Petition
Health Education (Guidelines) (PE427)
The next item is petition PE427, on health education, which we have discussed previously. We must agree a letter on this petition to the Minister for Education and Young People. Members have a copy of a draft letter. Most members will have received—I certainly did—an e-mail from the petitioner, the Reverend Iain Murdoch, about the letter. Are there any comments on the draft letter?
The second point in Iain Murdoch's e-mail about the guidelines is echoed in the letter from the Church of Scotland, which has been circulated. We have to be clear what we are asking for. Both parties made the point that they do not want the guidelines to be reviewed as such; they want the guidelines to be altered to drop the list of approved materials—it is a matter of wording. It is difficult for us to ask for that. There is nothing wrong per se in a list of approved materials. It would be odd if a circular such as the one that we are discussing did not have a list of approved materials. Indeed, that was the idea behind having a list.
The question is, where are the materials coming from, how are they being reviewed, and how were the materials that we saw included in the list? Jackie Baillie was right to raise last week the relationship between Learning and Teaching Scotland and the Executive. We have to think about that carefully. We are saying that there is something wrong with the circular at present. That may be either that inappropriate materials are attached to it, or that an inappropriate process was employed in ensuring that the materials were right and would not create difficulties.
I have read the comments from the Church of Scotland education committee and the petitioner. Our route into this issue is to suggest that the guidelines be reviewed—the documentation, if you like—which implies the resources as well. There will naturally be points at which the Executive and Learning and Teaching Scotland review such things as a matter of course. I accept that we could tidy up the wording in the letter. We are not asking for materials to be excluded; we are seeking to establish whether Learning and Teaching Scotland or the Executive has plans to examine this matter afresh. If so, that might be the most appropriate context in which to consider the issues that are raised by the petition.
The petitioner's comments about confusing the guidelines, guidance and circular 2/2001 are apt. Some clarity would be helpful. I do not think that the third last paragraph on the second page of the draft letter is particularly helpful, because we are not seeking a review of circular 2/2001. The circular was the thing that everybody said worked well. The point was that members asked whether circular 2/2001 or the guidelines were the most important.
I would delete that paragraph in its entirety. I would also re-work the second last paragraph. Somewhere in the letter, we need to recognise the welcome safeguards that the minister referred to in her letter, and the fact that we felt that teachers would not use the resources and that there was no evidence that they had been used in the classroom. I would remove the rhetorical question from the second last paragraph—the point is made in the preceding paragraphs and the question is therefore unnecessary.
I apologise, convener, but I would like to return to the top of the page where members will find the words:
"The Committee notes that the materials were devised by Learning and Teaching Scotland".
I would like to clarify that statement. The materials that we are examining were not devised by Learning and Teaching Scotland, but were suggested as resources. Perhaps we could tidy up the language. I have a further point to make, which is that the paragraph should end with:
"can the process be tightened up or further improved?"
and not with:
"in light of the nature of the material and the reaction to the material".
That point is unnecessary and should be deleted. It is covered elsewhere in the letter.
I have one tiny, final point about the third paragraph on the second page. I apologise, convener, but I am an anorak.
Do you not get out much?
I do not.
The paragraph contains a reference to "Circular 2/2002". I may be confused, but should not the reference be to "Circular 2/2001"?
It should be to 2001.
Thank you. That is all.
I cannot bear couch anoraks.
I refer members to the typo in paragraph 3 on page 1. The word is not "concered", it is "concerned".
I disagree with Jackie Baillie. If she wants to remove the rhetorical question from the second last paragraph, could we not insert it in another, more appropriate place? That would be in the second top paragraph on the second page where it would strengthen the point that is made. The point is worth while.
I agree with the other points that were raised, as we are dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
I turn to the comments from the Church of Scotland. We have a list and there would be great concern if it was withdrawn because people could not agree about what was to be on it. That would cause parents greater confusion and disturbance and it would not achieve what the Church of Scotland seeks to achieve. It is more important for us to seek clarification about what should and should not be on the list. The list should not be withdrawn.
Is that clear?
It is important for us to recognise the difference between the guidance and the guidelines. We are talking about the guidelines that include a list. We have to decide whether to keep or remove the list.
I support what Jackie Baillie said.
There is consensus about deleting the question and not inserting it elsewhere in the letter.
For brevity, I suggest that the question is deleted, but I wish my dissent to be noted.
Do members want to see the letter again next week, after it has been redrafted?
Just send it.
Are we agreed on that?
Members indicated agreement.