Official Report 254KB pdf
We will now take evidence on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. We have Patrick Rolink and Anne Stewart from the Keep the Clause campaign, and Bill Macreath is here as an adviser. Welcome to the committee. Usually, we allow witnesses to make a short presentation, after which members ask questions. When you have finished, you are more than welcome to stay to listen to the other organisations that are giving evidence.
Good afternoon. We welcome the opportunity to address the Parliament today. My name is Patrick Rolink. I am from Airdrie and I am speaking as a father of two children and as a concerned parent.
I am a mother of three children, expecting a fourth. I am also here as a concerned parent.
The Keep the Clause campaign was formed in reaction to the proposed repeal of section 2A. It is an umbrella organisation that draws support from secular, religious and ethnic groups right across Scotland. All those groups are united in their concern over the Scottish Executive's plans to repeal section 28.
Patrick has said most of what I wanted to say. I would like to add that we are here to represent people who have signed up to the Keep the Clause campaign. We are not homophobic, but we are concerned about what our children will be taught. We also believe that the Scottish Parliament should listen to the concerns of parents such as me.
Thank you. I will now open the floor to members of the committee to ask questions.
I am Tricia Marwick, MSP and mother of two children who went through an excellent state education in Scotland.
Tricia Marwick, you touch on a very good point. I consider that I went through a tremendous education system in Scotland. The values that I grew up with were partly down to the excellent education system that we have here in Scotland. A lot of the values, principles and standards that I gained in school have carried through into my adult life. I believe that we should be promoting a positive agenda within schools in which marriage is a fulfilling relationship and the bedrock of society.
Will you address the point that I raised? What do you mean by
It is not just us who feel that protection is needed. Some members of this committee have stated publicly that they have concerns about the Executive's proposals. The concerns that some people feel are reflected in the viewpoint that we should have traditional and family values in Scotland. I consider values that are different from those and that attack and corrode them to be inappropriate.
I want to move on. You are obviously not going to define for me what you mean by inappropriate campaigning by minority rights groups. Perhaps you can define for me what you consider to be inappropriate material and why you have laid such emphasis on your belief that such material might get into our schools.
There is no point in my standing here and saying that I am alone in feeling that about this issue. A good example is the Avon health pack. Parents in Lenzie were shown copies of the health pack. Five of them, some of whom originally supported the repeal of section 28 without any worries, shared my concerns. They saw the Avon health pack as an example of the inappropriate material that could enter our education system. The views of those parents reflect my views and the views of many other parents throughout Scotland.
Do not you feel that some of the material that the Keep the Clause campaign has sent around the country is inappropriate?
To be perfectly fair, the whole debate has been clouded by issues that do not stand up. When Wendy Alexander stated that the law was being changed because of homophobic bullying in schools, the Scottish School Board Association and the anti-bullying network came out and said that there was no quantifiable evidence to prove that argument.
Perhaps you could give me a yes or no answer to this question. Do you accept that, before section 28 and after section 28, there has never been any inappropriate material in any Scottish school?
I could—
Yes or no?
I could not answer that question.
Do you accept that there has never been inappropriate material in Scottish schools, either before or after the introduction of section 28?
With respect, you should let me answer the question in my way. As a parent, I read things in the press. It must cause me and parents throughout Scotland great distress to read in the press a Westminster MP state that, when he worked as a teacher, he had evidence of people being groomed for a particular lifestyle. If Westminster MPs say that section 28 is a protection, you cannot tell us that there is no need for protection; if there were no need for protection, you would not be offering us any guidelines.
I will move on to—
Please make this question brief, as other members wish to speak.
My question is brief. Section 26(1)(b) of the bill refers to
The concern about that is the same as the one that you highlighted about my use of the word "inappropriate"; we are talking about an ambiguous term and the question arises who defines it. I think that it should be defined by the parents of Scotland. By using the term earlier, I have answered your question. To use the words "appropriate" or "inappropriate" in legislation would be ambiguous and open to interpretation.
In evidence, however, the Catholic Church said that it was happy with section 26(1)(b) and accepted that no inappropriate material would go into Scottish schools.
I am not here as a representative of the Catholic Church; I am here as a parent.
You are here as a representative of the Keep the Clause campaign.
As a parent.
I speak as a parent of three children who went to a local state school that was always strong on anti-discrimination. I am glad to note that the school board there came out in favour of repeal of section 2A.
As I am not an expert on the English education system, I have to say absolutely not. However, I would welcome in Scotland the steps that are being taken in England to give parents the feeling that they are being listened to and cared for by the education system and legislative process.
What has not happened yet in English schools is not the point—I do not know how you expect us to comment on that. If the legislation that protects children from inappropriate material is taken away and permission is given for any material that might be produced to be used in schools, it is the future that we are interested in.
As I have said, we accept that section 28 will be repealed. We are here today to talk positively about building bridges in the future in our communities, so that we can rid our society of discrimination against any group. Nobody in Scotland deserves to be discriminated against, but that fact should not be at the beck and call of people who do not believe that marriage and traditional families are important in our education system. The two go hand in hand. The committee should end discrimination, but it should also put forward legislation that makes parents feel comfortable.
My point is that your campaign is based on whipping up fear. None of this happened before 1988 in Scotland; none of it has happened in the past six years in England; and it will not happen in Scotland. In two years' time, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
What is inappropriate to one person is not inappropriate to another.
The key issue is that the guidelines are not statutory. If one repeals a law, one cannot decide that nothing will replace it. I am not an expert on law or on the Scottish or English education systems, but I think that the guidelines that you propose are not legally binding on local authorities. As a parent, that is a major concern for me.
The new section deals with inappropriate materials.
If you listened to me, Mr Chisholm, you would realise that I have already stated that I am in favour of legislation that gets rid of all discrimination in our society. That is a fact—I do not tolerate discrimination of any kind whatever.
May I interrupt you? No one at this committee has accused you of those things, and nor will they—it was a bit misleading of you to say that.
Mr Chisholm accused us of whipping up fear, which is a serious accusation, given that the fear has come naturally from the actions of the Executive in seeking to repeal the clause. The clause was repealed before any guidelines were shown to the public, or even mentioned.
I think that I heard you say that you now accept that section 2A—or section 28—was discriminatory and that it will have to be repealed.
No.
You invoked European law, but section 2A breaches the European convention on human rights as well as the Scotland Act 1998, both of which say that we must treat people of different sexual orientations equally.
With respect, I came to the Parliament to speak my own words, not to listen to people say, "This is what you said." I said that I fully accept that legislation must be introduced to rid our society of other pieces of legislation or guidelines that are intolerant of groups within our communities. I see no need whatever for intolerance or discrimination. However, I do not see that as a reason to erode traditional family values. I do not think that the two positions go together.
May I clarify that point? Are you in favour of repealing section 2A?
No.
I have now accepted that this Government will repeal section 2A. I want to turn the issue into a positive one and say, "The clause has been repealed because people feel it discriminates against them." If people feel that, I think that the section should be repealed. However, in its place we need legislation that not only makes discrimination impossible, but upholds traditional family values in our country. I do not think that that is a difficult task.
While that is true, we are here to represent people—we were invited by the committee to represent those people who signed up to the campaign to keep the clause. Therefore, we must represent the views of those people whether or not MSPs have already decided to repeal the clause.
So, the Keep the Clause campaign is still in favour of retaining section 2A?
Members of the committee have our submission, which makes it quite clear that we have accepted that section 2A will be repealed. We now want to turn this debate into a positive one, in order to move Scotland forward so that people can unite behind an Executive that introduces non-discriminatory legislation that upholds traditional family values.
I want to talk about public opinion in Scotland on the protection of children and about the concerns that you have expressed as parents and on behalf of other parents.
I cannot speak for the Keep the Clause campaign as I got involved in the issue before the Keep the Clause campaign started. I wrote to national newspapers at the end of November, I think, outlining my concerns about the fact that this had become a major political issue at a time when the Executive should be dealing with homelessness and problems in the education system and the health service. I became aware of the Avon health pack when someone mentioned it at a public meeting that I attended four or five weeks ago.
Anne, can you tell me when Keep the Clause became aware of the pack?
I do not know when the campaign became aware of it. I found out about it in the past couple of months.
Is the position of the Keep the Clause campaign that there are many examples of gay sex lessons being taught in our schools?
No. At no point have I or anyone with whom I have shared a platform argued that gay sex lessons are being taught. We are happy for section 2A to be repealed because we do not want anyone to feel that they are victimised or discriminated against. At the same time, we uphold marriage and traditional family values as a key building block of our community and we would like that to be enshrined in law.
With the greatest respect, I have noted that part of the argument. I would like Anne to say whether the Keep the Clause campaign is necessary because of concerns about gay sex lessons in schools.
"Gay sex lessons" is a funny term. It is meaningless, in a way, because it could be interpreted as implying a quite extreme lesson—the mind boggles at the prospect—or it might mean something innocuous, such as promoting tolerance of homosexuality, which section 2A did not prevent. I do not know how to answer your question.
Do you think that the term "gay sex lessons" is inappropriate?
I do not think that it is helpful.
In your evidence, you refer to opinion in Scotland and you claim to speak for the majority in the country. Would either of you care to comment on the wording of the Daily Record opinion poll that you referred to?
I have not referred to a Daily Record opinion poll, Tommy. I can say that the Keep the Clause campaign has got just under 100,000 signatures on a petition, the Protect Our Children campaign in Dundee has got 25,000 signatures and the campaign run by a daily newspaper has about 10,000 signatures. I think that those figures give a clear indication of public opinion in Scotland.
You have given us written evidence, which I am sure you will accept the committee has a duty to read and question you on. On page 2 of your submission, we read:
I do not think that that matters. There have been so many polls.
If opinion polls do not matter, why do you think that the Daily Record would carry out an opinion poll asking whether gay sex lessons should be introduced in Scottish schools?
That is a good example of some of the unhealthy debate that has taken place. I would not have asked that question.
I want to interrupt, because that is an important point. It is possible to get thousands of people to sign a petition if the wording is right. Tommy Sheridan's point is that if the petition had been headed by accurate information, fewer people would have signed it. You quote the Daily Record poll in your evidence, and Tommy is asking whether you think that that poll was valid.
We are not here on behalf of the Daily Record and its poll. Our submission says "polls such as". Even the poll that asked the question the other way round—along the lines of "Do you think that we should have tolerance in schools?"—did not come out against keeping the clause, by any stretch of the imagination. Polls can be badly worded.
You talk about getting an accurate reflection of the public view. As I said, I believe firmly that the Scottish Executive's position has been very badly presented. Ministers have told us that the law is being repealed to end homophobic bullying. However, when I, as a member of a school board and a parent, read that the Scottish School Board Association and the anti-bullying network say that there is no quantifiable evidence of such bullying, my hackles are raised. Hearing that repeal was part of a manifesto for which people in Scotland voted, when it clearly was not, also raises my hackles. We have been told that there was a consultation process and that 80 per cent of people who returned the consultation papers said that they were in favour of repeal, but I have spoken to hundreds of parents throughout Scotland who were not consulted at all.
Both of you are here to speak on behalf of Keep the Clause, but you do not appear to agree on your position. I know that you are both parents, but you were invited to give evidence to the committee on behalf of Keep the Clause.
I do not agree. I have come here to speak for myself, not for people to put words in my mouth. I agree that some of the debate has been murky and that some of the issues have been clouded, but I would say, with my hand on my heart, that the parents to whom I have spoken are concerned that marriage and traditional family values are being eroded and that the Parliament is doing nothing to protect them.
With the greatest respect, Pat, you and Anne are here to speak on behalf of a campaign. The convener has already made that point.
Yes, but one of the key points about Keep the Clause is that it is an umbrella organisation. It is made up of many different groups—secular, religious and ethnic. We do not agree on every issue, but we agree on the fact that we need to end discrimination in our society and that we must promote traditional family values.
I do not think that it is funny, but I am confused because I thought that we were hearing from representatives from a high-profile campaign in Scotland, which has been involved in misleading the people of Scotland. That is why I wanted to question you as representatives of that campaign, but you do not seem to want me to do that; you want to be questioned on your views, rather than on the Keep the Clause campaign.
That is not true.
You disagree with me—that is fine. You also said that you are an umbrella group representing other areas of Scottish life, and several times during your evidence you have emphasised the value of the traditional family and marriage as the building blocks of society. You referred to the proportion of children who are being brought up in traditional married families, but you did not mention one-parent families. In my part of Glasgow, one child in three belongs to a one-parent family. Do you argue that the children in those families do not have the same stability, love and support as children in two-parent families?
Absolutely not. In certain instances, single parents make sacrifices for their children that many people do not give them credit for. However, it is not unreasonable to say that many single parents are single not through choice but through circumstance. The vast majority of people who enter into a married relationship expect it to be a long-term commitment to each other and to their family. Unfortunately, situations change and marriages break up. In no way whatever does our position of promoting traditional family values alienate people who belong to single-parent families or people who do not have children. Promoting family values does not entail attacking another group.
Do you therefore agree that a child who is raised in a homosexual family or a one-parent family is no more normal or abnormal than a child who is raised in a traditional family—as you understand the word "traditional"?
That is not what I am saying. I see a difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship. That is in our submission. I believe that we should promote traditional family values, which means a heterosexual marriage where a man and woman get married and have children. I believe that that is a fundamental building block in our communities. I do not believe that by promoting that, one attacks, victimises or discriminates against other people in our communities.
Your submission, with all its references to traditional family values and stable relationships, never uses the word "love"; that is a pity, as it should be central. What is your view, and that of the Keep the Clause campaign, on homosexuality? Are you arguing that homosexuality is perverse and should not be viewed as equal with other sexual orientations?
The view of the people to whom I have spoken throughout Scotland is that homosexuality is not perverse and that homosexuals should not be discriminated against, targeted or victimised. Our view is that we need legislation to ensure that that cannot possibly happen, and we endorse fully the committee's attempts to do that as extremely valid and worthy of our support. However, we also ask that the committee endorse traditional family values as a building block of our communities.
You said that the guidelines would not have any statutory or legislative authority. Are you aware that, in this chamber a couple of weeks ago, Donald Dewar made a statement about the new section that is to be inserted in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill? He said that the new guidelines would have the same remedies in law as the existing guidelines and that any local authority or school that breached the guidelines would be treated exactly the same under the new section as they would have been under section 2A. Do you have any comments on what Donald Dewar said?
I can certainly comment. I was aware of Donald Dewar making that statement, but I think that the new guidelines or advice circulars are not strong enough.
To be fair, Mr Rolink, we do not yet know what the new guidelines will be. A working group has been established to draw them up. You are pre-empting what the guidelines will say.
With respect, I thought that you were referring to the issue of appropriate materials and stable family life.
The guidelines will be drawn up and section 26 of the new bill will match those. The section will protect against the guidelines being breached. Anyone who breaches the new guidelines will be in breach of the section.
If parents groups and organisations throughout Scotland had been consulted on the proposed guidelines before the repeal of section 28 was announced, we might not be here today. I welcome the fact that consultation is now happening, but I stick to my position that any guidelines should be legally binding.
You mentioned in your submission that members of the Equal Opportunities Committee have said that they have concerns. You may have been referring to me, as someone who said that reassurance was needed. Donald Dewar gave that reassurance. Are you prepared to accept that the new section gives the same remedies in law as the existing section, and that if anyone breaches the new guidelines they will be subject to sanctions?
You have highlighted a key point that has been missing in the debate. You are one of the people to whom I was referring as having concerns, but I am not aware what those concerns are, and neither are parents throughout Scotland. Perhaps you can tell me your concerns and why you think that there should be guidelines.
There should be guidelines because teachers have to know what the standards in schools should be. The guidelines have not yet been produced, but reassurance has been given that they will be protected. I asked for that reassurance and Donald Dewar gave it in the chamber. If you are asking for the same thing, do you consider the First Minister's commitments to be the reassurance that you were looking for?
We seem to be going round the houses here. I want to return to the point that I think is crucial. We are repealing a piece of legislation and replacing it with guidelines. If we repeal legislation, we should replace it with legislation.
Section 26 is the replacement for section 2A. The guidelines are the replacement for the existing guidelines. The match between the new guidelines and section 26 will be exactly the same as the current match between the guidelines and section 28. If the guidelines are changed and they match the new section, would you consider that to be the reassurance that you were asking for?
As you said earlier, I could not possibly comment because the guidelines have not yet been decided on.
But you have already dismissed the guidelines and said that you have not had—
I corrected myself and said that I thought you were talking about the reference to stable relationships and appropriate material.
You also said that the Avon health pack went to a school in Lenzie.
I did not say that. I said that parents from a school in Lenzie looked at the Avon pack.
Parents from a school in Lenzie saw it. Were the parents able to influence whether that material entered the school?
I never made that statement.
I did not say that you made that statement—I am asking you whether it is the case. You said that parents had seen the pack and that they were shocked by it. Did they then prevent the material from getting into the school?
I have no idea. What I have provided is anecdotal evidence from parents in Scotland. I was asked about literature, and I said that some parents in Scotland had seen the Avon pack. The only reason that I am aware of that is that it was reported yesterday in a Sunday newspaper. Of the five parents questioned, all thought that the material was inappropriate and unhelpful to our education system.
Was there any evidence that that material had been intended to go into the classroom?
I cannot answer that question. I am just telling you about a newspaper report that I read.
Why did you use it as evidence?
Because it is anecdotal evidence. I was asked whether I had any evidence from talking to people, and I am telling you that five parents in Lenzie were shown the Avon pack, and that all of them said that they had serious concerns about it. I think that that is relevant.
The Scottish Executive has said that parents would be consulted before any materials entered the classroom. Would what you have described constitute a consultation on the Avon material and did the parents prevent it from entering the classroom?
I was not aware that the Scottish Executive had promised parents the legal right to know what their children were being taught.
I am the mother of two very young children. Do you agree that no one has a monopoly on concern for our children?
I agree 100 per cent.
Do you accept that there are parents who do not take the same view as you do on section 28?
Absolutely. In a democracy, we would expect people to have different opinions. The meetings that I have held have been public meetings, at which I have welcomed input from members of the public whose views may differ from mine.
But you feel confident that you speak for the majority of parents in Scotland, whether they want to keep the clause or not. Although you are an umbrella group, I would have thought that you might have been able to agree on that simple proposition.
I did not say that I feel confident that I speak for the majority of parents in Scotland; I said that I feel confident that I speak for the majority of parents with whom I have spoken. That is a fairer reflection of my remarks.
Speaking for yourself and for folk to whom you have spoken is quite a different position from speaking for a broader group.
It is a very important position. Those people feel that they have not been consulted by anyone else.
You mean the people to whom you have spoken.
Yes.
I taught both before and after section 28 was introduced, and for those 20 years I did not see any evidence of inappropriate material in schools. Have you been able to establish whether inappropriate material has been used in schools?
I have not tried to establish that.
Have you any examples of any minority rights groups that are awaiting the repeal of section 28 to begin what you describe in your submission as "inappropriate campaigning"?
I have no knowledge of that.
But you alleged that that would happen if section 28 were repealed.
We said that it might happen.
I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure.
Do you think that if people have fears about education—regardless of whether there is evidence to back up those fears—the education authority is obliged to reassure them?
"Fear" is a good word to use. I—and many parents to whom I have spoken—feel afraid that people who talk about marriage and traditional family values are classed as non-inclusive and judgmental and are alienated in our society.
Why did you call the campaign "Keep the Clause" and not "Support Marriage and Family Life"? Is it because many people supported the Keep the Clause campaign—because of concerns about their children—who might not have been married?
I have no idea. I have not spoken to everyone who supports the campaign.
Did any of your petitions include a statement about traditional family values or did they focus on people's genuine concerns about their children?
All I can tell you is that, in the meetings that I have attended, the main issue has purely and simply been family values.
So are you now saying that the Keep the Clause campaign is not about keeping the section or protecting children who are perceived to be vulnerable to a particular group in society, but about an anxiety that schools were not promoting family values?
No. The Keep the Clause campaign is an umbrella organisation. There has been a lengthy public debate, which has been clouded and made somewhat murky by inaccurate statements from all sides. Anne Stewart and I have come before the committee today to say that, after listening to the debate, we accept that legislation should be brought in to end discrimination in our society. However, although we support fully the fact that there is no room for intolerance, we want to promote traditional family values, which would be both a positive step and a good thing for Scotland.
Do you agree that much of the strength of feeling about section 28—no matter why people felt that way—centred on anxieties about the protection of children, and that that was a fundamental starting point for many of the groups in the Keep the Clause campaign?
I agree to a certain extent that a lot of people were worried about their children.
Do you acknowledge that Donald Dewar met many of those concerns by making the new section focus explicitly on the need to protect our children from dangers, whatever their source?
The new section is not strong enough. If section 28 is repealed, it should be replaced by a similar piece of legislation that fully supports ending discrimination but promotes traditional family values. I have said about nine times that I am here because I want traditional family values to be promoted within our education system as a key building block for the future.
Would it be fair to say that the Keep the Clause campaign collected signatures on the basis that children should be protected, and that Donald Dewar has now addressed that?
I cannot speak for everyone who signed petitions, only for the people to whom I have spoken. They are worried that the Scottish Executive has brought in new guidelines that do not reflect the fact that traditional family values are a key building block in the community.
Can you clarify what your petition said?
Not off the top of my head.
Thank you for coming today to give evidence. If we strip out all the murky debate that has taken place until now, we are probably all on the same side in wanting the best for our children in the future.
Absolutely.
What we do not agree about is whether we require statute to do that.
It depends on the child. Different children have different opportunities to learn—at home.
Do you think that it is the responsibility of schools to inculcate traditional family values?
There is enormous pressure on children in the culture in which they are growing up. Some of them will come from homes where they will be taught traditional family values, and some will not. I see no reason at all why it is not appropriate for schools to hold up a positive role and a positive way of life for children to aspire to, while acknowledging that the children come from different backgrounds and that life does not necessarily work out that way.
Do you think that such judgments should be made by law and in Parliament, or ought they to be made in the community and in the home?
What concerns me is that "stable family relationship" is the term that is being used in place of marriage. That concerns many parents. People are afraid to promote marriage as such, and are using a term that, I believe, is meaningless to children.
I think that there has been a great leap from banning a section that is discriminatory to the implications of that concern. I do not see the logic of saying that because we ban a discriminatory piece of legislation, we somehow undermine marriage and values of family life.
That confusion has perhaps been brought about by the Executive's failure to include family life in the alternatives that have been proposed, and in its use of the words "stable relationships" rather than "traditional family values".
But does it have to be in statute to be current?
I would like it to be in statute. If an alternative is inserted, which mentions stable relationships and deletes marriage and traditional family values, that gives the impression that there is something wrong with marriage and stable family relationships in the traditional sense that we know them. I do not believe that to be the case.
We will have to agree to differ on that one.
I am reassured for now, but the make-up of those local authorities could change at the next election. I am more reassured by local authorities such as Falkirk and North Lanarkshire, which—in view of the way they voted—expressed the concerns of many parents about the Scottish Executive's position.
What contact do you have with your own children's school about what is taught to them?
I am a member of my local school's board. To be fair, the school is fantastic, and I am very happy with the education that my children receive. One of the things that I tend to harp on about is the effect that school had on me. I see education as not only about maths, English and physics but about people's whole being, the standards that they hold to in adult life, and the way in which that is reflected in their behaviour towards other people. That is why I am so concerned about education, which is the one chance that our children get in life to make a real go of things and get on in the world.
Do you think that that is necessary? Do you think that, if we do not put this in statute, it will not happen?
I feel that it is necessary.
Can you answer the question? If that does not happen, will the way in which children are taught change dramatically?
There will probably be no difference in most schools, but if the legislation is not there, there is no redress against anybody who does something that is inappropriate or that offends parents. The legislation must be there to protect the children. I never thought that clause 28 was homophobic or discriminatory. Most people who signed up to the Keep the Clause campaign would be gravely offended at being called homophobic.
I have found the petition that Johann Lamont asked about. Do you think that some people—single parents, grandparents who have brought up their grandchildren, foster carers or adoptive parents who have brought up children in single-parent relationships—signed the petition because it refers only to the intentional promotion of homosexuality and not to traditional family values or heterosexual marriage? In other words, do you think that some people who signed this petition were unaware that the Keep the Clause campaign was going to change its emphasis from homosexuality to heterosexual marriage?
I confess to being a little disappointed. I understand why the Keep the Clause campaign irks MSPs and why it has upset some people. However, the fact is that although I came along here today—rightly or wrongly, but in good faith and in a reasonable manner—to say that I fully support the Executive's and the Parliament's decision to end all discrimination in our society, I do not understand why we cannot promote marriage and traditional family values as building blocks for the future.
The campaign has not done that.
With respect, it is not surprising that we are discussing the Keep the Clause campaign, as you are here to represent that campaign. You did not answer the question. The question was this: do you think that the people who signed the petition were misled, as the campaign has changed its emphasis and moved on to what you want to promote?
They are two sides of the same coin. Promoting family values involves protecting against the promotion of homosexuality.
I hope that members of the Scrap the Section campaign have changed their views after listening to the debate and talking to people, as we have. The position that we have adopted, which I have tried to put forward today, is a sensible, reasonable and adult position. I cannot say why people signed the petition, but the Parliament should take note of the fact that many people felt that the only way in which they could make their opinion heard was by signing that petition. They did not feel that they were being included in the consultation process.
We appreciate the fact that you have come along today, but it is our job to question some of the conflicting things that you are saying. I agree with Patrick Rolink that someone can promote traditional family values while being against discrimination, but that is not the view that the campaign has taken. You referred to the "murky" debate, by which I understand that you are unhappy with certain aspects of the campaign's focus and what has been said. Is that correct?
No, I would not say that. The campaign is an umbrella group to which lots of other groups belong. I cannot speak for everyone's views and opinions and there are times when people use words that I would not use. However, the sentiment and the spirit of the campaign are positive now. It is about going forward.
The problem is that although marriage is the new focus, we have to consider what has happened, because it has left something in its wake.
How do we go forward here? Do I sit here all day and argue with you about statements that have been made by people such as Wendy Alexander and Donald Dewar and about the consultation process? I am unhappy about aspects of the debate from your point of view as well. It does not serve the people of Scotland if I try to score political points by saying so-and-so said this and so-and-so said that. Today is about moving forward.
On that point about moving forward, you have used the term "ending discrimination". Do you acknowledge what we have learned over the course of this campaign? It is important to learn lessons for the future, so that we can move on. Do you accept that there seems to be anecdotal evidence for a rise in attacks on the gay community?
I cannot possibly comment. All I would say is that if there have been such attacks, I condemn them totally—such attacks are outrageous. I do not judge my friends on their sexual orientation; I treat people the way they treat me. That is the model I would like to see for Scotland. If anyone is attacking members of the gay community, using my side of the argument as a tool, that is an outrage and an affront to democracy. It is an affront to the views of people such as me.
I accept that you do not hold those views personally. Do you accept, however, that such attacks could be a consequence of some of the murkier—as you described it—things that have been said during the campaign? It is important to learn lessons, particularly if you agree that you want to end discrimination.
I am sorry, but I cannot possibly comment because I am unaware of the anecdotal evidence that you are talking about.
People who attack others for such reasons are mindless thugs. In my experience, they are people who have not thought over the issues and are the sort of people who would attack any group they happened not to identify with.
Would you accept, though, that when we use the language of protecting our children, people begin to think, "Protect from what?"
No one who has read the newspaper articles and thought very deeply would go out and attack a homosexual. People who attack others are mindless criminals.
The point Shona has made is that if you have billboards talking about protecting our children from homosexuals, people might get the idea that your campaign is saying that homosexuals will be predatory or dangerous towards children. That may be why there has been an increase in attacks and in phone calls to helplines and so on.
With respect, that is an opinion. Obviously you have your reasons for having that opinion. If people have attacked any members of our community because of their sexual orientation, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. Their views do not represent those of anyone I have spoken to in this campaign.
Like my colleagues, I welcome you both along this afternoon.
It is not really an organisation in the way a political party is—we do not have a detailed manifesto. It is an organisation of people who have signed a petition because they are like-minded on this one matter. They are like-minded in the conclusion that they have come to, but they have not all got there by the same route. We are representing people only in so far as we agree on that conclusion. Some people have come to it for religious reasons, others have come to it for other reasons. We are not a political party or a permanent organisation in the way that other organisations that you will have heard from are.
But you are what Patrick Rolink described as an umbrella organisation. You seemed to indicate that you were part of a group that came under that umbrella organisation.
I wrote round all the Churches in Airdrie, where I live, to ask for a public meeting and debate on section 28. We formed a group made up of all the religious organisations in Airdrie, and at our first meeting we agreed that we would not hold any more meetings in church halls because this is not a religious issue but an issue of values, morals and family life. I have been to public meetings in places such as Falkirk, Larbert, Coatbridge and Shotts, which are open to everyone; the notices say, "All welcome to attend". I am not part of a strategy group or involved in the organisation of the campaign as such. I was asked to come here to speak as a parent, and that is why I have come.
Who asked you to attend?
It was Media House.
Your colleague Bill McHugh—
My name is actually Macreath. I am a solicitor from Glasgow.
I was wondering about your involvement.
It is quite simple. I act for Mr Souter and I was asked to attend the meeting first to observe—which is perfectly normal both here and at the Westminster Parliament—and to ensure that questions are pertinent to the issues that are before the committee. You ask what the organisation is about. There is a trust document, there are trustees and there was a petition, to which Mr Sheridan has referred—that is appropriate. The debate has moved on, and some of the questions today have been very relevant. I hope that you have taken on board some of the answers. My role is simply to be here. Anne Stewart is a minister's wife and was quite concerned about what would happen today. The same applies to Mr Rolink. It is perfectly reasonable that I should attend, and I have not taken exception to any questions that have been asked so far.
We invited you along so that we could listen to your evidence. I simply wanted it clarified in what capacity you are representing Keep the Clause. Did the trustees ask you to come along?
Yes. The trustees are the people who are behind the campaign. They tend to take the view that because they are perhaps too intimately involved in the matter they would rather have ordinary people give their views to the committee. I think that that is what the committee requires, and you have heard those views. Mr Sheridan has—rightly—made the point that within any umbrella organisation there is disagreement between people. I have no views on this matter. I am a solicitor and am here in a dispassionate role. You need to hear the evidence of Mr Rolink and Mrs Stewart and to come to your own conclusions about their feelings on the matter and why they support the campaign.
I wanted to be sure that they are representing the Keep the Clause campaign.
They are.
I would like to clear up a small point that niggled earlier on. You said that parents were not consulted. Do you accept that when the announcement of an intention to repeal clause 28 or section 2A was made, there was a period of public consultation?
Speaking only as an ordinary individual, I was not aware of the consultation process. I have not spoken to anyone who was.
However, the fact remains that the opportunity existed and people could have made representations at that time. It is not the case that the change was proposed without consultation.
I consider myself more up to date on current affairs than most people—I like watching "Newsnight" and programmes of that sort—and I was not aware of any process that would have allowed me an input into the consultation. To be fair, I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee today. That shows that the Parliament has real teeth and that there are committees to which people can come along to speak. It is a demonstration of democracy and goes against what I said earlier about a lack of consultation. This is a tremendous opportunity, which I welcome. I am glad that you have asked the questions that you have asked and that I have said the things that I have said. We may not agree on everything, but we agree that we need to move forward.
Three members who have already spoken are indicating that they would like to ask further questions. I ask them to keep their questions brief. If it is all right with the witnesses, I will ask members to put their questions first and then take the answers together.
That is fine, as I have to get the kids from school.
Okay.
My question is dead brief, so it may be best if you answer it straight away. I disagree with Pat Rolink's suggestion that the Keep the Clause campaign has been positive. I think that it has been very negative across Scotland and has been the antithesis of democracy. That is why I want to ask whether you have been involved in collecting signatures for petitions and so on.
Yes, and I have held public meetings.
Anne, you have not.
No.
I ask because you have come here today and we have referred to an opinion poll, which is in your evidence, from which you want to dissociate yourselves and to a petition the wording of which you do not even know.
I did not say that I did not know the wording of the petition; I said that I had forgotten it. I did not say that I had never seen the petition; I just could not recite the wording off by heart when you asked.
I am positive that you have seen the petition. Most of us have; it has been on billboards all over the place. The point is that the wording has been deliberately misleading. That is why it is antidemocratic. You are here today to speak on behalf of the campaign. I know that you have been selected—some might say set up—by Media House, but the point is that the evidence that you have given today is on behalf of a campaign that has not contributed positively to the debate, so let us agree to disagree on that point.
As you know, Tommy, I value and respect your opinion on most things, but I take exception to the suggestion that I have been set up to be here today. I am here and my wife is in the gallery supporting me. I am big enough and ugly enough to make my own decisions.
Bill was about to jump in and help you there, Pat.
I do not need any help, thanks Tommy.
If you have come to the conclusion that section 2A will be repealed and are now campaigning for traditional family values, can we take it that the Protect your children: Keep the Clause campaign is going to change into the campaign for the protection of family values?
I will most certainly be putting forward that view.
I have a quick question, Patrick, on the statement you made about the lack of awareness of the consultation process. You said that you wrote letters to the press in November, which was during the consultation period. You obviously knew that there was an issue. You took the time to write to the press, but did not take the time to write to the Scottish Executive as part of the consultation. Why were you not aware that the consultation was taking place?
I do not want to finish off by trying to score a political point here. I wrote to the press because I read an article that said that Wendy Alexander was carrying out a personal crusade. The whole thrust of the argument in my letter was that I did not feel that politicians in Edinburgh should be carrying out personal crusades; they are here to represent the people. I honestly was not aware of the consultation process and how I could participate in it. If I had been, I certainly would have taken part.
I have one final question for clarity, because we will need to condense your evidence into a report that we will pass on to the Local Government Committee, which is the lead committee. You have said that you accept the fact that, whether members of your campaign are happy or not, section 28 will be repealed. You are not happy, however, with the phrase "stable family life". In your evidence to the committee today and in your written submission, you quote a question from Brian Monteith about what is meant by stable family life. It asks whether that phrase would include
That is a very clever question, because if I say no, it means that I want to treat those people differently. I want to have an aspiration that the ideal that we promote within our schools is that the best way for children and our community to go forward—and the most fulfilling relationships—is through what is known as a normal, stable, traditional family.
I was not trying to be clever—I am not often accused of that.
Neither am I.
I ask the question for clarity. If you are asking us to recommend an alternative to the Local Government Committee or the Executive, it would be useful to know what that alternative would be. You have said that marriage is the ideal. Are you saying that none of those other situations should be given equal status? I will read them out again if you want.
I will say what was said in the submission. We believe that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are different.
So you think that lone parents, other carers, and unmarried heterosexual couples are equal to a married couple?
We are saying that we want marriage to be promoted. We do not want to pass value judgments about the situations in which people find themselves because of what life throws at them. Most single parents have not chosen to be single parents. I understand that most single parents would still hope that their children would one day meet Mr Right or Miss Right, get married, and have a happy marriage.
Thank you for coming. I am sorry that you have been kept longer than I had expected.
I thank you for your welcome. I wish to make a short statement, after which I will be happy to answer questions. I intend to speak only about the repeal of section 2A and not on the other parts of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill.
Thank you, Morag. I open out the discussion to questions from members of the committee.
I want to ask about the broader issue of education in school and your suggestion that it could promote inequality in later life. I am thinking of girls being put into inappropriate roles at an early age, which we should address through the education system more actively than just talking to young people about anti-discrimination measures. How do we influence our children into taking up certain roles at an early stage?
There has long been recognition and an understanding that teachers' expectations of pupils can affect children's performance tremendously. In relation to social class, for example, a teacher sees a child from a poor background and may not expect too much of that child, so the child's performance results in an outcome that there is no way round.
Does the EOC have a view on what I describe as the inappropriate early sexualisation of children, which is not quite the same thing as giving children information about sex education, relationships and so on? I speak as a mother of a young daughter who is concerned about the extent to which society wants her to dress and conduct herself in a particular way, which is about performing in an inappropriate sexual model at an early age. Has the EOC undertaken any work in that area?
No, we have not, although we have been involved in many cases concerning what is appropriate dress for women in school—which you will be aware of—or the working environment. However, that is not what you are getting at, Johann. The commission has not done any work in that area, and it would not be appropriate for us to do such work when we have so much else to do. I have come here today to talk about our experience of discrimination and the way in which it arises, and perhaps to clarify where the law stands on it. From my experience as a mother and grandmother—everyone seems to be declaring their family status today, although I did not intend to do so—I know that children receive messages in all sorts of ways. I do not doubt that work has been done on that, but it has not been done by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
To what extent does the proposed repeal require a review of the current guidelines on the provision of sex education in schools? Do you have a view on that?
We have a view on it in so far as we want the promotion of equality of opportunity for all groups in society. That arises not from our statutory role, but from our understanding of discrimination, which I explained earlier.
What do you think about the new section? Do you think it is acceptable in terms of equal opportunities? I believe that you heard the evidence of our previous witnesses. Do you concur with the view of Keep the Clause, that it needs to be strengthened in some way?
I have tried to speak as the director of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland. The commission does not have a view on that matter. It has not discussed it or decided on it, and I am not sure that it necessarily would. I would personally prefer the inclusive statement that is proposed, which would not exclude people in same-sex relationships from constituting a family unit.
You suggested that section 2A prevents teachers from giving support. Could you expand on that a wee bit? What other things does it prevent local authorities doing?
Fears have been expressed about what happens when a teacher sees children being bullied for a particular reason. Children may need reassurance that their position and sexual orientation is perfectly acceptable, but if the teacher chooses to discuss that with the child or with the class they could be at risk of falling foul of section 2A. We do not have a lot of evidence to back that up, but—everyone is citing anecdotal evidence today—people have shared that concern with me and I know that that happens.
Some people have argued that section 2A does not stop teachers being able to support. You are saying that there is a fear that they might be prosecuted and that there is a reluctance because of that.
I have heard as much through anecdotal evidence. My graver concern is that the language in section 2A, which refers to "promoting homosexuality" and a "pretended family relationship", is based on an untruth. I do not understand how homosexual relationships could be promoted. In this Parliament, in which we have tremendous hopes for inclusiveness and decisions based on adequate discussion and rigorous argument, those kinds of givens should not be accepted but should be challenged.
How would you respond to those who would claim that you have just outlined a politically correct agenda?
I would not accept the epithet.
Morag, I thank you for attending this afternoon. No doubt we will see you here again.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
Our next witnesses are Tim Hopkins from Equality Network, Brian Dempsey from Outright Scotland, Patrick Harvie from the Strathclyde lesbian, gay and bisexual youth group, Joe Patrizio from Scottish Parents Enquiry and Judith Mackinlay from the Lesbian Mothers Network in Scotland. Each witness will make a short statement and then members can ask questions.
Thank you for inviting us to give evidence to the committee. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are those who are most affected by section 2A and we are very grateful for the opportunity to come along and comment on it.
Good afternoon. In our written submission, we wanted to highlight the impact of the anti-repeal campaign. I understand that the ground may have shifted somewhat today, and that there is a different tenor to the arguments of those who oppose repeal.
I am a father of four children, one of whom is gay. I also have four grandchildren, who are too young for us to know yet whether any of them is gay. Parents Enquiry is a helpline for parents who are having trouble coming to terms with one of their children being gay.
My name is Patrick Harvie and I have been a youth worker in Glasgow for the Strathclyde lesbian, gay and bisexual youth group for two or three years. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.
The first thing that I want to say is that my family is real. It makes me cry and it makes me furious that in law my family is labelled as pretend, unacceptable and without value. That insults me and allows others to discriminate against me and members of my family.
Thank you. I open the discussion out to questions from members of the committee.
Joe, what you had to say was informative. You told us things that we had not heard before. The Keep the Clause campaign is focused on the rights of parents. The representatives who talked to us this morning talked about parents protecting their children. How do you and parents whom you know feel about the use of the issue of parental responsibility by the Keep the Clause campaign? I imagine that it is difficult for you.
It is extremely difficult. It is hard to describe our feelings. We feel angry about what those people say. We understand where they are coming from and that they are afraid, but their fear comes from their ignorance: they do not know what it is like to have a gay child. They have a fear of bogeymen, but those bogeymen will disappear when we get some light on the subject.
Tim, you commented on the perceived shift in what Patrick Rolink had said. Do you believe that the term "traditional family values" has a discriminatory tone? Has it caused you particular difficulties?
One of the problems with the phrase is that is not well defined. What does "traditional" mean? A hundred years ago, many values that people would not like to see in marriages today, such as inequality between the sexes, were common.
As someone who is married, I would certainly not want to return to the traditional marriage in which I owned my wife, or to a situation in which she could not, in law, do anything without my permission. Are those the traditional family values that we want to return to? Certainly not, I would say.
Having listened to the debates and read the comments about this matter in the press, the one thing that people return to when they talk about why marriage is a valued institution is stability. The new section, as currently worded, is perfectly inclusive of that.
My question is to Judith Mackinlay. I do not want you to speak specifically about your experience and your child, but perhaps more generally about lesbian mothers. Do you think that the children of lesbian mothers, particularly at school, have a hard time because of bullying and because of who their parents are? Is that a problem that you see? Do you think that repeal of section 2A will allow such children to be treated more fairly at school?
Yes. We have new inquiries from people whom we meet in Edinburgh once a month. Various groups meet around the country. People travel a long way to come and get some support. Sometimes they just come once to know that they are not alone. They often come because their children are being bullied or because they are concerned about starting a new school and about what they should tell the teachers. What can the teachers do anyway?
I was very moved by how Judith Mackinlay described the effect of section 2A on her. I am very concerned about the effect of the nature of the campaign against repeal on lesbians and on gay men. We have all, I am sure, had one or two letters or e-mails from people who have written very movingly about that. Janet Paisley wrote a superb article a few weeks ago in The Scotsman reflecting that.
I have some statistical information about that. It concerns a rise in the number of calls to counselling services, both to the Strathclyde lesbian and gay switchboard and to the Steve Retson Project, which is primarily a sexual health project at Glasgow royal infirmary but which also give people counselling about their sexuality. Both those services have measured a 25 per cent increase in the number of calls since the end of December. Many callers mention that their concerns about their sexuality have grown stronger because of publicity in newspapers and the billboard advertising.
I have buried my head, turned off the radio and tried not to look at billboards. I have felt that, although I have written to many MSPs and said what I thought during the consultation period, my voice has not been heard. I did not have the money to put up billboards. I am very glad to have my voice heard here.
I confirm what Tim Hopkins said. I have spoken to people in my youth group who have experienced abuse in the form of the "Keep the Clause" slogans. I work with a tiny group of young people—the group has been around for a long time—which struggles by. It has received £375 of public funding in the past financial year, which is less than a quarter of its annual rent. To be accused of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on the most ridiculous material, which is simply not the case, is deeply offensive to me, both personally and professionally.
I do not want to go on at length, but it is important to point out that the slogan that the Keep the Clause campaign has been pushing, "Protect our children", is insidious and underhand. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book to accuse a marginalised or powerless minority of being a threat to everybody else's children. That slogan is quite disgusting. I reinforce the view that even people who are quite forceful and politically aware have been taken aback and have felt under threat and distressed. Although we are all open to sensible political debate about these subjects, such an underhand and offensive campaign is unacceptable in Scotland.
I agree with what you say about safety. A letter from one of my constituents contains a very interesting comment. She says:
When we first read the wording of section 26 on the day that it was announced, we welcomed it. It is good that it is child centred and quite defensive; it says that material must be appropriate to a child's age, understanding and stage of development. However, although that is all fine, the section itself says nothing about what the child needs. To that extent, we felt that it was not child centred enough and that adding the word "needs" to that list of attributes would make it quite clear that children need education that is focused on their needs. Although section 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill says that the purpose of teaching is to develop each child, we felt that section 26 would be a good place to make that point as well.
As representatives of lesbians and gay men, or as lesbian or gay people, do you feel that the Keep the Clause campaign has played a negative role in Scotland by promoting intolerance and creating an atmosphere that makes it difficult to encourage understanding of sexual orientation?
I certainly agree with that. I make a distinction, as you were careful to do, between the Keep the Clause campaign and the people who have been affected by its propaganda. I would not label everyone who is concerned about the repeal of section 2A as being in the same boat. To anyone who is aware of the sort of material that Jack Irvine produces in the Daily Record, the fact that Brian Souter chose him to head up the Keep the Clause campaign indicates a certain attitude. The fact that the campaign was launched after the consultation period had finished also indicates a negative approach.
Sam Galbraith made a statement to Parliament about the proposals to replace section 2A with a form of words emphasising stable family life. He also said that there would be guidelines to education authorities on the conduct of sex education in schools, including consulting parents when reviewing a programme of sex education. I have no problem with that.
No. We have discussed that issue ourselves. I understand that there are often church representatives on curriculum working groups, reflecting the fact that there are denominational schools. If one sees the working party as an attempt to assuage people's concerns, there may be a role for some people from the churches; however, it is important to note that there are no representatives from the LGBT communities on the working group, and we have thought carefully about that.
I was interested in the comments about families. If we were a civilised, child-centred society, it would be sufficient to say that our children should be safe and that the weight of the law should be used against those who prey upon or neglect children for whatever reason. There is no evidence that any particular group is more guilty of that than any other, although Malcolm Chisholm suggests that there is a pattern of behaviour in some families that gives cause for concern. I am glad that, in general, you have welcomed Donald Dewar's clause, because it focuses on the child and children's needs.
Quite the reverse. Like me, and all of us, every person with whom I have ever worked through the youth group has had heterosexuality promoted to them day in, day out from a very early age. That does not change their sexual orientation.
Much has been said about the need to enshrine traditional family values in law. I have a child who is five who has known from a very early age that some people have one mummy and some people have two mummies—that there are all sorts of different families. She has already planned to have seven children and a wedding. She has lined up a boy to marry, has consulted him and everything is fine.
My gay son knew that there was something different about him when he was six. He was the third child of four and grew up the same as the rest of them. There was nothing that promoted homosexuality to him in the school that he went to. It was just something that happened—something that is.
Are there any other questions? If not, I thank all our witnesses for coming along this afternoon. They have given us valuable evidence, which we will be able to pass to the Local Government Committee shortly. Thank you.
Meeting continued in private until 15:53.