Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

I will come to that point in my speech. The difference between religious observance and religious and moral education did come up in committee.

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.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of UK fiscal decisions on the Scottish budget and the certainty of local government funding. (S6O-05167)

Across my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast, public services are under real pressure. The Conservative-led administrations in Moray and Aberdeenshire have been making decisions that are harming some of our most vulnerable people, while passing the buck to the Scottish Government. Can the cabinet secretary set out what multiyear certainty and flexibility will be available in the next Scottish budget and the new deal for local government, given late and tightening UK fiscal events, so that my constituents can be confident that, regardless of local and UK decisions, the Scottish Government is doing all that it can to protect our public services?

We move to our online witnesses.

Thank you. We now move to questions from Tess White.

We have quite a bit of interest in answering the question.

Artemis Pana would like to come in.