Official Report 725KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20813, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate would press their request-to-speak button now.
19:02
The legislation that comes before Parliament today does not sit in isolation; rather, as we have heard from some members this afternoon, it is part of the wider story of Scotland’s journey to strengthen children’s rights.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 was a key milestone on that path. As the chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has commented, it is
“one of the finest examples of domestic children’s-rights legislation anywhere in the world.”
Just three months ago, on world children’s day, we laid Scotland’s first children’s rights scheme before Parliament. The passing of the bill before Parliament this evening will build on that progress to date. The bill offers Parliament a clear opportunity in this parliamentary session to make meaningful progress on enhancing the rights of Scotland’s children and young people.
The right to withdraw from religious observance in Scotland’s schools dates back to the 1800s. Consequently, perhaps, there is no legal requirement currently to consult children about being withdrawn from religious observance in Scotland’s schools. Thankfully, things have moved on since then.
Given the wide range of views on the issue, the Government’s approach throughout has been to chart a middle course, to strengthen children’s rights while balancing three other key considerations—namely, parental rights, stakeholder views and the practical implications for schools.
Part 1 of the legislation proposes a new legal requirement to consider pupils’ views as part of the withdrawal process. Without those changes, pupils might be denied their rights under the UNCRC. The withdrawal process can be initiated only by a parent; the bill does not seek to change that. However, the changes will provide certainty in law that children’s and young people’s views must be considered when parents are exercising their withdrawal right.
As members will also be aware, at stage 2, the bill was amended to separate religious observance and religious and moral education so that the right of parental withdrawal applies only to religious observance. The Government was supportive of the bill being amended in that way, given the clear consensus on the importance of religious and moral education as a curriculum area and its benefits for community cohesion.
The consensus was echoed by stakeholders, including the Scottish Teachers Association of Religious and Moral Education, the Humanist Society Scotland, the United Nations Children’s Fund UK and the Scottish Human Rights Commission.
However, as we heard this afternoon, some concerns have been expressed about how the change could affect denominational schools, where religious observance and religious education are often closely interwoven. Again, I put on the record the importance of protecting our denominational schools, which are rightly afforded legal protection in Scotland.
Although I was married to my wife by a humanist celebrant, my last teaching post before I became an MSP was in a Catholic school, so I know and recognise the significant importance of faith schools to communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
The Scottish Catholic Education Service will be a key stakeholder in the development of the new statutory guidance, in recognition of the importance of supporting the changes in denominational schools, particularly when religious observance is often part of their wider ethos. To that end, I have been pleased to lead significant engagement with the Scottish Catholic Education Service. In addition, my officials recently visited Sacred Heart primary school in Glasgow and Calderwood Lodge primary school in East Renfrewshire to meet headteachers and listen to pupils. The close engagement with SCES will continue as the Government develops the statutory guidance to accompany the bill.
I have also heard concerns from stakeholders, including the Humanist Society Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, about non-inclusive religious observance in non-denominational schools. Scottish Government guidance is already clear that religious observance should be inclusive of pupils of all faiths and none. However, the updated statutory guidance will reiterate the necessity of inclusivity, which is exactly why the Government supported Elena Whitham’s amendments on the issue. The Government recognises and agrees that inclusivity will look different in a denominational setting. As such, we supported the provisions in amendment 23, which listed denominational schools as a mandatory consultee prior to the issuing of the guidance.
On part 2 of the bill, I want to be clear about why the section 6B exemption is necessary. The exemption will apply only in very narrow circumstances when a public authority cannot read provisions in an act of the Scottish Parliament in a way that is compatible with the UNCRC requirements. Subsequently, the public authority might be required to act in a way that is incompatible with the requirements of the UNCRC act. In that situation, public authorities need clarity on their duties to deliver services, which is why the exemption is necessary.
Our approach, which reflects a similar and long-standing provision in the Human Rights Act 1998, recognises that, if the exemption applies, it is not the public authority but the legislation that is at fault. We recognise that, in some cases, the legislation might need to be changed and that such changes should be the responsibility of the Government and the Parliament, not of individual public bodies.
That approach has been welcomed by children’s rights stakeholders and by children and young people. For example, Together has described the exemption as a way of addressing systemic children’s rights issues at a primary legislation level. The children and young people it consulted said that they would rather see the root causes of rights violations being addressed, which is exactly what the exemption is designed to do.
The Government cannot predict every future case or scenario, but we can ensure that we have a clear and robust legal framework that is capable of responding to our collective understanding of children’s rights, which the Parliament has previously recognised. That understanding will continue to evolve, particularly as new cases come before the courts.
Through the bill and the wider framework of the UNCRC act, we are seeking to provide a clear and joined-up approach. I pay tribute to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Together for their constructive engagement on those pertinent issues.
The bill offers the Parliament a real opportunity to strengthen children’s rights in Scotland—in our schools, in our legislation and in how the Government is held to account. The bill is a mark of progress in improving the rights of children and young people in Scotland, but it is not an end point. The Government’s approach has involved working with members on as broad a basis as possible, and I thank members, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and stakeholders for their thoughtful contributions throughout the bill’s development. Together, I believe that we have improved the bill. In that spirit, I hope that members will vote at decision time to support greater rights for Scotland’s children.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
19:09
I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its work on the bill, those who have given evidence and the organisations that provided briefings ahead of the various stages of the bill.
From the outset, Scottish Conservatives have stated that we believe that it is important that children have a say in their education, but any change must also respect the crucial role that parents play in shaping their upbringing. As we have seen with the recent passage of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, the ability of ministers to incorporate the UNCRC into law is becoming more and more problematic. That is also quite clear from what we have seen in the passage of this bill.
Scottish Conservatives have consistently expressed concern that the bill risks creating confusion and conflict within families, with unclear safeguards around how parental rights and children’s views would be balanced in practice, while also placing significant burdens on schools and teaching staff at the very time that they are telling us that they are facing so many other challenges. As I stated at stage 1, we support the principle of children being informed about and involved in decisions that affect them and their education, but we already have a system in place that makes sure that that happens at an age-appropriate stage in young people’s lives. Although data is not always available—it is estimated that 4,000 pupils in Scotland are currently withdrawn from RME and RO—ministers must now be concerned that the legislation is likely to be challenged in the courts. The fact that the bill has reached stage 3 in such a position is regrettable.
As For Women Scotland has stated in its briefing ahead of today’s debate:
“The Scottish Government must exercise its powers in a manner which is compatible with the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the second sentence which has been incorporated into Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
‘In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.’
Consequently, parents have a fundamental right, which the State must respect and protect, to raise their children in accordance with their own views and beliefs”.
We have heard a variety of views on the matter during the discussions on amendments this afternoon, and I am sure that we will hear more in the debate. However, the provisions that the Government has proposed do not seek to alter a parent’s right to withdraw their child from religious observance. I would welcome some reflection on that from Mr Briggs.
The courts will have to judge whether the Government has overstepped the mark in the legislation, given the contradictory UNCRC and European human rights protocols that will now be in place. We will see who brings that forward.
It is important that we look at what this means for teaching professionals. The debate has seemed very bureaucratic as we have gone through the amendments this afternoon, but we have heard about the bureaucratic burden that teachers and schools already face and the concerns that that will raise in the wider school community.
I was lucky enough to attend Auchtergaven primary school in Bankfoot in Perthshire, which is in the First Minister’s constituency. At that school, we saw a valuable relationship with the Church of Scotland minister and his wife, who contributed so much to the school, from school Christmas plays to the work in the school halls. Fundamentally, the Church of Scotland was making a positive contribution to our school life. This bill now sits uneasily around where religious organisations can make contributions to education, and whether it would be much easier to remove that completely in case there are future challenges. I do not know whether that is what the Government necessarily wanted the bill to point to, but local authorities will probably want to start providing guidance from the Government, which we have not had an opportunity to see. Those are real concerns.
I wonder what the member thinks of a story that a constituent shared with me. She runs a Christian kids’ club in her local primary school. A little child was coming along and enjoying it. The parent phoned the school up and said that they did not want the child going anywhere near a Christian religious group. The headteacher said that it is the child’s free choice whether or not to go. How does the member feel about that scenario?
That is an individual case. Looking at how this will play out in the different scenarios that bureaucratic systems will look towards is very different.
Will the member take an intervention?
This will have to be very brief.
I am very grateful, Presiding Officer.
The debate that we are having is about religious education and religious observance in a school setting, not about clubs that meet in a school.
The Deputy First Minister has pointed towards that club being held in a school, and I imagine that that is likely to be discouraged, given that scenario.
I am concerned about what a religious service, or a service in general, will look like. What will a Christmas service fundamentally have to become to incorporate everybody? For many rural village schools, the minister has always been connected to the school. I worry that the bill will start to unpick that.
To conclude, Presiding Officer—you have been very generous with the time—I think that the cabinet secretary now realises in hindsight that ministers tried to sell the bill as being a minor technical reform, but that is not the case. It has the potential to negatively impact our school environment and, indeed, Scottish family life. The bill is a fundamental change in the relationship between parents, pupils and the state. It risks confusion for families, inconsistency across Scotland and unnecessary strain on overpressed schools and teachers.
For those reasons, and because the balance struck in the final version of the bill does not adequately respect parental responsibility, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time.
19:16
As we have concluded the amendment stages of the bill, I join others in thanking the legislation team for their ever-present support with drafting amendments, all those who have taken an interest in the bill and who have engaged with me and colleagues on it, those who have prepared briefings and, of course, committee colleagues for their work at stages 1 and 2.
At the start of the bill’s passage, the cabinet secretary sought to reassure Parliament and the wider public that it would be a short technical bill and that she was seeking consensus across the Parliament. Instead, she has managed to unite some unlikely bedfellows in opposition to the bill. What has been created is a halfway house that appears to please nobody.
Coming to today’s proceedings, we were faced with a range of amendments that could shift, change or reset whole parts of the bill and amendments that could result in fundamental shifts in the position of parents’ rights, as we have heard, and in the position of denominational schools and how they deliver RE and RO in Scotland. That cannot be the outcome that the Government was looking for at the start of the process, and it speaks to much of what I referenced in the proceedings on amendments.
The heart of the matter is that the Government has introduced a bill without a clear answer to the fundamental questions that we should all ask ourselves when considering legislation, which are, “What is it for?” and, “Why are we doing it now?” As a consequence, the bill has had a chaotic, short journey and has caused a level of uncertainty. Due to that, I want to put on record that I cannot support the bill at decision time.
The detail of part 1 of the bill is, I think, confused, and was further confused by the amendments that were lodged at stage 2. Fundamentally, I regret that the Government did not support my amendment, which would have sought to offer a degree of reassurance to those in the denominational sector. I do not believe that it was too much to ask that the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 be put into the bill for the avoidance of doubt.
I say that because those pieces of legislation are totemic for those in the faith sector in Scotland and, in particular, for those in the Catholic education sector. I referenced in my contribution on my amendment the reason why those pieces of legislation came into being and the opportunities that they have afforded generations of young people and their families in this country. As I said at the weekend in reference to that amendment, if people do not have a problem with faith schools in Scotland or with the continuation of Catholic education, they should have had no problem in backing that amendment. That is why I am disappointed that the amendment was not agreed to by the Parliament tonight, because it was an opportunity for the first time in the history of devolution to put those acts into and on the face of an act of the Scottish Parliament.
Substantial changes to practices in Scottish schools that have existed for decades—particularly those changes that affect denominational settings—should not have been rushed through by way of amendments in the last months of a parliamentary session. This policy required a much more considered approach and a fuller discussion. In my opinion, there has been a lack of understanding throughout the consideration of the bill about how denominational schools operate. We have seen that in the varied amendments that were considered earlier, which have resulted in the confused bill that we have ended up with.
It was remarkable to see some of the interventions that were made in the intervening period. The Bishops Conference of Scotland gave a stark warning about its concerns at the conclusion of stage 2.
Labour members are supportive of the long-standing position in Scots law on the protection of faith education, but we also understand that, if we are going to have a wider debate about the UNCRC and children’s rights, we cannot rush that through our consideration of the bill. I referred to that in relation to many of the amendments that were offered by Green colleagues today.
There is a fundamental and complex relationship between the rights that are advanced for children and young people and the rights of their parents. That will take a longer debate and a longer time to understand, and it cannot be rushed at this point in parliamentary proceedings.
Of course we cannot disregard the concerns that have been outlined. We cannot simply walk by and pass a piece of legislation because we believe that it has to be done by the end of the session. I outlined that more widely in relation to the question of what has changed between the reconsideration of the UNCRC incorporation legislation and now to make the bill before us so urgent and so necessary—particularly in its latter parts, in relation to the UNCRC. I do not think that we received an answer on that point. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will be able to say, when she sums up, what has changed and what her concerns are that have led us to where the bill is now.
Finally, and looking more widely, with mere weeks of this parliamentary session left to run, and at a time when resources for schools are already limited, I remain unclear as to why the Government felt the need to introduce the bill in the manner it did, and to allow it to be amended in such a way as to leave a bill that I think is confused and may do more harm than good.
For those reasons, I and Scottish Labour colleagues will vote against the bill tonight.
19:22
I begin by thanking a number of people who have helped us get to this point today. As ever, the legislation team are unsung heroes, expertly drafting amendments, often at very short notice. Without their work, we would not be here. I also thank the clerking and Scottish Parliament information centre teams of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for guiding us through stages 1 and 2.
The Parliament has been on a journey towards better recognising and protecting the rights of children and young people. In 2024, we enshrined the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. Before that, my Green colleague John Finnie ensured that all children are protected from physical assault.
We believe that UNCRC incorporation is the start, not the end, of ensuring that everything that we do upholds the rights of children and young people. Despite the convention’s incorporation, our age of criminal responsibility is still just 12, which is lower than the age of 16 as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and even lower than its supposed absolute minimum of 14.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 allows children to be withdrawn from religious activities in schools without their consent and without even asking for their views to be taken into account. That is clearly contrary to the convention, and I welcome the opportunity to correct that, but a major problem remains. As we have heard, the bill as now drafted allows a young person to opt back into those activities if they have been opted out of them, but not to opt out themselves. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, Together—the Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights, the Humanist Society Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland are totally united in saying that the bill must include that extra provision.
I appreciate that the Scottish Government listened to those experts and supported my amendment to create a power to introduce an independent right to withdraw via regulations. However, because my amendment 7A was not accepted today, there remains no requirement to introduce or even consult on those regulations, and there is no timeline either. It is possible that that power could sit on the books for years and not be used. Many other powers have so languished. That would be completely unacceptable.
I am not an expert in children’s rights. With respect, neither is the cabinet secretary—nor is Stephen Kerr, and nor is Paul O’Kane. However, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner is, as are Professor Angela O’Hagan and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Children in Scotland and the Children’s Parliament are experts, too, as are Kibble, Save the Children, UNICEF, the Scottish Child Law Centre and many more organisations besides.
Without exception, they are all saying that, without the independent right, to quote the Scottish Human Rights Commission,
“Part 1 in its current form does not achieve compliance with the UNCRC.”
Without such compliance, the Scottish Government runs the risk of legal challenge. Given the successful legal challenge that took place in Northern Ireland, the cabinet secretary will know that there are concerns that a challenge could also succeed here.
The cabinet secretary received a letter from Together and the Humanist Society Scotland saying that an independent right to withdraw
“is the only approach that is compatible with children’s human rights, and it is the only approach that will provide a clear, equitable, and legally resilient settlement.”
I will deal with part 2 of the bill in my closing speech. For now, I will end my opening speech by saying that we must listen to the experts. The Scottish Government must give a clear commitment today that it will consult on an independent right to withdraw should it be re-elected after May. The cabinet secretary still has time to make that commitment, and I urge her to do so later this evening.
19:26
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am married to a Roman Catholic primary school teacher, and I was formerly the convener of Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights).
I am pleased to speak for the Scottish Liberal Democrats at stage 3 of this important bill. Before entering politics, I was a youth worker. Fighting for the rights and wellbeing of children is in my DNA; it is why I am in politics. That is why legislation such as this bill matters to me, and it also matters to my party.
At stage 1, I said that the bill asked a fundamental question: do we believe that children have rights, and should those rights be taken seriously in the day-to-day decisions that shape their world view? In my party’s view, the answer remains yes.
Part 1 of the bill will strengthen the requirement for schools to involve children where decisions are taken about their participation in aspects of school life that affect their values. It will require that children be informed and given the space to express their views, and, where disagreement arises, it will require there to be engagement and ensure that children’s views are considered in line with their “age and maturity”.
Make no mistake: we are talking about a vanishingly small number of cases in which such a disagreement will take place. However, that provision reflects article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the right of the child to express a view on matters that affect them and for that view to be “given due weight” according to their “age and maturity”. We all signed up to that principle in the Parliament by unanimously agreeing to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. That principle is not radical; it is foundational.
We have heard legitimate concerns about clarity, the distinction between different elements of school provision, how capacity is assessed and how we ensure that family relationships are protected. I recognise that there are tensions. The concerns were raised in serious contributions, and they deserve serious consideration.
I and my party support the denominational school sector. I am married to a Roman Catholic primary school teacher and I led the defence of Roman Catholic schools and other denominational schools when they were challenged at my party conference some years ago. Religious education has been disaggregated from religious observation in the bill, and I believe that the bill is now in a space in which it will not disrupt religious education or threaten the existence of denominational schools.
Stage 2 improved the bill. Clarifications have been made and safeguards have been strengthened. Because of that, the balance between recognising children’s voices and respecting the central role of parents has been made clearer. There is always room for improvement in legislation, but part 1 of the bill now represents a proportionate and thoughtful step forward in embedding children’s rights in practice. The test for us at stage 3 is whether the bill as a whole strengthens or weakens children’s rights in Scotland. That is a balanced decision to make, but our judgment is that the bill, taken in the round, strengthens children’s rights.
Scotland has rightly been recognised for its ambition in incorporating the UNCRC into Scots law. That architecture must remain strong and we must take it seriously. It must remain enforceable and meaningful in day-to-day practice. The bill does not abandon that ambition; it builds on it—cautiously, yes, but constructively.
We, in this Parliament, have a duty not only to speak about children’s rights but to embed them—to consider them in the systems that shape children’s daily lives. The bill that we have debated today moves us forward in that regard. Liberal Democrats will vote for the bill at stage 3 not because it is flawless, but because it represents measured progress and because children’s rights are too important to be left standing still. Let us ensure that Scotland’s approach to children’s rights remains not only ambitious but careful, balanced and worthy of the young people whom it serves.
We move to the open debate.
19:30
The bill is about children’s rights showing up in the real world—in the school day and in the decisions that adults make that can change how a young person experiences their education.
Parents have had a long-standing right to withdraw a child from religious observance. The bill will bring children’s rights into that reality in a way that schools can operate with. When a withdrawal request is received, the pupil must be told that the request has been made. The pupil has the right to object, and the school must take account of the pupil’s views with regard to their age and maturity.
I convened the lead committee that took evidence on the bill. To be clear, I am not speaking as convener today; however, I want to say that hearing the evidence made it clear how easy it is for children’s voices to be missed, although nobody intends harm. We also heard genuine concerns about family conflict and the position that teachers can possibly be put in.
For me, the answer is not to pretend that those concerns do not exist, and it is not to push the child to the side, either. The answer is to provide a clear process that puts the child’s views into the decision and then backs schools with guidance and consistency, so that nobody is left guessing.
I am genuinely pleased that, with the bill, we will have a clear separation between religious observance and religious and moral education, and that we will have removed the right to withdraw from RME, which is a measure that I advocated for. RME is education. It is one of the eight core curriculum areas, and it is delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. It helps pupils to learn about and from different religions and belief groups, and it helps them to explore ethical questions and values, which I think we can all agree is needed in our education systems now more than ever.
For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the bill stops religious observance—it simply makes the decision making around it fairer. In the world that our young people are growing up in, with division being fed online every day and misinformation travelling faster than facts, it is more important than ever that we have the broad grounding provided by RME—not so that all young people think the same, but so that they can understand difference without fear and can disagree without dehumanising.
I welcome the stage 3 changes that have been agreed today that strengthen how that will work in practice, including provisions on guidance for schools, annual reporting on withdrawals from religious observance and a review after three years. That matters, because we should come back to the legislation with evidence and not just assumptions.
If the Parliament has agreed a consultative route to consider an independent right for a child or young person to request withdrawal from religious observance in future, I welcome that approach, because it allows proper consultation and scrutiny before any further change is made.
Part 2 of the bill, which is technical but important, amends the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 to place a duty on public authorities not to act incompatibly with UNCRC requirements when carrying out functions under acts of the Scottish Parliament. The bill limits that amendment so that, where a public authority is compelled to act in such a way by another act, it is not forced into an impossible choice that risks the continuity of an essential public service. There are also safeguards should such a question of exemption arise in legal proceedings, including notification to the Lord Advocate, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission.
The bill is not about taking away faith from anyone, and it is not about dismissing parents. It is about being honest that children have rights, too, and that schools should be a place where learning builds understanding, not barriers. The bill strengthens children’s rights, protects RME as education and gives schools a clearer footing. I will be pleased to vote for it.
19:34
Well, I think that the bill is a mess. It has struggled its way through the different stages in this Parliament, and today’s stage 3 amendments were evidence of that. I found it particularly dismaying that the Government caved in to the Scottish Greens—for the simple reason, I am sure, that it realised that, without the Scottish Greens, the bill would not become law. Ministers have sold their shirts, frankly, and I am not sure what for, to be honest, because the bill is totally unnecessary. There is no need for it.
Miles Briggs is right. We have ended up in a situation where no one is very happy about what the bill contains, and I predict, in support of my colleague, that it will be the subject of litigation. I do not think that there is any doubt that it will be in the courts. I am not sure that the cabinet secretary is at all convinced about the necessity for the bill, either.
What we had until the bill arrived was some clarity on the legal position on religious observance. Parents had the right of withdrawal and schools implemented that parental wish. The lines of responsibility were well understood. The bill replaces that clarity with a statutory mess that formalises disagreement and inserts the school into the space between parent and child on matters of conscience. Teachers and school leaders will now be required to assess maturity, interpret capacity and, potentially, refuse parental requests. They will be drawn into adjudicating on questions that go into belief and upbringing.
The bill is not a simplification but a complication, and it will place teachers in an invidious situation. They are educators. They are not arbiters of conscience within families. Absent safeguarding concerns, they should not—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, of course.
The issues around conflict were discussed at length in the evidence sessions that were led by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and it is the case that conflict exists at the current time. Does the member accept that conflict exists under the current arrangements? Does he accept that the way to ameliorate that conflict is for the Government to work with mandatory stakeholders and provide statutory guidance to help to support those conversations as and when they arise?
I do not doubt that conflict exists currently, but it exists within a very clear framework of law. The bill is not a clear framework of law.
We will have to disagree on that.
I think that we will—the cabinet secretary is correct.
Of course children must be respected and they must be heard, but the Conservatives also recognise the foundational truth that children are children. Capacity and responsibility develop, and that is precisely why parental responsibility exists in law. Parents carry duties because children do not yet carry full legal responsibility. That settlement is not outdated. It reflects human reality.
What concerns me more broadly is the direction of travel that is reflected in the bill, because there are voices in our politics who are increasingly uneasy about the idea that the family is the primary unit of moral and social formation. There is an instinct that the state should stand above the family as the final arbiter of disputes even where no harm is alleged. I reject that instinct. The family is the foundational institution of our society. Families come in all forms, but they share a common function. They are the place where children are loved, nurtured, guided and formed. The state can support that, but it cannot replicate it and it should not casually displace it. In recent years, we have seen attempts to extend the reach of the state into areas that were once clearly understood as parental responsibilities. The Supreme Court has reminded this Parliament that constitutional boundaries exist.
I think that I have gone over my time, so I will conclude. Scotland has long been served well by strong families and strong schools, each respecting the proper boundaries of the other, and I do not believe that a case has been made for unsettling that balance. For those reasons, I and we, on the Conservatives’ side of the chamber, will not support the bill in its final form.
19:39
I will be brief. I agree with Stephen Kerr that the bill is a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I approach the bill from the point of view of asking whether it will work legally, not from a religious point of view, and see two problems.
The bill creates a situation where a pupil can opt in to religious observance against their parents’ wishes but cannot opt out. That is a conflict. If we are serious about children’s rights, we must recognise that it is wrong to have that conflict in the bill. We also heard the argument, which is a valid one, that parents have rights, too, but the bill does not address those either.
The problem that I see, and the place where I agree with human rights campaigners, is that the bill will lead to legal challenges. I think that that will happen. If we end up with legal challenges, the Government might lose, which means that the bill is a bad one and we really ought to be doing better.
I will vote against the bill, basically because I do not think that it works. It is neither one thing nor the other. I think that Stephen Kerr is right. I do not see the point of the bill, because it seems to have got so much wrong. I will leave it there.
We move to the winding-up speeches.
19:41
As I indicated earlier, my closing remarks will focus on part 2 of the bill. I remain uncomfortable with that part of the bill. What is happening is that, just after we have incorporated the UNCRC into Scots law, the bill will give public bodies that are meant to uphold children’s rights a blanket opt-out, should there be any conflict between the convention and other legislation. That sends out entirely the wrong message. Angela O'Hagan of the Scottish Human Rights Commission said at stage 1:
“For the bill to propose in part 2 a much more significant carve-out for all subsequent legislation, rather than addressing the problem at the core, is a problem.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 48.]
We must ensure that acts of the Scottish Parliament are compliant with UNCRC in the first place, so that we can build a human rights culture in our public authorities, and that culture should respect the rights of children and young people as absolute.
I understand the member’s point. There has been quite a move in recent years to remove religious observance from school or to assume that to be secular is to be neutral. Does the member agree that there should be genuinely free decision making, so that children can opt in or opt out and that religious observance enriches the lives of our young people?
I am talking about part 2 of the bill, which is not about religious observance. However, on that point, we believe that there should be separation of church and state. There is nothing in the bill to prevent religious observance by children and young people who wish to take part in the home or in other settings. I am addressing part 2 of the bill and we must ensure that all acts of the Scottish Parliament are compliant with UNCRC in the first instance, so that we build a human rights culture across our public bodies.
That culture must respect the rights of children and young people as being absolutely prime and must ensure that the duties of public bodies are discharged in a way that respects those rights. The bill does not do that. Amendments made to the bill by me and by the cabinet secretary have addressed that problem in part. There will now be clear reporting mechanisms and public bodies will have to inform the relevant authorities when they are considering an action that is required by law but that might be contrary to UNCRC. However, I remain disappointed that there will be no proactive auditing process to allow us to identify clashes before they happen and I still do not understand why the Scottish Government would not give the children’s commissioner the ability to refer legislation directly to the court for a decision on compatibility.
Nelson Mandela told us:
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”.
That is why Greens have worked so hard to ensure that the rights in the bill are meaningful, are expanded and can be enforced by children and young people and by the organisations that represent them. Scottish Greens have worked hard with those children’s rights experts to make this well-meaning but flawed bill better. As a result, it now protects the vital role of religious education in promoting religious understanding and tolerance in our plural society. I am also pleased that we will know more, and earlier, about potential clashes between existing legislation and the UNCRC.
However, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, and primarily because of the issues with part 1 of the bill, the balance is still, in our view, not quite right. At decision time this evening, we will not support the bill but will abstain. Had the bill been drafted through working more closely with children’s rights organisations from the start, it might have been a different story.
I remain committed to supporting the introduction of a Scottish human rights bill in the next session of the Parliament and am hopeful that that can be done. That will be landmark legislation and will provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that existing human rights and, I hope, many new rights will be at the heart of every public policy decision that is made.
However, before we start on that bill, we must learn the lessons of this bill. We must use the new human rights bill to build a human rights culture in our public bodies; we must involve human rights experts more and earlier; and we must ensure that we have clear mechanisms, so that all the actions that we take and every piece of legislation that we pass are compatible with our human rights objectives. Only then will we be sure that the essence of our humanity that Mandela talked about—the fact that everyone, everywhere, in all aspects of our lives, has rights that must be respected—is truly at the heart of the laws and policies that we make.
19:45
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
I apologise to Karen Adam for having to step out during her speech. I will look it up, I assure her.
Today, the Parliament was asked to consider a bill that, at its heart, addresses two of the most sensitive areas in our education system: religious observance and religious education, and the rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and children. Throughout the process, Scottish Labour has approached the bill with seriousness, respect for Scotland’s diverse communities and a deep awareness of the decades-old settlement that underpins both non-denominational and denominational schooling.
However, it is now abundantly clear that the Scottish Government did not do the preparatory work that was necessary for a bill of such importance. The stage 1 lead committee concluded that ministers had failed to gather the evidence that was required, leaving the Parliament to legislate without sufficient clarity and in the face of a significant danger of unintended consequences for schools, families and children. That failure has shaped every stage of the scrutiny.
The Government has also shown a striking lack of understanding of denominational settings, the legal status and religious character of which are not only long established but protected in statute. So serious have those concerns been that the Bishops Conference of Scotland felt compelled to intervene publicly, warning that several of the amendments risked eroding the distinctive ethos of Catholic education. That is unprecedented and should have given ministers pause.
At the same time, the Government has failed to provide the evidence, the impact assessments and the policy coherence that would be required to reassure parents, whose rights are expressly recognised in Scots law and in the UN convention, about the consequences of the changes that are being proposed. In its current form, the bill has created confusion rather than clarity, and division rather than consensus.
We have also heard deep concern from teachers and local authorities about workload and resources. Schools are already stretched, yet the Government has brought forward significant administrative duties and new decision-making responsibilities without providing the resources to implement them. That is not respectful or realistic, and it is not responsible law making.
Scottish Labour supports our faith schools; we support parents’ rights to make decisions about their children’s education; and we support the principle that children should be consulted in ways that are appropriate, balanced and rooted in the relationships of trust that exist between families and schools. However, the bill that is before us does not achieve that balance.
Scottish Labour engaged constructively at stage 2. We also lodged amendment 24 at stage 3, which would have protected the statutory framework of denominational schools and ensured that nothing in part 1 would undermine the long-standing rights and duties in the 1918 and 1980 acts.
We must also note the contribution of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who has been explicit that, even with the proposed amendments, part 1 will not deliver a rights-respecting framework and that the Government still has not addressed the fundamental drafting flaws that place the legislation outside the scope of the UNCRC. When both children’s rights bodies and denominational representatives sound the alarm, the Parliament really ought to listen.
Without the Government’s acceptance of Scottish Labour’s consistent requests for substantial, concrete safeguards in the bill, we cannot support the legislation. The Government has not provided those safeguards; it has not provided clarity; and it has not brought forward a bill that commands confidence across Scotland’s schools, families or faith communities. For those reasons, Scottish Labour will not be able to support the bill at decision time.
19:49
The debate has been thoughtful, and I thank members from all parties for their contributions. Everyone who spoke did so out of a genuine concern for children and young people in Scotland’s schools.
The cabinet secretary has tried to get a balance in the bill, but how do we balance article 12 of the UNCRC, which states that a child who is capable of forming views has the right to express them, against article 5, which states:
“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom”?
It is a difficult road to travel. The Deputy First Minister’s intervention on my colleague Miles Briggs highlighted the issue. She described a situation in which somebody requested to go to a playgroup because they wanted to but the parents did not want the child to be in a religious playgroup. That highlights the issue that we have been talking about regarding which side we would possibly choose. If the parents then forced the issue, the playgroup would be forced to become the mediator between the family and the child.
I highlight the points that Miles Briggs, Stephen Kerr and Graham Simpson made about the conflict between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UNCRC. Because those two forms of legislation are not compatible in this respect—there are contradictions—I think that all those members are right that there could be a legal challenge.
My last comment on members’ speeches is about the point that Paul O’Kane made in his speech about what the bill is for and why we are doing it now. That was a very interesting point. I, too, look forward to the cabinet secretary giving us an answer to that question in her response. The points that he and the Labour Party have raised on denominational schools are valid.
Now that I have commented on the debate, I want to add a few lines. Children should have their say in decisions about their education. The UNCRC recognises that. As I said, article 12 states that a child who is capable of forming a view has the right to express it and that that view should be
“given due weight in accordance with … age and maturity”.
We accept that. However, the convention also recognises that parents have the main responsibility to guide their children in using those rights as they grow and mature. For decades, Scottish educational law has kept that balance by listening to children and respecting the role of parents. It values independence and family responsibility. The central issue with the bill is that it alters that balance.
After stage 2 changes, parents will no longer have the final say in withdrawing their child from religious and moral education. Instead, schools will need to notify the pupil, tell them that they can object, check their understanding—with no set minimum age—and, in some cases, let the child’s objection overrule the parent’s request. That represents a significant legal and cultural shift in how educational decisions are made.
Major stakeholders have raised concerns about whether the bill is needed, how practical it is and what resources it would require. The Church of Scotland has asked whether there is any evidence that a new law is needed. The Educational Institute of Scotland has warned that the resource demands may be underestimated and that the bill could affect workloads and relationships in schools. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has said that it is hard to see how the bill could be put in place without adding burdens for schools, parents and pupils. Those are not minor voices; they are the people who will have to put the legislation into practice.
I question whether the bill properly addresses the issue. It risks creating new disputes between parents and children for schools to manage. The bill also changes the UNCRC compatibility duty by increasing the number of situations in which public authorities can act against the convention because of primary legislation. That is a technical but important legal change. Amendments that were made at stage 2 already expect legal disputes and set out ways for senior legal officers to get involved, but we should not pass legislation and resolve its consequences after the fact.
Religious and moral education in schools is meant to help pupils to explore beliefs, values and ethical questions; it is not about indoctrination. Current guidance already asks schools to consider the child’s view when a withdrawal is requested, allowing for fair, age-appropriate discussion without forcing schools to act as the arbitrator in family disputes. The bill will replace a flexible approach with a legal process that assumes that children of any age have capacity and that asks schools to decide between parent and child. That is not a minor adjustment; it fundamentally redefines roles and responsibilities.
The Scottish Conservatives support children’s rights and believe that young people’s voices matter. However, rights exist within relationships, and parents retain primary responsibility for guiding their children. Because of that, we will not vote for the bill at stage 3.
19:55
Before responding to points that have been made in the debate by colleagues from across the chamber, I will begin with a thank you. Throughout the passage of the bill, the commitment to strengthening children’s rights in Scotland has been shared across most, if not all, political parties. Reflecting that we draw near to the dissolution of the Parliament, regardless of who forms the next Scottish Government, I sincerely hope that the commitment to protecting and enhancing children’s rights will continue. I recognise that the bill might not go as far as some members had hoped, but it is a meaningful and measured step forward, and it will make a real difference in how children’s rights are understood and protected.
I pay tribute to my bill team, who are sat at the back of the chamber. They are the civil servants and lawyers who expertly advise ministers on legislation, and I am grateful for their diligence and support throughout the passage of the bill.
A number of points have been raised by members in the debate. I will start by addressing why the legislation is required. As has been rehearsed throughout stages 1 and 2 and again in the debate on amendments today, part 1 is necessary to address questions that have been raised about UNCRC obligations in relation to existing legislation. Part 2 of the bill is necessary to bring clarity to the law in relation to preventing public authorities from being caught by conflicting duties.
It is important to restate that the bill is short and technical in nature. It is the case that we have been able to chart a middle ground through the bill and to find consensus on a number of different issues.
On the part 2 provisions, will the cabinet secretary point to an example of where she thinks a public authority might require that exemption? I do not believe that she has been able to do so thus far, and it would be useful for the record.
Mr O’Kane and I discussed that at stage 2. I am not currently able to give him an example, because that is a future-proofing power to protect our public authorities. That has been the purpose of provisions throughout the bill. The power is reflected in the Human Rights Act 1998, so the approach that the Government has taken is not unusual, but it is much more focused.
Mr Kerr raised a number of points, not least in relation to the role of parents. I again put on the record the fact that parents have a clear role in the withdrawal process, which can be initiated only by parents or carers—that is protected and provided for in the bill. They solely retain the power to initiate a request, and they must be involved in the discussions. That will be set out in the statutory guidance that we will publish in due course.
We have discussed ad nauseum the moral and legal responsibilities of parents, but my point is that the parents’ wish can be set aside, can it not? That is what the bill will do. Many people—at least those on one side of the matter—point to that as a fundamental change in the architecture around parents’ rights.
I do not agree with Mr Kerr’s assertion in that regard, because a withdrawal request can be initiated only by a parent or carer—that is not changing. What is changing is that we are putting into statute the requirement to engage with children and young people on their views, as we would expect in relation to UNCRC requirements.
I am mindful of the time, Presiding Officer. Mr Cole-Hamilton has spoken this evening of the improvements to the bill at stages 2 and 3, and I am grateful to his party for its support in that regard. For example, there is the separation of RME and religious observance, which is a position that is also supported by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. The bill is a step forward, building on our framework to support children’s rights. Karen Adam spoke about her experiences as committee convener, and I again pay tribute to committee members for their careful consideration of the issues more broadly.
Throughout the passage of the bill, I have tried to listen carefully to members; to public authorities; and to education, faith and belief and children’s rights stakeholders. The Government has responded to those asks, and we have tried to chart a middle route accordingly. I am pleased that we have been able to support a range of amendments from colleagues that I believe have strengthened the bill. We have listened, and at stage 3 the Government lodged a range of new amendments to reflect the issues that were raised at stage 2.
With regard to part 1 of the bill, the Government worked with members to lodge amendments in relation to the statutory guidance and the reporting and monitoring of withdrawal requests—a point that was raised in this afternoon’s debate. There is currently a challenge in relation to the evidence base, which is exactly why amendments that were lodged, and agreed to this evening, will seek to build that evidence base—a point that Karen Adam made very successfully. Without that evidence base, we will not be able to move forward, so it is imperative that that work is undertaken so that the guidance can be supported by the evidence that is gathered.
The bill is not an end point, but it is progress. It is a chance to make children’s voices stronger in our schools and to improve how we uphold children’s rights in law. Today, we have the opportunity to take the next step on our children’s rights journey. Children’s rights are not abstract things that sit on a shelf; they are the real, lived experiences of the young people in our schools.
Improving children’s rights must be a shared endeavour for all political parties in a Parliament of minorities. This is a journey, ultimately, but it is also a responsibility that rests on us all to strengthen, uphold and realise the rights of every child in Scotland. I ask members across the chamber to support the bill.
That concludes the debate on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Air adhart
Decision Time