences involving air weapons has declined by 71 per cent over five years. The Scottish Government is to be congratulated on its educational initiatives, and Police Scotland is to be congratulated on its enforcement of the legislation. We feel that that is the way forward to achieve better regulation.

I draw a parallel with another licensing regime that I have been involved in, which is the knife dealers licensing legislation that came in four or five years ago. The regulatory review group has just looked at that legislation and feels that it has not worked at all. It has disproportionately affected rural businesses and the group’s advice to government is that instead of licensing being mandatory, it should be discretionary to local authorities. The group could obviously not say, “Let’s scrap knife dealers licensing”, but they have done the best that they could do. I worry that we could be looking in five or 10 years at similar situation in which airgun licensing has resulted in the same muddle and mess and has been of no benefit to public safety.

Knife crime has fallen by 61 per cent. Are you saying that licensing has had no bearing on that?

The regulatory review group report says that there is no evidence that knife dealers licensing had an impact on knife crime. Please bear it in mind that the knife dealers licensing legislation was designed for non-domestic knives, commonly known as hunting knives, which are not commonly associated with knife crime in Scotland.

Good morning, Mr Ewing. I have read the backing information to your petition online. The final paragraph states:

“The shooting community is a minority but it faces a lot of persecution and bigotry that would be unacceptable to any other minority group”.

The phrase “persecution and bigotry” is quite strong terminology. Can you expand on that statement?

I certainly can. If you have an interest in shooting or gun ownership, the media often makes you out to be a bit of a strange person. For example, several groups on online media gloat over the injuries of people who are hurt in accidents during hunting, horse riding and so on. It would not be acceptable to laugh at that if it was happening to other minorities, so we are picked on to an extent.

That is not, however, the wide picture. I imagine that that is the exception to the rule.

A great many people do not know a lot about such sports and the media does not help the situation. A lot of opinions are formed through ignorance, because people do not understand the facts of the matter. I would say that we face a lot of abuse.

Good morning, gentlemen. I want to examine some details in Mr Ewing’s submission. You mention an

“Estimated 500,000 airguns in Scotland”.

Where does that estimate come from?

The figure comes from a statement that was released by the Scottish Government.

Have you examined where the Scottish Government got the figure from? To my mind, if there are an estimated 500,000 airguns in Scotland, it would be difficult to introduce a licensing regime that retrospectively encapsulated every air rifle or airgun that is out there. Who owns those air rifles and airguns? Do we know?

We cannot tell, I think.

The 500,000 estimate is a minimum figure, which is based on information from the Gun Trade Association that was supplied to the Scottish Government through the Scottish firearms consultative panel. The panel accepted that as a minimum figure, based on sales and on the obsolescence of older guns.

If 500,000 is a minimum figure, the number could rise dramatically depending on whether individuals acquired or purchased their air weapon.

That is recognised as the minimum figure for the number of airguns in Scotland just now.

Your submission also states:

“Below I have prepared a list of many negatives ... It could potentially criminalise many law abiding citizens despite having committed no harm to anyone or intent to commit a crime simply because of this newly created and pointless offence.”

What would be the offence? How would we criminalise people simply by asking them to license their air rifle or airgun?

From what I understand, if the legislation is passed, it will be an offence to own an airgun without a licence. Depending on how seriously the Scottish Government and the justice system decide to deal with the issue, we might find that people who have an airgun that they have forgotten is in their possession—it might be stowed away somewhere—might suddenly find themselves breaking the law. If, when a family relative dies, someone comes across an airgun, they might get into trouble. Those people would not have not done any real harm. A few years previously, possessing an airgun would not have been an offence, but people might suddenly find themselves with an unlicensed airgun for which they could face consequences.

You are right that there have been incidents in the past in which a relative has found a world war two memento that a grandfather or husband brought back from the war; individuals have faced prosecution after finding a weapon because the police subsequently decided to take appropriate action. Do you think that airgun owners would be reluctant to register and license their weapons as part of a formal licensing process in which they had to declare ownership and use of a weapon?

I really cannot say, because that would be down to the individual. People who use airguns for pest control or professionally would, no doubt, apply for licences, but others might not be able to afford to do so and might just have to get rid of their airguns. It really comes down to the individual.

You have said on several occasions that people might not be able to afford the licence. What do you expect would be the cost of the licence?

Again, that depends. If the scheme used the same principle as is used for the shotgun firearms certificate, the cost would possibly be around £50. However, I have heard figures of £100 quoted.

That is not the only issue. As has been mentioned, people are currently allowed to own an airgun for plinking, which might mean using it in your own back garden as long as it is used safely. Under the proposals, that would also be banned. Therefore, many people would need to apply to clubs, which would involve additional fees. Some people might need to travel many miles to go to a club, which would also involve more time and money. Many people might just say that they cannot afford the cost, so they would be priced out of their hobby.

Do you think that, for a weapon that may cost anything up to a couple of thousand pounds, a cost of £50 or £100 may be a disproportionate cost for having a license to own and use that weapon?

Obviously, more serious competitive shooters would most likely continue, but it would definitely deter a lot of the people who perhaps do it more as a hobby or on a casual basis. They would give up their sport and they have not done anything wrong.

12:00

Mr Parker, do you have any comments on the line of questioning that I have been pursuing?

Yes. To refer back to the point about how people denigrate those who are involved in guns, there is the use of the word “weapon”. A weapon is something that you use against people. These are airguns. They are used for sport, for pest control or just for general enjoyment in the back garden, as Dr Shedden said. I do not particularly like them being called weapons. They are only weapons if they are used against people, as happened to Mr Brodie. In that case, they are most definitely weapons, but I resent the fact that when in general use—as they would be—they are classed as weapons, as opposed to guns.

Other than that, airgun owners, through no fault of their own, will have the cost imposed on them despite the fact that they have never done anything to harm anybody or to break any laws. However, all of a sudden, they have to pay for something that they have for nothing at the moment. Realistically—as I said—because of the fall in airgun offence figures, I cannot see any justification for that.

I have a small point on one of the possible unintended consequences of a licensing regime that is quite expensive. First, airguns are relatively cheap, so would you spend £50 or £100 to license an airgun from the bottom end of the market, for instance?

Another unintended consequence of bringing in a licensing system will be that a number of individuals will think, “If I’m going to have to get a licence, I might as well get a licence for either a shotgun or a rimfire rifle,” for instance, Instead of using an air rifle for pest control as they currently do, they may move to slightly more powerful shotguns or firearms for pest control or other sporting purposes. Therefore one of the unintended consequences may be that people, instead of investing in an airgun licence, will invest in a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate, which will mean more and more people will be involved in sporting shooting.

Does Mr Ewing or any other member of the panel consider the introduction—along with the airgun licence—of the other security measures that are applied for a firearm or a shotgun, which involve a secure locker being fitted, in the home, that is to be locked at all times when the firearm is not in use, as one of the issues that may arise when licensing airguns?

Most responsible airgun users already take such precautions; you would not leave an airgun lying about the house. If you have an airgun, it will be in a cabinet or in a locked cupboard. That is how most responsible airgunners use them because they are not toys, at the end of the day.

It is required by law that reasonable precautions be taken to ensure that airguns do not fall into the hands of children. That is already in law—we are supposed to store them in locked cupboards or where people cannot get easy access to them.

You are supposed to keep airguns away from unauthorised use.

I am conscious that we are short of time. The next step is for the committee to consider how we will pursue the petition. Obviously the part that is clear is the Government’s intention. The witnesses have made that clear—the Government wants to license airguns.

The committee has to be realistic about what we can do that will be useful in terms of pursuing the objectives of the petition. I throw that caveat in.

At this moment in time, I think that the committee should do nothing. I suggest that we close the petition on the ground that there has been a consultation. In fact, as the petitioner said, he responded to that consultation. Any proposals for legislation will be brought forward in due course. Once we know the details of that, there will be a further opportunity for people to make known their views as part of that process.

My view is halfway between believing that there is not much more that we can achieve at this point and being in favour of leaving the petition open so that we can refer it to the Justice Committee when a bill is introduced. The petition could be considered at that time.

A number of issues arise in terms of explaining what the licensing will achieve and whether people might be able to surrender unwanted airguns. It is clear that an enormous number of them—I had not appreciated just how many—are in circulation. It might be premature to refer the petition to the Justice Committee now, if formal legislation is not in place. If that is the case, I suggest that we hold on to it for a little longer.

The clerk advises me that the matter is not being dealt with by the Justice Committee. We can refer it to the Justice Committee in a general sense. Notwithstanding my earlier points, it might be useful to get the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s view on some of the comments that the witnesses have made before we make a decision on whether to close the petition. I feel that we should go the extra mile for every petitioner. It would be useful to see what the minister’s view is. I am not being unrealistic—the minister is not going to change his overall position on licensing—but it might be useful to get some feedback on the practical points that the witnesses have raised. At that stage, we can make a decision on whether to close the petition.

If that were the preferred route, I suggest that it would also be useful to ask questions such as whether consideration will be given to people having the ability to surrender unwanted airguns.

There is little point in asking the cabinet secretary to come here until we have some flesh on the bones of the legislation. That does not preclude the witnesses coming back to the committee at some stage. The Justice Committee will look at the issue, and it may well be that we can pass on to it more information from the Government and the witnesses.

I was not suggesting that we invite Kenny MacAskill to the committee; I was suggesting that we write to him, include a copy of the Official Report and ask whether he can follow up on any of the points that have been made. Once he replies, we can reconsider matters.

I agree that we should write to the cabinet secretary to ask him about the timetable for the introduction of the legislation and what organisations in the sporting community he has consulted on it. I am conscious that tickets for the shooting events at next year’s Commonwealth games are among the fastest selling. Shooting seems to be one of the most popular sports at the Commonwealth games. We should try to find out from the cabinet secretary when he intends that the legislation will hit the committees. That will allow us to respond accordingly to the issues that the petitioner has raised.

That is sensible. We could also find out whether Mr MacAskill agrees with all the statistics that have been cited. I am sure that they are accurate, but it is always useful to get the Government’s view on such matters.

Given the strong views of David Ewing, it is only fair that we approach the justice secretary and suggest that he look at the idea of an airgun amnesty in the future.

Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

To summarise, we will continue the petition and write to the justice secretary to ask him a number of questions, such as the one that John Wilson suggested, as well as asking him to comment on the points that have been made in the Official Report. We will consider the matter at a future meeting.

I thank the three witnesses for coming along and for making their points. We will keep you up to date with developments on your petition.

---

Schools (Religious Observance) (PE1487)

The second new petition is PE1487 by Mark Gordon and Secular Scotland, on religious observance in schools. Members have a note from the clerk and a SPICe briefing. We have also received a written submission from the Church of Scotland. I welcome Mark Gordon and Caroline Lynch, the secretary of Secular Scotland. I understand that you wish to make a joint presentation. We are a bit behind time, for which I apologise. If you can keep your presentation to around three minutes, that will be very useful.

We will be as brief as possible. Our petition seeks to change the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which sets the default position as being that every child is opted in to religious observance in schools and that parents have a statutory right to withdraw their child should they wish to do so. We want parents to have an active and meaningful choice as to whether they want their child to participate in religious observance or whether they want to send their child to a suitable and meaningful alternative activity. In essence, we want parents to be asked first.

Our petition seeks a simple solution to a serious problem that is caused by the law not working as intended. Today, we will give you the testimony that we have received from parents telling us what is really happening on the ground. Mark Gordon started the ball rolling with his personal experiences, which he will tell you about.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my personal experience of opting my daughter out of religious observance was the trigger for raising the petition. It became abundantly clear from discussions with the school, analysis of legislation and discussions with others of the prevalence of belief in the population that many parents would not want to take the stand that I took. Having decided to act, however, we sought the experiences of other parents, some of which we hope to present to you in an additional submission afterwards. If you will permit me, I will give you a small sample of what we found.

We have testimony from parents of children who have been opted out that their children have been left unattended in corridors with little that is meaningful to do. We have testimony of children being, in effect, chastised for their parents’ decision, children being told to carry out menial tasks—including, believe it or not, sharpening pencils and cleaning a library—and parents being considered difficult because they dared to question a headteacher’s wisdom. Parents have been told that there is no right to withdraw, have had to seek legal advice because a school could not or would not provide acceptable alternative activities and have been told that alternative activities such as humanist material would categorically not be allowed. A teenage pupil who had a right to withdraw himself was forcibly prevented from leaving religious observance that he objected to. Crucially, there is evidence that, despite very recent regulations—the Education (School and Placing Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2012—that outline the requirement for school handbooks to lay out in writing the parental right to withdraw, a large percentage of school handbooks do not, as yet, contain that information.

My daughter is well treated and, in my opinion, attends a very good school. However, she has reported—as others have—that she has sat in the school office with the school secretary during religious assemblies. More recently, she was taken to a church service against my written instructions. Maybe not every parent is as confident as I am in making a stand for the right thing to do. Perhaps most parents do not want their children to be exposed to some aspects of Christian religious observance but they do not feel able to opt out and address the issue by facing up to the authority of the school or to risk their child being ostracised for non-conformity. Perhaps they just fear damaging an otherwise healthy parent-teacher relationship.

My conclusion is that the law is no longer in accordance with the demographic of Scotland, which has changed significantly since the last review. There is also a built-in unfairness. Despite the religious observance review group stating that religious observance should not be of a confessional nature, we know from testimony that it is. The existing legislation makes the removal of religious observance even from a single school extremely difficult, as it requires a poll of the local authority electorate. In any case, that is not what we seek, as it would only end up in patchy provision throughout the country. Indeed, if our petition were successful, it might well strengthen religious observance through discussion.

Because of all that, we are here today to present our petition.

12:15

Thank you very much for that joint presentation. You have touched on evidence and have provided some very useful examples, but do you have comprehensive Scotland-wide evidence of the views of pupils, parents or staff?

Yes. We have brought with us testimony from parents, teachers, course designers and students about their experiences. Those experiences vary widely; we are not saying that every single school is failing. What we are saying is that, on this issue, failure is endemic throughout the school system.

The law makes five provisions. First, it provides a minimum of six opportunities for religious observance throughout the year; secondly, every parent has a statutory right to withdraw; thirdly, every parent must be informed of that right and given sufficient information on which to base their decision; fourthly, if the statutory right to withdraw is taken up, a suitable meaningful alternative activity must be in place for the child to ensure that they are not penalised; and, finally, no child should be disadvantaged by choosing to withdraw from religious observance. There are failures across the board in all those areas. Because that failure is endemic and happening everywhere, the law—in our opinion—is in need of urgent reform.

Perhaps you can give us that evidence to look at, if you have not done so already.

Absolutely.

Good afternoon. I am intrigued by—indeed, I might somewhat agree with—Mr Gordon’s comment that such a change might strengthen religious observance. How have you come to that conclusion?

We think that the change would make the process more inclusive, because parents and children would positively opt to get involved in it. After all, there are possibly a lot of kids who do not want to be there.

Good afternoon. I suppose that all I can do is play devil’s advocate with this petition—if you do not mind the contradiction in the sentiment underpinning that statement.

I have no religious convictions myself, but I think that you have made a very good case this morning for ending the opt-out provision. You clearly feel that no alternative meaningful activity is taking place. I went to a school where I had to attend religious education or observance. My parents very much encouraged in me an independent attitude not just to that but to subjects such as politics and history—whatever we were taught in school we would challenge in the home. As a result, I ultimately came to an independent view on matters that are subjective or of faith. Imposing a view that no one should be exposed to any kind of religious education is itself a rather doctrinaire approach, when surely it is perfectly open to parents to encourage a degree of independent thinking by challenging whatever their children have been exposed to. I do not necessarily equate participation, attendance and conviction as being one and the same thing and ultimately and fundamentally I am not terribly sure what great damage is being done here unless children are not being encouraged by their parents or schools to evolve any ability to assess, judge and evaluate information on an independent basis.

There are several points to note in response to that. First of all, our religious education is split into religious and moral education and religious observance. In religious and moral education, children are taught what religion is and what the beliefs of the different groups are. We have absolutely no issue with that, because everyone needs at least a basic understanding of that information in order to function in our world.

Religious observance, on the other hand, is active participation in religion. Although there is guidance in place that sets out what such observance should be—it should, for example, be non-denominational and inclusive and should not contravene anyone’s personal faith stance—the reality on the ground is that in most cases we are talking about Christian worship. Indeed, we can give you dozens and dozens of examples of that.

Just yesterday I got a phone call from a parent who was very angry and distressed because his five-year-old son had brought home two young earth creationist books that had been given to him during religious observance. Those books directly state that their aim is to debunk Scottish education and scientific education in general, and they talk about exposing the myth of evolution. That is the type of material that is making its way into schools under the auspices of religious observance.

We also have evidence of prayer spaces being used for the faith healing of incurable conditions. That is being done without parental knowledge and consent, and it is among the reasons why we are so concerned.

My five-year-old son had nightmares for months because he was told that Jesus had nails hammered through his flesh to save him. Teachers tell us that children are being told that they are sinners and that, unless they accept God, they are going to go to hell. We have heard from Muslims who, along with Jews and Buddhists, are being asked to participate in praying to God. All sorts of people are being asked to pray to a Christian god, which is an anathema to their own personal stance.

Parents are not being informed that they can opt out, and some are being prevented from exercising their right to do so. We have a lady whose daughter has been threatened with expulsion from school if she exercises the right to opt out. Those are the type of things that are going on, and at present there is very little protection for parents because the abuse of religious observance is so endemic. It is happening across the system, and all over the place.

I follow a lot of what you have said; you are talking about a certain evangelical fanaticism that would be of concern not just to the pupils who opt out but to the pupils who remain in that environment. However, I maintain that there is a difference between attending a religious observance event and participating in it. I have to say that I have done plenty of the former: I have attended but not participated—

It behoves us to offer the children protection rather than just saying, “Well, it is up to the child to figure this out.” We are talking about five-year-olds.

In addition—

Well, I was not protected—I was encouraged to think independently and to challenge the views that were expressed to me. That is what I did, and in so doing I came to a rational judgment that I am comfortable with, and that I can live with and understand. I am not quite sure how protecting people—as you put it—from hearing any alternative point of view is to do them any service at all.

It is not about protecting them from hearing an alternative point of view—they will hear alternative points of view throughout their education, in religious and moral education. It is about participation: the freedom to choose what your faith is and to participate in it freely. That is about human rights.

We raise the point that, in not allowing parents to choose freely how their children participate in religious observance or to exercise that judgment as they should do, we are directly contravening human rights law. Article 18.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which we have opted in to and ratified, states that parents have the right to raise their children and have them educated in accordance with their beliefs, and we are breaching that.

I am sorry, but we are really short of time now. Do members have any other points?

I have a brief question for Ms Lynch and Mr Gordon. I am assuming that, if you wanted us to go ahead, the change would apply only to non-denominational schools in Scotland.

Not at all—it would apply to all state schools. Although the majority of parents who send their children to a denominational faith school perhaps have accepted the faith stance of that school, there are parents who send their child to an inter-denominational school for non-faith reasons: perhaps because of the educational standard of achievement, or perhaps because the child has not been able to get a place in a non-denominational school. I mentioned a parent whose daughter has been threatened with exclusion. She sent her child to that school because her child’s friends went there.

People send their children to certain schools for a range of reasons. Ultimately, the schools are state funded and are open to everybody under the law—that is the requirement. Parents who send their children to such schools should not have fewer rights or protections for their children than there are for any other children in the state system.

On that basis, I assume that you are talking about amending the Education (Scotland) Act 1918.

Our petition is based on the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

I understand that denominational schools were created under the 1918 act; the majority of them have been established under that act.

The 1980 act covers religious observance and rights in relation to that; it specifies the requirements. We would amend that act to reverse the situation, so that parents who want their children to take part in religious observance would choose that.

As members have no more points, the next step is to consider how we will deal with the petition. My view is that we should continue it and seek the views of the Scottish Government, Education Scotland and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. As always, I am open to committee members’ views.

I suggest that we write to ask Interfaith Scotland for its views. I am interested in seeking the views of a range of organisations on that body and particularly of some of its associate members, including organisations such as the Pagan Federation, which has raised issues with the teaching of religious and moral values in schools.

I know that an exchange has taken place between the clerk and Edinburgh Secular Society about making a submission. If any other organisations feel that it would be relevant for them to respond to the petition, their submissions would be welcome, too. We can name organisations, but we might not cover them all. I am sure that a number of organisations out there would wish to comment and they are welcome to do so.

It is important to ask the Scottish Parent Teacher Council for its views.

I am interested in exploring with local authorities the provision of alternatives in the opt-out process, which struck me as not quite fulfilling the aim of being suitable and worthwhile activities. I am also interested in knowing the number of people who opt out, how suitable alternative activities are provided and conducted and whether suitable alternatives are not being provided because they are difficult to finance and sustain. That raises quite interesting issues. I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea that resources are being diverted or that individuals who opt out are in no way benefiting from that.

That is a good point. We could write to, say, six local authorities covering rural, island and busy city centre areas.

I suggest that we also write to the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish association for senior teachers and headteachers—I am not sure of its name—for their views. There is an educational issue, particularly as the petitioners have raised the question of local choice for headteachers and teaching staff about the religious and moral education that they deliver and about religious observance.

As members have no more points, are we happy to continue the petition and seek the views of the organisations that we have identified?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank both petitioners for coming along. We will keep you up to date with developments. I apologise that you were delayed because we were held up by lengthy consideration of earlier petitions.

I allow the petitioners to leave but, because of time constraints, I will not suspend the meeting.

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority Examinations (Independent Regulator) (PE1484)

The third new petition is PE1484, by Ian Thow, on an independent regulator for national examinations set by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have the clerk’s note and the SPICe briefing.

In my view, we should seek the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

I agree. The background to the petition is deeply disturbing. It is disconcerting that the tiers of management—the chair and board, an advisory council and an executive management team—may take 20 days to resolve an issue but, if the matter is unresolved, the complainant must then write to another part of the same organisation. We must look into the issues.

Do members agree with the course of action set out?

Members indicated agreement.