Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 Sep 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Official Report 261KB pdf

---

Scottish Strategic Framework on Faith and Belief Relations

Our final item of business is an evidence-taking session on the Scottish strategic framework on faith and belief relations. Members will recall that the committee agreed in December 2007 to include in its work programme a taking-stock exercise on religion and belief. In May 2008, the committee considered a further paper and correspondence from the Minister for Community Safety on the Scottish Government's current work on religion and belief. In response, the committee agreed to invite the minister to brief us on the Scottish strategic framework on faith and belief relations. We hope that today's discussion will help us to determine at a future meeting whether there would be merit in undertaking our work on religion and belief, as we had planned in our original work programme.

I welcome the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing MSP, and David Bell, who is a policy manager with the Scottish Government. I also welcome Sister Isabel Smyth, who chairs the Scottish working group on religion and belief relations. The minister will make a brief opening statement.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Sister Isabel and I are pleased to have the opportunity to update the committee on the Scottish Government's work on religion and belief relations. The letter that I sent to the committee in April—which has, I understand, been circulated to members—sets out our new initiative to develop a strategic framework on religion and belief relations in Scotland. At heart, the initiative is about breaking down barriers between different and disparate communities to allow mutual respect, trust and understanding to develop and to replace those barriers.

The diverse nature of modern Scotland is something that we should all embrace and be proud of. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness. All of us, regardless of background, are modern Scots who share in the social, economic and cultural benefits that diversity brings. We enrich ourselves and our country when we learn about other cultures. We make our cities, towns and villages stronger and safer places in which to live when we work together to eradicate the old prejudices on the basis of friendship and consideration. I believe that the diverse mix of Scottish society in the 21st century, coupled with the good interfaith relations that we have already developed, has placed us in an ideal situation to look at how we go beyond interfaith dialogue to develop constructive religion and belief dialogue.

We need to have the debate on religion and belief in the public arena. That is why the development of the strategic framework will be important in helping to set ground rules for holding the debate in a constructive fashion. Let me be clear that our desire to develop religion and belief dialogue does not mean that we are trying to end or undermine interfaith dialogue; in fact, it means the very opposite. We see the development of religion and belief dialogue as an addition, building on what already exists. The bottom line is that none of us lives in isolation; we are all part of the same multifaith, multibelief, multicultural society and we need to find constructive ways to live together harmoniously.

"No man is an island",

as, I think, John Donne once opined.

I believe in a Scotland in which everyone, regardless of background, can thrive and prosper and feel respected as a human being. There is no doubt in my mind that the basis for developing a harmonious society must be the development of mutual respect, trust and understanding. I deliberately avoid using the word "tolerance" here, because I believe that, as a society, Scotland must move beyond different communities merely putting up with each other to a situation in which we genuinely understand and appreciate difference as a positive aspect of modern society. I believe that the best way to achieve that is through a constructive dialogue that allows us to go beyond our perceived ideas of those who are different from us and enables us to see each other as the multifaceted individuals that we all are. Such dialogue allows us to see that our identities are not defined merely by our religion or belief, but also by things that cut across religion and belief boundaries, such as love of sport, music and art.

Our goal is to stimulate constructive dialogue on many levels within and among communities, but the ultimate goal is to find a way of bringing together all religious and belief communities in a non-threatening environment that allows the free flow and exchange of ideas. That is not an easy goal to reach—I fully appreciate the enormity of the task ahead—but the challenge is definitely worth undertaking. By working together and engaging with our communities, we will be able not only to identify the barriers to developing constructive dialogue but to find ways to break down the barriers and to achieve that goal.

Scotland has received international recognition for its interfaith dialogue. I am sure that our initiative will not only help to maintain that standing, but lead to Scotland being recognised as a world leader in developing cross-community relations. At home, the initiative will help us to achieve the one Scotland of many cultures to which we all aspire and will add to the positive work that is being done to break down barriers between all communities.

Thank you for that opening statement.

First, I am curious about one point. Why does responsibility for religious and faith organisations lie with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice rather than with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, whose responsibilities include equalities?

That question might be more appropriately addressed to the First Minister—

He gives out the jobs.

Indeed. I am cognisant of the fact that I should in no way seek to avoid answering any question that members put, but that may be a fruitful source of inquiry. Plainly, given our role in community safety and community engagement, many of the issues that I mentioned in my opening statement touch on other responsibilities within the portfolio.

We will take that as a "Don't know" followed by a guesstimate. For further clarification, we should ask the First Minister.

As I mentioned in the preamble, the Equal Opportunities Committee considered the issue as far back as December, when it decided that it would conduct a taking-stock exercise on religion and belief as the final strand that had not been considered in depth. Was the minister aware of that decision?

I was aware of the committee's interest. I am glad that you have reminded me of that decision, which I very much welcome. I hope that we can work with the committee in exploring these issues further.

Was there a particular trigger or event that led the Scottish Government to set up the strategic framework?

Our objectives are to bring open and honest dialogue into the public forum, to create ways for all communities to be more involved in the civic and democratic process and, above all, to encourage mutual respect among those who have religious faith and those who have belief but perhaps no religious faith. Encouraging such respect and understanding is an important goal for us all in this century, as we look around the world and see examples of lack of understanding and lack of respect. That is why the work—which is really being done by Sister Isabel rather than myself—in taking forward the framework offers a positive path for us all to follow. We are certainly keen to find out how we can develop that work; I am also keen to hear from committee members in that regard.

Perhaps Sister Isabel would like to comment on the group's progress so far.

Certainly. I had thought that you were going to ask me about the trigger—

Sorry, let me just stop you there, Sister Isabel. We have some questions specifically for you, but I want to press the minister a little bit further. What did you feel that you could do in undertaking the subject that the Equal Opportunities Committee could not do in its taking-stock exercise?

We can seek to build on the group's work in bringing people together to encourage that dialogue. I do not see that our work and the committee's work need be mutually exclusive; I see our work as enhancing, rather than in any way detracting from, the committee's work.

Does Sister Isabel want to comment at this point?

I was just thinking that Scottish society has changed so much. It has moved from being a society with a Christian background to what I would call a secular society. I am sure that we are all aware of the tensions that can exist in such a society between religious groups whose particular voice within the larger society might contradict the stance and beliefs of those who belong to other ideological communities, if you like. Those tensions can often be overcome if we bring people together and encourage them to listen to one another's stories and understand one another's standpoints.

Our work develops the work that is set out in the Equality and Human Rights Commission mandate, and tries to develop good relations between the different faith communities and the different communities living in Scotland. Like all societies, our society needs that.

I remind members and the panel that our discussion is about people with no religious beliefs and people with beliefs. We can get so caught up in discussing the issue of belief that we forget that there are people with no religious belief who wish to contribute to the community, too.

I wish the minister, Sister Isabel and Mr Bell good morning. In reply to the convener, the minister described the strategic framework's objectives, which include "open and honest dialogue". How do the framework's objectives differ from those of other interfaith dialogues?

We are not criticising the work that has been done in Scotland to bring together people of different faiths. Over the past couple of decades, there has been a much closer relationship, understanding and working together between religious leaders in many ways, which is to be warmly welcomed. However, we felt that we could go further by establishing the Scottish working group on religion and belief relations to improve interfaith relations, and by developing a strategic framework to express the objectives that I sought to describe in my opening statement. Sister Isabel can enlighten the committee further about the work that the group has done since it was set up.

Our aim is to develop the work that has already been done. I hope that we can all unite behind and support the Government initiative as a way of developing and improving our understanding of different religions and faiths, and inculcating respect across all faiths. Shortly after I took on ministerial responsibility, I attended what I believe was Scotland's first-ever conference for young Muslims, which included speeches that expounded the basic tenets of the Muslim faith. I was struck by how similar they were to the tenets of Christian faiths—in other words, there is far more to unite us than there is to divide us. That view is not necessarily widely appreciated or shared by everyone.

I regard the strategic framework as a way of building on the good work that has been done in the past and taking it a stage further.

I have been involved in interfaith for many decades. For many of those years, the people who were interested in such dialogue were few and far between. They were people in faith communities who were liberal and broadminded enough to step outside their communities, meet others and learn about people of faiths other than their own.

Interfaith is now regarded as part of social cohesion. We realise, perhaps because of events in this country and elsewhere, the importance of faith communities getting to know one another. Although we have a good tradition in interfaith, communities still live parallel lives. On the whole, we do not like to move out of our comfort zones. We all have our own concerns in our communities, which take up much of our energies and efforts. However, faith communities need a framework in which they can be encouraged to realise that they and the country will benefit if they form good relationships with their neighbours.

We need to say to everyone in this country that it is okay for them to be different and to have their own beliefs and values, but that we have a joint investment in the future of Scotland and it behoves us all to be concerned about that; I feel strongly about that. We must work on that together because we cannot do it separately. We cannot afford to live in parallel communities, with only a few people involved in interfaith. We need to do our best to encourage more such dialogue, because when people live in parallel communities, they become suspicious of others and polarise as soon as there is trouble.

On 9/11, I was on my way to Sarajevo. That was quite sobering, because families there polarised when there was tension between religious communities. We can quickly polarise and be suspicious of one another. I hope that our group's work will not only encourage people who have engaged in interfaith dialogue, but extend the dialogue to other belief groups and, of course, to those people with no faith at all. It will be difficult to do that, but we must start somewhere.

One of the objectives of the strategic framework is to

"Bring open and honest dialogue into the public square from all of Scotland's diverse communities."

Perhaps it is a bit pedantic to say that that suggests that there has not always been open and honest dialogue. I do not want to put words into Sister Isabel's mouth, but she appears to be saying that matters were perhaps kept under wraps previously and that there was not open and honest dialogue.

What you say is true. As politicians, you are doing your best to produce open and honest dialogue. However, those of us who live in faith communities are often suspicious of others' views because we think that they will challenge our views or not allow us to live life as we want to live it. Our group wants to bring together the various groups to get to know one another as human beings and realise that we all want the best for our country and our children—that is what needs to be done.

I am sure that we can all think of examples in which a dominant church is in conflict with a particular belief group in society. If two such groups were to come together and talk to each other, that might avoid the kind of—I do not want to use the word "posturing"—black-and-white statements that sometimes alienate people.

People can have entrenched views.

Yes; thank you.

Would the minister like to add anything?

I do not have entrenched views.

We are delighted to hear it.

Sister Isabel summed up well what we hope to achieve. In doing this work, we are not criticising the committee. We want to work with the committee and to build on what it is doing. Our work is supplementary to the committee's work.

Obviously, we want to reach out and consult. The working group is consulting not only established religions, but other groups in society. For example, the group had a useful and positive day of engagement with young people at the end of April. We want to develop such work and are interested in any ideas that the committee has about how we can do that.

I was not trying to catch anyone out with my question. It may have dealt with a controversial view, but it is better to be honest about such things. I acknowledge that I got answers to my question.

Given that the Scottish Government and the minister are responsible for the strategic framework and its objectives, how will the Government measure whether the objectives have been achieved?

With great difficulty. No Government statistical office can measure prejudice, lack of tolerance or disrespect—those things cannot be counted out like currency. I am not criticising the question. However, we are talking about attitudinal change, which may take a long time.

In particular, it is important that part of our work focuses on young people in schools before views can become entrenched. We should not decline to take initiatives simply because it is not possible to count their outcomes and measure their results. I am sure that we would all support the aims of the work, which needs to proceed festina lente. We should not rush to produce a framework and, when a draft is produced, there should be the widest possible consultation on its terms, including consultation with the committee.

One possible measurement might be the extent to which you have engaged with people who are not the usual suspects in the wider consultation. That would be a worthwhile objective of the strategy. Sister Isabel seemed to suggest that that is one of the imperatives of her group.

That is a worthy aim. It must be recognised that some people are not ready to be engaged in this venture in Scotland. They may not be interested—let us be candid about that. Nevertheless, the approach that we are taking and the views that I sought to express in my opening statement will have the broad support of the majority of people in Scotland about where we should go as a nation that respects people who have different views. We can disagree with somebody's beliefs and views without disrespecting them. That is where we want to be, as a nation, and I see that as the tone of this work.

I agree strongly with the suggestion that education is the only way forward to achieve more interfaith dialogue and to include people who are not religious, as well. It is unfortunate that in modern-day Scottish society, stretching back quite a bit, faux religion—sectarianism—has been a way in which we have been able to measure the supposed opposition between religions. Many of the people who partake of sectarian attitudes and, potentially, violence really have no attachment to any church.

The First Minister has decided that the matter should come under the remit of the justice department because, unfortunately, the manifestation of religious belief in Scotland seems to be on the streets when people throw bottles at each other. Would one measurement of results be a drop in the number of such sectarian incidents and better attitudes towards people in that regard?

We all want to see that. To me, the odious sectarian behaviour that one sees from time to time is an expression not of religion, but of bigotry. It is an abnegation of religion and is rightly condemned by religious leaders.

The work that we are doing plays a role in combating bigotry and hatred. None of the faiths would do other than excoriate such behaviour—they all want to end behaviour whereby hatred is directed at somebody because of their beliefs in God or their faiths. I am no expert, but every belief that I have come across loathes and abhors such behaviour. We all want to move forward, and the initiative is playing a part, in a wider sense, in fostering respect and understanding, thereby taking on sectarian behaviour.

The Christian churches sometimes make statements together—each church does not necessarily make a statement on its own. I would love some of those statements to be made with people of faiths other than Christianity. Also, some of those statements could be extended to include the non-religious belief community, where appropriate.

I am a great believer in the values that are inscribed on the mace in the chamber: integrity, wisdom, justice and compassion. I often think that those are the values on which the new Scotland was built. They are values that can unite the political, the religious and the non-religious in our community. I would like there to be more dialogue about those values, more statements made together and more work undertaken together to make those values a reality in our life in Scotland.

A couple of people, including the minister, have referred to the role of education. Is the Government, as part of its work on the strategic framework, considering how the current legislation impacts on perceptions of discrimination? I am thinking particularly of the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 and its subsequent addendums. Does the Government have a view on how even the Act of Settlement impacts on the people of Scotland? There are potential issues of discrimination in relation to the 1918 act. Is a review of the current legislation to be part of the work on the strategic framework?

Hugh O'Donnell is aware that the First Minister takes the view that we should not support the Act of Settlement and that its terms must be ended. It states fairly directly that somebody cannot occupy a position in society because he or she is of the Roman Catholic faith. We take the view that that is wrong and have said so ever since the Scottish Parliament was set up. I remember Mike Russell making a speech along those lines back in 1999. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister, expressing that view, and I hope that it will receive broad if not unanimous support in the Parliament. I cannot believe that it can be right for any law to say that a Roman Catholic cannot do this; that a Protestant cannot do that; or that a Muslim, a Jew or a Sikh cannot hold a certain position. Prima facie, that would be discriminatory. I hope that that answers your question.

The point is well made, and I support that statement. However, the question was phrased deliberately to highlight two possible areas of contention—the Act of Settlement and the Education (Scotland) Act 1918. I would be interested to hear a similar statement on the latter.

We are all aware, to a greater or lesser extent, of the history that led to the creation of the 1918 act and the deep problems that there were—especially at the outset—regarding immigration into Scotland from Ireland, which led to great tensions. I hope that those tensions are now largely dissipated although, sadly, we still see a plume of reaction on football terraces from time to time.

We respect the rights of people to pursue different models of education for their children, and there are various different models in Scotland. Obviously, there are different views on the matter and I respect the opposing view that is expressed strongly by many people on a regular basis. That is a genuine view that I respect. Nevertheless, the view that I share with my colleagues is that there are different methods of education and that Roman Catholic schools fulfil a valuable and useful function in society. Roman Catholic schools in my constituency accept pupils of any or no faith.

I understand that that is true of all Roman Catholic schools.

Yes, although I have not studied the matter.

The policy does not apply to teachers.

We regard Roman Catholic education as positive, rather than largely as a matter of discrimination. Such education has produced positive results. What is taught about religion, belief and faith in schools is a controversial topic. We want all children to have the benefit of exposure to a positive message about behaviour in life. The strategic framework may help us to tackle the difficult task of addressing such matters in schools, as the various religions and organisations such as the Humanist Society of Scotland have much in common on the issue of how one should live one's life. I am not saying that it should be a working tool, but it may be of benefit to educationists in ensuring that children are taught in a way that develops respect and understanding.

You have indicated that the Act of Settlement is a reserved issue and is not part of devolved competence, but the 1918 act falls within devolved competence. Will discussion of the issue be included in the framework?

It is not for me to determine what is included in the framework. I will ask Sister Isabel Smyth to address the matter. However, I have made clear that we believe that the existence of Roman Catholic schools should be cherished, welcomed and supported. We will continue to take that view, although we will listen to what others with differing views have to say. I am not sure that such views are represented in the Parliament, although I may be wrong; if they are, I would be interested to hear them. Our view is that Roman Catholic schools should continue to exist. You are correct to say that that is a devolved matter, unlike the Act of Settlement.

The issue of separate schools has not arisen in the working group's discussions. When we thought about our remit, which is to develop good relations between faith and belief groups, we recognised that education was vital. The religious education that is offered in Scottish schools is second to none in the world; we have a good approach to the subject. We have not focused on the issue of separate schools, which has not been raised in any of our consultations. If it is raised, we will have to consider it, but I do not know where we will go with it.

I have not seen your consultations. Do they include set questions? If so, can you provide us with a copy of the questions that are sent out?

Yes.

To what extent, and by what measures, are you able to ensure that the consultations in which you engage involve the wider community and are not directed at the usual suspects—to use that phrase again—or self-referencers who claim to represent a given community? That was the basis of my original question.

We are using every opportunity that we have to consult people. That is difficult, because sometimes people who are not the usual suspects do not want to engage. Even if we issue a notice in a public newspaper inviting people to come to a meeting to engage in consultation with us, they do not turn up.

We are involving youth groups. We held a young people's event that brought together young people from all over Scotland who were not necessarily affiliated to religious communities. We are thinking of holding events for other groups, especially women, with whom it is often difficult to get in touch.

I recently attended a meeting of race equality officers. You might think that they would be among the usual suspects, but on the whole they are only just becoming engaged in interfaith issues. Their views are fresh and interesting.

We will go to LGBT groups, to the British Humanist Association, to pagan groups—we will go to groups that have not been involved with the major faiths or in past dialogues. We cannot get to everybody, unfortunately, but we can try our best.

You have spoken about the issues that were not raised during the consultation with young people, but could you give us a flavour of the issues that were raised? Obviously, those issues, and the issues that you will be considering, will have an impact on whether the committee decides to do any more work on the subject.

Among the young people, those who were religious often felt castigated. They therefore felt embarrassed and were not able to say openly that they were religious. They found that their religion was not understood, and they were thought of as odd if they were religious or had any kind of religious affiliation.

Between people who were religious and people who were not religious, there was a lot of misunderstanding as to what it means to be religious. Often both sets of people had the same values, the same views and the same outlook. However, society quickly puts people into boxes, and young religious people found that they had been put into boxes.

The young people were asking for better education, which I found very interesting. My background is in religious education and I am proud of what we do in Scotland, but many of the young people felt that not enough was being done in schools to help people to learn about one another's religions and to talk about the good and the bad sides—the problems—of religion. They felt that the importance of interfaith relations should be part of the religious education curriculum.

Many years ago, when I taught, I found that, although children might learn about other religions, they sometimes knew very little about their own.

That might be more true of Christianity than of any other religion. Reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education have shown that Christianity is the least well-taught religion in our schools. That happens for many reasons: for example, some teachers are afraid of Christianity and some teachers think that they know what Christianity is about and do not like it. The teaching of Christianity is complicated. However, it is interesting that children from Muslim or Hindu homes sometimes know more about their religion than children from homes that are nominally Christian know about their religion. There are problems with the teaching of Christianity in our schools.

This question might be challenging, as it runs against perceived wisdom. Why should the state have any responsibility for providing any type of religious education? Should that not be the responsibility of the faith group and the family? Why does it become a matter for the state?

I do not believe that religious education should be confessional. Religious education, in the sense of nurturing children in the faith, is the responsibility of the faith community and the family. However, to be as religiate—if you like—as we are numerate and literate, is vital. It is vital because of our history. It is hard to understand the world and the relationships between nations without understanding something about religion and religious conflict.

I believe that religions, on the whole, have tried to transmit values—even though they have not lived up to those values. It is important that children learn those values. I am committed to religious education. A child is not educated if they do not know something about religion. Countries that try to separate religious education are at a real disadvantage.

So at the most basic level you think that there should be comparative religious education.

Yes. It is about teaching values—

Rather than proselytising—

It is not at all about proselytising and confession. I sometimes think that many people do not understand what religious education is about. It is important that people and politicians in Scotland understand that we should be proud of the approach to religious education that has been promulgated here since the 1970s. Religious education is done well in some schools and not so well in others; we are not perfect. I feel that there is an underlying attitude that religious education in schools should be got rid of, but we would suffer if that were to happen.

You said that you believe in religious education. Do you think that children can be taught in one building, regardless of their faith or belief? Are you saying that separate schools are not necessary?

We do not necessarily have to have separate schools for good religious education to take place.

It is tempting to go into the issue in more depth. I am an ex-teacher and I know quite a lot about how religious education is taught in schools—I sat in as a support teacher many times. However, I will pull back from talking about that. We talked about sport and music and we could have in-depth discussions on those subjects, too. However, perhaps that is a matter for the working group rather than for the committee at this meeting.

Minister, in your letter you say that the Scottish Government's work on faith and belief relations

"runs parallel to the initiatives being developed to tackle religious intolerance".

Can you provide more detail on what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle religious intolerance?

I am conscious that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the working group on religion and belief relations, but if Marlyn Glen is asking about our policy on and approach to tackling sectarianism, I can respond.

You may answer in any way that you see fit, minister.

I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to tackling all forms of religious bigotry and that there has been no let-up in our resolve to rid Scotland of that disgraceful behaviour, which we cannot tolerate. I have devoted considerable time and effort to trying to achieve those objectives since I took on my ministerial responsibilities. Members of all parties should be vigilant and active on the issue, which transcends party politics. I have always hoped that there will be no partisan approach to the issue, particularly in the context of the topic that we are considering.

We plan to set up a new working group, in partnership with the Scottish Football Association and the police, to co-ordinate all our work in relation to football, including work on sectarianism. We are working to refresh and develop the education resource on sectarianism, "don't give it, don't take it", and we have funded YouthLink Scotland to develop an anti-sectarianism resource that is specifically suited to the youth work environment. We are working with chief police officers to monitor the use of football banning orders and to ensure that such orders are used effectively—much more work has been done and from the evidence it seems to me that the remedy has not been used to its full potential, although of course that is primarily a matter for the courts. We are funding the sense over sectarianism partnership, to empower communities in Glasgow and the Glasgow travel-to-work area to tackle sectarian issues that they have identified. We are developing a co-ordinated strategy for taking all that work forward.

My personal view, which I think is shared by many people, is that young people should be the key focus of our work. Sadly, and putting it bluntly, somebody of my age who displays sectarian behaviour and who is a bigot is unlikely to read the Official Report of this meeting, attend any summit—no matter how illustrious the co-attendees are—or be influenced unduly by exhortations from Government. Given that young people are still forming their views, approaches and attitudes, our main focus should be on helping them to understand that we are all the same underneath the skin or the football shirt.

That approach has led me, on a number of occasions, to engage in activities and formal ministerial engagements for schoolchildren with, for example, Glasgow City Council and theatre groups. I have not come to committee today armed with a chronological list of those activities, although no doubt it could be supplied. The committee should be in no doubt that this Government is absolutely committed to carrying on the not inconsiderable amount of work that we are doing on sectarianism. We will continue strongly to do so.

I will press you a little on the subject, minister. You mentioned police involvement. I am interested in the balance between the police's enforcement role and its role in tackling community problems, including sectarianism. Recently, I attended a crime prevention panel meeting at which the issue was very much to the fore. It was being underlined that the primary duty of the police is enforcement. Where does the balance lie?

As you say, convener, a balance is involved. The primary duty of the police is enforcement. Increasingly, however, the police force sees its role as extending to working in the community, crime prevention, working with young people and diversion courses. There is a balance to be had and I have great confidence that the police achieve it very well. Plainly, the police have to enforce the law and maintain order. Sometimes, they have to police difficult situations in which a lot of tension and anger is involved, not least in the policing of some football games.

Increasingly, the police also have a key role to play in taking forward the prevention and intervention agenda in working with young people. Just last Saturday, as Minister for Community Safety, I attended a conference in my constituency at which Constable Donnie Macdonald set out some of the huge work that Northern Constabulary is doing in its area to divert young people from antisocial behaviour that, I guess, in some cases may have sectarian elements to it—gangs and so on.

The Strathclyde Police violence reduction unit, which John Carnochan heads up, is regarded as doing ground-breaking work. I think that more is to follow.

That direct work of getting involved early with young people is key, for both diverting youngsters from crime and creating a generational change in attitudes towards sectarianism. I am immensely confident. Admittedly, I am in a privileged position, but I have met many young people who have clearly cast aside the baggage of the past. We are putting behind us the days when sectarianism was a massive social problem for Scotland. We are making progress, primarily with young people.

In terms of the balance, is the ultimate decision with police commanders or with the Scottish ministers? Have ministers issued any directive or is the matter entirely within the competence of divisional commanders?

We are not in the business of issuing directives to the police. The police are independent of Government and do their job under the statutory framework of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. I have not come to committee today furnished with a list of those statutory duties. The police have come to the conclusion that they can adopt that twin role. They have done so for the reason that doing more prevention work means that there is less enforcement work for them to do—more prevention work leads to less crime. The police do that extremely well.

The Government does not issue directives to the police; instead, we go out and meet police officers. For example, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is at such a meeting in Tayside today. I met the chief constable of Northern Constabulary and various other police officers on Saturday in relation to their work looking after people in custody in police stations and police cells and protecting vulnerable people. I would shudder in my boots at the prospect of giving orders to chief constables; that is not something that I plan to put in my agenda. I think that the police do an extremely good job of striking the balance.

I asked the question specifically because of an issue that was brought up last week. The kick it project has been running as a pilot for four weeks in Hamilton and it has worked very well, but community police officers have expressed concern that their main role is now enforcement—despite the project being exactly of the sort that you have described. It brought together children from all parts of the community, regardless of religion, to co-operate and to make things better in their community. At what point do the police consider that balance of how far to get involved with the community? At what point do they let go and hope that initiatives will be taken over? That is an interesting question.

Thank you for your detailed answer to the convener's question, minister. We are reassured that the programmes are continuing.

Bearing in mind the Equal Opportunities Committee's remit, can you say whether you consider that there are particular religious or faith groups in Scotland that are discriminated against?

In what way?

In any way at all. Do we have evidence that particular groups are discriminated against? Should we be worried about that?

Hugh O'Donnell has identified one particular group, although that is rather a small subset—people who aspire to be the spouse of the monarch. To be serious, I would hope that there is no legal discrimination. I think that every act of Parliament has to be checked over to ensure that it does not discriminate. That is now embedded in our legislation in various ways.

I do not think that any particular faith groups are discriminated against by law, but I do not think that it is legal discrimination that we are talking about here; the greater concern is that, among individuals and society at large, there is still a hangover from history, to which I alluded earlier. That is what we are trying to get to grips with. I hope that that answers the question.

I would certainly be surprised if there was any sort of discrimination against groups by law; the question applies to society more generally. My question was whether there is discrimination against particular groups; is there discrimination against people of no faith at all? Are they sufficiently included? Are they included in any consultations that you are carrying out?

Sister Isabel Smyth spoke about communities and community and religious leaders. I am sure that Ron McLaren would not see himself as a gatekeeper or leader or as someone who represents the views of a community.

No, he would not, although he is part of our group—he gives us access to the Humanist Society of Scotland. One of the big problems is how to gather or contact people of no belief if they do not come together in some way. We will do our very best to use the contacts that we have to talk to people. I cannot talk for any other group.

People who are visibly religious are sometimes discriminated against or feel that other people are prejudiced against them. We often hear stories about name-calling and so on concerning members of the Jewish community, who might dress in a particular way. That is the kind of thing that used to happen between Catholics and Protestants. A lot of Muslims might feel that people are prejudiced against them. We know from the press that there is often a suspicion of Muslims. They are afraid that people think that they are all terrorists, for instance, and that they do not believe that they are just ordinary people getting on with their ordinary lives, like the rest of us. To reiterate, there is discrimination against people who are obviously religious. I am sure that it is the same with sectarianism. When people wear certain colours, they stand out as having a certain affiliation and that can bring out prejudice.

It might be a little bit oblique, but I want to follow up on Marlyn Glen's point. My question is for the minister. It is not that long since the Educational Institute of Scotland issued guidance and advice to its members, stating that teachers who apply for a job or a promoted post in a denominational school have to get approval from the relevant church so that they can make their application on the ground of their religious belief and character. Does that strike you as being in any way discriminatory?

I would have to study the EIS guidance very carefully before I could offer an opinion. You said that it was issued in the past, so I do not know whether it still applies.

It was issued around July 2008.

Right. I would have to look very carefully at the guidelines to which you allude. There might be a legal question about discrimination for the education authorities to consider, or there might not be. It would be imprudent of me to express an opinion on a document that I have not seen. I have espoused clear principles about our approach, which is that there should not be discrimination in the workplace, the football ground, the school or anywhere else. That is the principle that we apply, so we will apply it to the task of scrutinising any practice in society that is brought to our attention. I would be very happy to look at that guidance further if the member wants to write to me about it.

I can tell you just now. It relates to a Glasgow court case about a promoted post application, and it ties very closely to the legislation and its descendants that I mentioned earlier, that being the 1918 act. Perhaps that will give the minister's officials an opportunity to see where the guidance fits into the framework as far as discrimination is concerned. I thank the minister for his consideration.

Minister, are you undertaking to write to the committee on that point?

Well, no. If the member wants to write to me about a particular case, I will look at it. He referred to a case that is going through the courts—

No, it has been through the courts, and an adjudication has been made.

I see. I have not seen that particular court decision. If the committee wants to raise the point with me, I am happy to look at it, and will do so if that is your view, convener.

The matter has been raised in committee so if the minister wants to reflect on it and reply to the committee, we will be pleased to receive his response.

I will await a letter from Mr O'Donnell then.

I am happy to do that.

Sister Isabel, do you have anything to add?

No.

Minister, your letter on the strategic framework suggested that the level of interfaith dialogue in Scotland is more advanced than that in England and Wales, which is fine. Why do you believe that to be the case?

In part, it might be because it is easier to get people together in Scotland, and that applies across the board. The population is smaller and it is easier to get together to discuss matters of mutual concern. I suspect that that might be part of it.

It might also be because of our past problems—bigotry, sectarianism, jobs for the boys. All those have been part of our history and, precisely because of that, there has been an imperative that our religious leaders should get together and work shoulder to shoulder against those problems, which is what they have done. There has been a compulsitor, or reason, to come together.

To be fair, large swathes of England have not had the mass immigration of people from different Christian faiths so there have not been the same pressures, other than perhaps in Liverpool. Perhaps there has not been the same imperative as there has been in Scotland—an imperative that has led us to see the need for working and coming together. If I may say so, that made worthy of its time the initiative that the former First Minister Mr McConnell took in bringing people together for a summit. It was necessary to show the leaders of the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic faiths coming together with political leaders to say, "No more" to sectarianism and that they would stand shoulder to shoulder against it. That demonstration was needed at that time.

Now, of course, we can take it as self-evident and read that that has achieved its purpose. We take it as a given that there is a united approach. That has been achieved, and it is good. I applaud the former First Minister for his work in the role, but we need to move forward now and build on the commitment. It has been expounded, and we do not really need another summit to prove it. It is already manifest, and we need to build on it by moving forward in some of the areas that I have described. However, we would welcome the involvement of the committee, and if there are any ways in which, as a Government and a committee, we could have joint public engagements, attending functions and school events together, I would be delighted to be involved.

You have pretty much answered my next question, which is about the UK consultation, "Face-to-Face and Side-by-Side: A framework for inter faith dialogue and social action". You said that Scotland does not necessarily have to be influenced by that in moving forward. Now that that consultation has closed, do you still perceive a manner by which the Scottish Government could work with the UK Government on such large issues as tackling religious discrimination and extremism in order to create more cohesive communities?

Yes. I would be happy to work with our friends in other Governments on these islands towards those objectives. When I attended the British-Irish Council to talk about my work to tackle the scourge of drugs, there was an encouraging non-partisan and consensual approach. I am sure that that will be the case on these issues, too.

Sister Isabel, are any other consultation events—apart from the one with young people—planned? If so, when and with whom?

They are in the melting pot, but the larger consultations have not actually been planned. However, we have had some meetings. For example, we will meet the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and I am going to meet leaders of the faith communities on 6 October. We have met local authority equality officers and I have met representatives of the Catholic Church and an ecumenical group interested in interfaith work. We are building up our consultation as we go on. The larger consultations have no date, but they are under discussion.

As there are no further questions, I thank all witnesses for what has been a stimulating evidence session. We wish Sister Isabel Smyth well with the project.

Meeting closed at 12:23.