³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Of course.

As, I think, I intimated in a previous response, we could have adopted that approach, which might have appeased some of the stakeholders that you heard from, but we would not have appeased them all. The Government has taken a pragmatic middle ground, to try to work through balancing parental rights. In recent years, as members around the table know, there have been issues with regard to parental rights in education and how parents’ views are listened to. I am very mindful of that. I think that the parental right to withdraw a child from RME and RO is important, and we are not proposing to change that. The change that we are proposing is to ensure that children’s views are taken cognisance of. Currently, there is no real legal requirement for that to be done. There is guidance, but, in essence, children can be withdrawn at their parents’ behest. We think that it is important that the matter is put beyond legal doubt, which is what the bill will do: it will ensure that children’s views are listened to and that there is a discussion about withdrawal from RO or RME.

We have charted the middle ground. I absolutely accept Ms Chapman’s point that this will not appease all stakeholders—it might not appease her. However, I have to balance the views of those stakeholders against the views of other stakeholders who are on a different side of the argument. We have to come to a collective view, because, fundamentally, the bill is about strengthening children’s rights. Currently, there is a question about how children’s views are listened to. The bill puts that matter beyond doubt. The updated guidance that we will publish alongside the bill will help to provide more clarity to schools in that regard, which is the important point that, I think, Mr MacLennan made earlier.

[Inaudible.]—Ms Chapman, so I am not sure that I agree with you on that. [Laughter.]

I think that we are. I do not think that the committee has taken evidence from Education Scotland. I was thinking about that this morning. We have a national senior education officer—I think that it is still Joe Walker, from when I was last there, many years ago—who leads on religious, moral and philosophical studies at a national level. We also have a national adviser who is working with our faith-based organisations and across the country on how we should update the curriculum. It may be that the committee wants to write to Education Scotland or engage with it on those issues—I will leave that up to the committee.

Ms Chapman has raised some important points. The bill requires headteachers to inform pupils of a parental request, so we would expect there to be a discussion and a conversation. We do not want young people to be othered. At present, though, children can be withdrawn from religious education and RO against their wishes. We do not think that that is tenable, so we need to look again at how we deliver on children’s rights. I absolutely accept that Ms Chapman may be persuaded by the views of others that we need to go much further than we have. I could have gone there, but, in doing so, I would not have had the support of other stakeholders. As the cabinet secretary, I have to try to bring parties together on this. As the bill progresses through Parliament, there will be opportunities and means—through guidance, which the member has alluded to—to do that and to provide greater reassurance.

On the point about conflict, I mentioned in my response to Ms Chapman that I was struck that, when we look at the responses from stakeholders such as Together, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Educational Institute of Scotland and a number of others, we can see that they are broadly supportive of the principles behind the bill, but, when we get into it, we can see that there are issues around how it will be implemented. I am more than happy to listen to those views as the bill progresses and to seek and find compromises, as Maggie Chapman mentioned.

I am, however, not sure that stakeholders would be unanimous on the point about conflict, because the committee has heard that conflict already exists. For example, at the moment, if a young person does not want to be withdrawn from religious education or religious observance, they have no legal right to say no to that. The parents’ rights would absolutely overrule the young person’s. We do not think that is right, because of where we are with the UNCRC, so we need to balance that.

This is not about the state; it is about listening to children and young people, so I do not agree with that point. We are talking about listening to the views of children and young people. I agree with Tess White that schools already do that and that there should be conversations, but the law as it stands does not stipulate that that needs to happen. Putting that beyond reasonable doubt is the approach that we have taken.

As I say, we could have gone much further by taking a much more interventionist approach with an independent right of withdrawal, which I do not think that Tess White would necessarily have supported. I would not support that, for all the reasons that I have just discussed with Maggie Chapman. We have to take a pragmatic approach through listening to children while maintaining the rights of parents and carers to withdraw their children from RME and RO, which are set out in statute. We are not proposing to change that.

I am not sure that I would describe it like that. It is a five-page bill. I hear that it is causing the committee a lot of additional work, but I have taken much more extensive legislation through the Parliament. This is a technical bill, and a lot of different issues have been raised with the committee in evidence sessions. There are a lot of different views on the issue, and I am happy to listen to those views and to engage with stakeholders. I have to chart a route forward.

The issue might not be at the top of teachers’ lists at the moment, but we need to reflect better on how the UNCRC interacts with the parental right to withdrawal and balance that with the rights of children.

It is a technical change that, I appreciate, is taking up the committee’s time. I apologise for that, but we are where we are in the parliamentary session.

I am sympathetic to Ms Gosal’s points about supporting teachers in how they deal with these discussions, because of all the points that Tess White made. Therefore, statutory guidance on the updated RO and RME withdrawal process will accompany the implementation of the changes.

As I think that I alluded to, we will engage with stakeholders, teachers, professional associations, parents and carers on that guidance. We will also look at how the guidance might support the delivery of inclusive RO and RME. I think that the national guidance might help to allay some of the quite fair concerns that Ms Gosal has raised.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to give evidence on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. As members know, the bill has two key purposes, which are to strengthen children’s rights in decisions about religious observance and religious and moral education and to clarify the legal duties for public authorities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 in situations where provisions under acts of the Scottish Parliament could conflict with UNCRC obligations.

The bill is deliberately very focused, and it is intended to address priority concerns in this parliamentary session. It is also a technical bill to address two specific but separate purposes, as set out in parts 1 and 2 respectively.

As members will know, religious observance and religious and moral education are two distinct but important aspects of Scotland’s education system. Religious observance supports pupils’ spiritual development and helps to build a sense of community and belonging, and religious and moral education allows pupils to learn about different religions and belief systems and promotes understanding about them as well as exploring ethical questions. Religious and moral education is one of the eight core curriculum areas in the curriculum for excellence.

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. However, currently, there is no requirement in legislation to do so; the decision rests entirely with the parent.

Part 1 of the bill will make changes that provide a legal right for the child to be consulted in the withdrawal request process that was initiated by their parent. The aim is to provide legislative certainty that children and young people’s views should be taken into account when parents are exercising their right to withdraw their child. It does not introduce an independent right to withdraw for the child or alter parents’ long-standing right to request a withdrawal. Without those changes, pupils might be denied such aspects of their education against their wishes, and their rights under UNCRC articles 12, 14 and 29 might not be upheld.

I am conscious that a wide range of views have been expressed to the committee. Our public consultation also showed a wide range of views on religious observance and religious and moral education and on the exercise of parental and children’s rights in the context of learning. As such, the consultation responses reinforced the decision to chart for the changes a middle course on the spectrum of stakeholder views. Therefore, our approach aims to support alignment with the UNCRC while balancing three key considerations—parental rights, stakeholder views and the practical implications for schools.

With regard to part 2 of the bill, the 2024 act places a legal duty on public authorities not to act incompatibly with UNCRC requirements when carrying out functions under acts of the Scottish Parliament. This is a key part of the act; it allows children and their representatives to challenge decisions and to seek redress when they believe that their rights have not been respected.

Nevertheless, a public authority could face a legal dilemma in the event that, in the future, it is required by an act of the Scottish Parliament to act incompatibly with UNCRC requirements when a requirement cannot be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the UNCRC. The bill therefore makes a limited technical amendment to the 2024 act to ensure that the framework operates in a way that is clear, fair and practical. It introduces an exemption for public authorities in the event that a conflict arises between an act of the Scottish Parliament and the 2024 act that means that a public authority would not be forced to choose between breaching the compatibility duty and stopping the delivery of an essential service altogether.

That accountability is directed at the incompatible legislation where the source of the problem lies. The exemption therefore ensures legal clarity and continuity of essential services, which will protect children from avoidable disruption or harm while action is taken to consider and address any legislation that is found to be incompatible.

The change has been framed in such a way that it reflects the safeguards that exist under the Human Rights Act 1998, which have long been understood to be necessary to avoid penalising public authorities for acting in accordance with legislation. The exemption that we propose is narrower in scope and will apply only when there is no discretion to act compatibly.

I welcome the broad understanding that has been shown by many stakeholders, including Together, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF, of the rationale for the approach, while I recognise that some concerns have been raised. I hope that the detailed letter that I sent to the committee during recess has helped to address those points, which I look forward to discussing further today.

I do not know whether Denise McKay and Sarah Booth wish to comment further, but I have seen the evidence that Ms Grant is talking about, and it is not our understanding that the bill is incompatible.

You ask whether the proposals in part 2 are easy enough to understand. I think that they are extraordinarily complex. The committee has heard that, including from witnesses.

The Government can perhaps reflect on how we can better communicate some of the proposed changes. That is probably a point for us to take away. Certainly, from my reading of the evidence that the committee has taken, there is more for us to do in the communication space. However, the bill is quite legally technical in that it looks to future proof our position with regard to the UNCRC. We could perhaps take away a point about communication on that aspect.

Joe, do you have anything to add?