���˿���

I have a question. I understand what you say about the pragmatism in that approach, but drafting the bill in such a way as to ensure that compatibility with the UNCRC was not, or could not be, entertained seems odd—it is odd at best and problematic at worst. This is the first opportunity that the Scottish Government has had to expand children’s rights and to do so in a way that allows the test against UNCRC compatibility to come into play, and you have chosen to take a different route. Can you give a little bit more understanding of why that was the case?

Amendment 40 has the same aim as my other amendments this morning and the same aim as the original bill had for the rights of children and young people. It would ensure that young people can be heard on any decision that is made by their parents to withdraw them from religious observance. However, the key difference is that the provision would be enacted as a stand-alone provision, rather than as an amendment to the 1980 act. Together argues that that places the bill outwith the scope of the 2024 act. It means that children will have no direct route to challenge breaches of their rights in relation to the new provisions, given our current situation with UNCRC incorporation. As well as the separation of religious education and observance, and the independent right to withdraw, that is one of the three key changes requested by Together in its letter to the committee of 13 October 2025 that are designed to ensure that part 1 of the bill fully aligns with UNCRC.

Although I appreciate that the commissioner has not taken a position on amendment 40, she has made the same call as Together for this right to be established separately from the 1980 act, for the reasons that I have outlined above.

I move amendment 40.

I will be brief. It is worth stressing my and many others’ disappointment that, by choosing to amend the 1980 act, the cabinet secretary has ensured that the provisions covered by the bill are out of scope of the compatibility duty in our own United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. That sends a worrying signal to people with an interest in this space. We should have taken the time and care to ensure that this legislation was in that scope. If that meant taking longer to do it, that is what we should have done.

However, given that we are where we are and we have this bill in front of us, we need to bring these rights into the scope of the UNCRC incorporation act. Therefore, I press amendment 40.

Following on from what Paul O’Kane said, I would say that there were a lot of unknowns in the stage 1 evidence. A lot of the figures are projected or estimated. It is guesswork, quite frankly, because we do not have a picture of what is happening now, never mind when new rights come into play. What data-gathering mechanism do the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government suggest would help us understand what is going on in this area?

No young person should be forced to pray, and no young person or child should be forced to participate in activities of worship against their will. That is the principle to which the amendments speak.

Young people in Scotland’s schools are still compelled to participate in acts of religious observance. With the right to withdraw being reserved exclusively to parents, some school pupils and young people are denied the right to be heard and are forced to pray against their own beliefs. That was the clear conclusion of the “Preaching is not Teaching” report that the Humanist Society Scotland published. The report also found that RO is still exclusively Christian and worship based in many non-denominational schools.

Twice, the UN has recommended that children and young people in Scotland be supported in exercising their rights by giving them the right to withdraw from RO. My amendments seek to answer that recommendation that the UN has made to us twice in the past eight years.

All the human rights experts who we heard from in committee were very clear: children and young people should be able to exercise their right to freedom of belief and expression. Faith groups, legal experts and human rights bodies have all told us that denying pupils the independent right to withdraw amounts to a breach of their human rights. My amendments seek to address that breach and to enable children to exercise their right to freedom of belief and expression.

I will press amendment 1.

I appreciate Paul O’Kane’s comments about his frustration that we are discussing this now—that frustration was clearly expressed during the committee’s stage 1 evidence gathering.

During that evidence gathering, it was clear that even representatives from the denominational schools that you have just mentioned support the separation of religious observance and education. There is frustration that that broader education or “instruction”, as the 1980 act calls it, is conflated with, essentially, worship. Those two things remain and should be distinct, and denominational leaders and teachers were comfortable with that. Some of them said, “There is that distinction and we can make it work.” I am interested in hearing Paul O’Kane’s response to that.

I am interested in what Tess White is saying about capacity and the presumption against expecting every young person who is under the age of 16 to understand or have capacity. How does she consider that that aligns with the principles—set out in the UNCRC and elsewhere across legislation that has already been passed by the Parliament—that assume capacity unless there are reasons not to? There is a presumption for, rather than a presumption against, as her amendment proposes. How do you see that aligning with our existing legal and other practices?

There is a concern that the plan could have been more ambitious. If the local plans have that ambition, that may be more effective. I do not think there is disagreement about government setting the standards that are expected, but there needs to be an understanding that different public bodies and different listed authorities will need to work through those differently because of geography, rurality and all sorts of different things. It will be interesting to see progress on that in subsequent years.

I will leave it there because I know that others want to come in with questions on specific details.

Yes. You talked about the engagement with BSL users during the development of the plan. That happened, but they were still disappointed when the final plan was developed. They thought that certain conversations had gone further than were reflected in the plan. The implementation advisory group that you talk about is one mechanism of ensuring that we cannot just tweak the plan, but make the next few years as ambitious as possible. We might tick all the boxes, but those boxes have to deliver meaningful change. I accept your point about education.

You highlighted this morning the high-level priorities of engagement and the reviewing of qualification guidance, which was really good to hear.

This may follow on from Paul O’Kane’s question. Given the need to support other public bodies, what is the role of engagement between the Government, other public bodies and BSL users? How do you see that triangle working? Where there will be disagreement or frustration because of resource allocations and so on, what is the role of engagement in making sure that the plan delivers for BSL users?

In your opening remarks, Deputy First Minister, you talked about the national plan, how it is not static and how it needs to evolve and be built on as we go through. The correspondence that you sent the committee notes comments that we heard during the inquiry, which we highlighted in the report, about how the second national plan appears to be watered down. You partially accept that, but you give the space for building and evolving. Do you want to make any comments on the robustness of the plan? How do we make sure that it actually delivers and does not feel as though it is not as ambitious as it should be?