Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for all the information that you have provided so far.

My question is about uniformity. Last year, I was speaking to mothers at a Glasgow mosque, who told me about a certain aspect of education—it was a form of sexual education—that they felt was not appropriate, especially given their religious background. They went to the school, which is in Newton Mearns, and spoke to the headteacher, who agreed that it was fine for their children not to go through that education.

However, in the same room were parents whose children were relatives of those children but went to a different school. While one school said that it was fine to listen to the parents, the other school said no, and that, basically, the children were going to be taught that education. Do you see any difficulties or issues arising from the lack of uniformity among schools? The children could all be from one family, but the approach differs.

Thank you. The earlier panel spoke a lot about a precedent possibly being set that would affect other areas. I have introduced the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which has provisions on mandatory education, but I have also included a parents’ right to opt the child out of getting that education.

If the bill that we are discussing passes, would it set a precedent such that when children come forward, parents will not be given the rights that they are due? Children could say, “Hold on, we do not want to learn this,” because a precedent has been set. Is that a concern? The witnesses on the first panel had a lot of concerns around that, and they mentioned it quite a few times.

I thank the witnesses for all the information that you have provided so far. I asked this question of the previous witnesses. It centres on the ability of children to make their own decisions. We know that children under the age of 18 cannot serve as jurors, cannot get a credit card and cannot make many other decisions. How will teachers determine which child is capable of participating in religious education and observance? Should there be some kind of assessment?

I want to give an example of a scenario. If two children were to have different views from their parents and one child is seen as capable of withdrawing from religious education and the other is not, would it not be the case that one child is given more rights than the other?

If nobody else wishes to answer the question, I will come back to you on that, Melissa. Are we leaving it up to teachers, then? Would it not seem questionable to the parents if the age of deemed capacity differed from one child to another? The Law Society might want to say something about that. Might there be a legal case on this later on?

On that point—

Thank you for that, Rachel.

Professor Sutherland, I go back to something that you said. You mentioned a parent wanting to withdraw their child. If a precedent is set—I am taking into consideration what Rachel said, too—it is not the parent, but the child, who is withdrawing. Under the bill, a child could make a decision. If a precedent is set, what if the child decides not to go ahead with attending lessons in any other subject? It is not always on the parent. I know that you said that it may not be right for a parent to withdraw their child, but the bill could set a precedent that the child could make a decision, which could be the opposite of what the parent decides.

Sorry, I should say that when I talked about sexual education, I was not talking about the usual sexual education that schools provide under statute; I was talking about educating children on matters such as trans rights, which Muslim parents did not want. I was not referring to the normal syllabus, which I had when I went to school, but something different that the school brought in.

Good morning. My question centres on the ability of children to make their own decisions. We know that children under the age of 18 cannot serve as jurors or hold a credit card, and there are many other decisions that they cannot make. How will teachers determine which child is capable of participating in religious education and observance? Do you think that there should be some kind of assessment?

In a scenario in which two children have different views from their parents, but one child is seen as capable of withdrawing from religious education and the other is not, would one child not be given more rights than the other? The children might come from the same family.

I spoke to the witnesses on the first panel about a scenario that took place in a religious setting—in a mosque. At a round-table event, parents told me that they did not want their children to learn certain things. They went to the school, the school understood and the children withdrew. At the same round table, there were other parents who belonged to the same family, whose children went to another school, but the school did not allow the children to withdraw and decided that the children should carry on that education. Will the fact that there is no uniformity across schools become an issue?

I have one more question. In panel 1, there was a lot of talk about precedents being set. We are talking about religious education, which is one thing, but what about the precedent that is being set for other subject areas? For example, I have a member’s bill—the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill—currently going through Parliament, and I have put in it a provision that education on domestic abuse should be mandatory. However, I have also put in that parents have the option to withdraw their children from such a course.

I would like to hear the witnesses’ views on whether, if a precedent is set in the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill, it means that if we jumped from the subject area that we are considering today, which is religious education, to another subject area in school, we would have to comply with that precedent. Could people bring that forward and set it in law in a different area? I would especially like to hear the Law Society’s understanding of that.

Oh, right—okay. I was just going to ask Elaine Sutherland another question on the same point. Sorry, Rachel—on you go.