Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that clarity, Professor Sutherland.

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 they 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.

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?

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?

I thank the witnesses for all the information that they have provided so far. My question links in very nicely.

Last week, we heard from former participants in the whole family equality project about the importance of not working in silos. Employability often goes hand in hand with many of the areas that we have heard about today, such as housing, education and transport. I remember asking the Minister for Equalities, in February, about the need to move away from the current portfolio-based budget modelling towards a more performance-orientated approach. The minister agreed that departments must work together to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Today, however, we have heard about a lack of connections. We have heard that such considerations do not feed into wider budgets, that some areas of human rights are understood while some are not understood, that how resources are allocated is not followed through, and that more connections and greater clarity are needed. Furthermore, people cannot follow the money to find out what is being spent. Those are just some of the issues that have been raised.

Could you expand on those comments in relation to the cross-portfolio approach? Do you believe that the Scottish Government is doing a good job at taking a cross-portfolio approach in human rights budgeting?