Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Education and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 6, 2014


Contents


Public Petitions


Schools (Religious Observance) (PE1487)

The Convener

Our next item is consideration of two petitions. We will deal with them one at a time.

The first petition, PE1487, was lodged by Mark Gordon and the Scottish Secular Society. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 by making religious observance in public schools an opt-in rather than opt-out activity.

Committee members will note the Scottish Government’s view on the petition, which it submitted to the Public Petitions Committee. The Government believes that the current legislation and guidance on religious observance are relevant and up to date, and it is not persuaded that a move to an opt-in system would be helpful to young learners. In addition, we have received a number of submissions for committee members’ consideration.

I throw it open to members to express views, make comments or suggest actions that they wish to take in relation to the petition.

Mary Scanlon

I would like to make a public announcement: I support the Government. [Laughter.] You will not hear that very often, but there you are. I have read the papers through; the Government’s approach to the petition is reasonable.

I am not entirely sure that every parent is fully aware of the guidance. According to the briefing that we have received, the guidance states:

“This right should always be made known to parents and their wishes respected. Parents should be provided with sufficient information on which to base a decision.”

I am not sure that every parent is given that advice on the right to opt out when their child starts school. The Scottish Government may wish to remind local authorities that that should be included in the guidance that is given to every parent who has a child at a school.

Liam McArthur

I agree with Mary Scanlon’s suggestion and her comments about the availability of information. However, even if they are armed with that information, parents in different parts of the country can have experiences that vary significantly. The steps that the Public Petitions Committee has taken are the steps that we would, under normal circumstances, have recommended. I am not sure how we can take the matter further.

The Convener

I agree with both members. The Public Petitions Committee has taken oral and written evidence and it has written to the Government, which has written back, laying out its position. Those are measures that we would have undertaken, had they not already been undertaken.

For me, it comes down to parents’ knowledge about their rights. As has been said, parents and young people may not be aware of their rights on the issue. Mary Scanlon has suggested that we write to the Government, asking it to encourage local authorities to ensure that parents are made aware of their rights.

Yes—local authorities should give parents the information and make sure that they are armed with it.

The Convener

At the moment, there is a legal requirement to include information about the right to withdraw from religious observance in the school handbook, and I am sure that local authorities do that. The issue that we are discussing is whether parents are aware of that right or whether there should be more proactive provision of the information, which may be a little bit hidden from parents and young people.

Liam McArthur

I referred earlier to the implications if a parent elects to withdraw their child—or if a child elects to withdraw—from that aspect of school activity. The implications may be clear in some instances but not in others. I am not sure whether that is covered in the code that schools are required to observe, but it would be helpful to know the implications. Knowing one’s right is one thing, but knowing the implications of exercising that right is equally important.

Are you talking about the meaningful activity that the individual pupil would undertake?

Liam McArthur

I am talking about how a school might be expected to respect the right. For example, rather than exclude an individual child, certain schools that I have had direct personal involvement with will find a different way of delivering a particular activity. I suspect that it would be more illustrative than didactic, but it would be useful information for parents or children on how they might go about exercising their right.

The Convener

A couple of points have been made. I will try to break this down a bit. Are members content that—in the first instance, at least—we write to the Government, asking it to encourage local authorities to make sure that parents are aware of the right? That is Mary Scanlon’s suggestion.

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener

Should we include in that letter Liam McArthur’s suggestion that local authorities go beyond that and provide information on the implications of withdrawing and on the meaningful activity that individual pupils would undertake?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener

It now comes down to what we do with the petition. We have a number of options. We could take further evidence, we could write out, we could consult, we could ask the Government for a further response or we could close the petition. What are members’ views?

11:45

Mary Scanlon

As Liam McArthur said, a considerable amount of work has been done on the petition. The weakness—if there is a weakness—is in the guidance and ensuring that people are fully informed. I do not see any benefit in taking further evidence, which would only duplicate the excellent work that the Public Petitions Committee has done. I suppose that I am therefore suggesting that the petition be closed.

I agree with Mary Scanlon.

I also agree with Mary Scanlon.

And I agree with the Government.

That is twice that Mary Scanlon has agreed with the Government.

I do not see what we could add to the work that has already been done, so I think that it is reasonable to close the petition.

The Convener

The only other thing that I will say, from a personal point of view, is that most parents are probably unaware that they have the right to opt out. I am sure that young people are also unaware of the right. For me, it is a matter of free choice that the individual can decide whether or not to attend. I therefore emphasise that it is important that individual families be aware of their legal right. I am less concerned about the law, as long as it is available to families and individuals to choose whether or not to attend. Their being made aware of that right would be my priority.

I agree that the Public Petitions Committee has taken all the steps that we would have taken, so I am not sure what else we could add. I therefore agree with Mary Scanlon and others that we write to the petitioners saying that we are closing the petition. I suppose that, in addition to the committee writing to the Government to urge it to ensure that parents are aware of the right, the petitioners could urge COSLA and individual local authorities to ensure that parents are aware of it. Are members content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We will close the petition and write to the Government on that basis.


Local Authority Education Committees (Religious Representation) (PE1498)

The Convener

The second petition is PE1498, which was lodged by Colin Emerson on behalf of Edinburgh Secular Society. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislative proposals to repeal section 124 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended by section 31 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.

Members will note the Scottish Government’s view, which is that it supports the involvement of religious representatives in councils’ decision-making process on education and does not have any plans to change the existing provisions.

I am sure that members are aware of this, but I highlight for the record that a member’s bill proposal on the subject of the petition has been lodged by John Finnie MSP. Do members have views on what, if any, further action we wish to take on PE1498?

Liam McArthur

You have pointed in your introduction to the issue that I will raise. John Finnie has a member’s bill proposal under consultation and consideration. That seems to be the logical vehicle through which members across the parties can contribute to the debate and, ultimately, take a view on the matter. I am not sure what the committee could add, given that the petition urges the Scottish Government to bring forward a legislative proposal and there is a mechanism for doing that through John Finnie’s proposed member’s bill.

Mary Scanlon

I feel that the information that I have in the committee papers is probably insufficient to make a decision. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the issue with my party group. I think that there would be a wide range of views within my party group; to be fair, in all parties there will be a wide range of views on the issue. The situation is historical—the provision is more than 100 years old.

I would welcome the wider consultation that would be carried out for John Finnie’s proposed member’s bill and I would be very interested to hear a wider range of views. Rather than the committee jumping to a decision today on the back of what is, in my view, a lack of consultation and information, I would prefer to examine more thoroughly the evidence that comes from John Finnie. Should the proposals come forward in a member’s bill, there could be a free vote in my party, although I do not know whether that would be the case. These are the important issues that we have not had an opportunity to discuss.

For the second time, I agree with Mary Scanlon.

It is a strange day.

I am very grateful.

The Convener

From my point of view, the proposal in the petition is an interesting one. Clearly, religious groups have a—I hesitate to use the word “privileged”—position on education committees in local government that is different from that of other groups. There are historical reasons why that is the case and we all understand that process.

I tend to agree that if the member’s bill proposal by John Finnie progresses, it will provide a wide platform for detailed discussion and debate on the evidence for and against such a proposal. I think that that would be the best place to have the debate, rather than have the committee repeat what the Public Petitions Committee has already done. To urge the Scottish Government would achieve nothing, given that it has already expressed its view on the matter.

I think that I have a feeling for members’ views. Are members content that we close the petition on the basis that we have just discussed, and that we write to the petitioners? I am sure that they are already aware of John Finnie’s member’s bill proposal. We can write to them and state that our belief is that that is the best place to have the debate and discussion on the proposal, and that that is why we have taken this decision. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. That concludes our business today.

Meeting closed at 11:51.