Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Equal Opportunities Committee, 27 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001


Contents


Reporters

I apologise again to members of the public and press for having to change the order of the agenda. The committee reporters have now arrived and we will move on to item 3—reports from the committee's reporters.

Mr Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab):

I have held one meeting on religious issues. I will bring a report before the committee once I have built up a portfolio of reports on the various meetings that I plan to hold. I am not sure to what time scale I am working, as that depends on when the Executive or Donald Gorrie introduce a bill. I might have to speed things up, but at the moment I need to put in place meetings with two or three organisations from which I intend to take reports. I will keep the committee updated.

Committee members have a paper, which Michael McMahon circulated. Do members have comments on it?

Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):

I want to ask about the last recommendation, which is that the committee

"enquires of the Scottish Executive what research is underway, or planned, on an assessment of the impact of Catholic schools on Scottish society."

Did the Catholic Education Commission raise that point with Michael McMahon during his discussions?

Mr McMahon:

The CEC is concerned about the perceptions that exist out there. There is academic research from the Scottish Office—in the past—and the Scottish Executive, but it does not include the impact of denominational education. I wanted to highlight that the CEC has raised whether information exists to back up the arguments about denominational schools, one way or another. I thought that it was worth mentioning to the committee, so that we can identify whether that is the case and, if so, make it an action point.

Elaine Smith:

That is great. Is anything under way or planned at the moment? If not, do we want to make the recommendation slightly stronger? Michael has said that we should inquire of the Scottish Executive what is under way or planned. If nothing is under way or planned, do we want to ask the Scottish Executive to progress the matter?

Mr McMahon:

The report will be built into a portfolio of reports. Once we have information from different sources, it may be appropriate to say that we need clarification on the matter.

A simple inquiry would tell us what information exists. When we want to examine the information, we can ask the Scottish Executive to provide us with the information that it has or we can ask it to instigate research to provide the information that everyone needs. At the moment, it is not necessary for us to have the information. I have flagged up the fact that an organisation that, by its nature, is involved in denominational education was not aware of information other than one report from Professor Paterson.

Will you elaborate on the CEC's concern about Donald Gorrie's proposed bill?

Mr McMahon:

Donald Gorrie says that, based on his consultation to date, he does not think that his bill is relevant to whether denominational schools should exist. The CEC is concerned that the issue will be part of the dialogue and process of consultation on the proposed bill. The CEC wanted me to make it clear that it does not see denominational education as playing any part in sectarian division in Scotland. Whether the bill is introduced by the Scottish Executive or by Donald Gorrie, denominational education should not be seen in the debate as contributing in any way to sectarianism in Scotland. The CEC wants to make that point very strongly.

The bill would not seek to hinder that.

No, but the CEC is fearful—

It is concerned about rhetoric.

It is fearful that the debate would focus on that. We have seen contributions in the press—letters and articles—saying that the divisions between schools must be considered when aspects of sectarianism in Scotland are examined.

I can understand the CEC's concerns, but is it possible to stop that issue being raised?

Mr McMahon:

The CEC cannot do that, but it wanted to ensure that the issue was flagged up. It wanted to make it clear that its perspective, and that of the Catholic church, is that a discussion of denominational education should not play any part in the debate on sectarianism. The CEC believes that denominational education does not contribute to sectarianism. Indeed, it believes that the situation is quite the opposite. It argues that someone who is provided with a Catholic education will not become sectarian.

The ethos of Catholic education is to educate the whole person in a way that allows them to understand the differences between religions. The CEC does not want to see the position of Catholic schools being brought into question as part of the process of debate leading up to a proposed bill.

The CEC wants to have the issue flagged up.

Yes.

The CEC does not want that alley to be gone down.

The CEC is fearful that that might happen. It wants to ensure that that does not form part of the debate on sectarianism. As it has made that point, it is appropriate for it to be included in the report.

That is fair. There is a lot of misperception and misconception around the issue. Teachers have approached me to say that they are concerned that it could be the beginning of the end.

Mr McMahon:

Yes, teachers are fearful about that. They are not saying that, because a bill may be introduced, they believe that it will be the case, but they want to ensure that people do not allow the issue to become part of the debate about how to end sectarianism in Scotland. The CEC wants to make it clear from the outset that denominational education should not form part of the discussion.

Is the CEC making it clear that it is in general agreement with the intention of the bill?

No; I am not sure that it is convinced about the merits of the bill. It is aware of consultation on the bill and wants to see the consultation develop, but it does not have a clear view about whether the bill is good.

Perhaps it is too early for it to say.

Mr McMahon:

The CEC is concerned that, as soon as the process of having a bill begins—discussing the possibility—one of the dimensions that will immediately come to the fore will be denominational education. The CEC is an organisation that exists for the purpose of denominational education. It wanted to ensure that, as the Equal Opportunities Committee's reporter, I brought its concerns that that argument has started to develop to the committee's attention.

The Convener:

The CEC's full views about the proposed bill will be heard in due course, as part of the wider consultation process.

As members do not have any further comments, I seek the committee's agreement to the report's recommendations. The report recommends that the committee:

"? notes the report of the meeting

? agrees to send a copy of the Race Reporter paper and accompanying brief to Donald Gorrie and the NEBU"—

that is the non-Executive bills unit—

"? agrees to consider the Bill, on introduction, and provide a contribution to the relevant Lead Committee; and

? enquires of the Scottish Executive what research is underway, or planned, on an assessment of the impact of Catholic schools on Scottish society."

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to Elaine Smith's report. Members have a copy of Elaine's paper.

Elaine Smith:

Scottish Women's Aid wanted the meeting to be held. Initially, it was to be on the subject of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. A couple of dates had to be cancelled, so the meeting took place finally in October.

Part of my report looks beyond the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to issues that Women's Aid considers to be potential problems. Some of the report covers reserved issues and the remainder covers funding, networking and the tying together of the domestic abuse issue and the wider agenda of violence against women.

On rereading paragraph 6, I see that it might not be clear. I should explain that it concerns the situation of a woman who is fleeing domestic abuse and has rent arrears. If she goes into a refuge, she will not be able to get a tenancy because of those rent arrears, yet the cost to central Government of keeping the woman in the refuge is much higher than the cost of taking steps to cancel the rent arrears. The problem with that is that the issue straddles central and local government—the rent arrears are owed to local government.

The point that Women's Aid raises is interesting. A woman might take up a space in a refuge when that place was no longer useful to her and, by being there, block others from getting the space.

The deliberate mistake in my report is that there are no recommendations. I ask the convener whether I may read them now.

Yes.

Does Elaine know them now?

Yes. They are: first, that the committee notes the report; and, secondly, that the committee agrees to send a copy of the report to the relevant minister and to the Social Justice Committee.

I like the bit about the relevant minister.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 11:02.


Previous

Petition