Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:45 pm on 7 June 2000.
We now move to amendment 31, which is grouped with amendment 43.
I lodged amendment 31 after a significant debate at stage 2, on the issue of withdrawing children from sex education. Parents can—and occasionally do—withdraw their children from sex education in some local authorities. That is good practice, but not a legal right. Members do not need to take my word for that—I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to provide me with the legislation that allows for withdrawal specifically from sex education classes, but SPICe could not find it. Such provision exists in relation to religious instruction. However, the withdrawal of children from sex education is not a legal right, but simply good practice. I seek to give reassurance to parents who would like to know that that is their right. The words of ministers do not carry enough weight. It is important that that right is part of legislation—that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
At stage 2, I lodged a probing amendment, which sought to determine the views of the committee and the minister. At that stage, members indicated sympathy for the principle of the ability to withdraw children from sex education classes. However, I will be humble and honest and say that members of the committee were queuing up to condemn the fact that the stage 2 amendment was too far-reaching. Indeed, Mike Russell and others were worried that the effect of that amendment could be the creation of a national curriculum. They were worried that the effect on the curriculum would be devastating and that it would be possible to withdraw a child from English literature classes in which D H Lawrence or other authors whose work had a content of sexuality was being discussed.
I have listened to Mike Russell's argument, and those of other committee members, and I am happy to accommodate them. That is an important aspect of having the different stages of discussing the bill, so the amendment that I propose today limits itself to sex education, and does not deal with the discussion of sexuality in, for example, guidance or in English classes or, as it was so eloquently put, in discussions about plugs and sockets in the techie block. This is a genuine attempt to give many parents the reassurance of a legal right. My language has been careful and restrained, and I have attempted to attract cross-party support for the amendment.
Presiding Officer, would you like me to move on
It is up to you, Mr Monteith, so proceed if you wish.
I will happily sit down now.
I move amendment 31.
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I will address my remarks to both of Brian Monteith's amendments in the interests of time.
First, I will deal with amendment 31. I agree that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes, but I also believe that they already have that right. I do not know whether Brian Monteith has read the draft guidance on sex education, which of course will be given legal effect by section 51A of the bill. Paragraph 11 of that guidance states that
"in the event of a parent or carer concluding that he or she wishes to withdraw their child, arrangements should be made for the pupil to have alternative positive educational provision."
In view of that, I consider amendment 31 to be entirely unnecessary, and I ask Brian Monteith to withdraw it.
I understand the point that the member makes, but surely it has already been clearly shown, with regard to the guidance that will be issued, that local authorities shall only "have regard to" that guidance? As was clearly explained by the minister at stage 2, "have regard to" can mean that the local authority can ignore the guidance in the final analysis, so it does not provide a right because it can be ignored.
There is no doubt in my mind that local authorities will be obliged, when the bill becomes law, to "have regard to" the guidance. The guidance clearly gives parents the right, as they should have, to withdraw children from sex education classes. For that reason, I consider amendment 31 to be unnecessary.
I will turn my attention to amendment 43, which I will not support, because what it seeks to do is inappropriate. It seeks to take a few lines of what the Conservatives want to see included in the guidelines and to insert them completely and totally out of context into statute. I see that the Tories seem intent today on continuing their complete refusal to make any constructive contribution whatever to the debate. They are becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I will now refer to the Executive, because it is the Executive that has the power to settle the issue. We are within touching distance of settling this
In two weeks' time section 2A will be repealed, and rightly so, but I call on the Executive to make use of those two weeks, until stage 3 debate of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, to provide the clarity that is now needed to reassure parents about the context in which their children will be taught sex education, and once and for all to bring this issue to a close.
What we need are not the amendments lodged by the Conservatives, but three things. First, we need a clear, non-discriminatory reference to marriage in the guidelines. There should be recognition of the important place of marriage in society and of other forms of relationships, and a clear statement in the guidelines that children, no matter what their background, will not be stigmatised in the classroom. Secondly, we need an end to semantic arguments and an assurance that the guidance will make it clear that local authorities must also have regard to the guidelines. The Executive should provide that clarity for parents and stop indulging in semantics.
Will the member give way?
No.
Thirdly, where there is a reference to "stable family life" in the guidance, there should be a clear definition that tells parents that "stable family life" includes marriage and other forms of relationship. We need such a definition to settle the debate. What can any member possibly object to in that suggestion?
I call on the minister, in his summing-up, to reject the wrecking amendments lodged by the Tories.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The minister should take this opportunity to provide that clarity to Scottish parents and reassure them that they will have the protection that they require. That will bring the debate to a close once and for all.
As we have a number of items of business to get through before 5.5 pm, I will go straight to the minister.
Like Nicola Sturgeon, I will try to deal with both of Brian Monteith's amendments. Although I recognise the sentiments that lie behind those amendments—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Monteith has moved only amendment 31. Perhaps if Mr Peacock responds to amendment 31, Mr Monteith will have an opportunity to move his other amendment. Mr Peacock can then respond to that amendment. With respect, the debate is going the wrong way round.
No. When Mr Reid was in the chair, he called amendment 31, which is grouped with amendment 43. It is normal practice for members to address all the amendments in a group.
You said that it was all right to split the grouping.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Amendment 43 does not create a statutory guideline. I have previously pressed the minister on the form of words, and it is clear that the phrase "shall . . . have regard to" stops short of creating a statutory guideline. However, the wording "must have regard to"—which is the wording used in English legislation where statutory guidelines exist—would have taken us down the road of a national curriculum that none of us in this chamber wishes to travel. The amendment says that there shall be guidelines and that they shall include, but are not limited to
"marriage, parental commitment and stable family relationships".
What could be more acceptable than that? Before anyone says that I am trying to rank those aspects or to create a league system, I have no intention of demeaning, stigmatising or stereotyping those different forms of family relationship. I have made that clear by including that in my amendment.
My amendment seeks to accept that there will be guidelines; however, although the guidelines will be all-encompassing, they must include certain aspects of family relationships. That will not make the guidelines statutory; those parts of the guidelines will simply be included in the legislation. I see no difficulty in accepting the fact that the guidelines will contain more information, particularly in the light of Nicola Sturgeon's views.
Having rubbished everything that I have put
Will the member give way?
No, I am just finishing.
Nicola Sturgeon has lodged no amendments. The SNP's position changes all the time to suit the tabloids. The SNP blames us; at least we have been consistent.
I will deal with amendment 43 and then with amendment 31. The Executive has made its position clear on a number of occasions, both in the consideration of this bill and in the consideration of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. The issues raised in those amendments have been considered in depth at stage 2 debate of both bills, and amendments of this nature have been overwhelmingly rejected in committee.
I have said before that the amendments are unnecessary, given both the provisions that are already in place and the provisions of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, which set the legislative framework for the repeal of section 2A. In asking the Parliament to reject Brian Monteith's amendments, I am not asking members to reject people's concerns, rather to recognise what is already being done to meet concerns.
The amendments seem to disregard the safeguards that are already in place, or which are in the process of being developed. Section 26 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill provides for a new general duty on local authorities, when exercising powers
"which relate principally to children, to have regard to—
(a) the value of stable family life in a child's development".
That applies across the full range of local authority functions that relate to children, not just school education.
The term "stable family life" includes marriage, and we recognise its importance to the majority of our community. However, we are anxious not to create a hierarchy of relationships. Our provisions recognise today's reality that family units take many forms. We do not honour marriage by denying the reality of other relationships that are
In January, we announced a package of safeguards for the delivery of sex education in schools, which will be put in place before any repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986—
No, I will not give way.
The package of safeguards will be put in place before any repeal of section 2A comes into force. The safeguards will ensure that the best advice is available and that good practice continues after repeal.
We set up a working group to examine the range of materials dealing with sex education, in the light of the repeal of section 2A, and to consider the scope and general content of the package of safeguards. The group concluded that the package of safeguards is sufficiently complete, wide-ranging and robust to meet the concerns of the public, of parents and of teachers about the repeal of section 2A.
The group has already signalled that it sees the value in summary guidance for teachers, advice on how to consult parents and a package of advice for parents. The group has been asked to report on those matters to Sam Galbraith by 16 June.
We will all have access to the group's report before being asked to consider the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. Section 51A of this bill, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which amendments 31 and 43 seek to overturn, is a direct response by the Executive to address the concerns expressed by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The section provides for the statutory underpinning of guidance on the conduct of sex education, which is what the committee sought.
The section was considered in detail by the committee, and it was overwhelmingly accepted at stage 2. Amendment 31 relates to the "Right of parents to withdraw children from sex education". Parents do not need a new statutory right to withdraw their children from sex education. Parents may already do so if they wish.
I ask the Parliament to reject amendments 31 and 43.
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 7
For: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnston, Nick, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Young, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jenkins, Ian, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, Mr John, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew