Petitions

Item 5 is consideration of petition PE427, on health education guidelines. In their papers, members should have the letter that I received from Learning and Teaching Scotland. I also received a further letter from the minister, which I believe has been circulated to members by e-mail—it came very late—but hard copies can also be made available if members wish. Do members have any comments on the letters?

I have read the letter carefully. The three questions that we posed were in the penultimate paragraph of the convener's letter. They were:"whether or not a review will take place … what the timetable for such a review will be and whether it will take into account the objections to some of the materials".The three questions were buried away in the letter, but I felt that they were answered. LTS acknowledges, albeit obtusely, that a review will be conducted, which will conclude in 2004-05. If we take on board the need to consult stakeholders, teachers and a variety of others, including parents, it is legitimate to suggest that that timetable is appropriate. It is not possible to conduct such reviews in a matter of months.The consultation will consider circular 2/2001. The petitioners made the point that the teaching materials seem to contradict the provisions of that circular. I seem to recall a reference, although I cannot find it at the moment, to the fact that LTS would take into account the views that were expressed to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Indeed, LTS would be foolish not to do so. Although petition PE427 raised a number of other issues, we have always been clear that we want to proceed on the basis of ensuring that a review is undertaken. We may have different views on the time scale for such a review, but it is clear that one will take place. Given the range of stakeholders that should be involved in the consultation, it is difficult to argue that a shorter time scale would be more appropriate.

Do other members have comments to make? They do not. I sense that we are not reaching a consensus.

There is an issue about circular 2/2001 and the time scale for the review. The circular was issued and yet it appears that no consideration was given to the circular when the list of materials was drawn up. I remain concerned about that.Although I agreed with the abolition of clause 28, my support was based on the content of circular 2/2001. That circular reassured a wide spectrum of people in Scotland, including Scottish parents, that their concerns would be taken on board in the drawing up of the materials that would be placed in schools.It is clear from evidence that we have received that some of the materials on the list do not comply with circular 2/2001. I find it disappointing that the response to that concern will not be made before 2004-05. I understand that consultation has to take place, but what is the point of having circulars and guidance if an organisation such as LTS does not adhere to them? When evidence is provided that LTS is in contravention of the circular, surely it could act more swiftly to remove certain materials from a list that it has issued? The process is not difficult if the evidence has been provided.My concern is not about reviewing the time scale for a review—it is important that everybody is allowed to contribute to the review. However, if a piece of material is clearly contrary to the circular, why cannot LTS simply remove it from the list in a timeous fashion?

Are there any other views?

I do not think that the petitioners have lost this one, because there has been a substantial airing of the views and concerns, despite the fact that we have differences of opinion on some of the detail. If you are asking people—not in a hurried way, as it is suggested happened before—to consult, to develop new materials and to have them in schools in 2004-05, that will take time.I cannot tell from Learning and Teaching Scotland's letter whether the review is a general review, but the minister's letter suggests that there might be a general review on the basis of the health-promoting schools unit and the need to evaluate its work and spread it further. The most that we could ask to be shaved off the time scale is three months or so. My recollection is that it is not one piece of material on the list that is inappropriate, but a number of pieces of material. That would mean taking a substantial amount off the list and replacing it with something that is considered more appropriate for teachers in a rush. That is what got us here in the first place.

But having said that, the debate around circular 2/2001 was important.

Indeed.

And it was about whether materials are viewed as inappropriate with regard to the circular. I read the Official Report of the committee—I was not here, because I was on maternity leave—and, given the evidence, there was a consensus that some of the materials were contrary to circular 2/2001. If that is the case, why cannot Learning and Teaching Scotland remove those materials from the list? That is what I cannot get my head round. What is so difficult about that? What is the point of having the circular if the materials that are recommended are contrary to the circular? Either the circular is useless or the list of materials is useless, but the circle cannot be squared between the two.

Learning and Teaching Scotland responded to the specific questions that you asked in your letter. You are introducing another question. By all means, if it is your view that we should write to LTS again, that is fine, but you need to be clear about what material you are asking it to remove from the list.

With all due respect, in my letter I said that the committee "was concerned that the list of materials attached to the Guide for Teachers and Managers does not fit with the principles in Circular 2/2001."Learning and Teaching Scotland has not responded to say whether it believes that the materials fit the principles. I am upset that that organisation did not answer our three specific questions, but in my dealings with members of the public, I do not deal only with the last three questions in the letter, but the letter's whole content. We said that there were specific issues about the materials. LTS has not addressed those issues and there is some merit in asking—specifically in relation to circular 2/2001—whether any other mechanisms outwith the review process can be used to re-examine those materials.

I do not want to give such people that opportunity. However, the point of the petition was that people believed that some materials in the list contravened circular 2/2001. For me as an elected member, circular 2/2001 was an important part of the parliamentary process and has been crucial in how I conduct myself during business in the chamber. If LTS is not now adhering to that circular, I would be concerned and that would reflect on how I vote in the chamber in the future. That is an important issue for members; if we are not given full information, that is also important.Schools have an appropriate and important role in the teaching of sex education and all the other issues related to the list of materials, and I would not give succour to anyone who suggested otherwise. However, there is an issue about the circular and it would be helpful from my perspective and that of other members to get some clarification on whether mechanisms other than the review process could be used. LTS may come back to us in a few weeks, and we could find ourselves in the same position, in which we must accept that the review will be in 2004-05. However, if other mechanisms exist, I would like to know about them and I would like them to be explored.

I suggest that I write again to Learning and Teaching Scotland—unless anyone has strong objections—to ask whether there are any other mechanisms for the review of materials in relation to circular 2/2001.

Yes. I will circulate the letter to members before I send it to enable them to suggest helpful amendments. That will be our last bite at the petition.

I suggest a slightly different approach. People might have been disappointed about the time scale, but they accepted that it could be considered to be an appropriate time scale for review. The convener asked whether a mechanism existed for withdrawing materials in the light of their apparent contradiction of circular 2/2001, and I would be comfortable with such phraseology. However, I do not think that we can ask whether other mechanisms for review exist. If the letter uses the terms that I suggest, I will be comfortable with it.

That is the specific question that I wish to ask. I do not want to go into other issues. That is the issue that the petition raises and the question that needs to be asked. Are members comfortable with that?Members indicated agreement.