Official Report 295KB pdf
I welcome the witnesses to the Equal Opportunities Committee to give evidence on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. I understand that your evidence will relate to section 28, or 2A, but the committee is interested to hear any comments that you may wish to make on any part of the bill. The witnesses will introduce themselves and their organisations, after which Ann Allen will speak on behalf of the group. If any other witnesses want to comment after Ann has spoken, they are quite at liberty to do so. The committee will then ask questions.
I am the convener of the board of social responsibility of the Church of Scotland. That appointment is voluntary, and I have been involved with the board for 14 years. The board offers a generic social work service, including a service to the homosexual community. That service was visited recently by Iain Gray, the Deputy Minister for Community Care, and was highly commended. The board has the responsibility for the Church of Scotland for commenting on moral and ethical issues. That is my locus in this debate on section 2A.
My job title is director of communications for the archdiocese of Glasgow, although I am usually known as Cardinal Winning's spokesman. The Catholic Church, as you know, takes a fairly strong line on this issue, and I am here to represent that line.
I am also of the Catholic Church. I am the parliamentary officer.
I am the parliamentary officer of CARE for Scotland. CARE is involved in public policy work but also in practical caring initiatives relating to education, in pregnancy crisis centres, in remand fostering and in a homes programme that we run from our office in Glasgow.
Good afternoon. I am the parliamentary officer for Evangelical Alliance. We represent individuals, churches across the denominations, charities that work with the homeless and with people who are dependent on drugs, and charities that work in other areas.
I would like to start by explaining who we are and when we got together on this issue. We represent a much wider coalition of people. At the beginning of December, we met around the table at a meeting that was organised by Graham Blount of the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office. At that meeting, it was obvious that a wide representation of Christian denominations had an agreed position on the repeal of section 2A. We therefore wrote an open letter that was due to be published but was in fact leaked to the press. A copy of that letter was sent beforehand to Wendy Alexander.
Thank you, Ann. If nobody wants to add anything at this stage, I shall open the debate to questions from members.
Much of the debate hinges on what is meant by promotion. The written evidence shows that the churches tend to focus on the first part of section 2A: the promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle. My greatest concern with section 2A is the second part, which describes homosexual lifestyles as "pretended". A dictionary definition of "pretended" is "so-called, alleged, imaginary, make-believe, fictitious, fictional". Surely it is discriminatory that there is a piece of legislation on the statute book at the moment that describes people's lifestyles in those terms. Should not that discrimination be addressed by repealing that legislation?
We are convinced that you will repeal that piece of legislation. We are opposed to blanket repeal. We do not mind you rephrasing the legislation in a way that would be less discriminatory; that has always been our position. However, we do not accept that it is the view and wish of the majority of people in Scotland—and every poll has indicated it—that there be an equivalence drawn between homoerotic practice and homosexual lifestyle and heterosexual commitment in marriage. As a Christian group, that is an immovable position for us. It may be considered discriminatory, but any moral choice is discriminatory. Any choice at all that we make in life is discriminatory and we all make choices. The homosexual community makes a choice.
We are not wedded to a particular formation of those words. We recognise that people have voiced their concerns about the word "pretended". In fact, we discussed that part with a lawyer who said that he did not quite understand what it was supposed to do. What we are trying to highlight is our concern that parents' wishes that their children be exposed only to the type of teaching that they prefer should be protected and enshrined in legislation. We are open to having the wording framed in such a way that it does not offend.
So long as they afford the same degree of protection as is currently in place.
Donald Dewar made a statement in Parliament a couple of weeks ago saying that the same remedies in law were available under the new section. Is that acceptable?
The same remedies would be fine, but Donald Dewar said that the term "stable family life" had to be inclusive. As I said in my submission last week, that could allow someone to take a school or local authority to court for failing to promote a homosexual stable life, and we think that that is a problem. That may not happen, but we would not like our children to be taught that a homosexual stable life is just as good as a married stable life. We do not believe that it is possible to be totally inclusive with that term.
The point about pretended family life, which is the phrase to which the gay rights community takes exception as well as to the word "promoting", is that homosexuals perceive their relationships to be morally equivalent to marriage. From a Christian perspective, it is impossible to accept that, because of our understanding of God, His character and His relationship with the Church, which is reflected in marriage.
It is worth noting that, as Christians, we accept that other people are not Christians. The basic principle is that, as Christian parents, we are entitled to ensure that our children are brought up in accordance with what we see as a valid or preferred lifestyle. If homosexuals choose a particular lifestyle, we do not condemn it because they are not Christians and do not live to the same standards as we do. However, we are entitled to ensure that our children are reared with our values.
Using that same argument, surely homosexuals are entitled to ensure that their children are reared in accordance with their values.
They may have that right within their family, but they do not have the right to promote homosexual relationships to our children, whom we do not want to be taught about that lifestyle.
The same argument could apply to both sides. People cannot dictate exactly what their children will be taught about lifestyles.
We are talking about 0.1 per cent of children. Where there are irreconcilable differences, we must find a balance for the majority of children rather than for the 0.1 per cent of children who find themselves in such a family.
In some schools, the majority of children will be living in single-parent families, but neither you nor I would want that to be promoted as preferable to any other family relationship.
No child should feel that he or she is being actively discriminated against. None of us has any objection to a homosexual lifestyle being objectively discussed in the classroom or to same-sex attraction being explained to children. Nor do we object to children being told that some people find themselves in that situation, have that sexual orientation and follow through on that with practice—that is a reality. We are also clear that many children will come from single parents, who have either opted not to get married or whose relationships have broken down.
Not just the people who are here giving evidence, but many people in the country do not understand why the word "marriage" cannot be inserted in the new section. It is not so politically incorrect that it cannot be inserted. Last year, Henry McLeish said in the consultation document "Improving Scottish Family Law":
On a wider point, there is the issue of listening to parents and to the local community in regard to what is taught in schools. Parents and boards in schools should be consulted on what is to be taught about sex education and other matters. Beyond that, there is a wider issue. As every opinion poll clearly states, there is at least concern within the Scottish nation about the repeal of section 2A.
On a point that was raised earlier, in my written submission, which I assume you all have, I referred to the European convention on human rights. Our understanding from legal advice is that the ECHR defines the family as a married couple of a man and a woman. The point was made about homosexuals saying that their values are not reflected. The ECHR gives parents the right to have their children educated according to their religious or philosophical beliefs.
May I come back on Michael's original point, which was about discrimination?
Briefly, because a lot of people wish to ask questions.
I accept that we have to be non-discriminatory, but every law is in some sense discriminatory. On our way in here we saw some people standing outside having a cigarette. That is because smokers are discriminated against in that they are not allowed to smoke in certain public buildings. All laws, by their nature, are discriminatory. Obviously, we do not want section 2A to stigmatise people, but I point out as a matter of fact that most laws are de facto discriminatory.
I was going to raise the issue of single parents, but it has received an airing, so I will let Irene go on.
Would some of you like to comment on the divergence of views that there are between and within some of the churches in Scotland? We will be hearing later from representatives of other Churches and denominations, including the Church of Scotland education committee, who hold different views to those articulated by yourselves. Presumably, they are using the same teaching, faith and beliefs to inform their decisions. Would you like to comment on that divergence?
I had a discussion with John Laidlaw, who is the convener—the same position that I hold—of the education committee of the Church of Scotland, on that issue last Wednesday. I said that the reason the majority of people in the Church of Scotland are unhappy with the position that he is stating is that he is starting from the position of loving relationships without defining those relationships. I said that most people see that as undermining marriage. He emphatically denied that that was the case, but in the classroom you are starting with respect, trust and relationships, rather than with marriage per se.
From the Catholic Church's point of view, all members of the bishops conference issued a common statement at the end of January, uniting behind the position, espoused first of all by Cardinal Winning, which was opposed to repeal of section 2A, unless it is replaced with similar safeguards that do not in any way undermine the current situation. That was the unanimous position taken by all the bishops of Scotland, who have the teaching authority of the Catholic Church behind them.
The Evangelical Alliance represents not just one denomination, but a number of denominations across Scotland. Since this issue has been raised, I have received many e-mails and letters and have spoken at many public meetings. I do not want to say that 100 per cent of our members support what I have said today, but an overwhelming majority—within the high 90s—would agree with what we have said. I have received only a small amount of correspondence arguing the position held by those who do not want to see some protection for the family and in relation to local authority spending.
I would be interested to know what evidence you have of attempts by teachers to promote homosexuality. I was a teacher for 20 years, and I had no experience of that, if your fear is that getting rid of section 2A means that people will actively argue for a particular lifestyle.
The evidence was historical—section 2A came into being because there was clear evidence of promotion. In recent weeks, it has emerged that two local authorities in Scotland bought the Avon and Bath material. I would have thought that, by anyone's standards, that material promotes homosexual practice, never mind lifestyle. The material has not been used in Scottish schools. The legislation about promotion was aimed at local authorities, rather than specifically at what happens in a classroom. As a teacher, I am aware that many teachers would be very careful not to promote.
If one book was responsible for section 28, it was "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin", which caused a lot of trouble in London in the 1980s. In an interview with Gay Times, the publisher of that book said:
Perhaps you should have a bit more faith in the good sense of the education authorities to act within guidelines.
That is all explicitly allowed for under section 2A.
So if a child is being bullied because their parents are gay, is it legitimate to say to the bully not just that they should not bully, but that the stable relationship that the child is in ought to be valued in itself?
That already happens. My board runs counselling services, where we deal with people who are confused about their sexuality. We offer a completely non-directive, professional counselling service.
With respect, I am talking about a child in that circumstance. In order to challenge racist bullying, a teacher can say that racism is unacceptable. If a child is being bullied because their parents are of the same sex, can a teacher say, "That is an acceptable family lifestyle for that child; that family is as safe as yours, because no one is hurting the child"?
What the teacher can say is that bullying for any reason is wrong. Homophobic bullying is just as wrong as racist, religious or any other kind of bullying.
So the teacher could say that that child lives in a safe family.
That is perfectly legitimate under section 2A, which does not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality or the counselling of pupils.
But you are saying that marriage is the building block of a better form of relationship. You would not be able to say, "Your mother's relationship with whoever is illegitimate"—
We do not need to get into a discussion about the relationship that the child has with its mother or that the mother has with another woman. What we need to do is to say that bullying is wrong. It is wrong for a child to be bullied because of its mother's relationship and the bully must be sorted out. That is perfectly legitimate under section 2A.
You asked what advice we would give about a husband beating a wife. Some marriages do not work—you can go to any sheriff court to see that—but that does not take away from the model: when marriage works, it works well. From a Christian perspective, we would say that it was God given; it is the way that God intended family life to work. Some marriages do not work; if a woman is being beaten, the advice is that she should get herself away from danger. However, the ideal should be marriage; marriage is the key word.
My understanding of marriage—I should say that I speak as someone who is not married—is that it is about self-sacrifice, loving each other and partnership; many people would recognise that. The fact that there are abusive people or bullies in society does not mean that marriage as an institution is not a good thing.
Would you accept that the definition of a safe relationship is not peculiar to marriage? There are people who will say that they love and respect their lifelong partner and that they care for their children, but who—for whatever reason—are not married.
Yes, we would accept that there are relationships outside marriage that are safe for the people involved.
Would that be sufficient to underpin what is done in schools?
In no sense are children responsible for the relationships that their parents enter into. Children do not have to justify the relationships that their parents or guardians are in. School is not about making those objective distinctions; it is about making a child feel his own worth and his place in society. He or she will have to work out what relationship he or she is going to enter into. For most children, boundaries and guidelines are essential if they are to be able to work that out.
The answer to your question is provided by your own minister, Henry McLeish, who has said that the Government's view is that two parents offer the best prospects for a child and that stability is most easily found in marriage.
By holding out something as an ideal, Ann, are you not saying to children in school that everybody else's lifestyle is less than ideal?
But every marriage is less than ideal—there is no such thing as an ideal marriage.
No, but if you hold out marriage as the ideal, that makes every child who is not living with married parents feel that their family life is less than ideal.
That is like saying that if you hold out the ideal of passing your highers, you feel like a second-class citizen if you do not pass them. We have to have ideals, otherwise things do not function.
Passing exams and lifestyles—
Ideals are ideal.
Surely it depends how this is phrased. In an inclusive society, there will be people who make different choices, but that is not to say that we cannot have ideals and that we cannot show that there is a proven value in marriage. The other day, I looked at Shaftesbury Project statistics on homelessness: 2 per cent of its referrals came from children from two-parent families. The other 98 per cent were from different family groups. That was just one example.
What proportion of the 98 per cent started off in families where marriages broke down?
I am sure that some did.
So that statistic does not reveal the reality of some people's experience of marriage, which perhaps leads them to feel that it is not ideal. People have ideals of how they manage their lives, but the question is whether those ideals should be transferred into schools.
Most single parents are not anti-marriage. They are single parents through circumstances and do not champion single parenthood as an ideal. Most people who get divorced want to get married again. Therefore it is not discriminatory to hold marriage as an ideal.
I want to return to what I think is the crux of the issue. The Equal Opportunities Committee is committed to ensuring that legislation does not discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or whatever. A piece of legislation that singles out one section of the community for special treatment is basically discriminatory.
Would you be concerned if we got rid of all race relations laws and all laws that rightfully prevent discrimination on the grounds of race and then said that we would survive because people are not naturally racists? People want reassurance. Parents find section 2A to be a useful belt-and-braces approach, which provides reassurance that homosexuality will not be promoted in schools. It is the term "promoted" that we do not like.
Not many people knew of the existence of section 2A until its repeal was announced. They discovered that the section made it quite clear that there was no equivalence between heterosexual commitment in marriage and homosexual practice. That is the position of the majority of Scottish people; they do not think that there is moral equivalence between marriage and homoerotic practice. Many of them argue that not from a position of faith, but from natural law. They regard the repeal of section 2A as saying that there is equivalence between heterosexual commitment in marriage and homosexual activity, whereas 99 per cent of the population are heterosexual but only 0.7 per cent are homosexual by fixed orientation.
You have just restated the same non sequitur.
Perhaps in your terms, but not in mine. You have created fear in people's minds. You have alerted people to the existence of a law saying that there was no equivalence and, by demolishing that law, you are saying that there is an exact equivalence and that homosexual activity can be promoted along with heterosexual commitment. That is what parents do not want.
That is a total non sequitur. Removing a ban on something does not automatically mean that one promotes it.
The new section that was announced by the First Minister has widened the definition of family life. It might have been better if he had not made that announcement, because he has now said that essentially there is moral equivalence. We now have an inclusive definition of family life.
The argument goes wider than just schools. I believe that many committee members have received material from PHACE West. Much public money went into producing that material, which we believe is promotional and not just health related. We think that there is a problem and that legislation is needed to prevent such material from being placed before our children.
Do you honestly think that material that has been prepared to warn homosexual adults of the health dangers of practising homosexual behaviour will find its way into schools?
That material glorifies—
Those schools have national, local authority and school guidelines. They have guidance teachers whom we have trusted with our children all this time. Are you honestly telling me that those people will accept that kind of material in the classroom?
They would not accept it but, if section 2A is repealed, what will they do if this matter materialises?
Section 2A is about local authorities as well as about classrooms. I will quote directly from the Healthy Gay Scotland website, which is available to youth clubs and other non-school elements under local authority stewardship:
How will repeal of section 2A affect that? Such material is on the internet, but why will it get into schools?
If that material is available while section 2A is in place, what kind of deluge will there be when it is repealed? If there is currently restraint, what will the situation be when there is no legislation to restrain such material?
You cannot argue that the legislation does not restrain such material and then argue that removal of the section will produce a flood.
Nobody knew of the existence of that material until we began to consider the implications of section 2A. If people had known that such material would be publicised, they could have invoked section 2A.
There is clearly unacceptable material both of a homosexual and of a heterosexual nature, but the guidelines and the good sense of teachers will deal with that. So that we know what you have in mind, could you give one example of the promotion of homosexuality in Scottish schools before 1988?
It was not promoted in Scottish schools. As we did not have a Scottish Parliament then, the Westminster Parliament introduced legislation covering the whole of the United Kingdom because homosexuality was being promoted in London schools.
There has never been an issue about the promotion of homosexuality in Scottish schools.
Not until now.
The situation has not remained static for 12 years.
It is important that we realise that homosexuality has never been promoted in Scottish schools, irrespective of whether section 2A has been in place.
But the PHACE West material has been funded by councils.
I do not know that material, so I will not comment on it. I think that unacceptable material will be dealt with by the guidelines. Like Johann Lamont, I am mainly concerned with the safety of children. Do you think that a child would be safer in a heterosexual marriage in which there was conflict and violence, or in a single-parent or same-sex-couple home in which there was no conflict or violence?
That is not the issue. I know of a case in which social services are involved where there is a child in an abusive same-sex household. It is clear that there are bad relationships between parents and children no matter whether the children are being looked after by parents who are committed to marriage, single parents or same-sex couples. We have to deal with the qualitative distinction on an individual basis. A child can be unfortunate enough to have poor parenting, whatever the style of parenting.
You will understand why some Christians approach this question with the view that the key factor is safety and love in the family—that is why there is so much disagreement within the Christian Church on this issue. Is not that factor more fundamental than the points that you present? Would there not be more agreement if education focused on the values of safety and love rather than on the concepts of marriage or homosexual or heterosexual people living together?
The Labour party has stated that it accepts that marriage should be promoted. I believe that studies show that about 70 per cent of the population agree that schools should promote marriage, as it is the ideal environment in which children are safeguarded. Of course, some children will be abused in some married relationships, but that does not damage the ideal. Similarly, some homosexuals in stable relationships—I am talking about a small number—will perhaps look after and care for children and will not abuse them. We are saying that, if the Labour party is committed to the ideal, it should promote and strengthen that ideal through legislation, not contradict it.
I do not think that this is an either/or situation. I agree that every child will be encouraged to explore and adopt values of love, trust, commitment and respect. However, we need to think about where those values are taken in relationships—do we want children to think that sexual experimentation is the first or the last stage of a relationship? Where the commitment of marriage is taken seriously, it offers—and has always offered—the best possible value base for children.
Ann, this morning you have talked about homosexuality. Would you accept that, as a representative of a Church organisation, you can do so without fear, as you are not bound by section 2A or something similar?
I will start at the end of your questions and work back.
As Jeremy Balfour said, issues of parental involvement and parental rights are involved. We want parents to be consulted and to have a right to withdraw their children. Sam Galbraith's letter indicates that the guidelines might recommend that. We want the guidelines to have a statutory back-up so that parents have recourse to the law if they feel that the authority or the school is not sticking to the guidelines.
What do you see as the way forward? I understand that parents in Scotland already have the right to withdraw their children from sex education.
That is not correct.
We have a legal opinion that tells us that the situation is, at best, ambiguous. It is not clear whether the right to withdraw children from sex education is enshrined in law. That has never been tested in the courts, as far as I am aware.
A circular from Michael Ewart, who works in the education department of the Scottish Executive, says that that right will be given. However, I suggest that withdrawing a child is hugely discriminatory—what does the child feel? That would be the worst kind of exclusiveness.
I would like you to comment on section 26(1)(b) of the bill, which contains the First Minister's suggested amendment. It deals with the need to ensure that the content that is provided is appropriate to the child's age, understanding and stage of development. You have suggested that we are waiting for the floodgates to open and that inappropriate material will enter Scottish schools. However, does subsection (1)(b) deal with some of your concerns?
We have no problem with subsection (1)(b). Our problem is with the first paragraph, which is deliberately vague and, as the Executive has said, talks about stable family relationships in a way that could include homosexual relationships.
If you accept that subsection (1)(b) meets your concerns, why have we sat for half this meeting listening to your concerns about the type of material that might end up in schools?
With respect, we have answered questions that we have been asked. My initial statement did not mention the type of material that might end up in schools. The crux of our argument is the point about the moral equivalence that the first paragraph of the new section underlines between heterosexual commitment in marriage and homosexual relationships. Section 2A does not say that those relationships are morally equivalent. If you repeal section 2A, you will tell Scottish people—and parents and the Christian community in particular—that, as far as the Executive is concerned, anything goes in relationships, as long as they are stable.
With respect, Ann, you said that the starting point was that we needed section 2A because of material that was found in some inner-London schools, and that section 2A was introduced because of that material, not because of moral issues. We have accepted already that none of that material has ever found its way into Scottish schools. If section 26(1)(b) is passed, none of that material will ever get into Scottish schools.
Who is to say that some of that material is not appropriate for pupils in the later stages of secondary schools? Some of it is deliberately targeted at youth clubs, which involve young children aged 14, 15 and 16. If such material is appropriate for children of those ages in youth clubs, it would be appropriate for children of those ages in schools.
Let me be quite clear about this. You would be quite happy for the new section to be inserted—in particular, section 26(1)(b)—but you have an argument about section 26(1)(a), which refers to "stable family life".
Yes.
Can we, in future, have a discussion and a debate that does not revolve around the kind of material that might or might not be in our classrooms?
To be fair, those comments were made in response to questions from the committee, rather than being in Ann's initial statement. I accept the point—
I was trying to suggest that the wider debate in Scotland does not revolve around the material that might go into Scottish schools, because the witnesses have already accepted that section 26(1)(b) will ensure that such material will not get into Scottish schools.
In our written submission, we said that we warmly welcome the protective guidelines on the education of children that are to be introduced. We are quite happy that material will be screened—that is, we will be clear about that once we have seen those guidelines and have had the opportunity to consult on them. That is not the issue. With respect, I do not think that any of us has argued that the material is the issue, either in the public domain or privately. I do not have a brief for education—that is John Stevenson's brief and he will discuss that later this afternoon. I do not want to incur his wrath by arguing the education brief.
We have overrun by 15 minutes, but the second set of witnesses has yet to arrive. I will allow the discussion to continue for a little longer. It will come to an abrupt halt when those witnesses arrive, although we will not throw you out.
The debate in the media, elsewhere outwith the chamber and our discussion this morning has rightly concentrated on education, in terms of what can and what cannot be taught in schools, but there is a wider issue, in terms of what local authorities are able to fund.
And not just in relation to homosexuality, but in relation to all sorts of issues. For example, should local authorities fill in potholes rather than—
As we are getting near the end of the discussion, I am able to come back in on some of the comments that people have made.
With respect, people were not properly consulted on the need for the repeal of section 2A, as the repeal was simply announced. That in itself is unusual. If the consultation process had been lengthier and had involved many of the concerned groups of parents, that fear might have been dissipated.
May I come back on that point? Do you understand the difficulty that a teacher would have in some of the areas that I mentioned earlier? They might sit in front of a class where perhaps as many as half of the children in that class are not part of the aspiring model that you put up. These children have fairly low confidence and life expectations. Is that approach not yet another slap in the face for, or put down of, their family structure?
I do not come at this argument from the education point of view—that is not my locus. I am in a social work department. I have come at this issue from the point of view of local authority legislation. It seems to me that the position has shifted with the repeal of section 2A—however discriminatory that legislation may be. The legislation gave a clear commitment to heterosexual marriage as our moral goalposts.
That position is based on sociological observation—it is not based on morality. The Government says that marriage just happens to offer the best stable start for children growing up. That is not a moral judgment—it is simply recognition of a sociological fact.
Shona Robison quoted the figure of 40 per cent lone parents.
In some areas.
That says to me that society needs to encourage marriage. We do not need to have a vicious circle of family breakdown, which imposes economic as well as social costs on society. It highlights the fact that public policy should seek to promote marriage. Obviously, not everyone will have the perfect marriage and some marriages will break down, but as a society we should seek to promote it. If we do not, in 20 or 50 years' time the economic and social costs will be enormous.
I will allow Jeremy Balfour to have the last word in this section, as the second set of witnesses has arrived.
Johann Lamont said that she did not want her children exposed too early to any form of sex education. We are not simply sexual beings.
I was talking about the sexualisation of our children, which includes four-year-old girls being encouraged to wear make-up for the gratification of I do not know whom. The issue is much broader than one particular group.
That is a wider debate that we need to have in society. The danger is that society is defining us as sexual beings only. We would all accept that our humanity—what we are as individuals—is far bigger than our sexuality. From a Christian perspective, we would like to see a far wider debate on what constitutes humanity and who we are. The danger of this debate is that it concentrates on one area. However, broadening it out is probably outside the remit of today's discussion.
At the moment, yes.
We appreciate very much your hearing us. Thank you.
At the beginning of the meeting I forgot to move that we take item 3, the review of evidence, in private. Is that agreed?
I welcome the next witnesses to this meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee to give evidence on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. I understand that you will be giving evidence on the repeal of section 28, but if you want to make comments on any other parts of the bill, you are free to do so. I have been informed that you would each like to take a minute to introduce yourselves, after which Mr Malik will speak on behalf of everybody. The committee will then have a chance to ask questions. If anyone wants to make further comments, they are free to do so. Mr Malik, would you like to introduce yourself?
My name is Mazhar Malik, and I work with the Ethnic Community Resource Agency as manager of its education and youth services.
My name is Sajid Quayum and I am currently involved with the Islamic Society of Britain in Glasgow, as well as a number of youth groups, including Young Muslims UK, in Glasgow.
My name is Mohammad Ishaq, and I am president of the Glasgow branch of the UK Islamic Mission. I am also a hospital chaplain and have been a member of the executive committee of the UK Islamic Mission nationwide.
I will follow Islamic tradition by beginning with the name of Allah. I will speak first in Arabic, and then provide the committee with a translation of what I say. Bismillah al rahman al rahim—in the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.
Thanks, Mr Malik. If nobody else wants to say anything I shall proceed to invite questions from members of the committee.
For the committee's information, would your preferred position be to make homosexuality illegal?
Yes, our position is that it should be made illegal.
So, no amendment to section 28 would change your view on that? You think simply that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle?
Yes.
You talked about parent empowerment. In a school in which youngsters come from all sorts of backgrounds and faiths—or no faiths—how can the curriculum be managed? How can the school meet the needs of parent empowerment if parents are voicing conflicting views on the teaching of sex education?
It is simple, really. A school normally has a board that guides what happens in it, on which parents are represented. The majority will decide, as has been the case in any other situation—not only on the issue of homosexuality.
You see no need for the protection of minority rights in the school curriculum in relation to this matter?
We are not saying that these people should be kicked out of the school. We are saying that the teaching and promotion of such behaviour is a matter for the majority to decide. Whatever the situation, these people should be counselled, guided and helped to return to a natural and healthy lifestyle.
If you and I sent our children to the same school, I would take the view that the focus of their sex education should be on the protection of those children, that they should also be taught about the context of human relationships and that homosexuality is something that one cannot change. You would take a contrary view. How should a school manage that difference? We both have rights in relation to our children's education.
How far do we go? How could every point of view possibly be represented with regard to sex education? There are a number of viewpoints. The Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill exists to represent the ethics of the community at large. I have talked to a number of people and judging by the reaction of the community—not only the Muslim community, but the community as a whole—homosexuality is not regarded as the norm. That is a minority opinion. I am sure that it has been mentioned 1,700 times that it is fine to discuss homosexuality, but the issue at stake is the promotion of it. Repealing section 2A, which uses the words "promote homosexuality", would create imbalance in the curriculum.
The contrary argument is that there is no evidence that homosexuality has been promoted in Scottish schools.
Do you mean at present?
There is no evidence that homosexuality has been promoted before or after the clause was introduced. Do you have evidence that homosexuality was promoted before the clause came into force?
There are projects that promote homosexuality in, for example, Dundee, which have implications for grants. If section 2A is removed, I see no reason why members of the gay and lesbian community would stop promoting homosexuality.
Do you have evidence of homosexuality being promoted before 1988?
No, not at the moment.
As far as I am aware, material has been prepared in readiness for repeal of the clause.
Lots of statements have been made to that effect and there have been many rumours, but I do not think that that is the case. Donald Dewar and Sam Galbraith have given reassurances that there is no intention to promote homosexuality in schools—the intention is that we do not to discriminate against any particular lifestyle.
As Mr Malik said, before section 2A was introduced, homosexuality was taboo, but now it is becoming the norm. In schools, television and radio, homosexuality is promoted and councils are funding projects for its promotion. Why cannot we say that those other practices might become legal in future?
Because homosexuality involves consenting adults, whereas the other practices that were mentioned involve abuse of power and abuse of people or animals without consent. That is a big difference.
Mr Malik, I see that you have a leaflet from Keep the Clause, which says, "Protect our children" at the top. A week or so ago, Donald Dewar announced a new section to replace section 2A. Part of that section mentions
I will also pick up on what the convener said. The issue is the way in which we go forward. Why was it decided that sex education should be part of the school curriculum? Because there were too many unwanted pregnancies. Did we succeed? The youngest pregnancies in Europe are in Britain. We did not succeed. Kate MacLean said that paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and incest are illegal. What criteria do we use to make something illegal? Homosexuality was not previously acceptable in society.
Another organisation that gave evidence to the committee suggested that male children are three times more likely to have homosexual experiences if they are in private sector education, which is not covered by section 2A. You said that people are threatening to take their children from the state sector into the private sector if section 2A is repealed. You would be putting children where they would be more likely to be exposed to predatory males.
I would like to see more evidence on that, including information about which private schools were being referred to and what curriculums those schools followed.
How did you consult the people you represent before you came to the committee, and how did you come to your views?
Consultation was a concern. We three represent different organisations, but the mosque is the platform that all our organisations use. The mosque is not just a place of worship—it is a community centre. We cannot say that we only focus on such issues as this—we must constantly review issues because people come with different ideas and the minister of the mosque must accept that there are other matters that the mosque must deal with.
A number of public meetings were held in different Glasgow mosques, at which the attendance was 100 or 200 people. I am not aware of anyone who attended any of those public meetings who was in favour of repealing section 28.
We went to all the mosques in Scotland. At all of them it was agreed that section 2A should not be repealed. In every mosque and at every khutaba ceremony on Fridays people are being told that repeal should not happen.
I would like to quote the verses from the holy Qur'an that Sajid referred to. They are in chapter 7, verse 80 and 81. They state that Allah sent Prophet Lut—may Allah be pleased with him—and Lut asked:
If a Muslim goes against an instruction in the Qur'an, he cannot be a Muslim anymore.
You have made it clear what the Qur'an says, but you would probably accept that homosexuality is legal and is likely to remain so. Therefore there will be young people in all communities, including the Muslim community, who are likely to seek advice about their sexuality. What would you do if a young Muslim sought advice—would someone from the Muslim community be able to give advice or would you accept a school teacher discussing such problems in confidence with that young person?
It would be a matter of working together. The Muslim community puts great trust in teachers and the majority of our children are in school. I would not go along with not trusting a teacher. I would, however, like to know the teacher myself and I would try to complement what the teacher was doing. I work for the Ethnic Community Resource Agency and I liaise with teachers and students. The Muslim community, the mosque or my organisation would have a role alongside that of the teacher to give advice to that young person.
Are you saying that you would have no problem with a young Muslim who felt that he or she might be homosexual going to a teacher for advice, if you trusted the teacher?
Yes, I think so.
As someone who has been through the education system in Scotland, I should add that such advice has to be specific to Muslims, as their needs and wants are different from those who are not Muslim. That is why organisations such as the Young Muslim Organisation UK—with which I used to be involved—have set up groups that operate in schools, and which run open discussion circles. By no means are we closed to discussion. I represent Radio Ramadhan, which has been running in Glasgow for the past four years. We have no problem with discussions about homosexuality, and in fact have had several such discussions. Our discussions, however, take the religious injunctions as their starting point, and then move into other areas such as dealing with situations and giving the best advice for a particular individual. Although I do not believe that that can be done solely by the teacher, teachers are greatly respected within Islamic tradition, and that should not be taken away.
I believe that people are not born homosexual. How can God say that homosexuality is evil and then create someone like that? We believe instead that people are telling each other about and promoting homosexuality.
At one point in your opening remarks, you said that we, as MSPs, must represent the people who elected us. I belong to the Liberal Democrats, and we have been opposed to section 2A since its inception. We opposed the fact that it was put into legislation, because it is wrong, unnecessary, discriminatory and it almost legitimises intolerance by singling out one section of society. By supporting the repeal of section 2A, we have not changed our minds in any way. The Labour party has also—
Convener, that is not a question; it is a political statement.
It might be a political statement, but I am making it to invite comment and to answer a point that has already been raised. We have been asked whether we are doing something that we believe is right and which represents the views of the people who elected us.
Why do we need to repeal section 28, if counselling children about homosexuality is already covered in guidelines for teachers? No one is asking teachers not to help those children.
The section is basically wrong and should not be there.
Why is it wrong?
Because it is discriminatory and legitimises intolerance.
Muslims and people of other religions experience discrimination and abuse in the streets every day, and nothing in the law protects us from such bullying. Why are we not promoting such legislation instead?
I would equally promote such legislation. There should be not be discrimination on any grounds.
I think that we are getting into a different area of discussion. The Race Relations Act 1976 protects people against racial harassment, but there is no legal protection for people of different sexual orientations. The repeal of section 2A is meant to remove some discrimination from the law, which is very different from people holding religious or moral views about homosexuality. Such views are not law. However, I do not want to get involved in a new discussion about other areas of discrimination. If no one wants to respond to Nora's other points, I will let Malcolm Chisholm in.
I want to return to Nora Radcliffe's opening remarks. The Labour party does not represent people's wishes; if this issue is only a matter of legislation being wrong, we must still take other people's opinions into consideration. We would all agree that children should be taught the rights of parents.
We receive representations from people with a wide range of opinions; indeed, my personal postbag falls into three categories of opinion. Some people are totally opposed to the repeal of section 2A, some totally support its repeal and a third are not bothered whether section 2A is there, as long as teachers have guidelines and children are being taught appropriately. As I am satisfied that such guidelines are in place and that children are being taught appropriately, that means that the balance is, in my view, 2:1 for repeal.
What I am about to say should be listened to very carefully, because it should not be misquoted. In this country, the essence of democracy is majority opinion. However, as a Muslim, I will agree with the majority opinion if it is in accordance with the Qur'an and the tradition of Mohammed—peace be upon Him. Otherwise, I will disagree with the majority opinion. I should emphasise that that is my own opinion.
That is one perception.
Can we move on. We have got a bit of dialogue going and Malcolm has been waiting to get in for a while.
On the Equal Opportunities Committee, we mostly see ourselves as protecting minorities. I do not think that a majority has the right to discriminate against a minority.
I hold the same position as before. What criteria would we use? At the moment, people say that there is discrimination. I mentioned other examples. Is there discrimination? Why are we making it illegal? There should be freedom. People should do what they want. Why does the majority think that certain forms of sexual behaviour are illegal?
One has to make a moral judgment. As lawmakers, of course we make the judgment that paedophilia is not right in this country. Obviously you disagree with me, but you might disagree with some laws while other people disagree with others. The fact is that homosexuality is legal in this country, so it is in a completely different category—in terms of the law of the land—from the other things to which you referred. I understand that you do not take that view, but like people in all sorts of religions, you must find that you do not agree with a particular law or have a particular value or belief that conflicts with other people. My question is how does that work in a school? We cannot present one view if there are lots of different views.
As responsible citizens, we abide by any law. Islam teaches us that. Even if we do not agree with it, the law must be upheld. We do not want to create a mess in society. We look forward to more children being withdrawn from classes, because that is a parent's right. It will become a financial question for the state. How will it provide instruction and accommodation? There are many small issues, but at the end of day we come back to God's criteria, because we are all his creation whether we accept that or not. We will have to agree to follow the scriptures and to do what God has told us is the right thing to do.
I understand your fears about repeal—a lot of people have fears about what will happen—but we should consider the time when this law did not exist. A lot of Muslims must have gone to school in the 1980s when there was no such law. In the 1980s, did any Muslim have a problem with a school on this issue?
There is a big difference between then and now. At that time, there was no homosexuality on television or on the radio. Now, it is promoted a lot. We see it every day on TV and in newspapers—everywhere. Then, there was nothing; it was taboo—nobody talked about it. That is why we feel that promotion will now happen in schools. Now, there are organisations and riots. They are doing everything in the streets nowadays.
Society has changed quite substantially since I was at school. I look at young people now who are going through the school system and talk to them every day. It cannot be denied that the homosexual lobby is very powerful. That is clear to me every day on television. To give a simple example, soap opera is one of the most powerful forces used by television. Soap operas are some of the most popular programmes on television and they sort of represent a general community. It used to be the case—we laughed at this—that they would stick in a black or Asian face. Now, it seems that there is a homosexual or lesbian person in every soap opera, because it is accepted that one has to be put in, as used to happen with us. There is a strong lobby for the promotion of homosexuality throughout programming on television and in all the media.
You are obviously not in favour of the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Are you in favour of any sex education in schools?
I was educated in Pakistan. I would not say that it is an Islamic society, but it is a Muslim society, because the majority of people are Muslims and that is where the curriculum is supposed to take its guidelines. I got sex education to guide me through the changes that would take place in my body. Equally, girls were advised what changes their body would go through. Marriage was the only form of relationship that was promoted. That is the sort of sex education that I believe in. I will be delighted if that is what happens in schools.
It needs to happen at the right age and to be taught in the right way. Otherwise, we are against all kinds of sex education.
Why is that relevant to the discussion?
If you are opposed to any discussion of homosexuality in school, which you certainly are, does that extend to not wishing to have any sex education in school at all?
There are parents who withdraw their children from any kind of sex education.
Doubtless there is a difference of opinion on that among the Muslim community. In my experience, no parent would not want their child not to know about the biological changes that they will go through. Certain facts will be given to their children. The problem arises when one brings the moral implications of sex into the education system. I, for one, was advised about what precautions to take when having a sexual relationship with a girl—contraception or whatever—but I was never advised about abstinence. That is a clear imbalance. Muslims believe that they should abstain from sexual relations before marriage. That is the law that they uphold.
That applies not only to Muslims. All the main religions believe it.
If there is to be a moral discussion, we must ensure that it covers the whole range. At the moment, there is no promotion of abstinence in schools.
Is that enough to consider withdrawing children from sex education as we currently know it?
Repeal the section?
No. You are saying that you are concerned because there is no mention of abstinence in state sector sex education. I am asking whether that is a big enough concern for you to withdraw your children from any sex education in state schools.
That is a very general statement and one would have to consider the specific circumstances. Personally, as a parent, I would find out exactly what was being taught to my children and decide whether I felt comfortable with the level of discussion. I am not going to generalise, and I would not say that every school is the same. I would make a decision based on the particular circumstances.
We believe that children are being taught about such matters at too young an age. That is why such young girls are getting pregnant. Children of five or six years old are talking about sex and so on. That is not acceptable. Sex education should be taught at the right age, the right time and in the right way.
The idea would be to promote marriage, rather than anything else. Why turn a blind eye and create more legislation when we are already in a mess because of the legislation?
The difficulty that we face as Muslims is that our beliefs are based on a complete system of life and not just on individual laws. Quite often we are misunderstood because people see a woman in a headscarf or a maniac with a machine gun and they believe that that is what our religion permits. The difference between Islam and many other religions is that Islam deals with the complete conduct of life—social, economic, and political. Every aspect of life is contained in our religion and the elements cannot be separated.
First, it was said that arranged marriages were not acceptable, then it was thought that a boy and girl should see each other before marriage, then it was acceptable that they live together before marriage and now they are living together and having children before they get married. That means that many young people think that there is no need to get married—that it is just a piece of paper. That is where it is leading.
I was waiting for Malcolm Chisholm to return, because I wanted to respond to his comments. However, as colleagues, you can tell him what I have said.
Does anyone have any more, brief, questions?
You read from a letter from someone who is withdrawing their child from education. Do I understand from that that the Muslim community is aware that parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education and that it has happened in the past?
Yes.
Do you have any further comments?
I am not aware of the whole consultation process that is under way. Facing a panel of 20 MSPs firing questions is quite daunting. I would like to ask the committee what it is doing to get proper representation from the community as a whole, to discover people's views. I regard this arrangement as woefully inadequate.
I apologise. Such a formal setting is intimidating for witnesses who are not used to it. We try to make it as informal as possible, although that is rather difficult in the circumstances.
My feeling is that section 28 will be repealed and that the Executive is not budging on that. From the comments that have been made today, I am sincerely wondering what the point is of giving evidence to committees when there is a strong feeling that they will not consider not repealing section 28. The same impression has been created by the comments that politicians have made in public. A working group has already been set up to consider safeguards.
There is a working group on guidelines.
That suggests to me, as an outsider, that the process has already begun and that nothing will stop it. Unless you can tell me otherwise, I cannot understand what is the purpose of this consultation.
At the end of the day, members of the Scottish Parliament will hold different views. None of the political parties has decided whether there will be a free vote, so anything can happen. You would expect the Equal Opportunities Committee to have a particular bias towards equality and not allowing the majority to discriminate against minorities. I am sorry if you feel that this has been a waste of time. We have found it very valuable.
Perhaps I came across too strongly. As a youth worker, who is involved more at the grassroots end than the official end, I have come across many committees that deal with black and ethnic minority issues. There issues are discussed at a high-brow level, but very little ends up happening at the grassroots. I would like to ask the committee what will be done with the evidence that we have given today and what we will receive back. I am a very simple person and would like to see what the results of this will be. Will our evidence simply be lost in a humungous pile of paperwork?
We are taking evidence today and on 20 March. The committee will then consider all the oral and written evidence it has received and draw up a report that will be sent to the Local Government Committee, which is the lead committee on this bill. When the report is published, we will send a copy of it to each of the organisations that have given evidence to the committee. That will happen before the end of April.
So the report will be ready by 20 March?
On 20 March we are taking more evidence. The committee will consider a final draft of its report on 27 March, which we will submit to the Local Government Committee. Towards the beginning of April, we should be able to send you a copy of our report on the evidence that we have taken from various organisations. After that, the Local Government Committee will consider all the evidence that it has taken, along with the evidence that we have submitted. The bill should have completed its passage before the summer recess, which starts at the beginning of July. Today, we are taking evidence on the first stage of the bill, but there is a second stage during which MSPs can propose amendments to the bill line by line. There is also a third stage, when the bill comes before Parliament. That should happen before the beginning of July.
Are members from the Labour party free to vote in favour of or against repeal?
I do not think that that has been decided yet. I do not think that any of the parties have decided whether they will allow a free vote.
I would find it helpful if we could be informed, either through a letter or through a report, of the progress of the bill at each stage. For the record, I would like to state that I do not believe this to have been a waste of time, or we would not have come in the first place.
Thank you for coming.
Thank you for your time.
We will now adjourn for 10 minutes.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I am sorry to have kept people waiting. The first part of our meeting overran, then we had to have a short break.
Norman sends his apologies. He has another meeting connected with the cathedral on Iona.
Thank you. I invite the witnesses to take a couple of minutes to speak to the committee, after which members can ask questions.
I speak on behalf of the Church of Scotland's education committee. I know that other representatives of the Church of Scotland have given evidence already.
I am Bronwen Currie, from the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers. I wish to preface my comments by saying that, although I am speaking as a Quaker, I cannot speak on behalf of all Quakers in Scotland. The Religious Society of Friends has not yet held any formal discussions about section 2A. However, those Quakers whom I have been able to consult are fully in support of what I have to say this afternoon.
Our circumstances are similar to those described by Bronwen Currie: there has not been an opportunity for the general synod of the Episcopal Church to consider the matter. Section 2A has been considered by our education committee and our social responsibility committee. I believe that members have a copy of our original evidence, written by the conveners of those two committees, by the convener of the mission board and by the seven bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, so I will not bother you by reading it all.
Thank you. I will open the meeting up to questions from the committee.
Thank you for stating the position of your organisations. How do you think that public policymakers should manage the competing pressures that are on them? What should we be saying to schools? You are saying that youngsters should not be taken out of individual subjects. We have heard evidence from a number of groups which—from their own faith position—feel strongly about protecting their youngsters from being given broader information. What guidelines would best reassure parents who hold such strong views? There is clearly a conflict; it will not be possible to accommodate everybody's views. Your view would certainly be that a parent ought not to have the right to withdraw a child; how can you deal with the anxieties that others feel?
I understand those anxieties, but it seems to me that the curriculum should be—as far as is possible—inclusive, so that the views of all can be represented in such a way that no one needs to opt out. By and large, religious and moral education achieves that at present, by offering a multifaith religious education programme. I doubt that many people from other faiths withdraw their children from that kind of religious and moral education. Somehow we have to present personal and social relationships, learning from one another, and respect for one another in such a way as would allay any fears. We have heard about those fears on television from the people who have given evidence already. I understand them, but we need to have an inclusive programme that will take their position into account.
What role would parents have?
The question is not so much about the role that parents would have, but about the way in which we can take into account the dogma of other teachings and other faiths, and about the way in which we can win people's confidence by consulting parents—who may come from a religion that does not believe in this kind of approach—and by explaining to them exactly what we are doing. We have to explain that we are not promoting homosexuality, but explaining it and teaching about it.
That is the great problem that we are wrestling with. To what extent do we as parents have to shift towards an accommodation? In terms of values, what responsibility lies within the family, and what broader responsibility lies in education? You strike a different balance from the one struck by the groups that we heard from earlier.
I can appreciate that, but religious and moral education can also be a delicate subject, yet balance is achieved there. I hope that we could achieve the same kind of balance by winning people over and presenting a programme that would not make people want to withdraw their children.
Education should be about open discussion of the issues rather than promotion of any particular issue. It is about people developing the ability to reason their arguments and to decide where they stand. The safeguard is that any inappropriate promotion of any position will be picked up by HM inspectorate and the various regulations that are in place. Education must be about preparing people for life and allowing them to reach their own judgments.
Education is about preparing children and young people to live in a plural society. It should be possible to do that and to acknowledge that certain groups within that plural society have strong views about certain subjects. As part of the discussion, it might be necessary to acknowledge that there are religious groups that have a prescriptive law against a particular practice, and that there are people who are homosexual. Children have to be aware about life as it is.
As you favour repeal, what do you understand that the current legislation prevents local authorities from doing?
I am not a teacher, but it seems to me that it is likely to make teachers cautious in dealing with children who ask about homosexuality. There is a fear that the legislation makes teachers err on the side of caution. Anecdotally, I have heard of an incident of bullying, which took place outside the school gates; the head teacher gave the excuse that the school could not deal with the incident because of section 2A. It depends on the interpretation by teachers.
You will appreciate that we have heard much evidence and that the issue seems to be getting more confused as we go on.
I agree that homosexual people, too, are made in the image of God.
That is the big factor for us. If we hold to that view, we must accept that this part of legislation must be repealed.
We have tried not to repeat one another, but I agree that this is bad legislation, which discriminates against a particular group.
There is no doubt that there are fears out there. Like other members, I have received mail from those who favour repeal and from those who want to keep the clause, as they call it. Do you have any fears that repeal will result in a flood of inappropriate material into our schools, and what do you understand by the term "promotion"?
I think that promotion is the difficult word in the whole exercise. However, I would have thought that the mechanisms that prevent all kinds of other material from being used in school will apply to any inappropriate material from any lobby, whatever it aimed to promote.
The fears should be about not materials, but the personality of the teacher. In many subjects, the problem may not be the reading material, but the enthusiasm or personality of the teacher. Pupils are often influenced by the person and not just by the information that they are given.
That is a different point of view from others that we have heard. We must consider the professionalism of teachers when they deliver subjects to their classes. We must have trust in that professionalism. If any teacher acts inappropriately, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, that would be dealt with. I should add that those are not my concerns; what I said was that there are concerns out there.
When you say "homosexual or heterosexual", that is precisely the point. There are mechanisms for dealing with inappropriate behaviour or influence by teachers or by anyone else. Why should there be different measures for homosexuals and for heterosexuals? A child is as much at risk from heterosexual exploitation as from homosexual exploitation—probably proportionately more so.
There is a huge amount of totally inappropriate heterosexual material out there and I do not see anybody jumping up and down saying that we need to protect our children from it. Well, we do, but there does not seem to be a need for legislation to do it.
A working group is considering guidelines and some representatives of the Churches are involved in that. What do you think should be specifically included in or excluded from those guidelines?
Do you mean particular areas?
I mean anything that concerns you about the guidelines or anything that you would like to appear in them.
Perhaps I could answer that by quoting from our response. As you know, the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum sent out a consultative document on health education guidelines. Although we welcome the document in many ways, we believe that certain areas need to be looked at. For example, the curriculum for five to 14-year-olds is laid out in stages of achievement, and so on. We feel that that would be an inappropriate framework for sex education, because children mature at different ages and come from backgrounds where they will be either misinformed or differently informed. Any framework for sex education will need to be able to be adapted and used appropriately given a child's maturity, rather than their age. A person could be 21 and still sexually immature, or—as many youngsters are now—12 or 11 and very mature. Any programme would need to take into account the fact that one cannot lay out development stages in sex education as one would for other subjects, such as mathematics or reading. Is that what you wanted to hear?
I was trying to get a picture of the relevant issues.
There are other subject areas that are not mentioned in health education but which ought to be dealt with, such as sexual harassment. How do young people cope with sexually suggestive behaviour? How do they react? How do they deal with stereotyping and gender awareness, and with recognising other people for what they are? How do they deal with what I would call stress management? There are mood swings during sexual development and pressures on young people as they grow up. How can they be helped to deal with them? Young people need to provided with information, but those areas need to be looked at as well. Is that what you were after?
Yes.
With the exception of Bronwen Currie, who has already told us this, could you outline how you arrived at your views, and the scope and method of consultation with the people whom you represent?
We arrived at our views by taking the matter to the education committee of the Church of Scotland. When the proposed repeal of section 2A was first announced, we drew up a brief statement, which was approved by the committee. We then amplified that statement and sent it out to committee members, who approved it; after that, it was presented to the Scottish Executive.
So that was the scope—it was just the committee.
Yes.
We are charged by the General Assembly to do precisely that.
I am not complaining about that. I am just asking.
When the proposal first came out, it was discussed briefly by our education committee and by our social responsibility committee, whose remit was passed down from the General Synod and is similar to that of the education committee. A paper was produced, which was discussed in the College of Bishops and signed by the primus on behalf of the bishops. That letter, which you saw, was looked at by the conveners of the education and social responsibility committees, and by the convener of the parent board of those two committees, which is our mission board. Those were the signatories to that letter. A copy of the letter went back to the committees, stating what our position would be. The matter has gone as far as it can within the Episcopal Church structures short of going to a General Synod.
We have no mechanism of consulting the Church of Scotland as a whole other than through the General Assembly, which meets only once a year, in May. There is no other way in which we could reasonably handle this matter. Obviously, our committee is like yours: it is receiving letters and comments from parents and others in the teaching world.
I was going to ask about that, as other witnesses have spoken about mailbags and representations that they have had and about how virtually no one is in favour of the repeal of section 2A. Is that your experience?
To be honest, most of the letters that we have received have cautioned against the repeal of section 2A. We have had some in favour of repeal. The majority have approached the matter as a discussion about homosexuality rather than about how it is dealt with in schools. Most of the letters seem to raise fears about homosexuality.
I just wanted you to clarify that point.
Section 26(1)(a) talks about
Friends expressed the concern to me yesterday that the word "family" might be construed to mean only one man and one woman who were married. We would not be happy with such an exclusive interpretation.
As I understand it, the term "family" will be very inclusive, referring to a wide diversity of family circumstances.
It is important that the guidelines recognise that sexuality should be expressed within a broader framework of moral relationship. We would like the guidelines to promote open, non-judgmental discussion—I assume that they will.
Our Church speaks with many voices and from many points of view. The official position is that it recognises heterosexual marriage as the norm—if we want to call it that—although it recognises other relationships as well. In my experience, partnerships are becoming much more common. I remember way back that people came to me in fear and trembling because they had to get married. Now people do not need to get married—my minister is sitting next to me, so I must watch what I say. When I was in the parish ministry, I married many people who had previously lived together in a relationship. I think that the word "family", whether one likes it or not, has to include such relationships. Although one may recognise heterosexual marriage as the ideal, there may be ideal partnerships and loving relationships between people of the same sex or of different sexes.
It should be emphasised that it is the stability and loving nature of a family relationship that is important.
Are there any other questions?
We talked about postbags on this issue, but all the groups from different faiths and denominations have taken different positions. Some witnesses have claimed—more strongly than others—to represent a broader community. To what extent do you reflect the view within your own faiths and beyond? In their evidence, witnesses have asserted that they know that the majority of people take a certain view; that is what is pushing the witnesses, who are confident that they reflect that view. To what extent do you think that the position that you have taken reflects the religious groupings and faith groupings in our society, or is that something to which you aspire?
That is difficult to judge, because people who write letters may be the ones who feel strongest against the repeal and who have the greatest fears. It is difficult to tell what the silent majority think. I do not know how members think that they represent their constituency. The people who send letters to MSPs are the people who feel strongly about an issue.
My question was prompted by the fact that there seems to be a view that some people are concerned about children and others are not. The group that argues for retention of the clause has concerns about children at heart but, as a parent, I know that it is not the case that one does not have the interests of children at heart if one takes a contrary view.
I have a slightly different perspective from the one taken by the Church of Scotland education committee, of which I am a member. I am also a parish minister and have not, in any way, sought to initiate debate or discussion in my own congregation, nor have I taken soundings. I would not claim to represent a majority view that says this, that or the other.
I have taken soundings from a number of people. Some people in the Episcopal Church are strongly opposed to repeal, but the vast majority of those to whom I have spoken—or who have contacted me—are in favour of repeal.
A number people are also writing to say, "Wait and see what the guidelines are like."
I thank the witnesses for attending the committee this afternoon. As I said to the previous witnesses, we have another evidence-taking session on 20 March. On 27 or 28 March, we will, I hope, agree on a report, which we will submit to the Local Government Committee. We are committed to sending a copy of that report to people who have come to give evidence. This is stage 1 of the bill; stage 2 consists of line-by-line scrutiny and amendments. If any groups wish to amend the bill, they will have to find an MSP who is prepared to lodge the amendments. We will send details of the next stage to witnesses.
Is there any consultation on the amendments once they are lodged?
Normally, evidence would not be taken again. Evidence on the principles of the bill is taken at stage 1. In the case of the other bill in which I have been involved, people have made representations to individual members of the relevant committee. Stage 3 is dealt with in Parliament and people may make individual representations then.
I would like thank you on behalf of our group for allowing us to present our case.
Meeting continued in private until 16:29.