Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Official Report 644KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Sex Education in Schools (PE1918)

We have a couple of new petitions to consider. PE1918, by Kate Freedman, is a petition to improve sex education in schools. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance and implementing clear teaching rules, focusing on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses; puberty; LGBT sex, including asexuality; fertility; pornography and any other aspects that are deemed useful.

The petitioner conducted a survey of 150 students in their school and found that most people rated their period education at one to three out of 10. The petitioner references a general lack of knowledge by many young people surrounding sex and shares their own experience as a student. They felt that school sex education was lacking and subsequently sought more detailed information on YouTube.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition outlines the existing resources for relationships, sexual health and parenthood learning. Those resources are hosted on a central website, which was developed and published by a collaborative partnership of health boards and local authorities. The resources include learning activities and information on the topics raised by the petitioner.

The Scottish Government states that the curriculum is not mandatory and that it is up to teachers to decide which resources they deliver. It also indicates that it is committed to updating the current RSHP teaching guidance and to issuing that for public consultation in the new year.

The SPICe briefing provides background information on the current statutory guidance and indicates that the Scottish Government has been reviewing that over recent years. At the time of writing, neither the new guidance, nor the draft guidance, had been published.

It is some years since I was at school. No information was offered to us. That is not contemporary. I have drawn the petition to the attention of a number of younger people, who have all been in school more recently and should have benefited from the current information and practice. They universally said that it was absolutely rubbish. That very much supports the petitioner’s view of the quality of the education, although the young people were not terribly sure that they would have wanted it to be better either, so that is slightly at odds.

I think we would want to take further action to clarify the submissions that we have received. Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments?

I have one reflection from having previously been on the education committee. There are often calls for very specific things to be taught. That is not how our system works, which I guess also applies to the topic of relationships and sexual health. That is not something only for teachers to tell children about; it is a job for the whole community, or perhaps for families.

I suggest that we write to Education Scotland to ask how it is monitoring implementation of the current teaching resources. We might also want to hear from the Scottish Government on how the views of children and young people are taken on board and used to influence policy in this area. We probably also want to know when the public consultation will open and how it will be promoted to children and young people, and when the Government anticipates that the revised guidance will be in place.

I seem to recall that the education committee did some work in this area quite recently, although it might not have been that recently. Perhaps the clerks could find out. I realise that colleagues might wish to reach out to stakeholders, but I am keen that we do not duplicate work, so we should check on what has been happening in other areas.

Are members content to pursue our consideration of the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I very much take your point about calls for specific things to be taught. What is important is that what is taught is thought to be useful by those at whom it is ultimately aimed, and I think that that is where part of the issue lies. At the moment, the young people at whom what is taught in this area is aimed do not think that that is the case.

I suggest that we also write to each of the local authorities to get an assessment of what their current provision is. It might be helpful to get an understanding of how each local authority manages the provision of sex education in their schools. Some schools will have teachers who are specially trained, while in some areas, there might be a team that goes round different schools. It would be interesting to find out what each local authority is doing, and that might help to inform the petitioner.

While I do not in any way disagree with my colleague Paul Sweeney, I ask that we be thoughtful about how we proceed. We do not want to just generate lots and lots of correspondence. Perhaps we can do a bit of desktop research to find out what the differences might be from the point of view of guidance.

I think that Ruth Maguire’s suggestion that we check with the Education, Children and Young People Committee to find out when the issue might most recently have been considered is a useful one.

Okay. I am happy to rest on that.

There might be some further information in relation to local authorities that is already available, which we can obtain. I can remember the matter coming up at hustings in schools. It falls within a particular area, the acronym for which I cannot remember—is it PHSA?

We will reserve the option of writing to local authorities if we find that we do not have the further information that is required.

---

Gaelic (Local Authority Expenditure) (PE1922)

Our final new petition today is PE1922, from Douglas Capon, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to cancel all local authority expenditure on Gaelic expansion. We are considering this petition to abandon the expansion of Gaelic in what I think Ruth Maguire said was Gaelic week.

Yes—it is seachdain na Gàidhlig or Gaelic week.

The petitioner considers that there is no demand for Gaelic in the central belt, that funds are limited and should be spent wisely, and that there is no evidence of Gaelic being the “national” language of Scotland. The petitioner considers that money should not be spent on dual language road and rail signs, document and website translations, and local authority employee language education, as that has no economic benefit.

In the Government’s submission to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states that the Gaelic language has been

“spoken throughout Scotland for many centuries”

and that the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, which was designed to encourage and enable more people to use Gaelic,

“was passed with unanimous cross-party support.”

In addressing the petitioner’s concerns regarding signage, the cabinet secretary states that

“the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 places a duty on all local authorities across Scotland to promote Gaelic education”

and that there is growth in demand for Gaelic-medium education in the central belt. The Scottish Government advises that, to keep costs to a minimum,

“it is standard practice for Gaelic signage to be created as part of a replacement or renewal process.”

There is an implementation fund, which is open to bids from any public authority to help meet any project costs or development associated with its Gaelic language plan, including activities involving signage or staff training.

The petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government submission suggests that, in his view, there is confusion between demand for Gaelic and demand for smaller class sizes. He also points out that figures on how much is being spent have not been provided.

Bòrd na Gàidhlig also submitted a response to the petition, outlining the demand for Gaelic-medium education. It highlights 2011 census data illustrating that central belt local authorities accounted for 30 per cent of those living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic. The submission also details examples of economic benefits and research to support that position.

The Scottish Government’s budget 2022-23 sets out its funding to support Gaelic and the Scottish Government has stated that it is committed to increasing the numbers using and learning Gaelic, will maintain its support for Gaelic education, arts and broadcasting, and plans to introduce a languages bill in the current parliamentary session.

It occurs to me that I do not know what the comment that central belt local authorities have 30 per cent of those living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic actually means—it does not tell me how many people that represents.

Do we have any recommendations that we would like to consider? I would be happy to hear from Ruth Maguire.

11:45  

Mòran taing—thank you, convener.

We have been given clear evidence on Gaelic and its use in Scotland. The Gaelic language has been spoken throughout Scotland for many centuries. It is not the only language of Scotland but is one of Scotland’s languages and should command equal respect with the other languages of our nation.

There are many economic benefits. The petitioner’s claim that there is no evidence for a desire to support the Gaelic language throughout Scotland is not backed up by the evidence. In my constituency in Ayrshire there is a Gaelic-medium primary school. Calls for such education are parent led—they do not come from the Government. Every party in the Parliament is committed to Gaelic and supports education, arts and broadcasting. As you said, convener, there are plans to introduce a languages bill in the current session. For all those reasons, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

As Ruth Maguire says, minority groups and cultures, and their languages, should be protected in Scotland. It is not only Gaelic that is spoken across Scotland; there is also Doric and other languages. Gaelic should be encouraged and given the resources to thrive. I represent a central belt constituency and I know that many of my constituents go to Gaelic classes. I fully support the suggestion that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I have just had an answer to my earlier question: there are 87,000 people living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic, so if the central belt represents 30 per cent of them, that would be 26,100 people across a significant number of local authorities.

We have a recommendation before us to close the petition. Are we content to proceed on the basis of the recommendation made by Ruth Maguire and supported by David Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee thanks Mr Capon for his petition. Given the Government’s commitment to Gaelic education we are unable to take the petition forward and will close it.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting is on 20 April, after the Easter recess.

11:49 Meeting continued in private until 12:05.