Official Report 216KB pdf
Employment of Teachers (Religious Discrimination) (PE269)
The next item on the agenda is current petitions. We have to consider the lack of responses to two petitions. The first is PE269, which was submitted by Mr James Nixon, on the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Members will remember that he believes that the act gives local authorities a right to discriminate against Scottish primary school teachers on the ground of their religious beliefs and practices, because a Catholic certificate is needed to teach in Catholic schools.
Last night, in preparation for the visit from members of the European Parliament Petitions Committee, I read a lot about how that committee works and the kinds of cases that it has helped to resolve. I have been a lifelong supporter of the work of the European Community and the European Parliament, and I wonder whether we should write to Mr James Nixon and suggest that he might explore going to the European Parliament Petitions Committee, as the petition raises an issue that pertains to Europe.
We could seek information on that point. If he is eligible to submit a petition to the European Parliament, we can advise him of his rights.
I go along with the recommendation, but I add a plea on behalf of the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. We should go gently on him, simply because he was not one of those members of Parliament who voted to incorporate the ECHR or who introduced a host of equal opportunities legislation that, when one analyses it, could well act against the interests of the public. I am sure that the minister, in taking his time to reply to the petition, is tied up in all that well-intentioned legislation, which could turn many of our long-standing commonsense practices on their heads.
I fully accept that the implications behind the petition could be momentous for Scottish education as it has been provided throughout the 20th century and is being provided in the 21st century. Nonetheless, although the minister is responsible for responding to the petition, he has not done so in any meaningful way. I should now write on behalf of the committee, insisting that if he cannot give a final response he should at least give a detailed response on the work that has been done on the petition since September 2000. The petitioner has a right to receive a response.
Do we know whether the practice to which the petition refers is widespread? I know that my daughter-in-law Margaret Ewing taught in a Catholic school very happily for many years without being a Catholic.
I certainly taught in a Catholic school before I became an MSP, but I had a Catholic qualification at the time. Non-Catholics teach in Catholic schools, but there is an argument that their promotion could be frustrated. That is why there may be ECHR implications.
I support the recommendation. We should also give the petitioner a copy of the Official Report of the discussion on the petition.
We can do that. Is the course of action that I suggested agreed to?
Unborn Children (Recognition in Law) (PE382)
The final petition, PE382, is from Mr Thomas Howe, and seeks legal recognition for the rights of the unborn child. We agreed at our meeting on 2 October that the Executive should be asked to comment on the petition and to provide clarification of the reserved provisions and details of its interest in the application of damages law. We have received a memorandum from the Executive that sets out in detail what it sees as the main points that arise from PE382.
The reply that the law is complex could be applied to anything. The issue should not be brushed off like that. Abortion law can be separated from what the petitioner intends. He wants a clear form of retribution or apology for the death of an unborn child, starting with his own case, which involves the loss of his son.
The situation is difficult because there might be implications for the law on abortion if an unborn child that is killed in a car crash is allowed legal rights.
I still think that it is possible to separate the issue of abortion from that to which the petition refers. Abortion is an agreed act. It is not, unless done illicitly, a criminal offence. The petitioner's case is entirely different, because here the unborn child has no rights at all. A mother could be fully nine months pregnant when her unborn child is killed. Is that child worth nothing? I do not think so. The petitioner has raised a major moral and legal point.
Should we consider sending the matter to Westminster? I accept that some of it relates to civil law, but it seems to be primarily a reserved matter, given the legal complexities about the unborn child and the issues that relate to abortion, embryology, surrogacy and genetics. It would not be the first time that the committee has sent a petition to Westminster.
No, but the clerk has reminded me that the petitioner's main concern is with civil law and obtaining an apology under that law. We could pass the Executive response and the petition to both justice committees—or the one that agrees to take it—and ask whether they are interested in pursuing the points raised in the petition. It is ultimately for them, not us, to handle the petition.
It is particularly pitiful that the petitioner is having to ask for an apology through the petition. He has not been able to extract an apology from the driver who caused the fatal crash. Many people would ask for an awful lot more than an apology.
I agree, but what the petition suggests would require a change in civil law, which is a matter for one of the justice committees. Is it agreed that we refer the Executive's response and the petition to the justice committees, asking whether they are interested in taking up the issues involved?
Asbestos (PE336)<br />Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (PE361)
Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (PE372 and PE384)
Our final matter is an update on petitions PE336, PE361, PE372 and PE384. I refer members to the paper on the progress that other committees have made in dealing with those petitions.
Meeting closed at 12:00.
Previous
New Petitions