Official Report 973KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19866, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I would be grateful if members who wish to take part in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
14:27
I am pleased to present the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. The bill is an important opportunity to strengthen the rights of children and young people in Scotland, building on our commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
First, I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its careful and considered work on the bill and for its stage 1 report. I welcome the fact that the majority of committee members supported the general principles of the bill, but I also acknowledge that members had a variety of views on the bill’s measures and that not everyone is in agreement on both parts, nor on all provisions. I recognise why that might be. As I stated in evidence to the committee only last month, the issues are finely balanced and sensitive for many people. I assure the committee and the Parliament that I look forward to further constructive engagement on the issues that are raised.
I thank the stakeholders who took the time to express their views on the bill through evidence to the committee, the public consultation and my own engagement.
Liberal Democrats will support the bill tonight, but we share the considerable concerns of stakeholders in the chamber and beyond it about part 2 and the Government’s failure to make the case for what seems to be a dilution of our commitment to incorporating the UNCRC.
I will come on to talk about part 2 later, but I recognise that there are a number of different views, particularly about part 2 and on stakeholders’ views. I will continue to listen as the bill makes its way through the Parliament.
The bill serves two main purposes: first, to strengthen children’s rights in decisions about religious observance and religious and moral education; and, secondly, to clarify the legal duties of public authorities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 in situations where provisions in acts of the Scottish Parliament conflict with UNCRC obligations.
The bill is technical in nature, dealing with those two separate but related objectives, as is set out in parts 1 and 2, respectively. As such, the bill has been drafted very narrowly, and deliberately so, as it is intended to address those specific points within the current parliamentary session. However, I want to assure stakeholders and children and young people themselves that the bill does not mark the end of our efforts to strengthen and improve children’s rights.
Religious observance and religious and moral education are two distinct but important aspects of school education in Scotland. Sections 8 and 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 provide for the long-standing parental right to withdraw a pupil from religious observance and/or religious and moral education. Guidance on religious observance notes that pupils’ views should be considered in the withdrawal process. Currently, however, there is no requirement in legislation to consider them, and the decision rests entirely with the parent. Part 1 proposes to change that to provide a legal right for a child to be consulted where a parent has made a request to withdraw him or her from religious observance. That would provide certainty in the law that children and young people’s views should be considered when parents are exercising their withdrawal right. It does not introduce an independent right to withdraw for the child, nor does it alter the parent’s right to request a withdrawal. In practice, it also gives the child the ability to opt back in.
Without those changes, pupils might be denied those aspects of their education against their wishes, and their rights under the UNCRC might not be upheld. The committee has heard divergent views on the topic and, given that plurality of views, the Government’s approach is to chart a middle course: to strengthen children’s rights while balancing the three key considerations of parental rights, the recognition of stakeholder views and the practical implications for schools.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am happy to give way to Mr Whitfield.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary, given the plethora of choice that she had.
The cabinet secretary has already spoken about the complexity between education and religious observance. What is the Scottish Government’s position on how that dichotomy will be addressed by its middle way?
The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee raised and reported on that point. The 1980 act does not currently separate those two distinct parts of our education system, but that is something that we might wish to come back to and reconsider at stage 2. There were mixed views in stakeholder consultation as to how that might be addressed, with the parental right to withdraw perhaps not applying to certain aspects in the future. We need to be mindful of that at stage 2.
As Mr Whitfield will know, we are making good progress in this space in the curriculum improvement cycle. All of those things need to be considered in the round.
I turn now to part 2, to which Mr Cole-Hamilton referred earlier. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 requires public authorities to respect and uphold the rights that are set out in the UNCRC requirements in the act when they exercise functions under acts of the Scottish Parliament. The 2024 act places a clear duty on them not to act incompatibly with those rights, and it gives children and their representatives a route to challenge decisions and seek redress. To ensure that that duty operates fairly in every situation, the bill introduces a very narrow exemption. Where another act of the Scottish Parliament leaves a public authority with no discretion to act compatibly with UNCRC requirements, the public authority would not be in breach of the duty for doing what the law requires.
If we could go back to the issue of the rights of the child for a moment, I understand that that is a focus of the cabinet secretary’s speech, but she said that there was a balance in the bill in relation to parents’ legal rights and responsibilities. How does the bill address that at all, given that it gives the child the right, as prompted by the school, to decide for themselves something that their parents—who have a legal duty to them—will already have decided?
I do not necessarily follow Mr Kerr’s line of questioning. The amendment to the 1980 act that is being proposed does not allow children an independent right to withdraw from religious observance or religious education. Any withdrawal from that subject or from that observance in school has to be initiated by the parent or carer. It is not about taking rights away from the parents. The bill does propose, however, that we put into law the requirement for the child’s views to be taken cognisance of.
Returning to part 2, I have mentioned the safeguards that are being included in that regard. If we had not put the safeguard into part 2, a public authority could be put in an impossible position: compelled by law to act in a particular way, while being told that to do so would breach the compatibility duty, thereby creating a conflict that could lead to disruption or even a pause in vital services. The exemption avoids that conflict by allowing services to continue.
We do not believe that any current acts of the Scottish Parliament require incompatible action, and there should be no future acts of the Parliament that require incompatible action because of the safeguards for new legislation that are built into the UNCRC. However, this is about future proofing, and our understanding of children’s rights will continue to develop over time. Court judgments can shift interpretations over time, too. In short, although we do not see any incompatibility now, we cannot rule out the possibility of it arising in the future. The risk to essential services is material and not one that the Government is willing to take.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am mindful of the time, Presiding Officer, but I will do so.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving so much time to interventions. Does the Scottish Government recognise that the potential of the exemption that is being created in the bill could be replicated in the future and, more importantly, that it will turn any case that an individual young person has with regard to their human rights back against the proposed legislation rather than the council, thus making it a far more complex way of trying to enforce their rights?
I thank Mr Whitfield for his question. In relation to the exemption being replicated in other legislation, it is important to note that a similar safeguard already exists in the Human Rights Act 1998, and the approach that we have taken is much narrower and more targeted, so we believe that that allays the risk that Martin Whitfield has spoken to.
A number of stakeholders, including Together, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress, but I am happy to take interventions in closing.
Those organisations, as well as children and young people, have been broadly supportive of our approach and have recognised that, where the issue lies in legislation, the focus should be on fixing that legislation.
I have carefully considered the points and the recommendations made by the committee in the stage 1 report and have responded formally.
I am now mindful of the time, so I will move to my concluding comments. In summary, the bill builds on the progress that we continue to make on children’s rights. It strengthens the protection and promotion of children’s rights in education and strengthens the legal framework for children’s rights in Scotland. I recognise that, as we have heard this afternoon, there is a range of views on those areas, but the bill offers the Parliament a very clear opportunity in this parliamentary session to make further meaningful progress on children’s rights.
I welcome the recommendation by a majority of the committee members to agree to the general principles of the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. I hope that the Parliament agrees to the general principles.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill.
I call Karen Adam, on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
14:37
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the bill in my capacity as convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
It is a short bill with two main purposes. On the face of it, it appears to be quite limited in scope and, to some extent, it was presented to the committee as a technical bill. It has, however, been an immensely challenging bill for the committee to consider. There was not one stakeholder whom we heard from who offered unreserved support for it. As I will return to at the end of my speech, ultimately, a majority of members have decided to recommend support for the general principles of the bill, but it has not been an easy decision to reach, and a minority of members have either been unable to make a recommendation on the general principles or do not support them.
Irrespective of the view that we came to on the bill, we all recognise that there are many serious concerns about it. If the bill progresses to stage 2 today, it will have to be amended to respond to those concerns.
Moreover, since we reported, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has issued its judgment in relation to withdrawal from religious education in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the judgment is specific to the education system in Northern Ireland, but we nonetheless welcome the cabinet secretary’s letter noting that the Scottish Government is confident that the judgment does not impact on the bill.
Significant concerns were expressed to us about parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Currently, parents and carers have the legal right to withdraw children from religious observance and religious and moral education. We heard that there is a general impression that the numbers of withdrawals from religious observance and religious and moral education are low. However, the committee found that there is very little information on the numbers of withdrawals, nor is there any information available to us on what the children who are withdrawn from religious observance and religious and moral education do during the lessons from which they are withdrawn.
The member is linking religious observance and religious education, but questions have previously been raised about that. Did the committee look at that point? It seems to me that all children should be educated, but not all children should be taking part in observance.
I will come to that point in my speech. The difference between religious observance and religious and moral education did come up in committee.
The convener said that there is little or no data on withdrawals. Did the committee have any concerns about that? Why would we legislate in an area on which there is no data? Did that come up? Was it a consideration for the committee during its proceedings?
We did not doubt that withdrawal is happening—there is evidence that it is. I was referring to the specific and particular data that we wanted to see in order to know and understand the issue a bit better. We have asked the Scottish Government to look into providing us with that data.
We have asked the Scottish Government to undertake research to better understand how withdrawal is monitored, and to look at what schools put in place for young people who have been withdrawn. As it stands, if withdrawals continue to be at a low level, the impact of the bill might be minimal, but its impact must be monitored, as greater numbers of withdrawals could have a significant impact on schools.
I turn to the main concerns about part 1 of the bill. First, the committee heard concerns about the bill’s conflation of religious observance and religious and moral education. Under the bill, withdrawal from both is treated in the same way. However, witnesses told the committee that the two should not be treated equally. It was suggested that withdrawal should apply only to religious observance. A majority of the committee agreed with that, recommending that
“opting out from RME should not be possible for either young people or their parents/guardians. In an ever more fragmented society, RME seems an increasingly important subject and one from which the Committee considers children should not be withdrawing.”
We note the Scottish Government’s reasoning for not adopting that approach, but we urge it to reflect again, and lodge amendments in that respect. That approach has been adopted in Wales, and we do not see why it could not be adopted in Scotland, too.
We also heard concerns that familial conflict might be precipitated as a result of the bill. We recognise that there is the potential for such conflict, and we urge the Scottish Government to monitor the impact of the bill and ensure that schools have the resources and training to enable them to meet those challenges.
Witnesses also expressed disappointment about the lack of an independent right for the child to opt out of religious observance. The bill provides a right for the child to opt into religious observance and religious and moral education where a parent has exercised their right to withdraw a pupil, but it provides no right to independently opt out. In that regard, the bill falls short of meeting the concluding observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
While we recognise the support for that independent right, a majority of the committee understood why the cabinet secretary had sought to chart a middle ground on the issue in seeking only to make provision for the opt-in. However, we still appreciate that there are strong arguments for that independent right, and a majority of the committee agreed to invite the cabinet secretary to consider making provision for that in future legislation.
Some of the evidence that was presented to the committee expressed concern about the absence of a prescribed age at which a child is considered to be capable of forming a view on withdrawal. It was suggested that that would place undue pressure on teachers to make decisions on capacity. Others suggested, however, that teachers are making those kinds of decisions on capacity all the time.
A majority of the committee agreed with the approach that is taken in the bill not to prescribe an age at which a child is considered to have capacity. However, we recognise that that will present challenges for teachers, and they will need to be supported and resourced to make those decisions.
Does Karen Adam recognise that capacity is defined in several different age brackets by various acts of this Parliament? I have sought to clarify that and bring cohesion on it. Should the bill seek to do so, too?
It is not a committee bill—it is a Scottish Government bill. We had a great deal of discussion on the age at which a child could have capacity, but the majority of us decided that teachers deal with such things all the time and have to make those kinds of decisions.
Another concern that was presented to the committee was that part 1 of the bill has been drafted as an amendment to existing pre-devolution legislation rather than as stand-alone legislation and that, as a result, the bill is not within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. A majority of the committee was disappointed by the approach that has been taken. It would have been preferable for the bill to have been drafted as stand-alone legislation. Stakeholders have recommended that the bill be amended to bring it within the scope of the 2024 act. The committee acknowledges that an amendment of that significance might not be admissible, but we would nonetheless welcome the cabinet secretary’s reflections on that concern.
Turning to part 2, I note that the bill seeks to amend the 2024 act in order to add an exception to the duty on public authorities under section 6 of that legislation to act compatibly with the UNCRC in circumstances where the authority is compelled to act incompatibly in reliance on another act of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government explained that that is intended to remove the potential for public authorities to have to decide whether to act in a way that puts them in breach of the compatibility duty in the 2024 act or another statutory duty.
Stakeholders were concerned about the implications of part 2 and perplexed about the rationale for it. It is unclear to the committee why part 2 is essential at this juncture, given that a scoping exercise has not been undertaken to understand whether there is a need for it. We note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has proposed mitigations to part 2, and we invite the Scottish Government to reflect further on those.
The committee is concerned, too, about the precedent that that approach sets in establishing carve-outs from legislation. We ask that, should the bill be passed, the Scottish Government ensures that Parliament is kept updated about the operation of that provision and how it may be used.
As I noted in my opening remarks, after careful consideration, a majority of the committee agreed to recommend to Parliament that it should agree to the general principles of the bill. It should be recognised that that support is predicated on amendments being made to the bill to respond to the concerns that I have outlined this afternoon. I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate and seeking to work towards a bill that can further the rights of children effectively.
14:46
The cabinet secretary opened her comments by saying that the issue is finely balanced and sensitive and that the Government has looked for a middle route. However, it is clear that, in some cases, there is no middle route. I think that many members who speak in this debate will find the bill difficult in that it does not deliver the middle route that the cabinet secretary has talked about.
I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its work, and I thank all those who gave evidence and the organisations that provided helpful briefings ahead of today’s stage 1 debate.
I believe that it is important for children to have a say in their education, but any change must also respect the crucial role that parents and carers play in shaping their upbringing. We should never forget that. Too often, debates do not include the supporters of our young people—their parents and carers. Scottish Conservatives are concerned that the bill risks creating confusion and conflict, not only within families, with unclear safeguards around how—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will.
I am interested in Mr Briggs’s point, because our approach maintains that only parents may initiate a withdrawal from RO or RME. Mr Briggs also mentioned conflict. However, as Together observed in its evidence to the committee, conflict already exists in the current system. Putting children’s rights into law and listening to them is a simple approach that balances calls from other stakeholders to go further and recognises the role of parents and carers. I wonder whether Mr Briggs will respond to some of those points.
I do not disagree with some of the points that the cabinet secretary has made. The issue is about balance. Earlier, she outlined a system of opt-in and opt-out for young people—the hokey-cokey system that has been created. Ultimately, it feels like the bill is flawed and not fit for purpose, which is where the committee’s work—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will.
Is the challenge not that we are moving the decision making for the conflict—the tension between two different groups of human rights—on to teachers in the classroom? They are in a stressed position, but they will have to take a position that they could subsequently be criticised for taking.
I absolutely agree. I will come on to talk about that later in my speech. We are concerned about the impact that the bill will have in our classrooms.
As we have heard, we are making laws without having data available, but we believe that what is proposed is, in effect, already happening in Scotland. When we look at the survey that the Scottish Government undertook in three council areas, we see that, potentially, about 4,000 pupils are currently being withdrawn from RME and RO without any legislation needing to be put in place.
I agree with the point that the Church of Scotland raised in its briefing, which was that the issue that the Scottish Government is trying to address would be better dealt with through training, learning and development, rather than by imposing those duties on teachers.
Does Miles Briggs recognise the concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has repeatedly said that we are out of step with the provisions of the convention by not legislating to allow children the right to have their voice heard?
What is important is how that can work in practice. The work of the committee has exposed that what that means in practice is often contradictory. Having taken a number of interventions, I want to come on to what that will mean in classrooms. I wonder what the cabinet secretary, as a former teacher, has thought about how it would work in practice were she back in the classroom.
I will concentrate on the workability of the proposal in the school environment and the impacts that it will have on the wider school community. As Sarah Quinn of the Educational Institute of Scotland said,
“we have significant concerns about the apparent underestimation of the resources that will be required for implementation and about the potential impact on workload and relationships. We do not feel that the bill fully realises our policy intentions for pupils’ rights”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 October 2025; c 26.]
We have just had a question about less contact time. The bill would put more duties on our teachers.
Dr Douglas Hutchison of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland said:
“it is difficult to imagine any straightforward or consistent mechanism to make it work that would not be burdensome for the school and onerous for”
the relationship between
“the child and parent.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 October 2025; c 33-4.]
That is where I have concerns over what that will mean for those children who will, potentially, be withdrawn from those lessons. There is a concern—which I also note from the committee’s report—about the isolation of young people in our schools in the model that would be delivered.
Also not touched on are care-experienced young people and the decision making around them. I do not know whether that has been overlooked by the Scottish Government. Is it the case that we have not looked at that very important group of people, as part of the Promise, when it comes to decision making in schools?
I studied higher religious education when I was at school. As the convener has stated, it is very important that we make the case for a greater understanding of different faiths and beliefs and, through learning and experiences in our schools, break down the barriers that debates in the chamber often look towards.
We live in an increasingly diverse and multicultural society. In a world in which global connections and communications are deeply entrenched, we need to understand one another and our religions. I therefore express concern that the bill would create a situation in which some young people could go through their education without having the opportunity to understand other religions and faiths.
I thank my colleagues Tess White and Pam Gosal for their work on the committee. They were consistent in their questioning and in raising concerns in the committee evidence sessions.
As I said earlier, it is important that we look towards children having a say in their education, but any change must also respect the crucial role of parents and carers in helping to shape their upbringing. We are concerned that the bill risks creating confusion and conflict within families, with unclear safeguards on how parental rights and children’s views would be balanced in practice, while placing significant burdens on our schools and teaching staff.
Rights must be workable in practice, and many education professionals, from teachers to directors of education, have warned that the bill is unclear and burdensome and that it risks creating conflict. The proposed change cannot come at the cost of damaging relationships at home or overwhelming our schools, which are already complaining of too much bureaucracy within their walls.
Given the uncertainties and the potential impact on families and teaching staff, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at stage 1, and will look to lodge amendments at stage 2.
14:54
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
It is a pleasure to speak in the stage 1 debate of the impressively titled Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. The bill seeks to do two things. First, it will involve pupils in decisions about withdrawal from religious observance and religious and moral education. Secondly, it will amend the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 to clarify the circumstances in which “incompatible” actions by public authorities are not unlawful—in other words, it considers where a public authority is breaching a child’s human rights.
On the face of it, those aims may sound reasonable. However, the detail in the bill and the evidence that was presented to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee reveal serious challenges that will make it impossible for Labour to support the general principles of the bill. I thank the members and convener of the committee for their excellent work on the bill, as well as those who gave evidence.
Part 1 of the bill addresses withdrawal from RO and RME. The intention of giving children a voice when parents seek to withdraw them is welcome in principle, but the challenge is that the bill fails to resolve a deeper problem, which is the continued right to withdraw from RME in non-denominational schools. RME is not a confessional period; it is an academically rigorous subject that helps young people to understand not just world religions or their own religion, but ethical issues and philosophical perspectives—skills that are essential for life in a diverse Scotland. Yet, by maintaining the statutory right to withdraw from RME, the bill will perpetuate an outdated approach that denies children access to a full curriculum.
Almost everybody who gave evidence to the committee, including STARME, faith representatives and humanist organisations, recommended removing the right to withdraw from RME from the bill, and a majority of members on the committee agreed. Continuing that right will contradict the spirit of the UNCRC and undermine the entitlement to a broad education.
The bill also conflates religious observance with religious and moral education, despite their fundamentally different purposes—one is reflective and one is educational. That conflation is a historical anomaly that this legislation should have corrected.
I move to part 2 of the bill. In the policy memorandum, the Scottish Government gave an assurance that it is
“committed to upholding the rule of law by ensuring that laws are clear, accessible and effective. It is also committed to fully realising the human rights of all people in Scotland, including complying with international human rights obligations.”
I start with that assurance because part 2 of the bill is presented as a technical fix to provide legal clarity. However, let us be clear that it will introduce a significant risk to the integrity of the incorporation of the UNCRC in Scotland.
The 2024 act was designed to create a proactive culture of accountability for children’s rights. Section 6 of the 2024 act imposes a duty on public authorities to act compatibly with those rights. However, section 2 of the bill will carve out an exemption to that duty and allow public authorities to act incompatibly with the UNCRC when compelled to do so by Scottish legislation.
That has been described as a pragmatic solution, but, in practice, it will create blind spots. It will mean that when a child’s rights are breached because of a statutory requirement, that breach cannot be challenged under the 2024 act. The accountability mechanism shifts from the courts to the legislature, but with no guarantee that incompatibilities will be identified or addressed.
I go back to comments that were made by the then Deputy First Minister in 2019. John Swinney said:
“The key point to observe is that the purpose of incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law is to provide the highest level of protection for the rights of children in our society. If that requires Parliament to amend the existing legislation of Scotland to ensure that it is compatible with the UNCRC, that is precisely what Parliament has to do.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2019; c 5.]
The bill will do the opposite of that. Instead of amending legislation to make it compatible with the UNCRC, which was suggested by the committee, the bill will create an exemption that will allow incompatibility to persist. There will be no statutory duty for public bodies to report when they rely on the exemption, and there will be no audit of existing legislative conflicts for at least a year. In short, we risk embedding a loophole that will weaken the very protections that the 2024 act was meant to deliver.
Would Martin Whitfield agree that, in his description of section 2, he has actually underpinned the point that there is no place in there for the rights and responsibilities of parents? What role does he see being played by the rights and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children in this at all?
I can give you the time back, Mr Whitfield.
I am very grateful, Presiding Officer.
It is right to say that parents have the human right to parent. They have a responsibility for education, and much of that sits in part 1. As I hope the member will appreciate, I am concentrating on part 2 at this stage because of the coach and horses that it potentially drives through the protections that we have—protections that, in this case, relate to young people because of the definitions within the UNCRC. It also perhaps speaks to an incredibly dangerous attitude towards human rights that appears to be developing, along the lines of, “Human rights are fine when they’re fine, but if they cause us a problem, let’s find a way to ignore them.” That worries me.
The bill has the potential to restrict—
Does the member recognise, as I do, that the catch-all application in part 2 fatally undermines our attempts to successfully incorporate the UNCRC? Should there ever be a need to disapply the convention, we could just make that specific in legislation at that time.
I have a fear of there being a period of time where the situation is such that we have to explicitly disapply human rights, but I agree with the substance of the intervention.
The Scottish Government wants to remove the rights of our children when compelled to do so by Scottish legislation. There is no potential end to that tunnel. I know that the cabinet secretary said that she can imagine it only ever being used once. My greatest fear is that a vehicle is discovered that successfully moves to one side the ability of an individual—in this case, a young person—to bring a claim under the UNCRC, leaving them instead having to rely on bringing down an entire piece of legislation with regard to their rights. As soon as that vehicle is discovered, it could prove very attractive in some circumstances, and I am not prepared to endorse that message.
The stage 1 report from the committee—again, I thank the committee members for their work—supports the principle of giving a child a voice, but only with substantial amendments to the bill. In the report, the committee expresses disappointment that the bill excludes itself from the scope of the UNCRC. The committee warns that the benefits of the bill may not outweigh the negatives if it stands as currently drafted.
In short, the bill is not ready. It does not deliver the rights-based approach that Scotland is committed to, it does not reflect the weight of the evidence on RME, and it does not provide sufficient safeguards in part 2. For that reason, when it comes to the vote on the bill’s general principles, Labour will abstain. I cannot oppose the general principles because—to go back to the memorandum—the Scottish Government’s stated intention was to strengthen children’s rights. The bill does not do that, but it could be the vehicle that does. Therefore, Labour will abstain.
This Parliament has a proud record of advancing children’s rights. Even in the face of a Scottish Government that is retreating from that record, this Parliament must ensure that its reputation and responsibility are not compromised by legislation that falls short of our own ambition.
15:03
This Parliament has taken significant strides in promoting children’s rights. After three years of delay caused by a petty UK Government, last year we enshrined the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law.
Previously, my Green colleague John Finnie ensured that all children are protected from physical assault under the guise of so-called discipline, even from their parents, yet we have so much further to go. Our age of criminal responsibility is just 12—higher than in some other parts of the world but lower than in many countries. It is lower than the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommended age of 16, and even lower than its absolute minimum of 14.
The bill concerns another area in which children’s rights are not fully respected. The child-facing version of the convention says:
“I have the right to be listened to and taken seriously.”
However, the 1980 act allows children to be withdrawn from religious activities in schools without their consent and without even taking their views into account. That is clearly contrary to the convention, and I welcome this opportunity to correct that.
However, the bill, as drafted, suggests that the Scottish Government’s determination to ensure rights compatibility goes only so far. It allows a young person to opt back in if they have been opted out of those activities, but not to opt out themselves. That directly contradicts the Scottish Government’s draft child rights scheme, which says that it wants to give children
“the knowledge and confidence to use their rights”.
That suggests, rightly, that children should be able to use their rights proactively, and not only after an adult has acted on their behalf.
The bill also contradicts the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who was explicit in her letter to the committee, in which she said:
“Part 1 in its current form does not achieve compliance with the UNCRC.”
The commissioner is far from alone. The committee’s stage 1 report also notes that
“A majority ... supported amending the Bill to provide children with an independent right to withdraw from RO.”
That majority includes the Scottish Human Rights Commission, UNICEF—the United Nations Children’s Fund—and Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights). Professor Angela O’Hagan of the Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee that, without such a right, the bill will fail to meet its basic aim of achieving compliance with the UNCRC.
I found myself in a minority of one when the committee reported on that aspect. However, if colleagues remain opposed to amendment, I ask them to reflect on why they think that they know better than every children’s rights organisation in the country, better than the public and better than their own supporters. A Survation poll that was released today by the Humanist Society Scotland shows that 66 per cent of Scots believe that pupils should be able to decide for themselves whether to take part in religious observance. The majority of supporters of every political party agree.
It is also doubtful whether the provisions of the 1980 act would withstand legal scrutiny, regardless of the bill. Last week, judges ruled that collective worship in Northern Ireland that is not “objective, critical and pluralistic” amounts to “indoctrination” and is unlawful. The Scottish Government has responded to that, but it has also been warned that a similar challenge could succeed here unless the bill is amended to uphold young people’s rights.
The bill suffers from another major flaw. Like the 1980 act, it conflates religious observance with religious education. Religious observance—in other words, acts of worship, especially when one faith is prioritised over another—should have no place in state schools. Young people of different faiths or of no faith should not be forced to take part in worship. Forced observance is incompatible with article 14 of the convention, the child-facing version of which says:
“I have the right to have my own thoughts and beliefs and to choose my religion”.
On that point, is such a choice not made when the parents and the child select, say, a Catholic school, and therefore choose to take part in religious observance, rather than it being made later on, halfway down the road?
While we have religious state schools, the beliefs of a school need to be taken account of by the parents in choosing it. However, many of us would rather have complete separation of church and state in our education system.
The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is clear that the right under article 14 includes freedom of religion, thought and conscience—freedoms that the current system does not adequately protect. Religious and moral education, or RME, is quite different. As we have heard this afternoon, learning about diverse religions and belief systems is an essential part of a broad education in a pluralist society. Young people cannot withdraw from science, maths, history or English, and that is for good reason. Religious and moral education is similarly vital, and teachers agree. Dr Douglas Hutchison of ADES said:
“religious and moral education should be seen as a curricular subject in the same way as any other subject.”
He also said:
“The idea that, in a liberal democracy, there is no place in the curriculum for religious education and there should be a right to withdraw from it does not make sense in 2025.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2025; c 27.]
The Scottish Episcopal Church told the committee that RME
“stands firmly within the school curriculum”,
that
“our children need to understand other faiths, beliefs and cultures if they are to grow up in the diverse, inclusive and tolerant society that we want in Scotland”,
and that
”there is a big distinction between RME and RO, and the bill does not recognise it.”—[Official Report, 30 September; c 10.]
The Church of Scotland and other faith groups also share that view.
I will speak to part 2 later this afternoon, so I will close for now. I welcome the bill, in part, as an opportunity to strengthen children’s rights, but it clearly does not go far enough to ensure that young people’s views are heard, respected and acted on.
The bill risks entrenching the idea that children’s rights are to be exercised only after adults intervene, rather than independently and proactively, and it risks undermining the vital role of RME by failing to separate it clearly from religious observance. At stage 2, I will lodge amendments to separate RO and RME and to introduce the independent right of a child to withdraw from RO.
15:10
As I told the cabinet secretary, the Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill. However, our support is finely balanced, and we do so only because the bill represents the last opportunity to extend children’s rights in this session of Parliament. The legislation is very much like the curate’s egg—it is good in part, but there are massive deficiencies, and I agree with much of what has been said in critique of it so far.
Presiding Officer, as you know, before politics, I was a youth worker. Fighting for the rights and wellbeing of children is in my political and spiritual DNA. The bill presents us with the question that we keep coming back to in this Parliament: do we believe that children and their rights should be taken seriously and that they should have a voice in the decisions that shape their lives? It is my belief and that of my party, as well as the settled will of the Parliament, that they should.
We have legislation that incorporates the UNCRC into Scots law, yet concluding observation after concluding observation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is the guarantor of that convention, has said that Scotland is out of step with the intent of the convention on these issues.
Alex Cole-Hamilton said very clearly that he believes in the rights of a child, but what about the rights of parents? He will have probably noticed that that is a theme of my contribution this afternoon. We are talking a lot about the rights of children, but what about the rights of their parents and their legal duty of care for their children?
Both have rights, and neither of them should be mutually exclusive. As Stephen Kerr will be aware, from the age of 12, someone can give consent to a medical procedure, irrespective of their parents’ views. That decision needs to come from the children. We already disaggregate those decision-making powers, and rightly so.
Part 1 of the bill goes some way to addressing the deficiencies in our policy that the UN committee has identified. When a parent withdraws a child from religious observance or RME, the school must inform the child, give them space to express their views, engage with the parent and child where disagreement arises, and then, ultimately, respect the child’s wishes, where they have capacity. I agree that that does not go far enough, and it is confusing to conflate religious observance and RME. That should be disaggregated.
Article 12 of the UNCRC is one of the most fundamental pillars of the convention. A child has a right to express a view in all matters affecting them, and for that view to be
“given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
I need to clarify my intervention on the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, as I do not think that I expressed myself well. Article 12 is elegant in its simplicity. It does not define the age of maturity—and nor should it, because that is a judgment call.
On sensitive issues such as this, in discussion with parents and children, a view can be arrived at, but the views of the child should never be discounted if they can be delivered and articulated.
Together, (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights)—an organisation of which I was very proud to be convener—is clear that, when decisions profoundly affect a child’s values, their outlook or world view, their voice must be heard. It wants the bill to go further in that regard. In its view,
“With the right amendments at Stage 2, this legislation could mark another important step”
towards the full incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law. I support some of the proposed changes that Maggie Chapman has articulated in that regard.
We need to allow for children themselves to withdraw from religious observance. John Mason said that, if a family places a child in a Roman Catholic school, that is clearly a statement of intent, and that is what they should expect, but religious observance does not just start and end at Catholic education. It happens in all aspects of life, particularly at this time of year, as we approach the Christmas season.
It is clear that the bill needs significant work at stage 2. The committee heard legitimate concerns about the conflation of religious observance and RME, which I mentioned, the potential conflict within families and how we assess capacity. In my view, those aspects need to be looked at.
Part 2 of the bill sets out a new exemption from the compatibility duty. I have raised with the cabinet secretary my concern with that provision. It would allow public authorities to act in ways that would otherwise be incompatible with children’s rights when the authorities are compelled to do so by provisions in acts of the Scottish Parliament. It is in effect a release valve—a get-out clause, or a back door—that gives local authorities the means to not observe the rights that we have asked them to observe in respect of children and young people. In effect, it limits the legal obligation on authorities to uphold UNCRC standards in specific circumstances as underpinned by Scottish law.
The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has raised concerns about this part of the bill, including about the Government’s failure to make a robust case for the need for it. I do not think that I heard that in the remarks of the cabinet secretary. I am glad that she is closing for the Government as well—
Will the member take an intervention?
If I have time, I certainly will.
I will give you the time back.
In the policy memorandum, the cabinet secretary has certified, in accordance with section 23(1) of the 2024 act, that the bill complies with the UNCRC. Does the member struggle, as I do, to see that not contradicting what appears to exist in part 2?
Martin Whitfield makes the point that I was coming on to make. I cannot see how giving an opt-out from the UNCRC legislation that this Parliament has passed is in any way compatible with that same legislation. It almost disapplies it, in the most simple analysis. I am grateful to the member for raising that.
I agree with the committee that it is not clear why these changes are needed or what problem they are intended to solve. The bill has been introduced with little clarity about its long-term implications. It also threatens the support of several parties in Parliament, which are proceeding in good faith and want to see the furtherance of children’s rights in the parliamentary time that remains in the session.
There is also concern about the precedent that the bill sets in looking for these carve-outs and the implications that that might have for the future Scottish human rights bill that we have heard talked of for the next Parliament.
I am concerned that the bill risks weakening the very architecture of the incorporation of the rights of the child. A range of human rights organisations, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, are aligned on that point and expressed their concerns in their stage 1 evidence, as we have heard several times today.
Liberal Democrats will continue to champion children’s rights. We will move forward in good faith on the bill, but our patience is finite. Until the Government can tell us why part 2 is needed, we cannot envisage supporting it at stage 3 in the final analysis of the bill.
We move to the open debate.
15:17
I thank Karen Adam for her opening speech as convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. As a member of the committee, I can say that the evidence sessions were extensive. As we have heard today, the evidence that was gathered led to lots of differing opinions on the bill.
Some motives for concern were shared by many. Striking a balance with the legislation was key. The committee was split on the benefits of the bill for young people. I, like the majority of the committee, supported the general principles but, obviously, with the need for amendments.
Stakeholder engagement was wide as we discussed the bill, and I thank all stakeholders for their participation.
As a person of faith, I am very much in favour of ecumenical teachings in schools of all faiths. Understanding and respecting the views of others, of all faiths and none, is so important as we push back against prejudice and ignorance.
Religious observance and our own religious and moral education are, of course, important in their own right, and I will touch on that later.
It is important to understand the context of the bill, and one of the key issues in that context is the current level of withdrawals. One of the first questions that the committee asked was about the number of pupils who have withdrawn. There is limited information on that, and I would like to see how that can be improved. We heard that the numbers are small but, regardless of how small they are—even if it is only one, two or three people—it is important to have that information. On the more general point, the committee has asked the Scottish Government to consider how best it can be made aware of how RO is being delivered and the number of pupils who are requesting withdrawal. It is important to keep in mind the context of what we are talking about.
As has been mentioned, conflation of RO and RME was an important topic. As I have stated, RME is increasingly relevant, and I agree with the majority of the committee that RME should not be a topic that children can withdraw from. RME is one of the eight curriculum areas in the curriculum for excellence. I understand the point that others have made that, if children can withdraw from RME, what other issues can they withdraw from? I remember how much my two kids valued RME at school, and how much it informed them in respecting others at school and even now going forward in their lives. That is important. I note that the cabinet secretary has stated that she will give careful consideration to that topic in advance of stage 2.
The committee recognised that the bill creates a potential for conflict between parents and children. That is where the key balance has to be. I acknowledge the point that Stephen Kerr made on that, and I will touch on the issue later. The intention of the bill is, of course, to increase rights for children. It is important that there is resource for schools to deal with such conflict—that issue was raised by some of the schools that we heard from in evidence.
The cabinet secretary has advised that the bill includes a requirement to seek discussion between parents, children and the school. In her response to the committee, she referred to the legal rights under article 12 of the UNCRC, which is the right to be heard; article 14, which is the right to freedom of thought, conscience and, of course, religion; and article 29, which is on the purposes of education.
The issue of the right of the child to independently opt out of RO and RME was also a topic of conversation. I was encouraged to hear that the cabinet secretary wishes to “chart a middle ground” on that issue. Again, I am cognisant of what has been said on it. The majority of the committee considered that it would be appropriate for children to have a right to object to RO and RME.
The issue of children’s capacity to form a view was discussed in the committee and by stakeholders. The point was made that there can be a very mature 12-year-old and a very immature 14-year-old. The majority of the committee agreed that the bill should not specify an age threshold at which a pupil’s views are considered in discussions about withdrawal from RO and RME, which I think is the correct approach.
The committee mentioned the need for support and training on the decision-making capacity of pupils. A few schools touched on that, including denominational and non-faith schools. The training issue is an important point, and I hope that the cabinet secretary can pick up on it in summing up the debate.
As we have heard, one of the key issues all the way through the process was compatibility with the UNCRC. That was an issue for stakeholders, particularly in the panel of those with legal expertise. I am aware of the cabinet secretary’s position regarding the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 in that respect.
The committee recognised concerns about part 2 of the bill. Those concerns relate to the rationale, the precedent and whether the bill is an appropriate vehicle for the measure. I note the cabinet secretary’s comments in her response that the measure is
“a necessary and proportionate safeguard to ensure that the UNCRC Act operates reliably as case law develops.”
Together, which has been mentioned, as well as the SHRC and the children’s commissioner have all offered support for the bill, although that is caveated. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to ensure that the Parliament is kept updated with regard to part 2.
On the general principles, there was no doubt that concerns were presented to the committee, and we have heard different opinions from members. It was encouraging to see in the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report that she will consider some of the points that were raised by stakeholders as we move towards stage 2.
In the closing paragraph of the cabinet secretary’s response to the stage 1 report, she
“notes the significant concerns highlighted by the Committee and others”,
and says that she will
“reflect carefully on all of the points made”
as the bill progresses. I look forward to future discussions on the bill with her and stakeholders.
15:23
I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for producing its stage 1 report on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill, as well as all the witnesses who provided evidence to the committee.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives in this very important debate and as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. The bill will require schools to inform a child if their parents ask them to be withdrawn from religious education and/or observance. The bill will also give the child the chance to express their views and, in cases where the child’s views are different from those of their parents, the school will have to follow the child’s wishes.
Although I recognise the cabinet secretary’s good intentions in introducing the bill, I would like to lay out my concerns. The issues that I am concerned about include the conflict that the bill creates between the rights of parents and the views of children; the impact on families and teachers; and the reality that children develop at different stages. Let me explain some things about the bill.
Will the member give way?
I have just started, but on you go.
I am interested in Pam Gosal’s choice of language about the conflict that she sees as existing between the rights of parents and the views of children. Does she recognise that children have rights as well?
I will give you the time back, Ms Gosal.
Absolutely. I recognise that children have rights, but we also need to understand where the parents fit in. They are their legal guardians and carers. We need to listen to parents because, as I will set out later, the fear is that precedents will be set. I hope that the member understands that, although I understand that children and parents both have rights, there has to be a balance.
Let me explain some things about the bill. First, it risks stripping parents of their rights. Although it is important that children’s voices are heard, we must remember that parents are their primary guardians. Children under the age of 18 are not old enough to purchase and consume alcohol, be liable for council tax, get a credit card and more. But hold on—they are old enough to override their parents.
Another issue of concern is the precedent that the bill sets. We might be talking about religious education and observance now, but what comes tomorrow? For example, will a child be able to override their parents when it comes to education on controversial issues such as LGBT or gender ideology? Many primary schools, including in my area of East Dunbartonshire, already work with controversial organisations such as LGBT Youth Scotland, which is not an organisation that is geared towards children of primary school age. I have been contacted by many concerned parents who have asked me for help because they believe that such organisations should not have any involvement with their children.
Therefore, a bill that would let children override their parents risks opening a new can of worms by bringing in by the back door dangerous ideologies that serve a political agenda and go against parents’ rights. The bill also risks repeating the Scottish National Party’s so-called named person scheme fiasco, which John Swinney, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education, had to walk back shamefully.
There are also extreme worries when it comes to determining whether a child is mature enough to override their parents. Who is to tell whether one child is capable of forming a view but another is not? That puts teachers in a very difficult place, because it potentially creates conflicts between pupils, teachers and parents. Teachers in our schools already face excessive burdens, including but not limited to excessive workload, challenging pupil behaviour and ever-increasing incidents of violence. The last thing that they need is the administrative burden of determining whether children can override their parents when it comes to religious education and observance.
The bill also risks isolating children. Allowing teachers to make a choice on this issue would lead to a lot of inconsistency, and the emotional impact on children should be recognised. In its written submission, the Catholic Headteachers Association of Primary Schools said:
“there is a very real risk that the proposed changes to the Bill could result in primary-aged children being isolated from their school community.”
The children’s rights legislative landscape in Scotland is already complicated and the approach in the bill adds even more complexity. In the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, we heard from several witnesses who said that they were worried that the bill is a temporary and short-term solution that does not address underlying issues. Angela O’Hagan from the Scottish Human Rights Commission said that we are
“looking at yet another add-on, with another legislative instrument added as a sticking plaster to patch up legislation whose proposals have not been well defined in the first instance.”
At the same time, Fraser Sutherland from the Humanist Society Scotland said:
“the bill documentation and pre-bill consultation clearly show that the Government does not fully understand what is happening.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 48, 30.]
If the Government’s legislation is flawed and only a short-term fix, what was the point of introducing it in the first place?
We are tasked with creating good legislation, and the committee has a duty to scrutinise it. Unfortunately, the bill is not up to the standards of the Parliament. We cannot be complacent here, especially when some might try to hijack the bill to bring in dangerous ideologies that open the back door to a political agenda that erodes parental rights. I would like to make it very clear that, for the reasons that I have stated in my speech, I will not support the bill.
15:29
I express my appreciation to the committee for the depth and care that it has shown in its stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and I thank all stakeholders who gave evidence.
Today, I offer my tentative support for the bill. My support is rooted in my long-held humanist values—values that are centred on the rights, dignity and evolving capacities of children and young people—and in my desire to see Scotland continue to embed human rights in everyday practice.
The bill seeks to bring our education system closer to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For the first time, schools will be legally required to inform a child if a parent requests their withdrawal from religious observance or religious and moral education. Crucially, that child must be given the chance to express their own views. When a young person’s wishes differ from those of their parents, schools must seek to understand and respect the child’s perspective.
As a child in a Catholic school setting, I was opted out of RO, and I opted my children out of RO. However, I fundamentally believe that my children should have the right to challenge me. Indeed, I hope that I have raised my children to have the capacity to challenge me if, for example, I was to seek to withdraw them from sexual health education. From a humanist standpoint, that matters immensely.
The bill’s approach recognises children not merely as passengers in their educational journey but as rights holders—individuals who are capable of forming and expressing their own beliefs. The Government’s assessments acknowledge that that strengthens articles 12 and 14 of the UNCRC, on the right to be heard and on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That is a welcome step forward.
The bill attempts to resolve a long-standing tension in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 by creating a narrow exemption for public authorities when they are caught between conflicting legal duties. I understand why the Government feels that that is necessary. Our schools and public bodies should never be placed in an impossible legal position, so the bill aims to provide clarity.
However—this is why my support for the bill remains cautious—the committee heard compelling evidence that the bill, as it stands, will not fully realise the rights that it seeks to protect. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, the National Secular Society and the Humanist Society Scotland made the particularly powerful case that the bill does not provide children with the independent right to withdraw from religious observance. Only children whose parents initiate withdrawal are given any voice at all. That falls short of the UN committee’s recommendations.
As things stand, under the bill, a child whose parents have opted them out of religious observance is empowered, once they are sufficiently mature, to opt themselves back in. However, a child whose parents do not opt them out has no equivalent right to opt out on their own. That is a fundamental asymmetry and would create a hierarchy of rights, which would be wholly contrary to the UNCRC’s emphasis on the child being a rights holder, with their own capacity, not merely an extension of parental belief.
The committee heard concerns about access to justice. By carving out an exemption to the 2024 act, the bill risks weakening the framework that was expressly designed to help children to challenge rights breaches.
In a most articulate way, Elena Whitham has encompassed the challenge that will be created by giving local authorities an exemption to the UNCRC. In relation to enforcing their human rights, a child might not be able to opt themselves out. If the bill is passed, the child will have to go all the way to Europe to do that, because they will have to challenge the legislation, and they will need support to do so. However, if there was not that opt-out, once we knew the domestic procedure, such issues could perhaps be dealt with locally and far more civilly, while retaining the relationships that are needed for good schooling.
I can give you the time back, Ms Whitham.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I recognise the argument that Martin Whitfield has made.
The commission warned that, without safeguards such as requiring public authorities to notify the Scottish ministers when relying on the exemption, we risk creating a lack of transparency and undermining accountability. Those concerns struck me as reasonable and serious. Human rights organisations contend that, if those concerns are not addressed, the bill will not fully comply with the UNCRC.
It is also worth drawing attention, as Maggie Chapman did, to the polling that was commissioned by the Humanist Society Scotland that shows that 66 per cent of the population support a young person’s right to withdraw independently.
Another issue that was raised repeatedly was the lack of clarity that has been created by treating religious observance and religious and moral education as though they are interchangeable. We have heard a lot about that already today. As the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland reminded us, they are different activities with different purposes and, therefore, different rights and implications. Blurring that distinction does not help pupils, parents or teachers. It only adds to confusion and it could undermine community cohesion, and none of us wants that to happen.
All this takes place against the backdrop of last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Northern Ireland that found that a predominantly confessional approach to religious education, even when accompanied by the right to withdrawal, was incompatible with human rights standards. That ruling is a stark reminder that relying on withdrawal alone is not enough. Education must be objective, critical and pluralistic from the outset. For someone with a humanist world view, the significance of that decision cannot be overstated. It aligns with what many of our stakeholders have been telling us for years, in the context of Scotland, and issues that have been laid bare in the Humanist Society Scotland’s recent report, “Preaching is not Teaching”.
I want Scotland to be a place where every young person, whether they come from a faith tradition or have no faith at all, feels equally respected in their school environment, and where their conscience, curiosity and developing sense of identity are nurtured rather than constrained. Although I am therefore willing to support the general principles of the bill, my support comes with a clear expectation that the Government will take seriously the evidence that is offered in the committee’s report. We must strengthen children’s agency, ensure transparency and guard children’s access to justice. We must clearly distinguish religious observance from religious and moral education, so that rights and expectations are clearly understood. If the Government addresses those issues—and I sincerely hope that it will—the bill has the potential to move Scotland meaningfully closer to having a rights-respecting, pluralistic education system in which every child, no matter their belief or background, is truly seen, heard and respected.
15:36
I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its scrutiny of the principles and basis of the bill. From reading through the committee’s report and having listened to members’ contributions, it is clear that the committee covered a lot of ground in preparing for the bill to be debated today. The committee and members from across the chamber have identified areas that should be explored further before my party and I can comprehensively consider supporting the bill. The report shows gaps in the foundations of the bill that should have been filled before the Parliament was asked to draw conclusions.
It is worth saying that the fact that, in its response to the bill, the Government outlined that this is its third attempt at making changes in accordance with the UNCRC shows that, yet again, it is legislating in panic mode. That is no way to address such fundamental issues as children’s rights.
The committee and witnesses all outlined concerns about the foundations on which the bill rests, the lack of data on the number of withdrawals and what schools put in place for such withdrawals, the burden on schools and a child’s capacity to form a view, and the conflation of religious observance and religious and moral education. The committee has identified other gaps. I encourage anyone who has not had a chance to read the report to refer to it to get a picture of the concerns and flaws in the bill.
The committee recommended that the Scottish Government should undertake research to understand how withdrawals are monitored. I believe that that data is key to members’ decisions on the bill as it moves through the Parliament, and it should have been available ahead of time. The gathering of that information is patchy, at best, and it could not in any way be called consistent across the country. Without those key statistics being gathered in such a way that they can be compared and contrasted accurately, it will be difficult, if not almost impossible, to assess the impact of the proposed legislation on the capacity of schools to deliver on its intention.
Parliament has a responsibility to legislate in practice, not in theory. That means thinking about what a bill will look like when it leaves the Parliament and touches reality, and what impact it will have, intentional and unintentional, on the people who will be primarily affected by it—in this case, children, their parents, teachers and, as they are referred to in the report, the operator of the school.
The committee report refers to the school as the body that will be asked to evaluate whether a child has the capacity to form a view. In practice, that means that people who we know are already hard pressed—teachers, school administrators and school leadership—will have to make difficult decisions on a new area. In that respect, I agree with the several respondents who spoke of the burden that the proposed legislation could place on schools.
The Parliament must match ambition with resources. Teachers watching the debate, many of whom are already shouldering more responsibilities than they have contracted hours in the day for, would want me to press the cabinet secretary on whether she believes that the financial memorandum would benefit from more relevant and comprehensive data to inform its projections—and, indeed, to inform workforce planning.
The financial memorandum states:
“There is no available evidence to inform an estimate of how often these disagreements will take place.”
That means that it is impossible for the Government to quantify the amount of staff resource, time and energy that will be needed to ensure that the legislation can be enacted. Without understanding that, it is impossible for us, as members, to appreciate both what the burden could look like and what will be needed to mitigate it. Although we cannot gather data on something that does not yet exist, we can gather better data on withdrawals as they stand now, so that we can better understand the extent of the demand that will be placed on school administrations.
Respondents raised concerns that the bill does not distinguish between religious observance and religious and moral education, despite those things being very different. As has been said, RME is part of our curriculum and of children and young people’s education. It encourages pupils to learn about different beliefs, to open their minds to different views and to consider what they themselves believe. In that respect, it is a key pillar of the Government’s education framework. I think that we can all agree that religious observance is different.
Scottish Labour supports faith schools and parents’ right to make decisions about their children’s education. We respect the importance of involving children in decisions, and we understand the wish for legislation to address the issue. However, due to the significant problems with the drafting of the bill, as well as the lack of existing data, the pressure on already overstretched schools, the lack of consideration by the Government, so far, of how it will support and resource schools to implement it, and the lack of delineation between observance and education, I and my fellow Scottish Labour members will, regrettably, not be able to offer our full support for the bill at stage 1.
15:41
As a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank the clerks for their assistance in drafting the stage 1 report. I am also grateful to all stakeholders and witnesses for taking the time to submit their views on the issue and for their helpful briefings.
As has been mentioned, the bill has two main objectives: first, to require schools to consider pupils’ views when parents withdraw them from religious observance and religious and moral education; and, secondly, to amend the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 so that public authorities do not face a conflict between complying with the act and adhering to other Scottish legislative duties.
To give some context, section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 gives parents the right to withdraw their child from both religious observance and religious and moral education in schools. The purpose of the bill is to give greater autonomy to young people when a parent has made a request to withdraw a pupil from instruction in religious observance or religious and moral education. When that occurs, the school must inform the pupil about the request and must consider the pupil’s view as part of the withdrawal process.
I will touch first on part 1 of the bill, which focuses on withdrawal from religious observance and religious and moral education in schools. We received helpful evidence from many different stakeholders, and the committee is of the view that religious observance and religious and moral education should be separated in the bill. Most of the committee agreed that they are distinct, with RO being about worship and RME being about education.
With the rise of political figures who are intent on division, it is of the utmost importance that young people continue to be educated about different cultures, faiths and practices. That is not the same as worshipping in accordance with those faiths. I believe that it is essential that young people learn as much as they can about different historical events and about different countries and cultures, so that they can transition into a diverse world. Claire Benton-Evans of the Scottish Episcopal Church put it best when she stated:
“our children need to understand other faiths, beliefs and cultures if they are to grow up in the diverse, inclusive and tolerant society that we want in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 10.]
Indeed, the evidence from stakeholders across the board was clear on that point, as both faith-based and secular organisations argued for removing the option to withdraw from RME from the bill.
As a result, the committee has urged the Scottish Government to
“reflect further on this approach and to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to provide that withdrawal only applies to RO.”
Nevertheless, the purpose of the bill is to increase children’s rights, and it was noted that the majority of those who offered a view on whether the bill should be amended to include an independent right for children to opt out of RO and RME supported giving children that right. However, respondents to the Scottish Government consultation differed in their support for an independent right to withdraw from RO, so most of the committee felt that
“it would be more appropriate ... to progress with the right for children to object to their parents withdrawal of them for RO/RME alone.”
We would welcome the cabinet secretary giving further consideration to that point.
On the bill’s compatibility with the UNCRC, a majority of the committee recognises that it would have been preferable if the bill had been drafted in such a way as to bring its provisions within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024.
On part 2 of the bill, which seeks to amend the 2024 act so that public bodies do not face a conflict between complying with the act and other Scottish legislative duties, the committee notes that there are very strong concerns about the rationale for it, the precedent that it would set and whether the bill is an appropriate vehicle for the provisions.
Overall, the committee supports the premise of the bill, which is to improve young people’s rights, and a majority supports the general principles of the bill. That said, significant amendments will be necessary, as serious points have been raised on both part 1 and part 2. Therefore, I support the bill progressing to stage 2 but note that much work requires to be done on the bill to further the rights of children.
15:46
I am pleased to speak in the stage 1 debate. The bill raises profound questions about how we balance children’s rights, parental responsibilities and the practical realities of delivering education in Scottish classrooms. At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear that children must have a say in their education. Their voices matter, their experiences matter, and their wellbeing—in particular, their emotional wellbeing—must guide our thinking.
Over many years, Scotland has rightly taken steps to ensure that children are listened to, which I whole-heartedly support. However, through the bill, the Government is asking the Parliament to make significant changes to how families, schools and children navigate decisions about religious observance and about religious and moral education—we have already heard that those two aspects are not the same. Those are deeply personal areas of a child’s education, so any changes to them must treat families with the respect that they deserve.
Scottish Conservatives absolutely believe that children should be heard in decisions that affect their lives. Their voices matter, their experiences matter, and their wellbeing—emotional or otherwise—must always be at the heart of what we do. However, listening to children must sit alongside a practical, commonsense approach that respects the crucial role that parents play in shaping their children’s upbringing. It should not create conflict; it should not place new emotional burdens on young people; and it should not put teachers in the impossible position of having to navigate family disagreements—yet that is what the bill does.
Under the proposed process, schools would have to inform a child of their parents’ withdrawal request, gauge the child’s capacity, gather their views and then, potentially, override the parent. That might look tidy on paper, but, in a real school, with real families and real pressures, that would be far from straightforward. Stakeholders have been crystal clear. Susan Quinn of the EIS warned of significant concerns about resources, workload and the impact on relationships. Douglas Hutchison described the practicalities as
“burdensome for the school and onerous for the child and parent.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 October 2025; c 34.]
Teachers across Scotland who work every day with children of vastly different developmental stages have said plainly that the process would be hard to implement consistently or fairly.
We cannot ignore the reality. We cannot legislate in a way that sounds good in theory but causes stress and confusion in practice. We must put children’s wellbeing at the forefront so that we do not create situations in which a child feels torn between their parents and their school or responsible for making decisions that they might not be emotionally ready for.
Respect must be the thread running through all of this: respect for parents as primary educators; respect for teachers as professionals; and respect for young people as developing individuals who need guidance, not pressure.
Religious and moral education, and indeed religious observance, play an important role in helping children to understand different cultures, beliefs and world views. As Claire Benton-Evans reminded us,
“children need to understand other faiths, beliefs and cultures”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 10.]
in order for them to grow into the inclusive and tolerant citizens that we want for Scotland. It is about fostering understanding, not promoting doctrine.
In a time when division and misunderstanding are so easily amplified, removing children from opportunities to learn about other people would risk deepening social fractures. We should be encouraging tolerance, not unintentionally narrowing young people’s horizons.
Again, we must approach that with common sense. The number of withdrawal requests is very small, at around 4,000 children across Scotland, yet the bill will introduce a legally complex, administratively heavy process that will affect every school and every teacher, and every family regardless of whether they have ever considered withdrawing their child. That is neither proportionate nor practical.
The Government’s proposal to amend the UNCRC compatibility duty raises more questions than it answers. Stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, have said that the bill addresses only part of the issue. Crucially, there is still no clear example of where such a conflict in Scots law would arise, and yet here we are, placing another layer of complexity on to public authorities without clear justification. At a time when schools are stretched and teachers are under pressure, and when we should be doing everything possible to support them, the bill risks adding confusion rather than clarity.
We should all share the intention of strengthening children’s rights, but those rights must be implemented in a way that supports families and does not strain them; in a way that considers children’s emotional needs and does not burden them; and in a way that respects the vital partnerships between parents, teachers and schools.
The bill as it is currently drafted does not strike that balance. It does not provide the clear safeguards or commonsense guidance that is required to protect relationships and wellbeing, and—despite its intentions—it risks creating confusion, inconsistency and conflict.
We need an approach that is grounded in common sense, clarity and genuine respect for all those at the heart of education: parents, teachers and, of course, our young people.
15:52
I have no objections to part 2 of the bill, other than to reiterate the committee’s reservations about why both parts of the bill are being put through together. However, I have questions about the pairing of religious observance and religious and moral education in the bill. After all, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee accepted that it should be possible to withdraw from religious observance, but the majority of members were opposed to the idea that children could be withdrawn from RME. Indeed, even some secular organisations agreed with that.
The Scottish Government may have its own reasons for lumping RO and RME together; I would welcome hearing some of the reasoning behind that. However, if it is the case that there are too many elements of RO in RME, surely the bill is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Would stronger guidance on what constitutes a breach between the two areas not be a welcome first step? If there were strong dividing lines, that would still allow children with diverse faith and non-faith backgrounds to learn about the world around them.
The other issue is, I think, the strongest reason why more work is needed on the bill before it comes back to the Parliament. It will put added pressure on teachers and schools without providing them with any additional help. Although there is a need for parents to have a say in their children’s education, and to respect the wishes of children, the bill is not the mechanism that can make that happen. We should not ask schools to intervene in that way.
Anybody who has kids will know that when they change class or change friends, all of a sudden, what they were up for the previous week will not necessarily be what they are up for the next week. The bill would complicate things. If the Scottish Government does not want to have the wishes of children taking primacy, it should show some courage and ask the Parliament to vote on that.
On that matter, there is a one-sided approach that gives two opportunities to attend RME and RO, but only one chance to abstain. If parents can say that their child should not attend RO but the child says that they should, should the reverse not also be true? Given that, in the recent census, 51 per cent of people declared that they belong to no religion—the figure has been growing over the years—that imbalance seems to be counter to the direction of the country.
My view is that, if there is something objectionable about RME—for example, that it too closely resembles religious observance—that should be addressed in isolation. If the intention is for children to be able to unilaterally withdraw from RO as part of their school timetable, the Scottish Government should not pass the buck to teachers in schools; it should lay that out for the Parliament to vote on.
For me, there are too many unanswered questions about the bill. The committee is not convinced that it is evidence based, and I do not feel that what is proposed will work for schools, parents or pupils. Parents will not let it rest if we pass the bill and at some point there is a difference between their child’s views and their own. Schools will end up being in the middle, and it will only cause disruption. I will abstain on the bill at decision time today.
15:56
At its heart, the bill is about strengthening the rights and voices of Scotland’s children—something that this Parliament has repeatedly committed to doing over the years. It seeks to make two targeted but meaningful changes, and although it is somewhat technical in nature, I hope that it will bring meaningful changes to the everyday experience of children in our schools and the way that our public authorities understand and uphold the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The bill aims to ensure that, in the context of the long-standing parental right to withdraw a child from religious observance, children’s and young people’s views are taken into account. Article 12 of the UNCRC gives every child the right to express their views freely on all matters that affect them and to be heard—not to be listened to as a courtesy or nodded to in passing, but for their views to be given due weight.
Part 1 of the bill seeks to introduce a legal requirement for schools to inform children when a parent seeks to withdraw them from religious observance or religious and moral education, and to ensure that their views are considered in that process. Importantly, however, it maintains parental rights at the same time as strengthening children’s rights. It attempts to strike a balance between the two, and I welcome that.
Religious observance and religious and moral education play different roles in our education system, but let us remember that we are not debating the value of those subjects today. We are debating the child’s right to be heard about their participation in them, and that right matters deeply.
Part 2 of the bill might seem more technical, but it is no less important. It seeks to ensure that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 can operate in a way that protects both legal certainty and the continuation of essential public services. It seeks to introduce an exemption for public authorities when they face a direct conflict between the compatibility duty and an act of this Parliament. That is a proportionate step that will allow the UNCRC framework to function clearly and fairly. Indeed, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has always emphasised that incorporation must be workable, accessible and coherent.
The Government has undertaken wide-ranging consultation on the bill, engaging with ADES, the Humanist Society Scotland, the Scottish Catholic Education Service, STARME and Together, alongside faith and belief organisations and members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. That level of engagement shows both the sensitivity of the subject and the commitment to listening to all voices, including those that too often go unheard.
Of course, no legislation is perfect at stage 1, and I understand the strong feeling of many that the legislation does not go far enough. Indeed, I have received a number of inquiries from constituents looking for the Scottish Government to amend the bill to give pupils an independent right to opt out of religious observance. I raised those in writing with the cabinet secretary. In reply, she stated:
“As all will be aware, the Parliamentary process provides stakeholders and all of those with an interest in the bill to put forward their case for amendments. Throughout this, Ministers will continue to discuss these issues with parliament and other interested parties, and I will consider all the points made in both the written and the oral evidence from those who were invited to give evidence to the Committee.”
I understand that the consultation raised concerns about how an independent right for pupils would be balanced with parental rights. I also understand that, in response to the Humanist Society Scotland’s report “Preaching is not Teaching”, the cabinet secretary met the society and has asked it to share further information on its examples of religious observance not being delivered inclusively. I therefore understand the conflicting opinions that are involved, and I urge all parties to raise those issues at stage 2.
The bill takes careful steps to ensure that a child’s voice is part of decisions about their learning and identity. It strengthens clarity for public authorities in implementing the UNCRC and reinforces Scotland’s continued journey towards making rights real not only in principle but in practice.
Children do not ask for much—at least, most of the time. They ask to be heard; to be respected; and for adults, parents, teachers and law makers to make decisions with them, not simply for them. By supporting the general principles of the bill, I hope that we can go some way to showing them that their voices matter, that the Parliament listens and that Scotland continues to take seriously its duty to uphold the rights of every child.
I therefore urge members to support the bill at stage 1.
We move to closing speeches.
16:01
In closing for the Scottish Greens, I will deal with some of the issues that I did not address in opening. First, I thank my committee colleagues and our clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the participation and communities team for thoughtful consideration of the bill at stage 1. I am very grateful to all who sent in their views or contributed in person to our evidence sessions. I also thank all those who sent detailed and informative briefings in advance of today’s debate.
This seemingly small bill wrestles with some big questions. I have already made it clear that I will seek, at stage 2, to separate religious observance and RME and to introduce an independent right for any child to withdraw from RO. Those two positions are consistent with most of the evidence that we heard at committee and with the views of the majority of Scots.
I turn to part 2 of the bill. Martin Whitfield, Alex Cole-Hamilton and others spoke to concerns that I share. I am very concerned that part 2 fundamentally undermines the principle of enshrining the UNCRC into Scots law, as this Parliament has voted to do twice—in 2021 and 2023.
We must be clear about what part 2 does. In a bill that seeks to ensure that one of our laws is consistent with the UNCRC, it allows public officials to ignore the convention if it conflicts with any domestic Scottish law. The Scottish Government has been unable to say why that is necessary. It has already indicated that it is aware of no existing laws or policies that present a conflict with the convention. It is therefore not clear why part 2 of the bill is needed at all. Why would the Parliament choose to pass legislation that was not compliant with the UNCRC?
Furthermore, if any future conflicts arise, the Scottish Greens are not convinced that the provisions in part 2 are the best way of dealing with them—and they should certainly not be the default. If the convention is simply set aside every time that there is a conflict, what is the point of enshrining the convention into our laws in the first place?
Witnesses told the committee that it sends entirely the wrong message to say that one of the first acts in implementing the UNCRC is to set up a system of carve-outs from it. Surely, it would be better to have a clear process by which we can amend legislation so that it becomes consistent with convention rights—or, better, just ensure that all bills that we pass are drafted to be consistent in the first place.
The situation also has potentially huge implications for a future Scottish human rights bill. It risks setting a precedent whereby we enshrine rights then establish processes for public bodies to ignore them.
I therefore ask members to carefully consider whether the decisions that we will make as the bill progresses will affect a future human rights bill. We cannot endorse a process that will create a mechanism to set aside human rights. Too many individuals and communities across Scotland currently struggle to realise their rights or frequently have their rights ignored. Those groups have waited too long for watertight legislation that safeguards their rights.
I turn to a couple of other issues that have been raised in the debate this afternoon. We have not heard much discussion on the potential that exists in the current system for othering and stigma. Nor have we heard much about how school staff can be better supported to ensure that the young people in their care can realise their rights. Indeed, the committee heard some troubling evidence of inappropriate behaviour in our schools.
The Scottish Government does not have a clear handle on all of that. It has asserted that RO is “inclusive, subjective and pluralist”. However, it has no way of knowing that, because it has not done the research to gather evidence to back that up. I urge the Government to do so immediately to remedy that.
I reiterate the Supreme Court decision from last week. Judges ruled that collective worship in the north of Ireland that is not done in an
“objective, critical, and pluralistic manner amounts to indoctrination”
and is unlawful. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has written to the committee to confirm that the context in the north of Ireland is different with regard to the law and religious education. That is true. However, that does not mean that the court case does not have implications for us here in Scotland.
Professor Russell Sandberg, an expert in religion and the law, has said:
“The Supreme Court decision is ... about the right to withdraw and whether opt-outs for parents can excuse teaching that is otherwise not human rights compliant. In this respect, it is an important decision in Northern Ireland and beyond—especially where considerable reliance is based on the existence of opt-outs ... This is arguably true of the law on collective worship in schools in most, if not all, of the nations of the UK.”
The bill is disappointing in many ways. At the first opportunity, the Scottish Government has chosen to draft the legislation to be out of scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. The bill will not implement the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and it suggests that UNCRC compliance might be optional.
However, we can remedy those issues at stage 2 and beyond. We will have a lot of work to do to ensure that the bill measures up but it is possible to do that work. For that reason, the Greens will support the bill at the stage 1 vote later this evening.
16:07
My computer is not working, but I have a back-up for my notes—sorry.
That was an interesting debate. Many people have expressed concerns about the bill, and those concerns were highlighted today. It is clear that even the members of the committee who supported the bill heavily caveated that support. Therefore, there is much to deal with.
The bill was supposed to bring RO and RME into line with the UNCRC, which is something that we could have signed up to. Unfortunately, the bill does not really do that.
Martin Whitfield, Pam Duncan-Glancy, Davy Russell and others pointed out that the bill conflates religious observance with religious and moral education. Religious observance is taking part in religious practice, prayers, religious instructions and the like. It is easy to see why people who practise a different faith might not want their children to take part in such religious observance.
Many members talked about religious and moral education being education about faiths and practices. It builds understanding of all the main faiths and beliefs, giving children a deeper understanding of what their peers might believe. Such education provides knowledge and, I hope, cuts through myths and builds better understanding of other faiths, because it does not ask children and young people to practise those faiths.
Davy Russell pointed out that if there are grey areas with regard to religious and moral education, those could be dealt with in guidance rather than in legislation. The bill conflates two subjects, one of which should have an opt-out while the other forms part of the curriculum and should not have an opt-out. Many of the members who spoke in the debate hold that view.
Part 1 of the bill seeks to allow a child to opt in to religious observance or religious and moral education if their parents opt them out. On the face of it, it sets up a conflict between the parent and child—Miles Briggs spoke about that. However, to be fair, it is unlikely ever to be a reality because children are more likely to want to opt out against their parents’ wishes. Parents would rightly be concerned that children be given a right to refuse to practise their parents’ chosen religion, and I do not believe that that element could easily be added at stage 2, because it was not properly scrutinised at stage 1. When there is a conflict between the rights of the child and the rights of a parent to bring up their child, it is much more difficult to deal with, and it would take much more than a short stage 2 amendment to deal with those issues, as pointed out by Davy Russell.
Pam Duncan-Glancy also spoke about teachers having to decide whether a child has the capacity to make those decisions. That is an extra burden on teachers. We need to make sure that the legislation works. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said in relation to article 12, everything we do must have children’s views at the heart of it. It begs the question of whether we need this legislation if we are already bound by that.
The legislative flaw with part 1 is that it amends the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which is an act of the UK Parliament and, as we know, all UK legislation is out of the scope of the 2024 act. Also, if we think back, 1980 was a time when it was still legal to belt children in school. It is really old legislation. Therefore, legislation that has been drafted to bring religious education under the scope of the 2024 act does not itself come under the scope of that act. Therefore, no one can challenge this bill under the 2024 act even though it is not compatible with the 2024 act.
In my opinion, putting that right is beyond the scope of the bill and beyond the scope of the stage 2 process. We need to deal with this by introducing new, stand-alone legislation rather than amending an act that is outwith the scope of previous legislation. I do not think that the bill can be amended to make it compliant.
Many members talked about part 2 of the bill, which takes the issue to a whole new level because it is not about religious observance or religious and moral education; it is about creating an opt-out from the 2024 act. Martin Whitfield pointed out that, in practice, it will give a public authority the ability to breach a child’s human rights. Surely that is not right. Public authorities are currently bound to act in compatibility with the 2024 act. Part 2 of the bill gives them an opt-out from that, which begs the question, what is the purpose of the 2024 act at all?
I am listening to some of the points that Ms Grant has made in relation to part 2 of the bill and I have heard comments from members throughout the course of the afternoon that support her view, but she must also be cognisant of the fact that a number of organisations, including Together, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and UNICEF, support that element of the legislation. Why are they wrong, and why does Ms Grant believe that this cannot be resolved further at stage 2?
I believe that part 2 is in direct conflict with the UNCRC legislation. It calls into question why the 2024 act exists. We know that the UK Government sought the exception in the 2024 act because it went beyond devolved powers, but surely we have legislated for what happens in the future here in Scotland. Indeed, when we asked the cabinet secretary in committee what issues she foresaw needing this legislation for, she could not name one. If it is about future proofing, surely, in the future, we should not be looking at passing legislation that is not compliant with the UNCRC. Therefore, this part of the bill should not be required.
We do not think that the bill can be amended to make it compliant. We would need stand-alone, modern legislation that takes account of all of this. Therefore, we will be abstaining tonight.
16:14
Whenever we discuss anything here that refers to religion, I always feel that I should be transparent in referring members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, I say clearly that I do not speak on behalf of the church, its leaders or members but that I speak today in my own right as a Conservative member of this Parliament and as someone who, I hope, would be regarded by others as a person of faith, and as one who believes profoundly in the family and in the rights and responsibilities of parents. I have intervened a number of times in this debate in order to bring the issue of the rights and responsibilities of parents to the fore in our proceedings.
The bill has an extraordinarily long short title, so I will not try to repeat it. I object profoundly to the bill. All the speeches today have highlighted the inconsistencies and failings that we find when we get down to the detail of the contradictions that are being created by an attempt to create a middle way—or third way, as that used to be called. It would be wise of the cabinet secretary, and the Scottish Government, to take the bill away, because it is not ready to be discussed. Too many pieces of legislation that appear at stage 1 debates are severely criticised so that, by the time we get them through the rest of the process, they look absolutely nothing like the original bill. I cannot see the point of that. Take the bill away, take it off the table and come back at a later date—probably in the next session of Parliament—with something that is more considered and consistent.
The bill is not just a technical tidying-up exercise, or a benign update to long-standing legislation; I very much see it as a fundamental challenge to the rights of parents, the integrity of the family and, I would argue, to the proper limits of the state, and I will explain why.
I think that Pam Gosal was right. That approach, which I think is muddled, is not inconsistent with the SNP’s long and rather troubling record of attempting to replace the role of parents with the authority of the state. The central mechanism of the bill lies in section 1, which, as has been said, inserts new sections into the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It does something unprecedented, because it subjects the long-standing parental right of withdrawal from religious observance and from religious and moral education to the veto of the child. Under the terms of the bill, schools would have to inform the pupil that their parent has exercised the right to withdraw them and must tell the pupil that they have the right to object to that. If the child does object, regardless of age or maturity and regardless of parental conviction or responsibility, the parent’s decision is simply set aside so as
“not to give effect to the parent’s request to the extent of the pupil’s objection.”
That is not listening to children in the way that this particular bill dresses it up as.
I am not sure that that description of the bill is accurate. Is the challenge not that we will end up with someone in the school having to arbitrate between two positions, with the arbiter probably being the last person who ought to be involved in trying to make a decision about supporting the rights of the parent or, indeed, of the child?
That is absolutely right. Teachers, and school leaders in general, do not want to be put in that position, but that is what the bill does.
Martin Whitfield raises an important point, but I am also really concerned that the bill has the potential to weaponise children against their parents on matters of conscience and belief. It inserts the state into the heart of family life, elevating the child’s immediate preference above the parent’s settled moral and spiritual responsibility. As a Conservative and, as I have already said, a person of faith, I cannot overstate how alarming that is.
For centuries, across Scotland, the rest of the UK and, indeed, every liberal democratic society, the family has been understood as the primary community—the foundation of moral formation, education, identity and belonging. Parents are not optional participants or obstacles to be worked around; they are responsible for raising their children in line with their religious, moral and philosophical convictions.
The importance of that parental role rests on a principle that has been recognised across the generations: parents have the primary right and responsibility to direct their child’s religious and moral education in accordance with their own convictions. The bill overturns that hierarchy and, as Martin Whitfield said, makes school teachers arbiters. Indeed, it empowers the state and distorts the meaning of children’s rights into a mechanism for undermining family authority.
Let us be absolutely clear that the bill interferes directly with a parent’s freedom to raise a child within their faith or philosophy. For millions of people across Scotland, faith is not a private hobby; it is foundational to culture, identity, community and moral development.
If the Government somehow believes that that principle should be undermined, it raises the inevitable question, where does that end? The bill is not limited to religious observance or RME; it creates a model in which a child’s immediate preference is elevated above the parent’s long-term judgment, in which the school staff become the arbiters between the parent and the child, and in which the state asserts itself as the higher authority over the family.
I thought that Davy Russell’s contribution in that respect was absolutely bang on the money. He injected a much-needed dose of reality into the proceedings, when he described what every parent knows about our children as they grow up, which is that they can be incredibly—
Mr Kerr, could you please bring your remarks to a close? You are over your time.
Adults can be very fickle, but I agree with Davy Russell that children can be, too. Look—
Please conclude. You are over your time, Mr Kerr.
Yes. I conclude by saying that Scotland’s families do not need the state to sit in judgment over their values. The bill is wrong in principle and in detail, and it is wrong as it stands for Scotland. The cabinet secretary would be well advised to take it away before it ends up being challenged—
Thank you, Mr Kerr. I call the cabinet secretary to close on behalf of the Scottish Government.
16:22
We have heard a number of contributions this afternoon, and I will come to those in due course. First, I would like to highlight the support from a number of stakeholders for the intention behind, and the general principles of, the bill. Those include the Humanist Society Scotland, which wrote to the committee to express its support for the general principles of the bill, and Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), which highlighted in a recent briefing for MSPs that the
“Bill is an opportunity to take practical steps towards stronger protection of children’s rights”
across Scotland. Given the bill’s subject matter, perhaps most important, children and young people who were consulted also broadly support the intention behind the bill.
Tomorrow, I will meet faith and belief groups and, throughout the passage of the bill—depending, of course, on this evening’s vote—I will continue to engage on a cross-party basis, as I have listened and reflected on a number of points that have been made this afternoon, to which I now come.
Mr Cole-Hamilton, Mr Whitfield and Mr McLennan asked about the rationale behind the bill. The bill is necessary because it gives Parliament a real opportunity to strengthen children’s rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 is a landmark piece of legislation, but the incorporation is not in itself a single event; it is a process of building a clearer, more workable framework that protects children’s rights in practice. The bill is part of that work.
The cabinet secretary is right to reference my contribution and that of Martin Whitfield, in which we questioned the rationale for the bill. However, our issue is not with the rationale behind part 1, which we broadly agree with, albeit it needs some amendment; it is with the rationale behind part 2, which we fear creates a back door by which aspects of the UNCRC, or the UNCRC in its entirety, could be disapplied in certain circumstances.
I thank the member for his point. As I said in response to Mr Whitfield earlier, the approach in part 2 that proposes the carve-out very much reflects the approach that exists under the Human Rights Act 1998, and its scope is limited. It is a future-proofing power that already exists in legislation.
However, having listened to members’ views on that point throughout the course of the debate, I am content to continue to engage on the matter, as members have raised a number of issues in that regard.
I genuinely welcome the cabinet secretary’s confirmation of how she intends to approach that issue going forward. However, is she still confident in the certification that she gave, under section 23(1) of the 2024 act, that the bill is compatible with the UNCRC, given that the bill agrees to disapply that convention?
To confirm, Presiding Officer, I would not be able to bring the bill forward were it not compatible. That is the advice that I received from officials. All legislation that ministers in Government bring forward must be compatible in that regard.
I will move on to some of the other commentary that was shared with the chamber this afternoon. Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke, quite rightly, about our lack of data, and a number of other members mentioned that, too. The data that we have shows that the levels of withdrawal from RO and RME are incredibly low, at an estimated 0.59 per cent of pupils across Scotland.
I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying about data, but we also heard clearly in committee that there is no consistency in how that data is collected, so we do not know whether that data reflects the real numbers. We also do not know what happens to the children who are withdrawn.
I was coming to that point. The issue of data collection is one that Ms Duncan-Glancy and I debate and discuss pretty regularly, and it is not limited to this bill. Data collection is an issue in a number of other aspects of Scottish education, particularly in our schools, including in relation to additional support needs and the recording of bullying events. There is a lack of national data at the current time.
Rhoda Grant picked up on that point in relation to the 1980 act and how it interacts with the bill. That is one of the reasons why John Wilson, a former headteacher, is carrying out an independent piece of work, on which I updated the committee when I gave evidence, to look at how we provide for school governance when we fund our schools. Those aspects are live and relevant to the data collection issue. I confirm to Ms Duncan-Glancy and Parliament that I have instructed officials to gather further data on that issue, because I agree with the points that she and others have raised.
The convener spoke to the complexities that are associated with the bill and, quite rightly, mentioned that the Scottish Government’s approach involves driving a middle road between competing views on these matters. As cabinet secretary, I have been incredibly mindful of that throughout the bill process.
Early in the debate, Mr Briggs was provided with a bit of assistance from Mr Whitfield, who claimed that the bill would add to teacher workload, and a number of other members made that claim. I think that that assertion fundamentally misunderstands what the bill proposes. If anything, we can expect more young people to be opting in to—not out of—RO and RME.
The cabinet secretary has just made that statement following her statement that we do not have data. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that fewer will opt out when we do not know how many are opting in or out—that is the hokey-cokey around this bill, as I described it earlier—and what that means for schools. Who will be responsible for those young people when they are not in either the classroom or in RO? I am not sure that the cabinet secretary really knows what the impact of the bill will be.
I think that Mr Briggs is conflating two separate matters and deliberately trying to insinuate that the bill is about more young people opting out of religious education or religious observance. That is not the case. The right still rests with the parent, and the legislation will now ensure that children’s rights are taken cognisance of.
On the numbers, the Scottish Catholic Education Service—which I have engaged with, as, I am sure, Mr Briggs has—was keen to make the point to me that the numbers nationally are incredibly low. However, I gave a commitment to Ms Duncan-Glancy that we would interrogate that data.
Will the cabinet secretary take another intervention?
I would like to make some progress, as I have just two minutes left.
I am also thoughtful about my engagement with the Church of Scotland on this point. It was keen to state to me that teachers regularly and routinely discuss those issues with children and young people. We should be mindful of the professional capabilities that are at play in that regard.
Martin Whitfield will be reassured to hear that children and young people can still challenge the actions of public authorities. The exemption that we have heard a number of different views on this afternoon helps us to look at where the legislation is a problem, so that we can help to protect our children and young people’s rights, while recognising where there might be conflict in the delivery of services.
Although Parliament cannot control the evolution of the legal interpretation in the future, much of the purpose behind part 2 is to avoid that disruption to essential services. It would not be fair to hold public authorities, such as our local councils, responsible for simply following the law.
On the points that have been raised this afternoon, I point out that we have published the children’s rights scheme to ensure that there is a process for identifying potential legal incompatibilities.
I am extremely mindful of time, Presiding Officer. Forgive me, but I have not managed to get to a number of contributions from other members that I thought were worth recounting, not least that from Maggie Chapman. I am keen to engage with members as the bill progresses through Parliament.
I conclude by encouraging us all to reflect on why we, as an increasingly secular society, seek to continue to enable religious observance and religious and moral education in our schools. Enabling school communities to come together to share common values and to engage with other faiths and beliefs aids understanding, tolerance and acceptance. The same applies with regard to religious and moral education for individuals, which allows children and young people at different ages and stages to learn about others’ values and beliefs. Such understanding and awareness are vital to encourage tolerance, invite respect and address prejudice. It is arguable that fostering and nurturing that sort of opportunity for cohesion in our schools is needed now more than ever to better equip our young people to handle the increasingly turbulent and fractured society that they will enter as adults.
That concludes the debate on the bill at stage 1. It is now time to move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Topical Question Time