Time for Reflection (PE1514)
I restart the meeting and will, with the committee’s agreement, swap agenda items around.
PE1514, by Norman Bonney, is on making time for reflection representative of all beliefs. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and the petition.
I welcome Norman Bonney to the meeting and invite him to make a short statement of around five minutes, after which we will go to questions. Thank you very much for agreeing to come in a different order, Mr Bonney.
Convener, I thank you and your colleagues very much for giving me the opportunity to address the petition that I have submitted, which proposes that the Parliament attempt to make its weekly time for reflection more representative of the diversity of belief in Scotland.
Many people whom I have come across in the circles in which I mix have said to me that they cannot support the petition because they believe that religion and politics should be kept separate and that the Scottish Parliament should not have religious time. However, we should recognise that there is an existing practice of time for reflection in the Scottish Parliament and I will try to explore ways in which it can be more representative of the range and diversity of belief in Scotland.
People have also asked me why the Parliament has a special item on religion. It is the only item that is open to outsiders. Why does the Parliament not have time for artists, scientists or others to address it?
The argument goes that the Parliament should focus on governing the country instead of engaging in such activities. However, time for reflection is a reality at the present time, and it is unlikely that the Scottish Parliament will drop it, at least this side of the referendum.
The petition is an attempt to find common ground between the religious and the non-religious. It proposes an equal opportunities approach and suggests a way in which that common ground can be developed. Equal opportunities was an original ambition of the Scottish Parliament and continues to be one of its orienting features, but I would argue that the Parliament is falling down in its equal opportunities ambitions in relation to time for reflection.
The original debate in 1999 showed that some MSPs had concerns that organised religion would have disproportionate weight in time for reflection. Indeed, Alasdair Morgan, a Scottish National Party MSP, expressed that very concern in the debate. Mike Russell, also an MSP but not a Government minister at that time, reassured him that groups such as humanists would also get opportunities. Perhaps it is by sheer chance that time for reflection today is to be conducted by a humanist. However, one swallow does not make a spring. By my reckoning, it is the third—some of the publicity material says that it is the fourth—time for reflection that a humanist has led out of the 450 times for reflection that we have had.
According to the statistics, which I have worked on and which the Parliament also reports on, 87 per cent of contributions in the current parliamentary session—in other words, since 2011—have been made by religious contributors, even though in the 2011 census only 56 per cent of Scots said that they were religious. More recent survey information, which I have made available to the committee, points out that 49 per cent of Scots today say:
“I would not describe myself, or my values and beliefs, as spiritual or religious”.
Organised religion has come to dominate time for reflection although the original intention was that TFR should cover the diversity of beliefs. Tom McCabe, the business manager at the time of the 1999 debate, said that time for reflection should be a time for
“all the main beliefs held in Scotland ... to reflect the diversity of our country”.—[Official Report, 9 September 1999; c 372.]
However, we cannot say that that is the case if 87 per cent of contributions are religious.
I would argue that, in some ways, there are deficiencies in parliamentary practice in relation to time for reflection. Parliament has allowed itself to be influenced by outside bodies. On its website, the Scottish churches parliamentary office claims to advise the Parliament on who should appear at time for reflection. It also claims that time for reflection is like “Thought for the Day”, but that is not my understanding of what time for reflection was originally meant to be. “Thought for the Day” on the BBC is exclusively for religious contributors but, from the beginning, time for reflection has been for the diversity of belief in Scotland.
It also appears from the statistics that, over the years, Parliament has in practice operated quotas that have determined that, every year, the Church of Scotland makes the most contributions to TFR and the Roman Catholic Church the second most. Other Christian denominations are also greatly overrepresented, as are non-Christian religious denominations. If we look at consecutive sessions of the Scottish Parliament from 1999, we find that non-Christian religious denominations have made 13 per cent, 16 per cent, 12 per cent and 17 per cent of all contributions to time for reflection. However, according to the 2011 census, non-Christian denominations composed only 2.1 per cent of the Scottish population.
I am suggesting that TFR needs to get its contributions more in accordance with population proportions. In particular, it needs to give much greater prominence to contributions from atheists. The latest survey data, which I have also made available to the committee, suggest that firm atheists—people who have no belief in God or any higher spiritual power—make up something like 25 per cent of the Scottish population. Therefore, I argue that the Parliament should make 25 per cent of the time for reflection opportunities available to atheists.
Only a handful of explicit atheists have made contributions to time for reflection in the 15 years of the Scottish Parliament. I would hazard a guess that quite a significant proportion of MSPs are atheists but they do not admit as much publicly. We know from public records that about one in three MSPs has declared a religious—mostly Christian—affiliation. If MSPs are representative of the whole population, at least 25 per cent of them will be atheist—and I suspect the figure is more than that.
What about the gender aspects of time for reflection? We know that women are more religious than men, and yet most religious denominations are dominated by men. Women are excluded from the priesthood in at least three of the denominations that make contributions to time for reflection. Surely Parliament needs to think more about that issue, especially in light of the recent Scottish Cabinet decision to make 40 per cent of places available to women. Should not time for reflection have a quota for female contributors to balance the dominance of men in religious denominations? Why not set a quota of 40 per cent of TFR places for female contributors rather than the 30 per cent we have seen in the current parliamentary session? That quota could be set even higher to encourage denominations to think more about the way in which women are often second-class citizens in time for reflection.
Broad guidance was developed in 1999 for the way in which time for reflection was practised in the Scottish Parliament. SPICe says that the Parliamentary Bureau plans to look at census figures in the near future. Given that the census was three years ago, that is not a very positive commitment. The Parliament needs to take a much more active stance in evaluating its current practice in relation to time for reflection. There has been no public parliamentary review of time for reflection since 1999, and there is a lack of clarity of policy about how particular participants are selected—
Excuse me, Mr Bonney—I am sorry for interrupting but we are a bit short of time today. If you take too long for your statement, you will not have any time left for questions.
Have I exceeded my five minutes?
Yes.
Okay. My point is that there needs to be open parliamentary consideration of the way in which time for reflection works and how it might be improved to reflect more the pattern of belief in the country. I particularly stress the importance of applying equal opportunity principles in that respect, but perhaps I will have the opportunity to develop that point.
Thank you for your opening statement. You have made a number of points about changing time for reflection, but how would that happen in practice? How would you change the organisation of time for reflection?
First, I think that Parliament must have an open public debate about whether it is satisfied with how time for reflection operates. If it saw the sort of figures that I have offered, it would begin to realise that it needs to think more carefully about that issue.
There are all sorts of ways in which the organisation of time for reflection could be changed. I mentioned the application of equal opportunity principles. One would have thought that a Parliament that is committed to equal opportunity principles might apply them to time for reflection. After all, by putting time aside for it every week, the Parliament must consider it to be a significant part of its business, and we need to see how equal opportunity principles can be applied to it.
One of my major points is about the underrepresentation of atheists in time for reflection. A straightforward way of filling that gap would be to follow the simple principle of advertising. After all, it is generally accepted that when you have to fill posts, you put out public advertisements, and the Parliament should be prepared to put more time and effort into selecting who is involved in time for reflection. A public advertisement inviting applications from people to make contributions might well bring forth proposals for atheists and could help to fill the gap that I have identified.
Do you accept, in general terms, that parliamentary staff attempt to ensure a widespread and diverse group of contributors for time for reflection, and that it is open to any member of the public and, indeed, any MSP to make recommendations as well?
11:15
I have no doubt that staff follow the guidance that they have on how they should operate time for reflection; what is at issue are the policies and principles that are followed in filling the available slots. I think that parliamentarians must reflect on that to ensure that appropriate instructions can be given. I suspect that too much power and influence is given to the churches, through the Scottish churches parliamentary office, the Inter Faith Network, Interfaith Scotland and so on, which provide a channel through which the Presiding Officer can quickly find someone appropriate to fit in with the pattern of contributions.
What is your objective in having humanists present time for reflection? Have you attended any times for reflection?
No, but, of course, one can see them online. I understand that attendance by MSPs is often not that great. In fact, I heard one contributor say that she was disappointed that, instead of all the MSPs listening to her, some were standing outside having a chat until time for reflection was over.
We all take time to reflect on our own particular gods from time to time—it does not necessarily have to happen in the chamber.
What is your objective with this petition?
To draw the Parliament’s attention to the way in which it does not seem to be living up to its principles of equal opportunity, and to have time for reflection as an item that reflects—
But you have accepted—
If I may finish, I also want to draw attention to the way in which Parliament seems not to be living up to its principle of having time for reflection reflect the full diversity of belief in Scotland.
You have accepted that time for reflection is—regrettably, some might say—not well attended. I am sure that my colleagues exercise discrimination in how they approach various things, particularly their own philosophies. However, I am still not sure why you think that you are being denied something that cannot be promulgated more widely than just in the Parliament.
The Parliament is a special body that is representative of the people of Scotland and, indeed, has great ambitions to have even more powers in that field. I think that it has to demonstrate to people that it is fully representative. I am afraid that what we see in time for reflection is a religiously dominated slot, even though, as I have said, half the population can reasonably be said not to be religious, and ways have to be found to hear the moral views of that half of the population that is not religious.
I am still at a loss to see what advantage five minutes a week would bring that could not be gained by promulgating your philosophy on a much wider spectrum.
We are talking specifically about time for reflection. It is an important public arena, and I think that MSPs must give more consideration to what goes on there and should amend the Parliament’s practices.
What do you think we should do about the oath of loyalty that we take when we become MSPs?
That is an interesting point. I have analysed the percentage of MSPs who make an affirmation rather than declare an oath, and I found that about 40 per cent of MSPs make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible. That is another indicator of the non-religious element in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that those members might want to speak up a bit more to enable atheist and non-believing voices to be heard in time for reflection.
You have talked about the number of people in the census who declared a religious affiliation or belief, extrapolated from that that 25 per cent of the time for reflection items should be presented by atheists and come up with the novel idea of putting out an open advertisement to invite atheists to come forward. However, when representatives of religious bodies take time for reflection, we know who they represent. If we invite atheists other than those from the Scottish Secular Society and the Humanist Society Scotland, how do we know that they are genuinely atheist and that they will present a genuinely atheist case at time for reflection?
Thank you for that question. By the way, I point out that secular societies are not necessarily atheists—religious people can be secularist if they believe in the separation of church and state. Someone does not need to be an atheist to be a secularist, which is one reason why I lodged the petition in my name rather than get the backing of an organisation.
I suppose that you are saying that, when someone from a religious denomination makes a contribution, you know broadly what they are going to say—but do you? You just take it on trust that a particular religious denomination will put forward a person who is reasonably representative of those points of view. If we want a representative time for reflection that involves atheists, the Parliament will have to spend some time on that. It could invite applications and try to ensure that it gets a diversity of views from atheists.
I have tried to examine what we know about the characteristics of atheists. The social survey data shows that, actually, they seem to be a pretty representative bunch of people. They are to be found in all parts of society and are not a distinctive group in any way, except for the fact that they do not believe in religion. I expect, therefore, that you would get a diversity of views.
I am suggesting that Parliament needs to think a bit more about how it can get such a diversity and give due recognition to that 25 per cent of the population who say that they do not believe in God or any higher spiritual power.
You have made the case that religious organisations are overrepresented at time for reflection. Has every religious or belief organisation in Interfaith Scotland been invited to give time for reflection?
I guess so. I cannot say precisely, but certainly the overwhelming majority have been invited.
The majority, but not all.
I cannot be that specific. There might be an exception, but I doubt it.
We do not always invite religious people to give time for reflection—we have also invited individuals from the voluntary and public sectors. How would you balance it all out? You have identified 75 per cent of participants. With the remaining 25 per cent, would we be permitted to invite people from the voluntary sector, as long as they were not from a voluntary sector organisation that had religious affiliations? Is that what you are arguing?
Yes. With the 25 per cent that I have not identified, it would be open to the Parliament to decide on the priorities. That would include voluntary groups, which at present make occasional contributions.
Members have no more questions. As you will know from previous experience, Mr Bonney, the next step is for us to consider how to deal with your petition. It is important that we write to the Presiding Officer—who, as you know, chairs the Parliamentary Bureau, which is responsible for the allocations—to get her view.
I seek members’ views.
In writing to the Presiding Officer, can we highlight Mr Bonney’s comment that there has been no review of time for reflection since 1999?
I suggest that the views of the Equality and Human Rights Commission be obtained on whether time for reflection meets the Scottish Parliament’s legal obligations in relation to equal opportunities. That is an issue that I meant to raise and develop.
Thank you. This discussion is really just for committee members, but I am sure that members will take that point on board.
Do members agree to those suggestions from Angus MacDonald and Mr Bonney?
Members indicated agreement.
I know that Mr Bonney has given us a breakdown of the figures, but it would be useful to ask the Presiding Officer for a breakdown of who has given time for reflection over the past three years of the current session of Parliament and what body or religious organisation they represented. As I have said, some public and voluntary sector organisations have been represented.
We should also write to Interfaith Scotland to ask for its views, because I do not think that everybody who is involved in that body has automatically been invited to give time for reflection. Angus MacDonald is right that it is time to review the procedure for allowing people to come along. I also suggest that we write to the Humanist Society Scotland and the Scottish Secular Society for their views on the issue. Unfortunately, I do not think that we can write individually to the 1.5 million atheists out there, but I hope that, if any are listening to the broadcast of the meeting, we might get some views from members of the general public, who might wish to contribute to the debate by making a written submission.
Do members agree with John Wilson’s suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
To add to those suggestions, I wonder whether, when we ask the Presiding Officer for a breakdown over the past three years, we can also ask about the gender balance. There have also been schoolchildren who have delivered time for reflection.
Could we add the Scottish Independent Celebrants Association to the list of bodies to contact? I have the contact details, if they are required.
Thank you for that.
As you have heard, Mr Bonney, we are continuing your petition, and we will discuss it at a future date once we have received all the information. Thank you for coming along, for giving your statement and for being a witness today.
I suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow Mr Bonney to leave.
11:26 Meeting suspended.Unmarried Fathers (Equal Rights) (PE1513)
Item 2 is consideration of two new petitions. PE1513, by Ron Park, is on equal rights for unmarried fathers. Members have a note by the clerk, the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing and the petition. John Lamont MSP has a constituency interest and I thank him for coming along.
Mr Park, who is in the public gallery, is unfortunately unable to make a statement. However, given the exceptional circumstances, the committee will allow Margaret Park to read out a statement on his behalf. We will not put any questions to Mrs Park. After that, I will ask Mr Lamont to make a brief statement, and then the committee will consider the petition.
Lady and gentlemen committee members, I thank you all for allowing me to speak on my son’s behalf. These are my son’s words and I will read them as he wrote them.
“In addition to what I am sure you’ve already read in my petition, I’d like to share one more set of statistics from the General Registry Office. In 2011, of the 29,888 births registered in Scotland, 3,123 were registered to a sole parent, an incredible 10.4 per cent. Taking into consideration that a child is under the age of 16, it can be estimated that there are as many as”
50,000
“children whose births are registered to a sole parent.
Keeping this in mind, I’d like to focus our attention towards the United Nations Convention ‘The Rights of the Child’, specifically section 9, which states, ‘You should not be separated from your parents unless it is for your own good ... Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child’, a right which—by failing to require both parents to be named on a birth certificate by law, either amicably, by mediation or as a last resort by court ordered paternity testing—we fail to guarantee every child born in Scotland and, in far too many cases, fail to uphold altogether.
This goes hand in hand with fathers’ rights and both speak to the very same grey area within our current laws, in that unmarried fathers have no legal rights until they are court awarded. As such, the child cannot see them. The measures I have proposed (or measures otherwise determined) will give family courts the power to enforce paternity testing in extreme cases, be it against the mother’s wishes or the father’s, and requiring by law that within a predetermined timescale every effort should be made and every avenue exhausted to name both parents on an amended birth certificate so as the child has their full rights protected and upheld, and they have access to both parents, and indeed that both parents have legal and binding responsibilities in relation to their child, if these are of course in the best interests”
of the child.
“I would like to close by quoting one of the comments posted on my petition, which I am sure all of you have read. It came from a woman known only as Pauline. Pauline wrote:
‘It is totally unacceptable for a father to be denied parental rights under any circumstances (unless he is an unfit parent). I speak from personal experience—as a child, I was not allowed to see my father. My mother denied him his rights by denying that he was my father even though she continued for many years to accept financial support from him. Both my parents are dead and I only ever got to meet my father once as a young adult. It was too difficult to develop a relationship due to all the anger and rejection felt by both of us. I pray that this legislation will be changed so that no other child has to deal with the pain of rejection for no reason other than spite of the other parent.’
This is the voice of a child failed by your current legislation—a child who quite obviously has suffered, and continues to suffer into adulthood. ... we failed to protect her rights to the best of our abilities. This has to change, and I feel my proposals set forth are a step in the right direction to rectifying this terrible situation we continue to place some children in. Mothers and fathers have to be considered to be equal in terms of rights, accountability and responsibility. Giving precedence to one over the other is an outdated notion. A child needs both and if that is at all possible and in the child’s best interests, this is what we should strive for every single one.”
Thank you for coming along and reading out the statement at late notice. I appreciate it.
I thank the committee for allowing Mrs Park to provide evidence on behalf of her son. I understand that the case is exceptional and I am pleased that the committee was able to listen to Mrs Park, who did remarkably well, given that she had no time to prepare. I say well done to her.
Ron Park has been in correspondence with me about the difficulties that he has had in obtaining access to his son. I think that he has contacted 87 other MSPs, as well, so committee members might have had correspondence from him. I have pursued the matter as his constituency MSP.
I have been in contact with the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs. I think that the Scottish Government has some sympathy with the position that Mr Park finds himself in, but it says that it has no plans to amend the law as it stands. That is why Mr Park decided to pursue his issue through the committee, as he has done. It is important to remember that he is not doing so only on his own behalf; he is championing the cases of many others in Scotland who find themselves in a similar position. I hope that the committee will look at his case with some sympathy.
Thank you.
We cannot put questions directly to Mrs Park but, from looking through the briefing, I understand that there is a presumption of shared parenting in legislation in England and Wales. Is that a good comparison with what the petitioner wants for Scotland?
Yes.
I am sorry; I was speaking to John Lamont.
At the very least, we need to look at how other countries have dealt with the issue. I am not saying that that is necessarily the position that we in Scotland need or want to be in, but we certainly need to look at the issue from other perspectives to find out what the best-case scenario would be for Scotland.
I throw open the discussion for members’ comments and contributions.
I say well done to Mrs Park.
Thank you.
I also thank John Lamont.
I, too, have had correspondence with Mr Park, and I think that the petition is brave. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made, it seems to me that there are opportunities that might be taken to declare parentage. Will Mr Lamont comment on how DNA evidence might be pursued?
I am not familiar with the exact details of how that works, but I understand that a Scottish court cannot force somebody to provide a child’s sample for DNA testing. I suppose that that is the root of the problem. If a child cannot be forced to provide a sample, there is no way of ascertaining their parentage. From my correspondence with the minister, I think that that is the key point of law that the Government is not prepared to look at.
I remind members that John Lamont is not here as a witness. It was therefore perhaps not fair to ask him that question, although I fell into that trap earlier, as members know.
I was just looking for his superior knowledge.
I think that we are clear on Mr Lamont’s superior knowledge but, if we need information, we must write to various organisations.
I thank the petitioner for bringing this important petition to us. The convener is right—I would like the committee to consider seeking more information to enable the petition to move forward. That should certainly include information about the England and Wales model.
Do members agree that we need to seek further information on this important petition, such as information from the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association and Families Need Fathers Scotland as a starting point?
Can we add Scottish Women’s Aid to the list? The petitioner has identified that there may be issues around why the mother decides not to register the father on the birth certificate or to engage further with the father in relation to the relationship that exists. It would be useful to get a view from Scottish Women’s Aid on some of the issues that the petitioner has raised so that we have a balanced view in the responses.
Do committee members agree with John Wilson’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any further suggestions?
It would be folly for us not to mention the work that the Equal Opportunities Committee is doing. I am aware that it might not be on this exact topic, but can we have an update or a summary of where it is at with its investigation?
Yes—thank you for that.
I do not know about other committee members, but the petition strikes a chord with me, as it is not far away from the profound inquiry that we did into child sexual exploitation. We pride ourselves on having an equal society. We should pursue the routes that have been mentioned. I do not know whether we could do anything with a review of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or whether we could get information from the United Kingdom Government, given its experience, but those might be areas to explore.
As I said, the petition is brave. It is sad that the matter has not been sorted before. My mind immediately turns to people who try to find out in later years who their father is but cannot do so because there is no registration. I commend Mr Park for his bravery in lodging his petition and I sincerely hope that we will not drop it easily.
Do you want the committee to write to the relevant UK minister?
I do.
We will find out who the appropriate minister is and write to them.
As there are no further comments, are members happy with the proposed course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mrs Park and Mr Park for coming along today, and I thank John Lamont. This is a difficult area, but the committee will pursue it with as much activity as it can, and the petition will be on future agendas.
We will have a short suspension to allow our witnesses to leave.
11:42 Meeting suspended.Previous
Current PetitionNext
Current Petitions