Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 05 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Cramond (Roman Remains) (PE9)

Agenda item 4 concerns the petition about the Roman remains at Cramond. Members will be aware that Mike Russell undertook to arrange a meeting—which I also attended—with the petitioner, Mr Guild, and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Eric Milligan. The meeting was helpful. The Lord Provost agreed to visit the site, along with Mike Russell, the petitioner and me, to consider how things can be improved.

I have also received a letter from Margaret Smith, who is the constituency MSP. She has indicated her interest in the issue, which also concerns Historic Scotland. It would be useful for me to write to Historic Scotland to ask what role it will play in the site's development. Given our useful working relationship with Historic Scotland, I am sure that it will respond to our letter quickly. Margaret Smith would like to attend the visit, so it is only right and proper that, as for school visits, we invite parties with list members for the Lothians to send a representative, rather than have 20 representatives marching about the site.

As the constituency member will be invited and the convener and I will be present, it will be possible to have all the parties represented by the addition of a single member. We need not go wider than that, as the visit will involve not only the Lord Provost and Mr Guild—who is, if I may use a term of the Roman legions, the standard bearer for the issue—but a number of council officials. Were we to add others to the group, our stamping over the site might well destroy it. As Mr Monteith wrote the first report on the petition, perhaps we should ask him to join us as the Conservative member.

Okay. If Brian Monteith is not available, we will suggest that another Conservative member from the Lothians be invited.

Absolutely.

Are members happy with that approach?

Delighted.

Jackie Baillie could come along too if she liked.

That is okay.

Is there a date for the visit?

It will take place in early December—on 10 December, I think.

---

Health Education (Guidelines) (PE427)

Item 5 is consideration of petition PE427, on health education guidelines. In their papers, members should have the letter that I received from Learning and Teaching Scotland. I also received a further letter from the minister, which I believe has been circulated to members by e-mail—it came very late—but hard copies can also be made available if members wish. Do members have any comments on the letters?

It is becoming fairly clear that, in the light of the evidence that the petitioners have given us, the committee's sympathy is largely with the petitioners about the need for a review, although perhaps not in other senses. However, the minister and Learning and Teaching Scotland seem unable to recognise that fact in the language that they use about reviews. I found the letter from Learning and Teaching Scotland to be lengthy and, frankly, inconsequential, because it did not lead us anywhere.

As it is fairly clear that we will not get the review for which the petitioners have asked, I think that the committee should put on record its disappointment. Without signing up to some of the things that the petitioners have said, we should, in the light of the materials, sign up to the central issue about the need for a review. The balance of the evidence—the balance of the advantage for Scotland's children—lies on the side of the petitioners. I am sorry that the Executive and Learning and Teaching Scotland cannot see that.

I have read the letter carefully. The three questions that we posed were in the penultimate paragraph of the convener's letter. They were:

"whether or not a review will take place … what the timetable for such a review will be and whether it will take into account the objections to some of the materials".

The three questions were buried away in the letter, but I felt that they were answered. LTS acknowledges, albeit obtusely, that a review will be conducted, which will conclude in 2004-05. If we take on board the need to consult stakeholders, teachers and a variety of others, including parents, it is legitimate to suggest that that timetable is appropriate. It is not possible to conduct such reviews in a matter of months.

The consultation will consider circular 2/2001. The petitioners made the point that the teaching materials seem to contradict the provisions of that circular. I seem to recall a reference, although I cannot find it at the moment, to the fact that LTS would take into account the views that were expressed to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Indeed, LTS would be foolish not to do so.

Although petition PE427 raised a number of other issues, we have always been clear that we want to proceed on the basis of ensuring that a review is undertaken. We may have different views on the time scale for such a review, but it is clear that one will take place. Given the range of stakeholders that should be involved in the consultation, it is difficult to argue that a shorter time scale would be more appropriate.

I agree with Jackie Baillie. I admit that the first time that I read the letter from LTS, I thought that the time scale of 2004-05 sounded an awfully long way away. When I realise that we are only a month or so away from 2003, it does not seem to be as long away as it sounds.

It is two years.

I acknowledge that there is a debate about the time scale, but I agree broadly with Jackie Baillie's position. Personally, I am sorry that the review could not be conducted a wee bit more quickly, but if that is the time scale that LTS works to in conducting general reviews, as it has outlined in its letter, we should accept the review in the spirit in which it was offered.

I am less worried about the situation that is troubling the petitioners than other members are. I have always believed in the professionalism of teachers. I believe that the unsuitable materials will never be used, except in very odd circumstances that can be addressed by school rules, parental influence and the guidance that has been issued. For that reason, I am not too upset about the slight delay in the timing of the review, although I regret it.

Do other members have comments to make? They do not. I sense that we are not reaching a consensus.

No.

There is an issue about circular 2/2001 and the time scale for the review. The circular was issued and yet it appears that no consideration was given to the circular when the list of materials was drawn up. I remain concerned about that.

Although I agreed with the abolition of clause 28, my support was based on the content of circular 2/2001. That circular reassured a wide spectrum of people in Scotland, including Scottish parents, that their concerns would be taken on board in the drawing up of the materials that would be placed in schools.

It is clear from evidence that we have received that some of the materials on the list do not comply with circular 2/2001. I find it disappointing that the response to that concern will not be made before 2004-05.

I understand that consultation has to take place, but what is the point of having circulars and guidance if an organisation such as LTS does not adhere to them? When evidence is provided that LTS is in contravention of the circular, surely it could act more swiftly to remove certain materials from a list that it has issued? The process is not difficult if the evidence has been provided.

My concern is not about reviewing the time scale for a review—it is important that everybody is allowed to contribute to the review. However, if a piece of material is clearly contrary to the circular, why cannot LTS simply remove it from the list in a timeous fashion?

A compromise would be to remove the material temporarily, pending the outcome of the review.

One way to consider the matter is to ask whether there is any indication in Learning and Teaching Scotland's response that the concerns of the petitioners or of this committee have moved the review forward a millisecond. The answer from the letter is no; the review would have taken place anyway, and it will take place at precisely the time that had been talked about. In other words, the petition and the views of the committee have not influenced the process, so the first question that we addressed has been answered in the negative, except in so far as there are normal reviews anyway.

On the question whether the petition and the views of the committee will be considered, it would have been gratuitously offensive to say that they would not be, but there is no indication to say that they will bear heavily—or even mildly—on the thinking. In those circumstances, Karen Gillon has described the situation correctly. We have a situation in which, despite the balance of argument and of the evidence that we have received, we find that the petitioners' views, not in their entirety, but in substantial measure—and they are views with which I agree—are not getting an adequate response from the Executive or from Learning and Teaching Scotland.

I do not know whether we can square that circle. If some members are content with the time scale, we must accept that that is that, and that the petitioners have lost this one, which is immensely regrettable. However, the committee could be much stronger and say to Learning and Teaching Scotland, "Okay, you are having the review. We are now asking you to bring the review forward."

Are there any other views?

I do not think that the petitioners have lost this one, because there has been a substantial airing of the views and concerns, despite the fact that we have differences of opinion on some of the detail. If you are asking people—not in a hurried way, as it is suggested happened before—to consult, to develop new materials and to have them in schools in 2004-05, that will take time.

I cannot tell from Learning and Teaching Scotland's letter whether the review is a general review, but the minister's letter suggests that there might be a general review on the basis of the health-promoting schools unit and the need to evaluate its work and spread it further. The most that we could ask to be shaved off the time scale is three months or so. My recollection is that it is not one piece of material on the list that is inappropriate, but a number of pieces of material. That would mean taking a substantial amount off the list and replacing it with something that is considered more appropriate for teachers in a rush. That is what got us here in the first place.

But having said that, the debate around circular 2/2001 was important.

Indeed.

And it was about whether materials are viewed as inappropriate with regard to the circular. I read the Official Report of the committee—I was not here, because I was on maternity leave—and, given the evidence, there was a consensus that some of the materials were contrary to circular 2/2001. If that is the case, why cannot Learning and Teaching Scotland remove those materials from the list? That is what I cannot get my head round. What is so difficult about that? What is the point of having the circular if the materials that are recommended are contrary to the circular? Either the circular is useless or the list of materials is useless, but the circle cannot be squared between the two.

Learning and Teaching Scotland responded to the specific questions that you asked in your letter. You are introducing another question. By all means, if it is your view that we should write to LTS again, that is fine, but you need to be clear about what material you are asking it to remove from the list.

With all due respect, in my letter I said that the committee

"was concerned that the list of materials attached to the Guide for Teachers and Managers does not fit with the principles in Circular 2/2001."

Learning and Teaching Scotland has not responded to say whether it believes that the materials fit the principles. I am upset that that organisation did not answer our three specific questions, but in my dealings with members of the public, I do not deal only with the last three questions in the letter, but the letter's whole content. We said that there were specific issues about the materials. LTS has not addressed those issues and there is some merit in asking—specifically in relation to circular 2/2001—whether any other mechanisms outwith the review process can be used to re-examine those materials.

That is what I was going to ask. I have reservations about the mechanisms for who decides which pieces of material should come out. That might reopen a dispute that does not need to be reopened, because I do not think that the list will be abused anyway. I understand what people are thinking and I would be reluctant to split the committee, but I worry that, as always, things are not simple. I do not think that we can say that if those three pieces of material are removed, we will be satisfied. That would get us into another big debate in which people who do not want such subjects to be dealt with in schools could gain succour.

I do not want to give such people that opportunity. However, the point of the petition was that people believed that some materials in the list contravened circular 2/2001. For me as an elected member, circular 2/2001 was an important part of the parliamentary process and has been crucial in how I conduct myself during business in the chamber. If LTS is not now adhering to that circular, I would be concerned and that would reflect on how I vote in the chamber in the future. That is an important issue for members; if we are not given full information, that is also important.

Schools have an appropriate and important role in the teaching of sex education and all the other issues related to the list of materials, and I would not give succour to anyone who suggested otherwise. However, there is an issue about the circular and it would be helpful from my perspective and that of other members to get some clarification on whether mechanisms other than the review process could be used. LTS may come back to us in a few weeks, and we could find ourselves in the same position, in which we must accept that the review will be in 2004-05. However, if other mechanisms exist, I would like to know about them and I would like them to be explored.

There seems to be a possibility of coming together on the issue and going back to LTS. However, I remind members that the petition has been a long-term petition in the committee. The petitioners are probably now buying season tickets or vouchers to attend our meetings. We need a resolution and although it will be immensely regrettable if there is inflexibility on the part of the Executive and LTS, there is nothing the committee can do about that. If it is possible to push the issue further with LTS, I will support that in order to try to pin that organisation down a bit more.

The point about the circular is important. In the context of my strong and constant advocacy of the repeal of section 2A, I quoted during debates advice from Stonewall, the gay lobbying organisation, to the effect that it is important to have alternatives in place in which people have confidence. It goes against everybody's interests if people do not have confidence in the alternatives. The petitioners made it clear to us the first time they gave evidence that they were arguing not against sex education in schools, but against materials that they thought did not match the contents of the circular. I think that the balance of evidence is probably in their favour.

I suggest that I write again to Learning and Teaching Scotland—unless anyone has strong objections—to ask whether there are any other mechanisms for the review of materials in relation to circular 2/2001.

Will you also ask about the time scale?

Yes. I will circulate the letter to members before I send it to enable them to suggest helpful amendments. That will be our last bite at the petition.

I suggest a slightly different approach. People might have been disappointed about the time scale, but they accepted that it could be considered to be an appropriate time scale for review. The convener asked whether a mechanism existed for withdrawing materials in the light of their apparent contradiction of circular 2/2001, and I would be comfortable with such phraseology. However, I do not think that we can ask whether other mechanisms for review exist. If the letter uses the terms that I suggest, I will be comfortable with it.

That is the specific question that I wish to ask. I do not want to go into other issues. That is the issue that the petition raises and the question that needs to be asked. Are members comfortable with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Steiner Waldorf Education (PE457)

Agenda item 6 is on petition PE457, which is from Ms Dorothy Baird and calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to bring Steiner Waldorf education into the publicly funded sector as a matter of priority. Members have a copy of the petition. I am interested in their initial comments.

Members can take a position on the matter. The position that my colleague Irene McGugan and I take on behalf of the SNP is that Steiner Waldorf education is a good thing and we accept the argument for the proposed practice, which is common in other parts of the world and in the European Union. I made that clear at our education policy launch in August this year.

If members do not think that the proposal is a good thing, they can say so easily, but it is not in the committee's competence to do anything about it, particularly at this stage in the session.

Should we note the petition?

I suggest that we note the petition. The national debate on education and the committee's parallel purposes-of-education inquiry provided two opportunities for the petitioners to make their points about the value or otherwise of such education. Those are more appropriate forums at which to consider to the matter, at which we consider the future of education as a whole, rather than as separate parts.

Do members agree to note the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I have said on the record that Steiner Waldorf education has great value, particularly in the early years—in kindergarten. I am interested in how the ideas behind such education can be given a fair wind in the state system.

Our papers ask whether Steiner Waldorf people could work within the national priorities and the state system structures. As Jackie Baillie says, such discussions might be better conducted in the national debate on education, our purposes-of-education inquiry and the follow-up to that. With those comments, I agree that we should note the petition.

The arguments that the Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made for not supporting the petition display flawed logic.

We can debate the petition's merits or demerits, but I caution members that we have said that we are noting the petition. If we debate the demerits or otherwise of responses to the petition, we will have to hold a wider debate. I do not think that members want to do that.

Actually, Ian Jenkins mentioned the point that I intended to make. He referred to the concern that Steiner Waldorf schools could not accommodate the national framework for education and the national priorities.

Irene McGugan disputes that assertion.

Exactly.

I accept that. We will note the petition. I suggest that we refer the petitioners to the Executive's national debate on education and encourage them to continue to be involved in it as fully as possible.

We should refer the petitioners to our inquiry, for which I believe they gave evidence.

Are members content with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 15:44.