Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you for that clarity, Professor Sutherland.

I take what you have just said, Allan, as a positive that the committee has been doing good work.

Last week’s meeting was very interactive, and I found it very productive—I am sure that other colleagues have talked about it, too. We enjoyed listening to people’s real-life experiences as well as those of people who are working on the ground. All committees should definitely go out and hear people’s real-life experiences; after all, we just sit in this building, making laws and policy. Although there is consultation, last week’s meeting showed how important it is to hear about real life.

Something that was highlighted last week and which has been talked about many times today is the issue of accountability. One particular point was that the Scottish Government gives out money for programmes; the people leading those programmes might not be qualified or have the experience, but they are given large sums of money, with no accountability and transparency. I have heard today about a lack of transparency; about the fact that it is very difficult to follow the money and find out how it is allocated and spent; and about a process failure and a lack of accountability. Who is accountable when it comes to finding out whether progress is being made over time and where the money from Government to councils is being used?

The scenario that I have set out is one that people told us about last week. They said that, when the money that is given out goes down the chain, the project managers who are put in place do not have the experience. Nonetheless, they are given these very large sums of money to run those programmes. Allan, you mentioned accountability from Government to council, and it would be good to hear your views on how accountability in programmes can improve. What more can the committee do? We have heard about the good work that we are already doing, but could we do more? Could we ask the minister and cabinet secretary the right questions when they are here later? What would you want us to ask them when it comes to accountability from the top right down to the bottom so that we ensure that that golden thread is there?