|
|
SP Paper 89 |
Session 1 (2000)
|
SUBMISSION FROM
OUTRIGHT SCOTLAND
Outright Scotland is
Scotland’s national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights
organisation. We have been campaigning with other groups for changes
in Scottish society since 1969.
Outright has called for
repeal of "Section 28" for many years and, as the Committee
will be aware, we have been active with other LGBT groups in the debate.
We warmly welcome the Executive’s commitment to repeal Section 28.
Our detailed arguments
for repeal of Section 28 are set out in our submission to the Executive’s
consultation (see below). We associate ourselves with the evidence
submitted today to the Equal Opportunities Committee by our colleagues
from other LGBT organisations.
We wish to highlight
the impact on equal opportunities of the campaign to retain Section
28 and address some of the issues raised. This is important as such
high-profile, well-funded negative campaigns may have a serious effect
on Scottish society in the future. This should not, however, detract
from the importance of the arguments FOR equality of treatment and
FOR an inclusive democracy in Scotland.
- Bullying in Schools
The most important
problem with Section 28 is its effect on young people. Ronnie Convery,
spokesperson for the Catholic Church, told this committee that those
who support repeal are guilty of "shifting" the argument.
"Originally [those supporting repeal] said that the section
was a problem because it prevented teachers from talking about homosexuality
in class, the counseling of pupils confused about their sexuality
and proper measures against homophobic bullying. When those concerns
are answered, the argument shifts and people say "It is not
about that at all. It’s really about stigmatising a group in the
population." (Official Report, 6/3/2000 Col 427/8)
Our argument has not
shifted. Concerns about marginalisation and bullying of young people
and about the restraints on teachers have not been answered. The
true extent of homophobic bullying in Scottish schools is unknown.
However, several recent academic studies have revealed the existence
of wide-spread homophobic bullying in our schools.
A 1999 study in Edinburgh
(see below) found that well over a third of interviewees reported
that they had been bullied at school or college and 10% reported
ill-treatment at the hands of school staff. A similar 1999 Glasgow
study found almost one third of interviewees believed their education
was negatively affected by homophobia and more than half experienced
overt forms of homophobic social exclusion at school.
Ann Allen in her evidence
to this committee (Col 419/20) asserts that there is no evidence
to support the Executive’s view that Section 28 inhibits teachers.
However, a University of London Report has shown that, in England
and Wales, 80% of schools said that they would benefit from clarification
of the implications of Section 28 and more that half said that Section
28 made it more difficult for them to meet the needs of lesbian,
gay and bisexual students. Ann Allen’s support for further research
would be welcome.
Despite the growing
body of evidence, those opposed to repeal of Section 28 deny knowledge
of homophobic bullying. A few anti-repeal campaigners who are teachers
have stated that they have never been approached for support by
a victim of homophobic bullying which is likely to say more about
them than about the reality of anti-gay bullying.
Others point to a lack
of evidence yet condemn attempts to monitor the incidence of homophobic
bullying. When Edinburgh City Council proposed that physical and
verbal homophobic bullying be monitored one Nick Seaton of the Campaign
for Real Education was opposed (Evening News 8/1/2000). An unnamed
teacher said "I’ve never found any evidence of actual homophobic
bullying anyway. This is a witch-hunt in a lot of respects."
The Executive-sponsored
Anti-Bullying Network says homophobic bullying is a problem in Scottish
schools. Their chairman, Andrew Mellor notes that "by the careless
use of words such as sissy or by simply failing to challenge homophobic
name-calling [teachers] can be perceived as giving tacit approval"
(Times 17/3/2000) to bullying. The same Nick Seaton is quoted as
saying that attempts to
ban verbal homophobic
bullying were "political correctness gone absolutely mad"
and "totally unacceptable".
Failure to take proper
steps to challenge homophobic bullying may in future result in large
damages awards against schools and local authorities. Homophobic
bullying demeans all pupils. All pupils have an equal right to education.
Achieving this requires the repeal of Section 28.
- Community groups
The other main effect
of Section 28 has been to deny community groups access to local
authority support, evidence for which is set out in Section 28 -
the repeal of "vindictive Tory legislation" (1999 SCOLAG
144). Contrary to the assertions of those opposed to repeal, this
is incompatible with equality of opportunity.
Campaign of misinformation
on repeal of Section 28
LGBT people do not
use the term "homophobe" lightly. Every group which complains
about discrimination is accused of being over-sensitive by those
opposed to equality. The campaigners who have promoted prejudice
against LGBT people in Scotland are now implying that we call them
"homophobic" without justification.
As shown below, most
people in Scotland are in favour of tolerance and fair treatment.
Following an intense campaign of misinformation they may be against
repeal of Section 28 but that does not mean that they are homophobes.
The campaign against
repeal began with Ann Hill of the Scottish School Boards Association
(SSBA) saying that Section 28 protects young children from exposure
to "gay" pornography (Scotsman 14/12/99). Section 28 does
no such thing. As we know, exactly the same safeguards against inappropriate
materials are there for both "homosexual" and "heterosexual"
material and repeal of Section 28 simply has nothing to do with
pornography in schools.
Some Church leaders
have also seen fit to promote intolerance and discrimination against
LGBT people: in other areas some of these leaders have taken a stance
against bigotry. In particular, Cardinal Winning has allowed himself
to become a focus for anti-gay prejudice by referring to lesbian
and gay people as perverts (eg Scotsman & Times 18/1/2000) which
is hardly the language of reasoned and respectful debate. The Cardinal
later apologized for his comments (Scotsman 24/1/2000). It is important,
however, to recognize that many other church leaders have supported
repeal and have been willing to engage in reasoned debate.
Perhaps the clearest
evidence for a lack of good faith on the part of those opposed to
repeal is the Keep the Clause campaign, bankrolled by Brian Souter
to the tune of £500,000. Keep the Clause was launched on the 19th
Jan 2000, AFTER the consultation period on repeal of Section 28
had finished. The man chosen by Souter to head the campaign, Jack
Irvine, produces virulently homophobic material in his Daily Record
column, referring to "slobbering old queers" and "sleazy
old perverts". Clearly these campaigners had no interest in
a reasoned debate.
There is a real danger
that we will descend into the sort of divisive and emotive political
campaigns seen in America where money and "negative advertising"
seems to determine the outcome of elections.
Keep the Clause have
used the slogan "Protect our Children" to demonise our
community and portray lesbians, gay men and bisexuals as a threat
to society and to children. This is a profound insult to our community,
to parents and teachers who support repeal and to Scottish society
as a whole. Such tactics have been used in the past to incite violence
against other minority groups and should be firmly rejected.
- Scotland remains a tolerant country
Scotland remains a
tolerant country despite the tactics of Keep the Clause and others.
Certainly, opinion
polls show that a majority of people are against "promotion
of homosexuality" and the provision of "gay sex lessons"
in schools. This is hardly surprising. However, as neither of these
is being proposed such polls merely reflect a fear of something
that will not happen.
The Daily Record, which
has run a virulent and ill-informed campaign against repeal, conducted
an "exclusive Record poll" and claimed "two-thirds
[66%] of Scots believe the Government (sic) should drop their bid
to allow gay sex lessons in schools" (D Record 19/1/2000).
But no one is suggesting that "gay sex lessons" be introduced.
But in the same polls,
when people are asked about tolerance of difference, they overwhelmingly
support the promotion of tolerance in schools. Scotland is not the
backward, prejudiced country Keep the Clause dream of.
Sunday Herald/Mori
poll in January (SH 23/1/2000) A total of 83% said that schools
should promote tolerance of homosexuality.
59% said schools should
teach that homosexuality is morally neutral and should be tolerated.
(68% of parents agreed). Only 14% said schools should teach children
that homosexuality is wrong and should not be tolerated. (Only
11% of parents agreed). 60% said they disagreed with Cardinal Winning’s
view that homosexual relationships were a perversion. 62% of
Catholics disagreed with Cardinal Winning.
Despite this, 60% said
that the ban on "promoting the teaching of homosexuality in
our schools" should remain. This shows the confusion spread
by Keep the Clause and the unfortunate effect of pollsters misrepresenting
the very words of Section 28 which does not ban the "teaching
of homosexuality".
When the Scottish School
Boards Association finally conducted their own survey they found
that 51.5% of school boards supported repeal either after consultation
or without further ado (Sunday Herald 5/3/2000).
- Conclusion
Scotland has witnessed
its first attack on the principle of equality of treatment for all
Scots which underpins its new Parliament. Those who oppose repeal
of Section 28 have run a deeply unpleasant and potentially damaging
campaign. However, as opinion polls show, Scottish people do not
want Scotland to be an intolerant country.
In the interests of
protecting ALL our children Section 28 must be repealed and prejudice
and reaction rejected.
Brian Dempsey
Assistant Secretary
Outright Scotland’s submission on the
Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Bill for the Equal
Opportunities Committee.
10th January
2000
Stephen Wilson
The Scottish Executive
Dear Mr Wilson,
We should like to make
the following submission to the consultation paper Standards in
Public Life. Outright Scotland is Scotland’s democratic, national
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organisation. We have
been campaigning for changes in Scottish society since 1969.
Our response is limited
to expressing our support for the Executive’s intention to repeal
Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Please note that throughout
our response we refer to "Section 28" rather than S2A
as this is how the provision is generally known.
Section 28 must be
repealed for two reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, it is seen
as legitimizing homophobic bullying in schools. Secondly, it results
in the refusal of local authority support to local initiatives based
not on the merits of the application but on wrong-headed interpretations
of the impact of Section 28.
We refer you to the
enclosed article from the October 1999 edition of SCOLAG Legal Journal
written by our assistant Secretary, Brian Dempsey.
- Bullying at school
The extent of bullying
in Scottish schools is unknown. More research and monitoring is
required.
Two reports published
in 1999 have, however, highlighted the damage done by Section 28
to people living in Scotland. Poverty and Social Exclusion of Lesbians
and Gay Men in Glasgow found that almost one third of interviewees
believed their educational achievements were negatively affected
by attitudes to their sexuality. More than half the people surveyed
experienced overt forms of social exclusion based on homophobia
while at school.
The report Experiences
and Perceptions of Violence and Intimidation of the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Communities in Edinburgh shows that well
over a third of interviewees reported that they had been bullied
at school or college and 10% reported ill treatment at the hands
of school staff.
A recent University
of London Report has shown that, in England and Wales, 82% of schools
surveyed were aware of homophobic bullying yet only 6% of schools
made reference to the unacceptability of such attacks in their anti-bullying
policy. 80% of schools said that they would benefit from clarification
of the implications of Section 28 and more that half said that Section
28 made it more difficult for them to meet the needs of lesbian,
gay and bisexual students. Only one in four schools consider their
lesbian, gay and bisexual students and staff worthy of inclusion
in their equal opportunities policies.
- The school response
Failure to take proper
steps to challenge homophobic bullying may result in large damages
awards against schools and local authorities. While the Scottish
case Scott v Lothian Regional Council (1998 GWD 33-1719) suggests
that pupils cannot win damages when ineffective school policies
have resulted in the denial of their right to education due to bullying,
European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence would seem to be developing
in the opposite direction.
In the cases arising
from X (Minors) v Bedforshire County Council ([1995] 2 AC 633) the
Commission has found that the local authority’s failure to protect
four children who suffered abuse at the hands of their parents and
the subsequent protection from damages claims given to public bodies
in the UK was a breach of the convention. The protection from damages
cases given by courts to inept public bodies was held to be a denial
of the victim’s right to a fair trial.
If it is thought undesirable
that education budgets be depleted by claims from current and former
pupils whose life-chances have been undermined by bullying then
the answer would seem to be to ensure that all schools have effective
anti-bullying strategies. All pupils have the right to education.
Achieving this requires the repeal of Section 28.
- Community groups
The other main effect
of Section 28 has been to deny community groups access to local
authority support. Wendy Alexander comments that repeal will help
such groups "not only in their work in the gay and lesbian
community itself but through that work in making a wider contribution
to our community life in general."
We would agree with
Ms Alexander and refer you to the detail of the enclosed article
which chronicles some instances of local government difficulty with
Section 28. It should be noted that the very meaninglessness of
the legislation which Professor Norrie exposes has allowed local
authorities to deny grants in circumstances where Section 28 could
not possibly be effectively invoked.
Campaign of misinformation
on repeal of Section 28 There has been a degree of misinformation
on the repeal of Section 28. For example, many commentators say
that Section 28 bans the promotion of homosexuality. As you will
be aware such an assertion cannot be justified by even a cursory
examination of the text of Section 28. Section 28 bans the promotion
of the acceptability of homosexuality as a family relationship (our
emphasis) which is a different matter. The fact that those supporting
retention of Section 28 are required to misrepresent the very terms
of the legislation indicates the dishonesty of their position.
The leadership of an
organisation called the Scottish School Boards Association (SSBA)
was recently quoted in the Scotsman newspaper as saying that Section
28 protects teachers from being forced to expose young children
to "gay" pornography. Section 28 does not say anything
about pornography. The SSBA leadership seemed to imply that there
are currently no safeguards against teachers being forced to expose
children to heterosexual pornography. In reality, the same safeguards
against inappropriate materials are there for both "homosexual"
and "heterosexual" material and repeal of Section 28 simply
has nothing to do with pornography in schools.
If the leadership of
the SSBA knows that Section 28 has nothing to do with pornography
then they are cynically using children for their own political ends.
If the SSBA leadership really believe that repeal of Section 28
would bring gay pornography into Scottish schools then they are
strangely deluded. It has been reported that the SSBA leadership
did not consult its members before making this political intervention.
- Commitment to repeal of Section
28
In the introduction to the Improvement
in Scottish Education Bill, Education Minister Sam Galbraith said
"The Scottish Executive ... will place children at the centre
of its concerns. We will work to ensure that each and every child
realises his or her potential." This requires the repeal of
Section 28. A recent NOP poll carried out for Channel 4 which indicated
that, despite the mis-information surrounding the issue, 61% of
parents in the UK want Section 28 repealed.
Repeal of Section 28 is not about the
detail of what gets taught in the classroom. Nor would repeal stop
teachers from pointing out that some elements in society find the
existence of LGBT people problematic or controversial. Repeal is
about removing an obstacle to social inclusion and thereby raising
attainment.
There is growing evidence that school
can often be a place where the challenge for lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgendered people is simply to survive. Schools cannot achieve
excellence if there are young people feeling isolated and frightened
or are being bullied. The failure of schools to take effective action
against homophobic bullying degrades everyone, victim and perpetrator,
"gay" and "straight".
Section 28 is a barrier to ensuring
that Scottish education is both equal and fair. It has a "chilling"
effect on setting appropriate educational objectives and on the
ability of schools to take corrective action when incidents of exclusion,
bullying, harassment or assault occur. We support the Executive’s
efforts to have Section 28 repealed.
Alec Deary
Secretary
SUBMISSION FROM THE PRESBYTERY
OF ROSS
3 February 2000
The Chief Executive
The Scottish Parliament
George IV Bridge
EDINBURGH EH99 lSP
For the attention of the Scottish Executive
Dear Sir or Madam
I enclose an extract minute of meeting
of the Church of Scotland Presbytery of Ross re clause 2A of the Local
Governrnent Act 1986 which is Clause 28A in the Legislation South
of the Border.
At Dingwall on 1st February
2000 the Presbytery of Ross met and was constituted with prayer and
resolved inter alia
"The Presbytery of Ross believes
that the present statute (i.e. Section 2A of the Local Government
Act 1986) does not inhibit the discussion and knowledge of homosexual
matters, nor counselling regarding these matters within the School
environment. Presbytery believes that this should be clarified. Presbytery,
therefore, considers that the repeal of this section is unnecessary."
extracted by me at 27 Riverford Crescent,
Conon Bridge
Roderick Mackinnon
Clerk of Presbytery
SUBMISSION FROM THE SALVATION
ARMY
OUR REF: SS/JF/KD/2000 18th February
2000
The Salvation Army recently
made a submission to the First Minister, Donald Dewar, on Section
2A. Clause 28. You may already have received the document but if not,
I am enclosing a copy for the consideration of the appropriate Committee.
Also enclosed are two
copies of The Salvation Army 'War Cry' dated 12 February which contains
a public statement on this important matter.
Thank you for giving
consideration to these documents.
Your sincerely,
John Flett (Colonel) SCOTLAND SECRETARY
Enc
SUBMISSION FROM THE SALVATION ARMY
OUR REF: SS/JF/KD/SEC(28)/2000 10th
February 2000
Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP MSP First Minister
The Scottish Parliament
EDINBURGH EH99 1SP
Dear First Minister,
RE:THEPROPOSED REPEAL
OF SECTION 2A(28) LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT1988
The Commissioner Alex
Hughes, the United Kingdom leader of The Salvation Army, recently
wrote to the Secretary of State for Education conceming the proposed
repeal of Section 2A(28) of the above Act.
As the Salvation Army's
Scotland Secretary I am writing to you on his behalf to share with
you the views of The Salvation Army on this important matter.
We welcome your recognition
that marriage is still the ideal context for raising children and
your assurances regarding guidelines for teachers in recent discussion
on the repeal of "Section 28". However, we believe that by repealing
this clause, the Scottish Executive will potentially be harming both
children and the family unit.
We are concerned that
we cannot predict the result of a repeal, and feel the floodgates
could be opened, ultimately causing great hurt to both parents, teachers
and our children. We are also very aware of the increasing pressures
on young people to experiment with heterosexual sex at a younger age,
without the additional pressure of self-questioning regarding homosexual
sex.
As an international church
and charity which supports and helps any person regardless of sex,
race or religion, The Salvation Army believes that, contrary to the
Executive's view, the proposed repeal would increase discrimination
and result in more bullying in our schools. We can easily envisage
a situation where, due to active promotion of homosexuality in schools,
children will grow up feeling alienated if they fail to conform.
We also have great reservations
concerning certain materials which are currently available in print
and on the Internet even with "Section 28" in place. It is of
utmost importance that young people receive sex education in the context
of commitment, fidelity, love and well thought through decisions.
A considerable amount of these materials do not include any of the
above. Tighter regulation and consultation with parents and governors
would therefore be welcome.
In conclusion, we would
like to ask the Scottish Executive to re-think this proposal and not
repeal "Section 28". We would also like you and your parliamentary
colleagues to be aware that many members of The Salvation Army will
be thinking and praying for you all and the decisions that you will
need to make in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
John Flett (Colonel) SCOTLAND SECRETARY
SUBMISSION FROM THE SCOTTISH CIVIC
FORUM
"The Executive and
this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public
service. We therefore intend to change the previously announced
local government ethics bill to a local government and public
bodies ethics bill. ……" Minister for Communities, July 1999
Introduction
- Following the announcement of the
Parliamentary programme in June 1999, the Scottish Civic Forum conducted
a survey of its registered organisations to establish in which of
the legislative proposals they were interested. A number of organisations
indicated that they would be interested in participating in a meeting
with other interested parties to discuss the legislative proposals
contained in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland)
Bill.
- The Bill establishes a Standards Commission;
provides for the introduction of codes of conduct for local authority
councillors and members of NDPBs; and gives councils and NDPBs a
duty to help their members to comply with their code. It also repeals
Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 which prohibits local
authorities from intentionally promoting homosexuality or publishing
material with the intention of promoting homosexuality or of promoting
the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality
as a pretended family relationship.
Methodology
- Trudi Sharp of the Scottish Executive
Local Government Division and Dr Alison Elliot, Convener of the
Church of Scotland Church and Nations Committee were invited to
participate in the meeting and to provide input from their respective
perspectives.
- Alison Elliot gave an introduction
setting the context of the proposals and Trudi Sharp gave a presentation
on the background, content and remaining timetable for the Bill.
Workshop participants identified key areas of concern to them and
discussion focused on those areas. The key points were then fed
back to the plenary. Participants in the meeting were encouraged
to take from the meeting the information they needed to be able
to formulate their own organisation's response to the consultation.
A summary of comments made during the meeting would also be compiled
and submitted by the Scottish Civic Forum. A list of those organisations
registered for the meeting is attached.
Comments on the Draft Bill
- Discussion split into the two key
themes of the Bill ie the Ethical Standards framework and repeal
of Section 2A.
General Principles (Annex C) and Codes
of Conduct
- It was noted that the terms of the
Nolan principles had been extended considerably in Annex C of the
consultation. It was thought that the extension of the number of
headings ran the risk of muddying the waters. Some of the headings
covered very similar issues eg "honesty", "integrity" and "propriety"
and could be combined. There were concerns that the current language
used in the Annex could be open to interpretation and legal challenge.
For example, under the heading of Propriety the Annex states
"As well as avoiding actual impropriety, you should avoid any appearance
of improper behaviour." The word "appearance" was a "soft" term
which could not be effectively enforced and similar language was
used elsewhere in the Annex. An additional key concern was that
the
drafting to some degree
created a perception that corruption was a regular feature of the
system rather an abnormality. This could be a disincentive to people
to stand for public service. A more positive style of drafting which
set out the standards expected in a more "visionary" way would be
desirable to support the concept of public service as an honourable
profession.
- There was particular concern over
the use of the word "sanction" at Clause 20(3) which deals with
action which can be taken by the authority on the basis of an interim
report. It was considered that in this instance (as opposed to Clause
18 (5) which relates to circumstances where wrongdoing has been
found to have occurred) it would be wrong to refer to action taken
as being a "sanction" since that term implies a wrongdoing which,
at that point, will not have been confirmed. In other words presuming
that the councillor under investigation has already been found guilty.
- There was a concern that there needed
to be some form of protection for "whistleblowers" and that there
should be some provision made in the Bill to secure that.
- The draft Bill states at Part 1, Clause1
(4), that "Ministers may…..invite such association of councils as
seems appropriate to them to draw up and send them a suggested councillors'
code." In practice, this is likely to be COSLA. There were concerns
about this limited range of consultation and views were expressed
that there ought to be a much broader consultation on the content
of the model codes, perhaps through the Scottish Civic Forum. The
view was also expressed that the CSG principles of accessibility
and openness should be applied to the codes.
Standards Commission/Chief Investigating Officer
- There was concern that there is no
requirement for all reports of the Chief Investigating Officer to
be published ie when it was considered that no further action was
required. It was thought that publication of a summary would be
feasible and could be helpful to dispel any local speculation about
the actions of members of local authority or NDPB which may be circulating.
It was acknowledged that the reports would always be copied to the
authority concerned and to the members concerned and it would be
open to them to publish the reports if they wished. There was however,
the question as to whether natural justice would be seen to have
been served. In addition, the point was made that MSPs would be
able to ask detailed questions about reports in the Chamber of the
Scottish Parliament and how this aspect should be addressed was
an issue that the Law Officers might usefully consider.
Repeal of Section
2A of the Local Government Act 1988
- As might be expected, a
range of views were expressed about the proposal to repeal Section
2A. There were strong views that the legislation contained at Section
2A was unfairly discriminatory. The legislation had been introduced
on the basis of a couple of issues which had been grossly exaggerated
by the media and tabloid press. Same gender relationships had been
acknowledged by the House of Lords recently as constituting a family
relationship (ie not a "pretended family relationship") and The
Scotland Act contained language which secured the rights of gay
men and women to non-discriminatory treatment.
- There were genuine concerns,
however, that the removal of the clause could lead to the active
promotion of homosexuality amongst young people and a concern that
portraying homosexual lifestyle as desirable could run the risk
of encouraging youngsters to experiment when they might not otherwise
have done so. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the intention
of the removal of the Section was not to enable homosexuality to
be promoted but to allow a sensitive education on all aspects of
sexuality and to avoid homophobic bullying which has become evident
in schools and elsewhere. It was also recognised that there were
many other issues which it would be equally inappropriate to promote
in schools but where it was left to parents to regulate their childrens'
behaviour - these were not enshrined in legislation.
- It would be necessary to put in place
appropriate sensitive support material for teachers to use in dealing
with the subject. One way of dispelling some of the concerns might
be to implement the repeal from a later date to allow the appropriate
guidance material to be put in place before it came into effect.
Scottish Civic Forum
13 January 2000
LIST OF ORGANISATIONS
REGISTERED FOR MEETING
Amnesty International
Care for Scotland
Carers National Association
Church of Scotland Board of Social
Responsibility
Church of Scotland Church and Nation
Committee
Church of Scotland Education Committee
Equality Network
Inverclyde Council on Disability
Outright Scotland
Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds
Scottish Churches Parliamentary
Office
Stonewall Youth Project
VECTOR
Volunteer Development Scotland
SUBMISSION FROM THE SCOTTISH COUNCIL
OF JEWISH COMMUNITIES
The Jewish Community,
with its very particular experience of the effects of discriminatory
legislation, well appreciates the concerns about the current Section
2A of the Local Government Act (1986). We therefore welcome the intention
to prepare sensitive and non-discriminatory guidelines in this area,
which recognise the deeply held ethical and religious convictions
of many in society.
The stress placed in
the proposed new clause on the 'value of stable family life in a child's
development' is particularly in keeping with the traditional Jewish
emphasis on family values and relationships. We therefore welcome
this, alongside the commitment to developing appropriate guidelines.
These should inform both school guidance systems as well as classroom
teaching.
I hope these comments
are of some use to the Committee. Unfortunately, the Council will
have to decline your invitation to give oral evidence.
Ephraim Borowski
(Hon. Secretary)
SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH HUMAN
RIGHTS CENTRE
Response to the Scottish Executive’s
‘Standards in Public Life’
- Consultation on the Ethical
Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland Bill)
Codes of Conduct
The Scottish Human Rights
Centre welcomes the introduction of new codes of conduct for local
authorities and members of relevant public bodies. The Scottish Human
Rights Centre has consistently argued that there is a need for government
to be open and accountable and we would see the introduction of such
a code as an important step in this direction.
The codes of conduct
also provide an opportunity for rules to be simplified and clarified.
It is also vital that a national standard is adopted so that there
can be greater consistency in dealing with ethical issues within local
authorities and public bodies.
Standards Commission for Scotland
We agree that there is
a need for an effective enforcement mechanism for the codes of conduct
but have some concerns as to the procedure which could be adopted
by the Standards Commission.
The right to stand for
election and participate in public life is an important one and is
recognised in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
Article 25 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Every Citizen shall
have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions
mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
- To take part in the conduct of
public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
- To vote and to be elected at genuine
periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage
and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression
of the will of the electors;
- To have access, on general terms
of equality, to public service in his country.
The Commission’s power
to disqualify a person for up to 5 years is a powerful sanction and
would have the effect of denying a person rights that are protected
under a UN Covenant to which Scotland is under obligation to apply.
It is therefore vital that appropriate procedures are in place to
ensure the fairness of any proceeding which could take away that right.
Whilst we would agree that a breach of the code of conduct would be
a ‘reasonable restriction’ in terms of this article, there does require
to be a fair process by which a decision is made on whether the code
had been breached.
The Commission will operate
as a quasi-judicial body with powers to impose sanctions. Therefore
the same protections should be provided to councillors and members
of public bodies who are under investigation as would be available
to them in a court process.
In particular we are
concerned by the fact that there is no statutory right to appeal the
decision made by the Commission. This includes no right to appeal
on the finding of the Commission as well as no opportunity to appeal
on the sanction imposed. We are also concerned that there is no explicit
provision made as to the standard of proof required. Furthermore there
would be a question as to whether an individual under investigation
would be entitled to Legal Aid for the purposes of securing representation.
In clause 20 of the Bill,
the Commission has the power to suspend someone from attending meetings
without the requirement to hold a hearing. We would argue that before
the Commission imposes any sanction, even if it is for an interim
period, it is proper that a fair and public hearing should take place.
Furthermore we would
suggest that further statutory provision needs to be made in relation
to the terms of appointment and tenure of office for members of the
Standards Commission. It is not clear what the terms of appointment
would include and we would argue that it is not proper that terms
of appointment be left to the discretion of the Ministers. In light
of the recent court decision relating to security of tenure for temporary
sheriffs it is essential that more detail is provided in Schedule
I of the Bill as to terms of appointment and re-appointment.
Repeal of Section
2A of Local Government Act 1986
We are fully in support
of the clause which would repeal section 2A. The section as it currently
stands only serves to legitimise discrimination against an already
marginalised group in Scotland. We agree with the main arguments set
out in the consultation paper and feel that this particular piece
of legislation is long overdue.
Scottish Human Rights Centre
January 2000
SUBMISSION FROM THE SCOTTISH PARENT
TEACHER COUNCIL
17th January 2000
To All SPTC Members
Dear Member,
Clause 28
In the light of the recent
controversy surrounding Clause 28, I would like to take this opportunity
to explain the facts and SPTC's position.
Facts
- Clause 28 was introduced in 1988 -
there was no comparable measure prior to that.
- It states "that a local authority
shall not (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material
with the intention of promoting homosexuality; (b) promote the teaching
in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as
a pretended family relationship".
- There have been no prosecutions under
the Clause and so no legal definitions of terms like "promote" "acceptability"
or "pretended family relationship" have ever been established.
- Because the meaning of the Clause
has never been clarified in law, some teachers have been uncertain
as to how they might deal with homosexual issues if and when they
arose.
- The Scottish Executive proposes to
repeal the Clause and this has the backing of all political parties
except for the Conservatives.
- The change has been the subject of
a consultation, which has just ended.
- SPTC's view at the time of the consultation
was that the Clause had never been used and in that sense was redundant.
However, it was prejudicial to a group of people in a way that would
immediately be seen as unacceptable if it were about disabled or
black people. We therefore supported the proposal to abolish it.
The Controversy - fact and fiction
- The opposition to the abolition of
Clause 28 has been largely led by religious groups who take a particular
view on homosexuality, in some cases regarding it as a sin.
- The Scottish School Board Association
suggested that repeal of Clause 28 would force teachers to
use inappropriate sex education material in schools. They cited
examples of such material from England which required pupils to
role-play homosexual situations. This material has never been used
in Scottish schools and indeed was deemed unsuitable for use by
the authorities who had purchased it.
- It has been suggested that if Clause
28 is abolished, teachers will be required to mention homosexuality
every time they discuss human sexuality. There is no such "equal
time" requirement at present nor any proposal to introduce such
a requirement.
- It has also been suggested that inappropriate
homosexual material which exists on the Internet will be forced
on children if the Clause is repealed. The Internet carries all
manner of inappropriate material on a range of issues including
heterosexual pornography, drugs and violence. Schools and teachers
are very aware of this and have been very careful to protect children
from such material. Indeed, the Government has recently issued guidelines
on safe use of the Internet. Teachers, schools and authorities take
care to ensure that all the material which they use is appropriate
for the age and stage of the children and teachers act as effective
gate-keepers to the Internet.
SPTC's position
- SPTC is very alive to the need to
protect children from inappropriate material of any sort. However,
we are satisfied that there already exists adequate protection quite
independent of Clause 28.
- We are aware that homosexuality is
very much a part of everyday life. It often features in news stories
and on television programmes, including TV soaps which many children
watch on a regular basis. Children do not exist in information vacuums.
They are well aware of such matters and discuss them with each other.
It is therefore important that they can also ask questions at school
and get accurate answers without teachers feeling under threat of
prosecution.
- Finally schools are not just for small
children. Secondary schools cater for adolescents and young adults,
some of whom may themselves be having difficulty in coming to terms
with their own sexuality. It is important that teachers are able
to help and support such youngsters without fear of prosecution.
On balance, therefore,
SPTC feels that Clause 28 should be repealed and that there are enough
safeguards in place at present to protect children from unsuitable
material.
Judith Gillespie
Development Manager
SUBMISSION FROM THE SCOTTISH PARENT TEACHER COUNCIL
Section 2A/Clause 28
- Local Authorities have responsibility
for the curriculum.
At present, under the 1980 Act, local authorities are responsible
for what is taught in schools. Section 1(1) states that "it shall
be the duty of every education authority to secure that there is
made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education"
and section 5 (a) states "'school education' means progressive education
appropriate to the requirements of pupils in attendance at schools,
regard being had to the age, ability and aptitude of such pupils"
- School Boards have no responsibility
for the curriculum
Section 15 (2c) of The School Boards (Scotland) Act states "There
shall not be delegated (to school boards) under this section the
regulation of the curriculum".
- Parents have individual rights
Section 9 of the 1980 Act states that every public school is open
to pupils of all denominations but it gives parents the right to
withdraw their child "from any instruction in religious subjects
and from any religious observance". It goes on to add that "no pupil
shall… be placed at any disadvantage with respect to the secular
instruction ….by reason of the denomination to which such pupil
or his parents belong...."
It was understood at the time of the 1980 Act that this "conscience
clause" - as it is described - applied only to conflicts over religious
matters. However, during the national test campaign, the right of
parents to withdraw their children from testing was established
de facto, although not de jure. The latest circular
to education authorities now applies this principle on parental
rights to sex education.
- Children's rights
The new Education bill will place children's rights above those
of parents. This is in line with European law. In a 1976 case, Kjeldsen
Busk Madison and Pederson v Denmark, which was a challenge on to
the compulsory sex education provided in Danish schools, the European
Court ruled that a child's right to education takes priority over
parents' convictions.
Similarly Section 28 of the 1980 Act makes the duty on authorities
to have regard to parents' wishes secondary to their primary duty
to provide suitable instruction and training.
- Catholic Schools
Catholic schools exist to guarantee the rights of Catholic families
to have their children taught according to the beliefs of the Catholic
Church. Consequently religious and moral education (including sex
education) is determined by the Catholic Church. Contraception is
taught differently in Catholic and Non-Catholic schools. At the
time of the AIDs scare in the eighties, when educators and health
workers were extremely anxious to get the message of safe sex and
the need to use condoms through to all youngsters, Catholic schools
developed their own, quite different AIDs education packs.
Non-Catholic schools are not Protestant schools; they are non-denominational
schools. Religious education is multi-faith and does not advocate
any one faith. It would therefore be completely inappropriate for
non-denominational schools to have any teaching determined by reference
to Catholic theology.
- Scottish Parent Teacher Council's
Position
We are a non-prejudicial body. We are interested in parents
and children as parents and children. We do not enquire into their
politics, race, religion, ability or sexuality. Accordingly, we
felt the only issue arising from Section 2A was whether pupils at
school were protected from inappropriate material of any nature.
We felt that there were adequate safeguards and that, in this sense,
Section 2A added nothing extra and was redundant. We wrote of our
position to all our members. This was not a consultation, but some
people have taken the trouble to respond. The majority have thanked
us for writing and supported our stand. A few have question the
fact that we did not undertake a formal consultation. To all of
these we have explained our reasoning and have had no further feed-back.
A handful Catholic schools have written to object to what we have
done but without explaining their reasoning. One Catholic school
board has written to us with their reasons for wanting to retain
Section 2A. They do not raise the issue of child protection but
rather state their objection to homosexuality.
"We do not believe that Section 28 encourages bigotry, intolerance
etc. We believe it is not inconsistent to disapprove of a homosexual
lifestyle and yet treat people living in that way with tolerance
and respect"
However, such views are completely outwith our remit and the
remit of any parents' group.
- Scotland Act - definition of
equal opportunities
We note that the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as "the
prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between
persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds or
on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social
origin or of other personal attributes". We assume that all legislation
passed by the Scottish Parliament should conform to this.
- View of homosexuality
Section 28 only has any validity if homosexuality is a learnt
behaviour. However, the overwhelming evidence is that this is not
the case. Homosexuality is an innate part of a person in the same
way that heterosexuality is. Moreover, evidence from homosexuals,
including the interviews with young gay people detailed in the Times
Education Supplement Scotland (3rd March 2000), shows that most
homosexuals understood they were gay before the age of 12, before
they fully understood the terminology and before they engaged in
any sexual activity.
When Alan Turing the totally brilliant mathematician, who, in cracking
the enigma code, did so much to win World War II, was fed hormones
to change his sexual orientation, the treatment was unsuccessful,
resulted in him growing breasts and was such a torture to him that
he subsequently committed suicide.
SUBMISSION FROM
THE SCOTTISH SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION
SECTION
2A(28)
On
the 3rd February 2000 SSBA issued a questionnaire, associated with
the government’s consultation paper on the repeal of Section 2A(28)
of the Local Government Act 1986 and the Ethical Standards in Public
Life (Scotland) Bill.
Enclosed
with the questionnaire were extracts from the Local Government Act
1986 and the Guideline issued by the Scottish Office to local authorities
in May 1988.
School
Boards were encouraged to gauge the views of those they represent.
Based on their understanding of Section 2A and the extract from the
guidelines Boards were asked to respond to one of the following statements
by ticking one of the three boxes:
1
|
Section
28 should be repealed |
2
|
Section
28 should remain in place until the Scottish Executive have
fully and formally consulted upon and agreed revised guidelines
|
3
|
Section
28 should not be repealed
|
cont/…
The Association received 777 responses:
1).
90 School Boards responded that Section 28 should be repealed;
2).
310 School Boards responded that Section 28 should remain in place
until the Scottish Executive had fully and formally consulted upon
and agreed revised guidelines; and
3).
358 responded that Section 28 should not be repealed.
Another 19 respondents were either undecided or felt that they did
not have time to consult with parents.
After
receiving and considering the responses SSBA considers that these
results reflect the very high level of dissatisfaction of Scottish
parents with the Scottish Executive’s decision and process on the
repeal of Section 2A.
SSBA
would urge the Scottish Executive to circulate the draft guidelines
for consultation to all School Boards and Parent Associations. Any
decision on repeal should be deferred until this process has been
completed and cognisance taken of parental opinion.
Enclosed
with this letter is a detailed table of the returns and comments received
from School Boards.
The
results of the survey has been sent to the Minister for Children and
Education along with a detailed table of the returns and comments
received from School Boards.
I
would be grateful if you would circulate this letter and enclosures
to the members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to which
SSBA has been invited to give evidence on Wednesday 15th
March 2000 at 10.30am.
Ann
Hill, Chief Executive SSBA
RESULTS OF SECTION 28 QUESTIONNAIRE AS AT 2 PM ON 3 MARCH 2000
Local
Authority
|
How
Many Voted
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
Split
between 2 and 3
|
Undecided/no
time to consult
|
Aberdeen
City
|
20
|
3
|
9
|
6
|
|
2
|
Aberdeenshire
Council
|
48
|
5
|
19
|
21
|
1
|
2
|
Angus
|
13
|
-
|
6
|
7
|
|
-
|
Argyll
and Bute
|
34
|
2
|
17
|
14
|
|
1
|
City
of Edinburgh Council
|
46
|
18
|
18
|
9
|
|
1
|
City
of Glasgow Council
|
51
|
11
|
17
|
22
|
|
1
|
Clackmannanshire
|
8
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
|
-
|
Dumfries
and Galloway
|
50
|
3
|
23
|
24
|
|
-
|
Dundee
City
|
16
|
1
|
4
|
11
|
|
-
|
East
Ayrshire Council
|
22
|
1
|
9
|
10
|
2
|
-
|
East
Dunbartonshire Council
|
22
|
-
|
5
|
17
|
|
-
|
East
Lothian Council
|
15
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
|
1
|
East
Renfrewshire Council
|
11
|
-
|
3
|
8
|
|
-
|
Falkirk
Council
|
24
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
|
-
|
Fife
Council
|
45
|
7
|
20
|
17
|
|
1
|
Highland
Council
|
50
|
4
|
18
|
26
|
2
|
-
|
Inverclyde
Council
|
9
|
-
|
6
|
3
|
|
-
|
Midlothian
Council
|
13
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
|
-
|
Moray
Council
|
20
|
2
|
10
|
8
|
|
-
|
North
Ayrshire Council
|
26
|
3
|
13
|
10
|
|
-
|
North
Lanarkshire Council
|
40
|
2
|
17
|
20
|
|
1
|
Orkney
Islands Council
|
1
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
|
-
|
Perth
and Kinross Council
|
31
|
1
|
9
|
19
|
|
2
|
Renfrewshire
Council
|
28
|
1
|
9
|
17
|
|
1
|
Scottish
Borders Council
|
17
|
3
|
7
|
6
|
|
1
|
Shetland
Islands Council
|
9
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
|
1
|
South
Ayrshire Council
|
14
|
1
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
South
Lanarkshire Council
|
49
|
4
|
19
|
25
|
|
1
|
Stirling
Council
|
10
|
-
|
6
|
4
|
|
-
|
West
Dunbartonshire Council
|
9
|
-
|
3
|
5
|
|
1
|
West
Lothian Council
|
11
|
3
|
2
|
6
|
|
-
|
Western
Isles Council
|
15
|
-
|
5
|
10
|
|
-
|
Total
|
777
|
90
|
307
|
355
|
6
|
19
|
Scottish School Board Association
Results
of Section 28/2A Questionnaire
Sample of
comments made by School Boards
Question 1 -
"Section 28 should be repealed" -
There
is no place for this in a modern society where equal opportunities
are to be promoted.
Education
should promote understanding and respect.
Repeal
should be on the basis that full consultation takes place, all necessary
precautions are taken and legislation is put in place to protect children
from any unsuitable material being used or made available in schools.
Feel
that society should encourage tolerance and acceptance regardless
of sex, race or religious views including gender preference.
Living
in a society where homosexual couples are legally allowed to adopt
children and raise them as a family and accepting that the care of
these children frequently exceeds the care children of heterosexual
couples receive, Section 28 should be repealed.
Education
Authorities and teachers will require clear guidelines included in
national curriculum for health education.
There
is a strong feeling that guidelines should ensure that heterosexual
family relationships are the best situation in which to bring up children.
Scottish
Executive should be applauded for announcing its intention to repeal
this discriminatory legislation.
Section
2A is deeply offensive to any child who has a homosexual parent. Children
do not choose their parents.
Question
2 - "Section 28 should remain in place until the Scottish Executive
have fully and formally consulted upon and agreed revised guidelines".
The
vast majority who want the repeal of Section 2A are single and gay
groups who themselves are not parents, therefore cannot speak for
the majority of parents.
Parents
have expressed concern about the speed the government are trying to
push this repeal through.
Teachers
need guidelines and to know that they can discuss these matters without
fear of misunderstanding.
Parents
need more information on what would happen if Section 2A was repealed,
before a proper decision could be made.
We
need to reassure parents that inappropriate materials/teaching methods
will not be forced upon our children.
No
wish to be intolerant but are concerned about child protection issues
and feel there should be some statutory back-up.
Keeping
the act in its present form does not restrict school from explaining
homosexuality to pupils, the threat of publications concentrating
on this subject and its promotion for use in schools is of great concern..
Guidelines
must be legally binding.
Every
human person has the right to be free from bigotry, intolerance and
fear.
We
believe a problem did not exist until the repeal issue was raised.
Teachers
and management staff in schools should have the opportunity to comment
on this controversial topic.
Catholic
schools will be guided in classroom practice in this matter by the
advice and guidance from the catholic archdiocese.
Traditional
family values combined with a normal heterosexual family structure
should been seen as the norm.
Guidelines
must be agreed by School Boards in advance of repeal and must be mandatory.
The
Scottish Executive should circulate copies of any draft guidelines
to School Boards. Guidelines should be legally binding on teachers
and/or local authorities.
Question
3 - "Section 28 should not be repealed".
The
Board were unanimous in backing the views of the Bishop’s Conference
of Scotland.
We
object to the comparison of homosexual relations to that of marriage
between man and woman.
We
feel that the fact so many people are debating, talking and writing
about this issue when there are so many other things to consider is
scandalous and that we should not have to be fighting this hard.
Parents
are not willing to accept guidelines as opposed to statutory legislation.
I
feel children of school age should be protected from the promotion
of homosexuality by the force of law.
Guidelines
suggested by First Minister gives no guarantee that will reassure
parents that there will be no promotion of homosexuality in schools.
Angry
at the way politicians think they can just steamroller through legislation
without either statutory guidelines or consultation with the people.
There
is nothing in the present clause to prevent schools from discussing
homosexuality or from providing counselling and support to pupils.
Current
legislation does not prevent a tolerant society.
Time
the government listened to the majority.
Guidelines
mean nothing. Section 28 is enshrined in law so why change it for
something that isn’t.
Disappointed
that School Boards and parent organisations have not been consulted
on this issue by their local authorities.
The
so called gay lobby has a disproportionately loud and strident voice
as it is. The law should stay as it is. Parents will withhold children
from class and school.
Why
has the vote in the Scottish Parliament taken place before we have
had reasonable time to respond to Sam Galbraith’s letter.
Section
28/2A Questionnaire comments
Scottish
School Board Association
4 March
2000
|