Official Report 490KB pdf
15:39
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings of the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 66A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Pupil’s involvement in decision about withdrawal from religious instruction or religious observance
Group 1 is on the meaning and character of religious education and observance. Amendment 6, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 21, 11, 22, 22A and 24.
I begin these stage 3 proceedings by thanking the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and her team for the many conversations that we have had about the bill over a very short period of time. I am grateful for that. We will come on to some of the areas of disagreement and agreement, but I want to put that on record. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and to all the organisations that have contributed so much to the development of amendments and by giving their views on the bill.
I turn to the first group. In giving children and young people the right to withdraw, it is important that we are absolutely clear about the meaning and character of religious education. As a result of stage 2 amendments that I lodged and that were supported, children and young people will have additional rights around withdrawal from religious observance but not religious education. We should not force children and young people into religious observance, which is also understood as worship, but it is equally important that they cannot withdraw from religious education, which is a core part of the curriculum.
As a society that respects those of all faiths or of no faith, and those who are not sure, it is important that children and young people receive education in different faith and non-faith beliefs. It is also important that they receive education to understand the diverse society in which we all live. However, in the bill, the remaining references to religious education use the original terminology of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 of “religious instruction”, which is an ambiguous phrase that could blur the important distinction between religious education and religious observance. My amendments 6 and 11 are tidying up exercises to avoid that confusion.
Amendment 22 is aimed at facilitating the exercise of the rights in the bill. Parents and pupils cannot meaningfully exercise those rights unless they know when religious observance is happening and what form it will take. Therefore, amendment 22 would require all grant-funded schools, except denominational schools, to inform parents and pupils at least 14 days before any planned religious observance in the school about the format and content of that observance and any alternative learning provision for pupils who are withdrawn. The amendment would also require an assessment of whether the information that is conveyed in any planned religious observance in the school is
“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”.
Amendment 22A would apply that provision to denominational schools as well.
A court judgment recently ruled that the parental right to withdraw from religious observance is a necessary but insufficient mechanism for protecting parents’ and children’s human rights and that the observance must be objective, critical and pluralistic. Amendment 22 would support best practice and ensure that all pupils can take part without compromise to their personal beliefs. In cases in which elements of an RO activity might not meet the criteria that the court specified—that is, if it involves asking pupils to pray, worship, sing hymns or affirm their belief in God—parents and pupils will be empowered to act in line with their conscience.
Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment 21, which was lodged by Elena Whitham, is in the same vein and would require ministers to clarify what constitutes religious observance. I support that, in the belief that clarity is important.
I am unsure about the need for Paul O’Kane’s amendment 24, and I have a question as to whether it could confuse or potentially prevent certain things later on. If we wished to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 later, how would his amendment interact with that? I would be grateful if the member could address those points now or in his contribution.
I will, of course, refer to much of what Maggie Chapman described in my contribution in this group, so I do not intend to detain the chamber in that regard.
However, Maggie Chapman has made a number of assertions in her speech thus far, and I want to point out to her that, as we referred to at stage 2, there is a clear difference between denominational and non-denominational schools, in terms of religious education and religious observance.
As I said to Maggie Chapman at stage 2, I can understand where she is coming from on decoupling religious education and religious observance in a non-denominational setting, but does she understand and respect that RE and RO in a denominational setting are intrinsically linked, which would mean that some of what she is trying to do would actually be very difficult to implement in a faith school?
15:45
I disagree. RE and RO do not have to be intrinsically linked, even in a denominational school. They might be, but they might not be.
Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, which is a good example. In Catholic schools across the country, children will learn about Lent. They will learn about it in an academic sense, probably write down what they will do for Lent and likely write a prayer to help them do that. They do all that in an RE class, but it is also RO. Does Maggie Chapman recognise that that is what I am talking about?
In his contribution, Paul O’Kane separated the two things out. Learning about one thing is not the same as practising it, which is what we need to be clear about. It is what young people and their parents have told us that they want clarity about.
My amendments in the group, along with Elena Whitham’s, would provide clarity by defining what constitutes religious observance, which helps us as legislators to understand the definition and ensures that parents, young people, children and schools are clear about the different elements and know how to treat them. As Paul O’Kane might accept, those lines might be fuzzy or blurry, but there is a distinction between observance and education.
The Scottish Greens whole-heartedly support the role that religious education plays in any curriculum, but particularly in helping children to understand the diversity of the society in which we live. I ask members to support my amendments.
I move amendment 6.
I will restrict my comments to my amendment 21. I also declare an interest as a member of the Humanist Society Scotland.
Amendment 21 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to issue statutory guidance that sets out the “meaning of religious observance” for the purposes of the bill. It would also require the statutory guidance to be published within 12 months of the commencement of the new guidance provision. The amendment reflects calls for clarity on the meaning of religious observance after stage 2, when religious observance and religious and moral education were separated in the bill and the parental right to withdraw was limited to apply only to religious observance.
Amendment 21 also responds to the concerns that were raised about instances of non-inclusive religious observance in non-denominational settings, most notably by Humanist Society Scotland in its “Preaching is not Teaching” report. Ministers preparing the guidance would therefore be required to consider the
“importance of inclusiveness in the content and delivery of religious observance”.
That would support schools in ensuring that all pupils can participate in a way that respects their personal beliefs, while promoting a time-for-reflection approach.
Recognising the distinct context of religious observance in denominational schools, the amendment specifically includes representatives of denominational schools, alongside “operators of schools” and those who represent the interests of parents, pupils and teachers, as mandatory consultees. That would help to ensure that the guidance is workable and appropriate across all school types.
The requirement for ministers to publish the guidance within 12 months of the section’s commencement reflects the importance of the guidance in providing clarity for schools, pupils and parents on how the changes in the bill should be implemented. I encourage members to support amendment 21.
I add my thanks to all those who have been involved in the bill process. Scotland has a long tradition of providing parents and families with the option to send their children to denominational education in a setting that they choose. Much of that stems from a long history—it is more than 100 years since the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 brought Catholic schools into the state sector, which created a fairly unique social contract in Scotland. Colleagues will be glad to know that I will not re-rehearse all the reasons for that this afternoon, but the difference in provision stems from a time when there were certain prejudices about the Catholic community—particularly the working-class Irish Catholic community—in Scotland. It is important that, at the outset of our debate this afternoon, we recall that heritage, that history and the importance of the place of those schools in our public life.
That was followed by denominational schooling in the Episcopalian church and the establishment of our Jewish school, Calderwood Lodge primary school, in East Renfrewshire, which I know very well. Therefore, it is fair to say that, for at least 100 years, there has been denominational education in the state sector, which is provided by our local authorities in conjunction with religious bodies.
Amendment 24 seeks to reiterate the Parliament’s commitment to the story of faith education and denominational schooling in Scotland. It also responds to the serious concerns that have been raised about the lack of direction that the bill sets. Amendment 24 would set out in the bill the Parliament’s continued support for the role, place and function of denominational schools—most notably, Catholic schools, which account for the overwhelming majority of denominational school settings in Scotland. It would put beyond doubt that any provisions in part 1 of the bill would not infringe on or negatively impact section 16 or 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or section 18 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1918, which established the right for denominational provision to exist and set out the powers, functions and responsibilities relating to the operation of such schools.
Amendment 24 responds clearly to concerns that the bill, or other amendments that we are considering today, would put into question the long-accepted settlement on denominational education in Scotland. In particular, I note the concerns that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has raised about amendments 6 and 11, which would change the terminology in statute from “religious instruction” to “religious education”.
When I intervened on Maggie Chapman, we had a brief exchange about how complicated the issue is in many ways, and there is perhaps a lack of wider understanding of how these things operate in practice. I note that concerns have been raised that that change in nomenclature would weaken the protections that are in place that recognise that religious observance and religious education are inherently linked in a faith school. I simply put the point to Maggie Chapman that it is very difficult to separate those two things, particularly in a faith school. In a religious education class, there will be moments when the lesson goes into religious observance, so it is not simple to separate the two.
I take Paul O’Kane’s point that the two are interlinked just now. Is he arguing that the two have to be interlinked, or could they be separated?
Mr Mason makes a fair point. I am arguing that the two should be interlinked. My understanding from my own education is that the two things are interlinked for a very strong purpose, which is about the unique ethos of a Catholic school being about both practice of someone’s faith and learning about faith in an academic sense.
Going down the road of trying to separate religious observance from religious education in a denominational setting would be extremely problematic. It would also be hard to do, particularly in a Catholic school, although, from what I understand of Calderwood Lodge, having been there, I think that that would also be true of Jewish schools. The two things are interlinked. The link is probably more acute in the primary sector. In Catholic schools, children are taught how to prepare for their sacraments in an RE lesson, but that will involve an element of practice, as Mr Mason will understand. I do not think that the two things should be decoupled in such settings, and it would be very difficult for them to be decoupled in practice, if the Government chose to go down that road.
As I have said, narrowing the definition of RE in a faith school to, extensively, interpretations in the academic curriculum could lead to more problems than are being anticipated. As I said to Maggie Chapman at stage 2, I understand the desire to separate the two elements in a non-denominational setting, because I understand the academic value of religious, moral and philosophical studies compared with what religious observance looks like in a non-denominational school. However, I do not think that we can compare the two settings, because they work in different ways. For those reasons, we will not support Maggie Chapman’s amendments.
We have concerns about amendment 21, in the name of Elena Whitham, because, although guidance on RO would be welcome, some of the text of the amendment suggests that it might lead to the deletion of ethos and nature within denominational settings, which I have referred to already. There would need to be strong assurances that it would not be used as a pretext to constrain or interfere with the ethos of faith schools.
I am conscious of time so early on in the debate, but I might just reflect on some of the information that was provided by the bishops of Scotland, who said:
“The inclusion of denominational schools in the state system in Scotland continues to be an example of a diverse, pluralistic, democratic education system in action.”
The statement also pointed out:
“Religious Education gives knowledge of faith, while Religious Observance is the living expression.”
That points to how those two things are interlinked in the denominational sector.
It is for those reasons that I urge members to support amendment 24, to make a clear statement about the value of faith schools in society and to affirm our commitment to their long-standing place and their future.
I will limit my remarks to amendments 22 and 22A, on requiring schools to provide parents and children with detailed information about planned religious observance at least 14 days in advance. That information must include not only the format and content but the assessment of whether the observance is
“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”.
I begin by saying that transparency is not the problem. It is right that parents should understand what is happening in their child’s school, and it is right that observance should be inclusive and respectful. I do not think that anyone disputes that, but amendment 22 would go much further than transparency. It would introduce into primary legislation a formalised statutory test that misunderstands what religious observance is. Observance is not a classroom lesson in comparative religion. It is not an academic seminar. It might be reflective or devotional. In denominational settings, it is part of the faith character that parents have consciously chosen. To require schools to certify in advance that observance is sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic is to apply a secular analytical framework to something that is not designed to function in that way. That is not a small drafting point—it is a conceptual mistake.
There is also a question of proportionality. We do not require 14-day statutory reports for assemblies, commemorations, themed events or visiting speakers. We do not require advanced legal assessments of whether those events meet an abstract standard. Why, then, single out religious observance for that level of prescription?
Amendment 22A would extend that requirement to denominational schools. That raises an even more serious issue. Parents who enrol their children in a denominational school do so in the full knowledge of its ethos. To subject those schools to a statutory objectivity test risks eroding the distinctive character that the Parliament has long recognised and protected. There is a difference between accountability and control. There is a difference between guidance and rigid statutory prescription. If further clarity is needed about the meaning of observance, guidance is the proper vehicle. Schools need flexibility; they do not need another layer of bureaucratic reporting embedded in statute.
The bill already seeks to narrow the parental conscience clause by removing the right to withdraw from religious and moral education. I happen to agree with that. It already seeks to introduce a new formal process around observance. In that context, we should be cautious about layering on additional statutory burdens that risk confusion, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative strain.
Matters of conscience and faith require careful handling. We should legislate with balance. That means respecting children’s voices but also respecting parental choice and the integrity of different school types in our system. For those reasons, although I understand the intention behind them, I cannot support amendments 22 and 22A.
I will make a short contribution in support of amendment 24, in the name of Paul O’Kane. We are debating legislation on the right of a child to withdraw from religious education, but it is important that that does not undermine the ethos of denominational schools. If we ask any headteacher what is successful about those schools, they will say that their entire ethos is about the discipline and character of that school and that, without that, they would not be as successful.
The 1918 act is a key piece of law for Catholic education, which is enshrined in our education system. The 1918 act corrected historical inequalities, and it is important to note that that is one of the things that it does.
We have a highly successful Catholic education system. It is part of a modern system that reflects the minority character of the Catholic community while giving choice to all parents regardless of their religious background. I think that that is right for a modern Scotland.
16:00
This is what I want to say to the Government—although I have obviously not yet heard the Government’s argument. The Government must recognise that there have been periodic attempts to eradicate or remove Catholic schools from the education system. I have had many letters over 20 years, and that point has been argued by the Humanist Society and others. Everyone has their view. I do not have any criticism of the Government in this regard but, if the Government recognises that that has happened, then, for the avoidance of doubt, we must ensure that the right of the child that we are dealing with today does not undermine that ethos in any way. It is imperative that nothing in the bill does that.
I would like to hear what the Government has to say about that. I do not see why the Government would be opposed to amendment 24. As I have said, the 1918 act is a very relevant piece of legislation. I would be interested to hear what the Government has to say. I will strongly support amendment 24 for the reasons that I have set out.
As we have heard this afternoon, Maggie Chapman’s amendments 6 and 11 would replace references to “religious instruction” with the term “religious education” in section 8 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
I understand that concerns have been expressed at use of the word “instruction”—a point that I recently discussed with the Humanist Society. National guidance has long been clear that religious and moral education is expected to cover learning from a range of faiths and world-views, including beliefs independent of religion, in an objective manner.
I discussed the amendments in this area with the Scottish Catholic Education Service last week and, as we have heard this afternoon, it expressed concern regarding the perceived impact on denominational schools in particular, including on learning outwith the classroom. In practice, the term “instruction” in the 1980 act has long been understood to mean teaching or education, and it appears throughout the 1980 act, including in contexts entirely unrelated to religion.
There are currently 27 uses of the term “instruction” in the 1980 act as it would stand after the passing of the bill. The amendments would update only a fraction of the references in the act, and they would they leave references to “religious instruction” in other sections unchanged—including in sections dealing with the management of denominational schools, for example.
While it might be fair to say that the terminology is somewhat outdated, especially given modern curriculum practice, the amendments risk creating inconsistency and uncertainty in how the legislation should be interpreted. They might create an argument that “religious education” and “religious instruction” are two substantially different things under the 1980 act, which of course is not the case.
I genuinely want the cabinet secretary’s help here, because my decision hinges on what she understands by the word “instruction”, as opposed to what she understands by the word “education”. Is she arguing that, legally, the two are the same? I genuinely still have to decide how I am voting on this point. We could easily think that the word “instruction” means religious observance. We could equally think that it means education. I genuinely want some advice—a steer—from the cabinet secretary.
I accept Mr Simpson’s question and I recognise some of his concern. There is dubiety on that point from some stakeholders, as I have set out, and I have also made the point that the term appears in the legislation—in the 1980 act—a total of 27 times, I think. There would be incoherence in amending the 1980 act at this stage, although I recognise some of the concerns that have been voiced to that end.
There is a great degree of complexity contained in the 1980 act, with the long-standing meaning attached to its terminology, which Mr Simpson rightly raises, but changes of this nature would require much more thorough consideration across the 1980 act to avoid unintended consequences.
For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 6 and 11.
Amendment 21, in the name of Elena Whitham, would require ministers to provide statutory guidance on the meaning of religious observance. I am very glad that we have worked with Ms Whitham on her amendment, which responds to concerns raised following stage 2 changes that separated religious observance and religious and moral education so that the parental right to withdraw would apply only to religious observance.
As members might know, and as we have heard from Mr O’Kane and other members this afternoon, there is a close relationship in denominational schools between religious education and religious observance. By providing a duty for ministers to issue guidance on the meaning of religious observance in schools, amendment 21 will ensure that clarity will be provided for schools, pupils and parents regarding where the right to withdraw continues to apply and where it does not.
Amendment 21 will require that ministers consider the importance of inclusiveness in the content and delivery of religious observance when preparing the statutory national guidance. That will support schools in ensuring that all pupils can participate in religious observance without contravening their personal beliefs. Recognising the particular context of religious observance in denominational schools, amendment 21 explicitly includes as mandatory consultees those who represent the interests of denominational schools, alongside education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools, to ensure that the guidance works for both denominational and non-denominational settings.
Amendment 21 will also require that the guidance be published within 12 months of the section being commenced, reflecting the importance of the guidance in providing clarity for schools, parents and pupils regarding the implementation of the changes. For all those reasons, I invite members to support amendment 21.
Maggie Chapman’s amendment 22 would require non-denominational schools to provide pupils and parents with details of the “format and content” of religious observance at least 14 days in advance—as we have heard from members today—alongside an assessment of whether religious observance activities are
“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”.
Amendment 22A would apply those requirements to all public and grant-aided schools, instead of only non-denominational ones. Schools are already required by the school handbook regulations to provide information on the form and content of religious observance and on the arrangements for withdrawing a pupil. The introduction of a duty to provide an assessment of whether those activities are sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic would place a significant administrative burden on schools, which I think is the point that Stephen Kerr made earlier.
We already expect schools to provide only activities that they believe to be sufficient in that regard, in line with the existing guidance. The new statutory guidance to accompany the implementation of the bill will highlight the expectation that religious observance is inclusive, as well as how that might look in practice. In developing the guidance, we will engage with schools and other interested parties to determine what further support might be appropriate to ensure that religious observance is consistently and sufficiently inclusive of those of all faiths and no faith.
The cabinet secretary is talking about the guidance. What thought has been given to the depth of the guidance? As former teachers, she and I will both have received guidance in the past, so we know that, sometimes, it goes to the nth degree on how something is delivered, whereas other guidance contains just top-line phrases that, in times past, during in-service training days in particular, we might have struggled to implement.
I am sure that Mr Whitfield and I both have fond memories of the many in-service training days that we spent as teachers. I draw his attention to amendment 21, in which, under the requirement in proposed new section 9C(5)(a) of the 1980 act,
“Ministers must publish guidance issued under subsection (1) … within … 12 months”.
That speaks to the broader point of the requirement to consult the mandatory consultees who are also stipulated in Elena Whitham’s amendment 21. I hope that that gives him some degree of comfort.
For the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support amendments 22 and 22A. I would, however, be happy to consider looking at how the school handbook regulations might be updated alongside the development of the accompanying guidance, to ensure that parents and pupils get that important information in relation to religious observance and their associated rights that sit alongside that, so that they can make informed decisions accordingly.
Paul O’Kane’s amendment 24, which we have heard commentary about from members this afternoon, provides that the changes that will be made to the 1980 act by part 1 of the bill would have no effect on
“section 16 or 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980”
or on
“section 18 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1918.”
The amendment therefore includes reference to a provision that has not been law for more than half a century. It might create a level of confusion by giving the false impression that the modifications will, in some way, affect those or other unreferenced provisions in legislation, which they will not.
However, I appreciate that amendment 24 likely aims—as we have already heard this afternoon—to give reassurance in response to concerns from the denominational sector that the bill will undermine the existing protections for denominational schools. To reassure Pauline McNeill and other members, I again put on the record the fact that the Government remains unequivocal in its support for denominational schools. We very much recognise the vital role that those schools play, in relation to religious observance and religious education in those settings. That will be evident in the Government’s position on a number of amendments that will provide clarity, and it will also have been evident from my consistent engagement with the Scottish Catholic Education Service throughout the passage of the bill. I again say that SCES will, of course, be part of the mandatory consultation that is set out in Elena Whitham’s amendment 21.
Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary’s technical point about amendment 24, she seems to want to accept it in spirit. Will the Government support that amendment today and will it put clearly on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, that those two pieces of legislation are supported? This is the moment for Parliament to do that in our modern context by using an avoidance of doubt amendment, which I think is important.
I very much appreciate the sentiment behind amendment 24. I make Mr O’Kane aware that I discussed the content of that amendment with the Scottish Catholic Education Service only last week and that I raised some of our concerns about the anomalies that might arise as a result of the way in which the amendment has been drafted.
The Government’s preference is for members to, instead, support amendment 21, which allows for guidance to be issued and puts into statute the requirement for denominational schools, including those belonging to the Scottish Catholic Education Service, to be consulted on that guidance. The guidance that currently exists is not statutory in nature, which means that amendment 21 would arguably give further clarity and protection through legislation.
The cabinet secretary supports amendment 21. Does she also recognise that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has suggested that the proposals that RO should be
“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”
have the potential to create ambiguity and to be open to interpretation or to potential challenges about the denominational nature of education in Catholic schools?
I am not sure I would go as far as to recognise all of that critique, but I have discussed some of the challenges with SCES and directly with Barbara Coupar in relation to how the bill will operate in Catholic schools. Mr O’Kane will recall that my former employment, before I became an MSP, was in a Catholic school and I very much recognise that the division between RO and RME is inherent to the culture and faith within Catholic schools. Any work will need to be undertaken in a sensitive manner and done directly with SCES, which is included under the mandatory consultees that are set out Elena Whitham’s amendment 21.
That is how the system currently operates and that is provided for in national guidance, so there has been no change in that respect. I encourage members to support amendment 21, which allows guidance to be issued.
I did not understand what you meant, cabinet secretary, when you spoke about the 1918 act. It is a century old, but it is still the law. It does not really matter how old that act is, and we have laws that are much older than that. The 1918 act is really important for denominational education, so can you clarify whether that is the source of your technical problem with the amendment? Do you accept that it is still the law?
Always through the chair.
The point that I was making is one that I have discussed with SCES. There is an issue in relation to drafting. I would have preferred it if Mr O’Kane and I had been able to work together on an amendment on the issue, but, although he and I met and discussed the point, that was not the case in the end.
There is a risk here of creating confusion or of creating a false impression that modifications in the bill will, in some way, affect legislative provisions that they do not actually affect. The bill will not affect denominational education in the way that the member suggests. However, I appreciate Mr O’Kane’s point about the concern expressed by the sector, which is why I have spent a great deal of time engaging directly with the Catholic Education Service. We will come to this in a later group of amendments, but that is also why my officials have been engaging directly with SCES and with schools in relation to how the statutory guidance will be adopted and taken forward. All of that will be undertaken in conjunction with SCES and with the Catholic church more broadly, which is stipulated as a mandatory consultee.
I ask members to vote against all the other amendments in group 1, because although they are, as we have heard, well intentioned, they are unnecessary and likely to create confusion in our legislation.
16:15
My amendments 6 and 11 seek to clarify the terminology and help to modernise the language in the 1980 act. Religious instruction is often considered to be the same as religious observance. My amendments would clarify that by replacing “instruction” with the term “education”, helping to avoid that confusion or conflation.
Amendment 11 would clarify the language on the removal of the parental opt-out from RME as a classroom subject, which we agreed to at stage 2. To address the cabinet secretary’s concern about unintended consequences, I note that the amendment refers only to section 8 of the 1980 act, but I appreciate that that may not be enough to sway the Government.
Amendment 22 would require non-denominational schools to provide pupils and parents with information about RO, including its format and content. That is not a mistake, as Stephen Kerr seemed to suggest. It is intentional.
To be clear, I did not say that it is a mistake. I said that it was a technical issue. I hope that Maggie Chapman accepts that.
I think that I heard the word “mistake”, but I accept what Stephen Kerr has now said in his intervention.
Amendment 22 would support children’s rights under articles 12 and 13 of the UNCRC—article 12 contains the right to be heard and article 13 contains the right to information—by ensuring that children have the information that they need to make informed and clear decisions. Obviously, schools should ensure that the information is provided in formats that are accessible to children and young people and their families.
Amendment 22A would go further, clarifying that all public and grant-aided schools should be subject to the duty to provide information.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments about the guidance for schools on the matter, but we heard in committee that the guidance is not always clear and that, when it is clear, it is followed with very variable degrees of felicity across the country. However, I am grateful for her comments about her preparedness to look at the handbook in future to see whether we can get a little more clarity.
I press amendment 6.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for about five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
16:16
Meeting suspended.
16:22
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division on amendment 6. Members should cast their votes now.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, my app would not connect. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Gilruth. Your vote will be recorded.
INSERT VOTE
The result of the division on amendment 6 is: For 14, Against 102, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Group 2 is on process following receipt of parental withdrawal request. Amendment 1, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5 and 19. I point out that, if amendment 19 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 20, which is to be debated in the group on a pupil’s right to withdraw from religious observance, due to pre-emption.
For clarification, what I said to Maggie Chapman in the context of my remarks was that applying a secular analytical framework to something that is not designed to function in that way is not a small drafting point; it is a conceptual mistake, which is my polite way of saying that I do not think that it is understood.
Group 2 is at the heart of how the legislation will operate in practice. The new section 9A that the bill proposes to insert into the 1980 act establishes a formal process once a parent requests withdrawal from religious observance. That framework is now set out clearly in the bill as amended at stage 2. It requires operators to inform the pupil and invite their views and, if the pupil objects, to refuse the parental request. That is a significant constitutional and educational shift—it alters the balance between parental authority, institutional responsibility and the child’s developing autonomy.
My amendments in this group seek not to undo that framework, but to ensure that it is workable, legally coherent and fair in its consequences. Amendment 1 addresses an issue that should concern every member of the Parliament: what actually happens to the child once withdrawal takes place? If we are going to formalise a process by which some pupils are withdrawn from religious observance, the statute must guarantee that those pupils are not educationally sidelined.
The bill currently protects against disadvantage in terms of secular instruction, but it does not explicitly guarantee purposeful alternative activity during the period of withdrawal. Amendment 1, therefore, would place a clear statutory duty on the authority or managers to provide
“suitable and purposeful educational activity”.
Amendments 2 to 4 turn to the question of maturity and capacity. Proposed new section 9A, as drafted, states that a
“pupil is to be presumed to be capable of forming a view unless the contrary is shown.”
In abstract terms, that sounds child centred; in practical terms, it places schools in a difficult and potentially adversarial position. The bill now creates a process by which, if a pupil objects, the parental request must not be given effect. That is not simply consultation; it is determinative.
In such circumstances, Parliament must be precise about thresholds. Amendment 2 clarifies that it is a
“pupil 16 years of age or older”
whose position carries that determinative weight.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I give way to John Mason.
Speaking—it is interesting to note—as one religious member to another, does the member not think that 16 is a bit on the high side? I would have accepted it if he had said that the threshold should be at secondary 1 stage or maybe somewhere in between, but 16? We allow young people at 16 to do a lot of things. Surely, below 16 they should be able to opt out of religious observance.
Actually, John Mason makes my point for me—16 is not an arbitrary number. In Scots law, it marks a recognised threshold of legal capacity—
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member give way?
It is the age at which young people acquire significant rights and responsibilities.
I give way to Alex Cole-Hamilton.
I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for giving way; I have pressed my button to speak in this group on this particular issue. We have a range of ages of majority, as laid out by this Parliament. At the age of 12, a person’s medical consent is sought and they are deemed to have capacity in medical decisions made about their body. The age of criminal responsibility is much lower than 16—in fact, the Scottish Conservatives have resisted an increase in that regard. I therefore ask him to explain those inconsistencies to the Parliament and say why he is bringing this one forward.
Alex Cole-Hamilton is asking me to explain the inconsistencies of legislation for which the Parliament is responsible. I would like there to be less inconsistency in these areas; unfortunately, we live with these inconsistencies, and that is why I have lodged amendment 2 to set 16 as the age. I recognise what Alex Cole-Hamilton says, and I sympathise with his point of view about the confusion that exists around these matters. I wish that there was some clarity.
I wonder whether Stephen Kerr is able to tell members whether he thinks that children under the age of 16 can make any decisions for themselves and therefore would be considered to have capacity in this regard. The UNCRC—which his party has agreed to incorporate in Scots law—is quite clear that children and young people should be assumed to have capacity unless it is proven otherwise. The bill as it stands is consistent with that. His amendments would put the bill at odds with that principle.
16:30
Maggie Chapman is asking me whether I believe that children under the age of 16 can make their own decisions. As the father of four children, I assure members that children do have the capacity, in many instances, to make decisions for themselves. This issue happens to fall under an area that is covered by the 1980 act and deserves our careful scrutiny. In Scots law, the age of 16 is a recognised legal threshold for capacity. It is an age at which young people acquire, as I said a moment ago, significant rights and responsibilities under law. That is not the same as the issue that Maggie Chapman raised in her question. Aligning the bill with existing legal architecture is not restrictive—it is coherent.
I turn to amendment 3, which would replace the phrase “be capable of forming” with
“have the maturity to form”.
That shift is deliberate. Capability suggests a minimum cognitive ability. Maturity recognises emotional development, contextual understanding and the capacity to appreciate consequences. It is not semantic refinement. It is a more accurate articulation of what Parliament must mean if the child’s view is to override their parents’ statutory right.
With a move from “capable of forming” to “have the maturity”, is Mr Kerr not shifting from an objective assessment to a subjective assessment? He is seeking to shift the judge—to shift who decides that.
Any decision on the maturity and emotional development of a child is an on-going subjective decision that is reviewed continually in the light of their development, which is highly individual, as I know and Martin Whitfield knows only too well.
It is important that we have clarity around the articulation of what Parliament means. I repeat this point, because it is important. The bill would mean that a child’s view would override a parent’s statutory right. That is why we require careful scrutiny of amendment 3 at this stage in the bill’s progress.
Amendment 4 would establish a presumption that a pupil under the age of 16 is not to be treated as having the maturity to form such a view
“unless the contrary is shown”.
That is not a blanket exclusion—it preserves flexibility. Where a younger child demonstrably possesses unusual maturity, the presumption can be rebutted, but the amendment would prevent the default position from becoming automatic opposition to their parent’s request. That is the whole point of the bill.
Throughout our scrutiny of the bill, I have emphasised that the UNCRC speaks of “evolving capacities”. It does not erase parental responsibility. Article 5 recognises
“the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents … to provide … appropriate direction and guidance”.
If the bill is to claim UNCRC alignment, it must respect that dual principle. My amendments restore balance without denying the child’s voice.
Amendment 5 is equally fundamental. It requires that operators “act impartially” and do not “seek to influence” the pupil’s views. If the school is required to inform the pupil of the request and of the right to object, that communication must be neutral. It must not be framed in a way that steers the pupil towards objection, nor should it minimise the seriousness of the parental decision. Schools are trusted institutions. Parents must have confidence that they are not entering a process in which their child will be subtly encouraged to contradict them. Without explicit statutory impartiality, we risk creating a dynamic in which the school becomes an active participant in a dispute rather than an honest broker. That would be unfair to families and to teachers.
Against that background, I have serious reservations about amendment 19. A statutory duty to issue guidance on the withdrawal process may appear sensible, but we are being asked to endorse guidance that we have not seen, in an area that already places teachers in a sensitive and potentially invidious position.
Guidance can provide clarification, expand expectations and reshape practice. If the bill will already formalise a process that many people believe goes further than is necessary, layering additional statutory guidance without clear parameters risks compounding that shift. Teachers are educators; they should not be routinely drawn into adjudicating family disagreement on matters of conscience. Before granting ministers further influence over how this delicate process is conducted, the Parliament should be confident that such guidance will reinforce restraint, not extend intervention.
My amendments are principled and carefully framed. They would respect children’s voices while preserving parental responsibility, provide schools with clearer statutory guidance and reduce the risk of an inconsistent application of practice across Scotland. If we are to legislate in this sensitive space of conscience, family life and education, we must do so with seriousness and balance. My amendments would help us to do exactly that, and I commend them to the Parliament.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 19 addresses calls from several stakeholders for clear guidance on the implementation of the changes that are proposed in part 1 of the bill.
The amendment would change the existing ministerial power to issue statutory guidance to a duty to do so. It would also introduce further requirements relating to the content of the guidance, the consultation process that must underpin its development and the arrangements for its publication.
Amendment 19 sets out the core areas that the statutory guidance would have to cover. Those areas reflect many of the issues that were raised during stage 2, including:
“(a) the process for considering a request for withdrawal from religious observance,
(b) support available to pupils and parents about the process,
(c) assessing whether a pupil is capable of forming a view about a request,
(d) handling of discussion between pupils and parents about a request.”
The amendment would also establish a list of mandatory consultees with whom ministers must engage when preparing the guidance.
Amendment 19 sets out a clear timescale within which the Scottish ministers would have to issue the guidance, stipulating that it must be published within a year of the commencement of the relevant provisions. That is intended to prevent delays in providing much-needed clarity for schools, pupils and parents.
I will speak briefly about the amendments in this group, particularly amendment 19 in the name of Elena Whitham. Given the significant changes that the bill would bring and the new position in which it would put schools, of effectively needing to arbitrate between parents and children on issues of faith or conscience—things that are often deeply personal and private—it is important that schools are given clear guidance on how the processes envisaged in the bill would operate, and that must be done in a timely manner. Therefore, the detail underlying the amendment and the commitment to the production of guidance in short order are key points; it is worth putting that on the record. The whole Parliament would welcome seeing a final version of the guidance.
I have raised several concerns regarding the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill in committee, in the stage 1 debate, in the debate on stage 2 amendments and while meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.
I put on the record that my issues of concern are the possibility of parents being overruled, increased pressure being placed on teachers, and the danger of a precedent being set. For example, controversial organisations such as LGBT Youth Scotland are already entering schools, including primary schools, to deliver material that many parents believe advances a political agenda.
That being said, I welcomed meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills last month. Although that meeting did not lessen any of my concerns, I was pleased to hear that the guidance will cover issues such as the age of legal capacity and how conflict between parents and pupils will be managed. However, as we know all too well, the devil will be in the detail. As we have not yet seen the guidance, I cannot support the bill. Instead, I welcome the amendments from my colleague Stephen Kerr, which include vital safeguards and recognise that pupils under 16 may lack the maturity to form an informed view.
Will Ms Gosal take an intervention?
Ms Gosal has finished her contribution.
As I hinted to Stephen Kerr in my earlier intervention, I now rise primarily to speak to amendment 2 and his attempt to introduce 16 as the age of presumed maturity in making decisions in this matter.
Stephen Kerr freely admits that we, as a Parliament and a country, are inconsistent about the age at which we recognise maturity and offer autonomy to our children and young people. That has come from a very considered space in some regards. I raised the example of health matters, in which 12 is the age at which consent will be sought for medical processes and procedures.
The age of criminal responsibility in this country was raised to 12 by legislation in the previous session of Parliament. I lodged amendments that sought to raise it higher—to 14 and to 16 for various purposes—but it was, in large part, down to Mr Kerr’s party that the Parliament rejected both my amendments and left us with an age of responsibility that is lower than those in Russia and China.
In relation to that piece of legislation and the age of criminal responsibility, the Conservatives attested that it was about understanding right from wrong. Surely the assessment of—
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a minute, but I want to make the point that understanding right and wrong and what sits well with people’s conscience is absolutely at the heart of the debate today. We cannot, on the one hand, recognise young people’s maturity in knowing the difference between right and wrong, or what sits well with their conscience in relation to criminal acts, but, on the other, deny them the same recognition when it comes to matters of faith. That is a fundamental inconsistency, and, for that reason, I believe that Stephen Kerr’s amendment is fundamentally flawed.
I respect Alex Cole-Hamilton’s point about the inconsistencies—after all, we have to deal with a variety of ages in this regard. However, does he not accept that the issue here is a matter of family life and the rights and responsibilities of parents? Surely that places a different shade on the matter than the approach that he is taking.
I welcome that important intervention, which gets to the very heart of this debate. Yes, there will always be tensions between the rights of groups in our societies. In this case, we are talking about the tensions between rights as a parent and the rights of the child. However, the Parliament has unanimously agreed to our commitment to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. Stephen Kerr’s party voted unanimously in favour of that.
I think that I made it clear in my remarks that the UNCRC recognises the roles and responsibilities of parents and the evolving nature of the autonomy of a child.
The UNCRC offers us a blueprint as to how to navigate the tensions between those rights. Everything in the bill strengthens our compatibility with the UNCRC, so I do not accept that raising to 16 the age at which children are afforded the agency to make decisions on the matter will somehow ameliorate the tensions between those rights.
This comes back to what sits right with people’s conscience. I wish it were otherwise on the age of criminal responsibility, but if we, as a Parliament, recognise that children have the maturity, and afford them the opportunity, at the age of 12, to make decisions on what is right and wrong when it comes to criminal acts, I do not see why we should suggest that they lack the ability to say what sits right with their conscience in matters of faith.
I hate to say this to Stephen Kerr, but he has got some of this wrong. On the issue of age, and particularly the age at which children are able to form a view, it is just not right to put a hard and fast figure on that—certainly not the age of 16.
I can remember that, when I was at school—I am sure that Mr Kerr experienced this, too—there were pupils aged under 16 who were perfectly capable of forming a view on such an issue.
16:45
Does Graham Simpson accept and understand that, in the context of the bill, we are also talking about the rights and responsibilities of parents? Surely, as a Parliament, we understand and accept that parents have an important role in the lives of their children until they reach the legal threshold. To set them aside, as the proposed legislation would, is a very bold thing to do. That is why I am testing the Parliament’s view on the matter and, indeed, Graham Simpson’s view.
Stephen Kerr does not need to test my view. I am looking at the amendments that are in front of us, which do not mention parents. I accept that parents are part of the debate that we will have. [Interruption.] Stephen Kerr is chuntering from a sedentary position, but we need to look at the amendments that are in front of us.
The whole point of these amendments is to underscore the importance of the roles and responsibilities that parents have in relation to their children. I could not be clearer about why I have lodged the amendments and what the intention behind them is: it is to reinforce family life and the roles and responsibilities of parents.
Unfortunately for Stephen Kerr, the wording in amendment 3 is
“be capable of forming”
and
“have the maturity to form”.
Amendment 4 says:
“A pupil under 16 years of age is presumed not to have the maturity to form a view unless the contrary is shown.”
That is just wrong, because many children under the age of 16 are perfectly capable of forming a view.
Where I have good news for Stephen Kerr—although he might not be bothered one way or the other—is that I find amendment 1 extremely sensible in that it says:
“Where a pupil is withdrawn from religious observance,”
we must ensure that there is some kind of
“purposeful education activity during that period.”
I can support his amendment 1 but not his other amendments. I will also support Elena Whitham’s amendment 19.
I advise members—and they will probably have noted—that we will shortly reach the next time limit, and we still have a further group to debate. As a consequence, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, to extend the debate by 30 minutes. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to move such a motion formally.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jenny Gilruth]
Motion agreed to.
I now call the cabinet secretary.
As we have heard, Stephen Kerr’s amendment 1 would require schools to ensure that
“suitable and purposeful educational activity”
is provided for any pupil who is withdrawn from religious observance. The amendment is consistent with the Government’s existing guidance on religious observance, which outlines that schools should provide worthwhile alternative activities for pupils who are withdrawn from such observance. For those reasons, like Mr Simpson, I am able to support amendment 1, and I encourage other members to do so.
However, amendments 2, 3 and 4, also in the name of Mr Kerr, would significantly alter the bill’s approach to how pupils are involved in decisions about withdrawal from religious observance. Taken together, those amendments would remove the presumption that pupils under 16 should have their views considered in relation to a withdrawal request. They would be
“presumed not to have the maturity to form a view on their withdrawal unless the contrary is shown.”
That would effectively introduce an age-based threshold of 16 for the new pupil rights in the bill, which would go against existing legislation on children’s rights, as we have already heard this afternoon.
Amendment 3 would specifically shift the test for whether a pupil can express a view from one that is based on capacity to one that is based on maturity. In doing so, the amendment does not align with the requirements of article 12 of the UNCRC and it conflicts with the wording in section 9A(3) of the bill, which refers to a pupil’s capability to form a view. That creates a level of confusion about the judgment that is required from the operator, without providing any clear benefit.
As it stands, the bill includes a presumption that a child is capable of forming a view unless the contrary is shown. That reflects the concept of “evolving capacities” under the UNCRC and also aligns with established legislative precedents, including the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. That capacity-based approach was supported by a majority of the committee’s members in its stage 1 report. For those reasons, I am unable to support amendments 2, 3 and 4.
Stephen Kerr’s amendment 5 would require school operators to act impartially and not seek to influence a pupil’s views in relation to parental withdrawal requests. Mr Kerr lodged a similar amendment on that issue at stage 2, but it was phrased in such a way that it implied a lack of professionalism in schools. I welcome the more careful framing of amendment 5, which provides reassurance without undermining trust in teachers, and I am therefore happy to support it.
Amendment 19, in the name of Elena Whitham, would replace the existing ministerial power to issue statutory guidance with a duty to do so. It would also set out additional requirements regarding the content of that guidance, as we have heard, as well as the consultation that would have to take place during its development and the arrangements for its publication.
In amendment 19, subsection (2)(a) refers to
“the process for considering a request”
and subsection (2)(d) refers to
“handling of discussion between pupils and parents”.
Does the cabinet secretary envisage that the guidance would be sensitive to what happens in cases involving a balancing of two different rights being arbitrated by another person? Will the guidance give advice on how to best handle that balance?
I envisage that those discussions would very much be sensitive to that difference of opinion—I give the member an assurance on that point. We have heard a range of views on the development of the guidance, but it is important to say that, assuming that the bill is passed, the 12-month period will begin with consultation with the mandatory consultees. That is imperative. We have heard arguments from the member’s colleagues about why that is important if we are to recognise the difference that exists in our schools and reflect that in the statutory guidance.
I mentioned school operators. Education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools, as well as bodies that represent teachers, parents, and children and young people, would be among the mandatory consultees that I spoke about in response to Mr Whitfield. As with amendment 21 in the previous group, amendment 19 includes representatives of denominational schools. That is a recognition of their distinct interests and the importance of consulting the denominational sector.
Finally, amendment 19 would place a requirement on ministers to publish the guidance within a certain time. That responds constructively to the committee’s discussion at stage 2 and offers a helpful and proportionate set of requirements for the statutory guidance. For those reasons, I support it.
The Government is happy to support amendments 1, 5 and 19. I ask Stephen Kerr not to move amendments 2, 3 and 4.
I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for accepting amendments 1 and 5—that is a most pleasant surprise on this Tuesday afternoon. I am grateful for the spirit in which the cabinet secretary has approached the intent and detail of the amendments.
I remain concerned about the rights of parents, as indeed do all of us in the Conservatives. Martin Whitfield’s intervention on the cabinet secretary captured the point well that there is a tension between the rights of children and the rights of parents. Above all, our concern is for family life. I believe that the measure has the potential to create difficulties in that area, by forcing schools as well as teachers and school leaders into an unenviable position in which they cannot win.
I am grateful for the acceptance of amendments 1 and 5. I understand the intent of amendment 19, but I am concerned that we do not have any idea of the drafting. I understand the degree to which there will be consultation, but, before that consultation, there would have to be something to consult on. I would like to have seen thoughts on what that guidance would be. I think that Pam Gosal put the point well. I am concerned about exactly what the guidance will entail, given the power that it could have in shaping practice in our schools.
On that basis, I will press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded.
The division list for amendment 1 will be published as soon as it is available.
The result of the division is: For 99, Against 0, Abstentions 19.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I still could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 91, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise—I could not connect. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Robertson. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded.
The division list for amendment 3 will be published as soon as it is available.
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 72, Abstentions 19.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 92, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Stephen Kerr]—and agreed to.
17:00
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At the start of my remarks, I should have declared an interest in that my wife is a teacher in a Roman Catholic primary school.
Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. That will be noted on the record.
Group 3 is on a pupil’s right to withdraw from religious observance. Amendment 16, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 17, 18, 20, 7, 7A and 9. I point out that, if amendment 19, which was previously debated in the group on the process following receipt of a parental withdrawal request, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 20 due to a pre-emption.
The child-facing version of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 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 their views even being taken into account. That is clearly contrary to the convention, and I welcome the opportunity to correct that through the bill.
As it stands, the bill will allow a young person who has previously been opted out of religious activities by their parents or guardians to opt back in, but not to opt out themselves. That directly contradicts the Scottish Government’s draft children’s rights scheme, which states that children should be given
“the knowledge and confidence to use their rights”.
That rightly suggests that children should be able to use their rights proactively, not only after an adult has acted on their behalf.
The bill goes against the advice of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who, in her letter to the committee, explicitly said:
“Part 1 in its current form does not achieve compliance with the UNCRC.”
Her view is shared by others. The committee’s stage 1 report noted that a majority
“supported amending the Bill to provide children with an independent right to withdraw from”
religious observance. That majority includes not only two parties on the committee but the Scottish Human Rights Commission 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. In the 2023 concluding observations from the Committee on the Rights of the Child in the UK, the United Nations called for withdrawal requests by children and young people not to be subject to parental consent.
If all of that was not enough, a Survation poll that was commissioned 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. Colleagues across the chamber might be interested to know that the majority of supporters of every political party agree with that, too.
It is central to the whole notion of the rights of children and young people that those rights should not be subsidiary to the actions of adults. Children should be empowered to exercise their rights independently. By allowing young people to override their parents’ wishes but not allowing them to proactively exercise their rights, the bill undermines its central purpose, which is to strengthen the fundamental rights of children to be heard, to be taken seriously and to be listened to.
My amendments in this group allow us to correct that. Amendments 17 and 7 would do that in different ways. Amendments 17 and consequential amendments 16, 18 and 20 would put an independent right to withdraw directly into the bill, with the understanding that children should have that right. As a weaker alternative, amendment 7 and consequential amendment 9 would empower the Scottish Government to do that via regulations, while amendment 7A would require such regulations to be developed.
I understand that the Scottish Government is minded to support amendment 7, but I do not think that that is enough. If it cannot also support amendment 7A, I ask the cabinet secretary to address the point in her speech, or to intervene on me now to say that the Government will commit to consulting on the regulations if the Scottish National Party leads the next Government. The cabinet secretary knows how important an independent right to withdraw from religious observance is to the Scottish Greens’ ability to support the bill.
The amendments in this group are fundamentally about giving children the powers to exercise their rights. The Scottish Human Rights Commission says that we should do that, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland says that we should do that, and the United Nations says that we should do that. Let us do that.
I move amendment 16.
I wish to speak against amendments 16, 17 and 7, because, taken as a whole, they represent a serious shift in the balance of authority between parent, child and the state. At the heart of that is the question of responsibility—who decides when it comes to a child’s religious upbringing and who carries the authority to see that decision through?
Amendment 16 might look technical, but it is far from minor. By inserting reference to the proposed new section 9AA of the 1980 act, it lays the groundwork for a stand-alone statutory right for pupils to withdraw from religious observance. That is not a small drafting change—it is a structural shift that separates the pupil’s position from the long-established parental right.
Amendment 17 would then give the new structure real force. It would create a direct enforceable right for any pupil to request withdrawal and oblige schools to give effect to that request. Although it mentions parental direction, the ultimate and final decision would rest with the pupil, with capacity presumed, unless shown otherwise. That is more than consultation. It is a transfer of authority from the parent, who carries legal responsibility for the child, to the pupil and, by extension, to the school to enforce it.
No one here disputes that children’s views matter. We all want children to be heard, particularly as they grow and mature, but there is a difference between listening to a child and giving them a parallel independent right to override the decisions of the people who are legally responsible for their welfare and upbringing. Responsibility without authority is not a balance—it is a contradiction.
Amendment 7 would compound the problem by giving ministers the power to introduce an independent pupil right of withdrawal through regulations. That would allow a fundamental change to the parent-child relationship to be made by secondary legislation rather than after proper scrutiny by the Parliament. It would place schools in the difficult position of having to mediate family disputes where a parent’s lawful decision could be overridden by a headteacher.
What is at stake is more than a procedural detail; it is a principle that parents who carry responsibility for their children must also retain the authority to make decisions about their moral and religious formation. The amendments would erode that principle and risk creating unnecessary conflict within families.
This is an entirely legitimate debate on the balance of rights between parents and children, but I will come to a different conclusion from the member. What I am confused about is that, like me, he and every other member in the previous parliamentary session voted for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. The specifics in the bill that we are debating will simply put into practice the principles that we have all already voted for. Will Mr Balfour explain to me why he voted for putting the UNCRC into Scots law but now disagrees with the logical conclusion of putting it into practice?
We implemented that piece of law, but, as we did so, we recognised that there is a balance between children’s rights and parental rights. I think that the amendments in this group go beyond the scope—they go too far. For that reason, I do not think that there is a contradiction. It is absolutely possible to support the legislation that we passed previously while recognising that the amendments before us erode parental responsibility too far. For that reason, I ask the Parliament to reject them.
My comments on the amendments in this group are in a similar vein to what I said at stage 2. For the benefit of members who did not participate in the stage 2 proceedings, I will reiterate some of the arguments that I brought up at that point.
I understand why the arguments made from a child’s rights perspective are being advanced, but they perhaps address only one particular paragraph of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and one interpretation of what the convention says, in article 14 and in its broader totality. Article 14(2), on the rights of the child to freedom of belief and religion, states:
“States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”
The UNCRC maintains a place for parents to direct their children. That language perhaps sounds harsh, but it is reflected in legislation in Scotland—in the 1980 act and in the rights that parents have. The amendments that seek to introduce an independent opt-out on the part of the child, whether in the bill or by secondary legislation, do not appear to contain any reference to the rights of parents to be involved in that process.
Does Paul O’Kane accept that, although we are talking about balancing rights, nothing in any of the amendments restricts parents in seeking to educate their children or take them to religious observance practices that do not happen in the educational setting? This is about what happens in schools. Surely the child in that environment should have the right to exercise the rights that they are given under the UNCRC.
The point that am making, which I think that I made to Maggie Chapman during stage 2 proceedings, is that, if we are going to have a wider discussion about an independent opt-out, due regard must be given to the parental rights that are set out in article 14 of the UNCRC and to the law in Scotland as it stands on the rights of parents to direct their children.
If we are trying to do that at this point in our scrutiny of the bill, it strikes me—as I also said at stage 2—that this is a rather rushed process that does not allow us to give that due regard to the role of parents, either in the bill or in the proposed guidance.
I have a question for the member on the rights of a parent who is an atheist, for example, to direct their child’s education. Are you arguing that the child should have a right to opt in to that religious education but not to opt out? What about the rights of atheist parents? Do they not have the same rights as parents of faith?
Always speak through the chair.
I am a wee bit confused by Ms Slater’s intervention. Parents would have the right to opt their children out if they were atheists and chose to remove their children from religious education.
The problem is that, if an atheist were to send their child to a Catholic school, under the proposals in the amendments from the Scottish Greens, they would not be able to opt their children out of religious education, which would include religious observance. I go back to the debate that we just had on that.
I am simply making the point that, if we are going to have a broader discussion about children’s rights to opt out, we have to give due regard to parents. That has not happened so far in the bill, and I do not think that it is happening through the amendments in this group.
I have said already that we must give due regard to the long-established position in Scots law on the right to direct children, as recognised in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and in the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006. That has been reaffirmed in other acts throughout the 25 years of the Scottish Parliament and devolution.
amendments would bring the bill into conflict with fundamental principles that have been established. We need a much wider conversation if we seek to change those fundamental principles and give due regard to the UNCRC in its totality.
17:15
Previously, we had a debate on maturity and capacity, and that started to unpick a lot of very complicated questions. Today’s debate is now running over time, because I am not sure that people quite fully appreciated how complicated the issue can be and how much detail needs to be gone through to take on board the variety of views that exist in this space. I do not believe that scoping work has been done on how widely any new rights for children would be used, and how that might affect schools in terms of practice and delivery of education.
What would Paul O’Kane suggest that we do when a pupil is adamantly an atheist but their parents are not atheists? What would he do in that situation?
I presume that Mr Simpson is pointing to a desire for that young person to be able to unilaterally opt out of religious observance or religious education. The point was made at stage 2 that there is a broader discussion to be had about how to ensure that both parents and their children can be included in the discussion about opting out of processes.
Will Paul O’Kane take an intervention?
I will take Mr Kerr’s intervention if he will just allow me to respond to Mr Simpson’s point.
Due to the fundamental complexity in how laws interact and how the UNCRC might interact, there must be a space in which parents and children can be brought together, and, crucially, the school must be involved in that conversation. However, that is a more detailed process than what we are being offered here.
The answer to the question in Graham Simpson’s intervention is that you would tell the child to speak to their parents—ultimately, that is what this comes down to. We have to be pragmatic about what respecting family life means. We encourage children and parents to speak to one another.
I am always happy to be a conduit for members to have a wider debate, and Mr Kerr has put his view on the record. He makes a fair point, and that is what I was trying to allude to in response to Mr Simpson: we have to have a system in which the views of children and young people are taken into account under the UNCRC, having due regard to parents and to the school.
Additionally, we have to be cognisant of unintended consequences in how things might work in practice, particularly in the denominational sector, where, as I have already said, there are not clear distinctions between observance and education. Therefore, children choosing to opt out of religious observance and education without any discussion or parental involvement might, in effect, be opting out of the whole school setting, which was chosen by their parents for the very reason that it is a faith school. It might be impossible for those young people to remain in that school without the wider conversation and discussion that I have spoken about.
Going to the heart of the issue, we would all accept that, in many ways, the whole bill will introduce fundamental change. It would be wrong for an independent opt-out to be introduced by ministerial power without further significant and lengthy debate in the Parliament. The fact that we are still considering the issue at stage 3, without any debate on pre-legislation or the myriad practical and ethical challenges that might come up, shows that it is perhaps wrong for the bill to be taken forward in this way, with so little time for debate and discussion on these amendments.
I will leave my remarks there.
I do not think that those of us who are speaking against Maggie Chapman’s amendments would contradict the statement that she led her remarks with: children have a right to be listened to and taken seriously. That is not a contentious point of view, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with it.
However, I found a number of things that Maggie Chapman said strange. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary in due course, because Maggie Chapman seemed to suggest that the cabinet secretary was minded to accept amendment 7A. I do not see how you can accept amendment 7A without accepting amendment 7—the cabinet secretary is shaking her head, so I get the message on that.
Paul O’Kane is right when he focuses on the rights of parents. That has been my concern with the bill from the very beginning. In one way or another, we need to respect the rights of parents, and the bill fundamentally fails to do that.
This group of amendments asks who ultimately decides on matters of conscience regarding a child’s education. Amendments 16 and 17 would create a free-standing statutory right for a pupil to withdraw from religious observance, independent of their parents, and amendments 7 and 7A would empower ministers to introduce and expand that right by regulation.
I will begin with what is not in dispute. I say again that children must and should be heard. The principle of evolving capacity is well understood and no one here believes that young people are incapable of forming serious views. However, that is not the issue that is before us. The issue is responsibility, and the UN convention recognises not only the voice of the child but the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents to provide direction and guidance. Section 9 of the 1980 act has long reflected that principle and locates the right of withdrawal in the parent, recognising that parents are not advisory participants in their child’s upbringing but are responsible for their child’s upbringing.
The bill has already altered that balance by requiring schools to involve pupils formally in the process and, in certain circumstances, to refuse a parental request if a pupil objects. That is a significant shift, and amendments 16 and 17 go even further, not refining the process but changing who decides. Creating that independent statutory right for the child means that the school becomes the mediator, and potentially the arbiter, between parent and child on matters of conscience. That is why I intervened on Paul O’Kane in response to Graham Simpson’s intervention. Ultimately, we must be careful of the sacrosanct nature of family life. We are not talking about a minor adjustment today—hence the intricate nature of the debate. This is a structural rebalancing of authority between the family and the state and we should not make that shift lightly.
There is also the question of maturity, which we have already addressed previously. Amendment 17 assumes capacity unless the contrary is shown, but, in Scots law, as I have already said in the debate on previous groups of amendments, 16 is the age that is recognised as the threshold for legal capacity and the age at which young people acquire significant rights and responsibilities. Amendments 16 and 17 are not anchored to that established framework but instead create a broad and uncertain standard that schools will be required to interpret case by case. That is not clarity; it creates ambiguity.
The agreement to Mr Kerr’s amendment 5, which requires operators to “act impartially”, will make a difficult situation even more difficult if amendment 17 passes.
Mr Whitfield highlights something that I had not even thought of. He is exactly right: accepting amendment 5 increases the complexity of the amendments that we are now discussing.
Amendments 7 and 7A raise a further constitutional concern, because they would permit ministers to introduce or extend that independent right by regulation. That is a major policy choice that goes to the heart of the relationship between parent, pupil and the state, and it should not be delegated to secondary legislation, as I think has already been said. If we are to consider that particular change, it must be a matter of primary legislation and Parliament must be fully involved in any recalibration of that balance, with full scrutiny by and full responsibility resting on members.
We must be clear that respecting children’s voices does not require diminishing parental responsibility, that balance does not mean displacement and that reform does not require the state to insert itself more deeply in the internal life of the family unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Goodness knows that Parliament has already been through all those issues with other legislation. We can rehearse that, but it is already a matter of fact in law that family life should be a primary consideration for us as lawmakers when we create new legislation.
For that reason and all the others that have been made by me and by other speakers, I acknowledge the intention behind amendments 16, 17, 7 and 7A but cannot support them.
As we have heard, introducing a new independent right for pupils to withdraw from religious observance would be a significant change both in relation to legislation and the purpose of the bill and operationally for schools. The matter was discussed during stage 1, and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee made it clear that a majority of its members considered it more appropriate to proceed with the approach that is set out in the bill—that is, giving pupils the right to object to parental withdrawal, while maintaining the balance between children’s evolving capacities and parental rights and responsibilities. The bill will do just that: it will ensure that pupils’ views are properly taken into account while preserving the rights and responsibilities of parents.
However, I am able to support Ms Chapman’s amendments 7 and 9, which seek to provide the Scottish ministers with an affirmative regulation‑making power to create a right for pupils to request withdrawal from religious observance.
I have listened carefully to the strong views that many members in the chamber have expressed on a pupil right to withdraw, as well as to the views of stakeholders such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, UNICEF UK, Together and the Humanist Society Scotland. I have also reflected on the views of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee more broadly.
Amendments 7 and 9 are consistent with the majority invitation in the committee’s stage 1 report that ministers
“give further consideration to providing children with an independent right to withdrawal in future legislation.”
The amendments will require appropriate consultation in advance of the laying of regulations, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I think that it is important to check that I and others have heard correctly the phrasing that the cabinet secretary has just used. Does she interpret amendment 7 as providing a basis for future primary legislation or a basis for secondary legislation that would create an independent right of withdrawal?
I will come on to that exact point now.
On that basis, I can agree to amendments 7 and 9, which, as we have heard, seek to grant ministers the power to make regulations to create a right for pupils to request to withdraw from religious observance. That means that future Governments will have the power to use the provisions in the bill to introduce such changes and could also do so through future primary legislation. Crucially, though, that will be for a new Government and a new Parliament to consider. In the light of the committee’s advice, it should be considered very seriously by any incoming Government.
The cabinet secretary will recognise that she is taking us in a major policy direction, because that is not what amendment 7 says. I understand that she is putting an interpretation on its wording and saying that it could lead to primary legislation, but the wording is:
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for pupils to have a right to request withdrawal”.
What is her interpretation of those words? To me, they mean that ministers may introduce an independent right by secondary legislation, as opposed to introducing legislation after consideration.
It is important to note that I am unable to agree to amendment 7A, which relates to the timescales associated with the implementation of the provision in amendment 7. Amendment 7A would require ministers to lay the regulations
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
As I mentioned, this will be for a new Government to decide after appropriate consultation, but the bill represents important progress, to my mind, in strengthening children’s rights. This will continue to be an incremental journey, more broadly.
I am still not clear about whether amendment 7 will lead to secondary legislation or primary legislation. I think that it was Paul O’Kane—or maybe it was all of us—who said that, if we are going to go down this route, it needs to be considered with the full force of parliamentary scrutiny, and not as a stage 3 amendment to the bill.
That is exactly why, as I set out, the Government does not support amendment 7A. We need wider consultation on the proposed changes that amendment 7 could bind future Governments to. That is exactly why amendment 23 contains a requirement for ministers to review the implementation of part 1 within three years. That review will include explicit consideration of whether any future action should be taken on enabling pupils to withdraw from religious observance.
I agree with Stephen Kerr. I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree that it is clear that amendments 7 and 9 are about introducing regulations and not primary legislation. That is what both amendments say. If Stephen Kerr is uncomfortable with that, he should vote against the amendments. However, they will not introduce a power to bring in primary legislation. They are about regulations. Some of us may be okay with that. If Stephen Kerr is not, he should clearly vote against them.
I thank Mr Simpson for providing Mr Kerr with some views on his view on this amendment. Of course, my own view is that primary legislation would be more appropriate in this regard. However, the member is correct to say that amendment 7 gives future Governments flexibility by way of a regulation-making power, should future Governments deem that appropriate.
17:30
It is worth putting on the record that any changes that are made by the bill, if it passes today, will have been in place for two to three years on completion of the review that I mentioned and we will have had much more evidence and data surrounding withdrawals from religious observance. The current lack of data on withdrawals was a key feature of some of the debates that I had with the committee at stage 2. It is imperative that we have that data to inform potential future legislative changes so that future ministers, as I have alluded to, will be able to make a much more informed decision. That would be an appropriate time for changes arising from that review to be brought forward through a subsequent bill—for example, as part of any wider reforms of the 1980 act that might come forward. That would ensure that we have that full debate and parliamentary oversight, which would be—to respond to Mr Kerr’s point—my clear preference.
I am trying to follow this debate, and I may not have understood it, but if it is the Government’s position that, instead of amendment 7, there should be primary legislation, I agree with that, because I think that, at this late stage, it is wrong to bind a future Government. However, if the Government’s clear position is that it should be done through primary legislation, I do not understand why it would accept amendment 7, because it does the opposite. Amendment 7 says:
“Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for pupils to have a right to request withdrawal”.
It also mentions consultation. That is no different from what happens with any other secondary piece of legislation in the Parliament—we consult.
There is a bit of a contradiction in what the Government is saying. Surely you should stick to your guns. If you think that it should be primary legislation, you should not vote for amendment 7, because it does the opposite: it gives us secondary legislation and it binds a future Government. I do not really understand what the Government’s argument is. Are you just trying to put out an olive branch? That is the only way in which it would make any sense to me.
Always speak through the chair, thank you.
Any regulations would, of course, be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I have set out my preference for primary legislation. However, it is also worth reflecting the views of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on the matter. The committee said at stage 1 that ministers should
“give further consideration to providing children with an independent right to withdrawal in future legislation.”
The Government has listened and responded to that point. I have also mentioned the work that is already under way in relation to the proposed wider review that could provide the evidence base for future legislation in this space. I do not agree with the suggestion that this would bind future Governments, because the review will allow ministers in future Governments to consider whether legislation or regulations are more appropriate. This does not shut down that avenue. I stress again—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I would like to make some progress; I am conscious of the time.
Any regulations for a pupil’s right to withdraw from religious observance would require significant consultation and engagement, as we have heard. In using that power, it will be important for any Government to ensure that it meets the balance between strengthening children’s rights, which is what the bill is about, and upholding parental rights. I encourage Parliament to agree to amendments 7 and 9 and reject all other amendments in the group.
I take this opportunity to advise members that we have in fact passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow debate on the group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed.
I call Maggie Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 16.
The Scottish Greens are very clear: we believe that children and young people have rights. We also believe that having rights without the power to exercise them is meaningless, so we believe that children and young people should have the power to exercise their rights. Logically, therefore, we believe that there should be an independent statutory right for children and young people to decide whether or not to participate in religious observance.
As we have heard, the bill currently gives young people the right to object when a parent seeks to withdraw them. For example, as my colleague Lorna Slater mentioned, an atheist parent could withdraw a child but the child could override that parental wish and opt back in. However, the bill does not give young people a reciprocal independent right to withdraw themselves in the first place. In not doing so, it affords stronger protection to children who wish to participate in religious observance than it does to those who do not. That embeds discrimination in law, creating an imbalance in the protection of children’s article 14 UNCRC rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Children of faith can opt into RO, but children of no faith cannot opt out. My amendment 17 would introduce a right to request withdrawal from RO, strengthening alignment with articles 12 and 14 of the UNCRC as well as with repeated recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and with Scotland’s commitment to child-centred decision making. My amendment would incorporate the presumption of capacity and a clear process for schools, ensuring proportionality and legal clarity.
Amendments 7, 7A and 9 are weaker. They would give ministers the power to introduce regulations giving pupils a right to request withdrawal from RO, but that provision would be weaker, because it would postpone meaningful change to a future point and leave the right dependent on subsequent regulations being brought forward. My preferred amendment 17 would place that right directly in primary legislation right now, providing clarity and certainty now rather than at some unspecified date in the future.
Amendment 7A would require the Scottish Government to
“lay … a draft … statutory instrument containing the first regulations”
as soon as possible after the relevant provision comes into force. Amendment 9 would specify that those
“regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
I come back to the fundamental point. If we pass the bill this evening with no independent right for a young person to withdraw themselves from RO, we are embedding discrimination in law. That might be where we get to, but I hope that we do not, and I urge members to support my amendments in this group. With that, I press amendment 16.
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 106, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 103, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 18 not moved.
I remind members that, if amendment 19 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 20, due to pre-emption.
Amendment 19 moved—[Elena Whitham].
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 29, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendments 7 and 7A moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 7A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 106, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7A disagreed to.
I call Maggie Chapman to press or withdraw amendment 7.
I press amendment 7.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 70, Against 47, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[Elena Whitham].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 73, Against 44, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Group 4 is on reporting on religious observance and withdrawal from it. Amendment 8, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 12 and 23.
17:45
Because we are creating new rights, it is important that we monitor how those rights will be used, so that we can know whether young people are made properly aware of them and supported to exercise them.
Amendment 8 would ensure that that happens, and I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for working with me to get the amendment to stage 3. It would require the Scottish ministers to publish an annual report that details
“the number of pupils who have been withdrawn from religious observance”.
The amendment addresses the widespread calls that have been made by stakeholders and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for more evidence to be provided about religious observance in schools. Amendment 8 aims to ensure that information on withdrawals from RO is collected in a way that is proportionate and manageable and that does not impose an unnecessary or additional workload on schools.
The intention is that the figures that would be required for the report would be gathered using existing powers and processes. An annual return would allow for further understanding of the number of withdrawals from religious observance, as well as supporting the monitoring of any trends over time. Although the proposed annual data gathering requirement is fairly narrow, my hope is that the Scottish Government will not limit itself to gathering that data alone, but that it will be used as a starting point for more in-depth evidence gathering.
Amendment 12 would allow us to get regular updates on the use of RO more generally. Some schools have followed Scottish Government guidance and have adopted a time for reflection model of religious observance. That more inclusive approach is focused less on prayers and religious worship and more on reflecting on a moral issue without being led in a particular way of thinking.
Schools tend to invite a range of speakers from different faith and non-faith backgrounds, in much the same way as our Parliament does. However, research by the Humanist Society Scotland shows that, in some non-denominational schools, RO is still largely or wholly delivered in a Christian manner. Assemblies are often held in churches and involve religious worship, prayers and hymns. Such non-inclusive practices can isolate and discriminate against pupils, parents, guardians and teachers who do not hold Christian beliefs. That is why it is important to monitor how RO is taking place in our state schools, which is addressed by subsection (2)(a) of the new section that amendment 12 seeks to insert after section 1.
When students withdraw from RO, it is crucial that high-quality alternative provision is put in place, so that those young people are not disadvantaged. Subsection (2)(c) of the new section that amendment 12 seeks to insert covers that point, and it is in line with Stephen Kerr’s earlier amendment.
I hope that the Parliament will support my amendments, so that we can ensure that the rights that we create in law are respected in practice and that religious observance in our schools is delivered in a way that is appropriate for our multifaith society.
Elena Whitham’s amendment 23 is similar to my amendments in the group, and I support it as well.
I move amendment 8.
Amendment 23 proposes the introduction of a statutory review of the implementation of the changes to the withdrawal process, which would be published three years after the provisions come into force. That represents a proportionate and workable approach. By allowing a reasonable period of time to pass before the review is undertaken, the amendment would ensure that sufficient evidence and practical experience were available to assess whether the legislation was operating as intended.
Under amendment 23, the review would also consider how religious observance had been delivered during the period in question and assess how inclusive that provision had been. That provision aims to respond to the concerns that were raised during the parliamentary process regarding the dearth of evidence about the current form and delivery of religious observance by growing the existing evidence base. That is especially important given the freedom of information responses that were published last week by the Humanist Society Scotland.
Importantly, amendment 23 would require the Scottish ministers to set out what actions they intended to take in response to the review’s findings, or to explain clearly if no further action was proposed. That would extend in particular to any actions taken to enable children to independently withdraw from religious observance.
Finally, ministers would have to lay a copy of the report before the Scottish Parliament.
I encourage members to support amendment 23.
Given the concerns that were expressed at stages 1 and 2 about the lack of evidence and data on religious observance and withdrawals, it is right that we work to address that deficit. However, it remains odd that we are making changes to withdrawals without having the data and without that work having been done before the bill was introduced. That clear oversight must be addressed. I welcome the conversations that I had with the cabinet secretary on the matter, and the fact that work that can now be undertaken to address the issue.
Scottish Labour will support amendments 8 and 12, which are balanced, reasonable and clear. However, we cannot support Elena Whitham’s amendment 23. Most of what that amendment seeks to do would be achieved through Maggie Chapman’s amendment 12. I refer back to the arguments that were made on an independent opt-out earlier this afternoon. The specific reference to that in amendment 23 means that we cannot support it.
As we have heard, Maggie Chapman’s amendment 8 would limit the reporting requirement to the number of withdrawals alone, rather than seeking more detailed data that would be burdensome for schools to collect. Mr O’Kane is correct to highlight the data deficit that there has been in relation to the issue. As we know, annual collection would give a much better understanding at a national level of the number of withdrawals to be established and trends in withdrawals to be monitored over time. For those reasons, the Government will support amendment 8.
Amendment 12, which is also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the Scottish ministers to commission, publish and lay before Parliament an independent report on religious observance in public and grant-aided schools. The first report would be produced within two years of royal assent and reports would be produced every five years thereafter. The amendment sets out an extensive list of required content: the form and content of religious observance; how withdrawal rights are operating; the availability of alternative activities; UNCRC compliance in relation to the content of religious observance and the withdrawal process; and any further matters that the appointed independent person considers important.
Although all those matters are relevant, the amendment would bring several challenges. Commissioning an independent report of that nature is likely to be significantly more costly than conducting a review internally, and it is not clear that the additional expense would be justified by added benefit.
In addition, amendment 12 would require the first report to be produced within two years of royal assent, which might prove premature, particularly as the provisions might not yet have been fully embedded before data gathering must commence. The amendment also mandates the on-going production of reports every five years in perpetuity. Given the relatively small number of pupils who are expected to be affected by withdrawal rights, that appears disproportionate. Furthermore, the amendment would not place any duty on operators of schools to provide the reporter with any information, which might mean that the information gathering would need to go through the Scottish Government in any case, which would potentially compromise the perceived independence of the reports.
Taken together, those issues suggest that amendment 12 would impose a high-cost on-going reporting structure that might not provide commensurate benefit. For those reasons, I do not support amendment 12. However, I recognise the intention behind it, which, as has been discussed, is to improve the evidence base. To that end, I encourage members to support amendment 23 as an alternative.
Elena Whitham’s amendment 23 would introduce a one-off statutory review of the implementation of the bill’s provisions, to be published three years after commencement. That approach is more proportionate than that which is outlined in amendment 12. It would allow for meaningful evidence to be gathered over a reasonable period, which would support ministers in assessing how the provisions were working in practice and whether further changes or guidance might be required. It would also avoid the need to request significant recurring data from schools and local authorities.
The review would be required to include information on how religious observance had been delivered during the period, as well as an assessment of the inclusiveness of its content and delivery. That speaks directly to the concerns raised by the Humanist Society and others regarding non-inclusive practices, which Ms Chapman has alluded to. The proposed provision would help to determine whether those concerns persisted following updated guidance.
Amendment 23 would also require the Scottish ministers to set out any actions that they intended to take in the light of the review, or to give reasons if they did not propose to take action, in particular in relation to enabling children to withdraw from religious observance. That would ensure transparency and accountability in responding to the findings.
The one-off nature of the review strikes an appropriate balance: it would provide sufficient depth of information at an appropriate time, while minimising the on-going administrative burden and cost to the teaching profession. For those reasons, I support amendment 23.
In summary, the Government will support amendments 8 and 23 as proportionate and practical measures. However, as I have said, amendment 12 would impose disproportionate on-going reporting requirements, and I ask Maggie Chapman not to move it.
I call Maggie Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 8.
As we have heard, my amendment 8 would require the Scottish Government to report on the number of pupils who had been withdrawn from RO during the school year as soon after the end of that school year as possible. The amendment is needed because of the significant evidence gap that was identified during earlier stages of the bill’s consideration and because it would support greater transparency and accountability.
The cabinet secretary indicated that it is likely that the numbers will be very small. Well, we just do not know that—that is part of the issue—which is why we need amendment 12. We also continue to support on-going qualitative as well as quantitative reporting, so I encourage the Scottish Government to report on the form and content of RO, reasons for withdrawal and other information beyond the number of withdrawals.
My amendment 12 is stronger than amendment 23 because of its independent nature and the independence of the periodic reporting that it would require. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said about the cost and the burden of that requirement, but, because we simply do not know the state of play at the moment and because of the very varied behaviours across Scotland, we need that information.
I will close with a note from Together. Although it understands that the amendments could improve our understanding of RO across Scotland and help to ensure consistency in rights-respecting practices, there have also been calls for making RO a thematic inspection by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland as a better way of achieving those things. I thought about lodging an amendment to that effect today, but I did not. However, we need to consider what more we can do to ensure that we have across-the-board information and not just the numbers.
I press amendment 8.
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect on my phone. I would have voted yes.
Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise, I could not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms McNeill. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.
Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 24, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
18:00
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Todd. I will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 91, Against 24, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
That takes us to group 5, on making freestanding provision for pupil involvement in withdrawal requests. Amendment 10, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 10 has the same aim as my other amendments and the bill in terms of the rights of children and young people. It would ensure that young people can be heard in any decision that their parents make to withdraw them from RO. However, the key difference with amendment 10 is that the provisions would be enacted as a stand-alone provision, rather than as amendments to the 1980 legislation, which, Together has argued, places the bill outwith the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and would mean that children would have no direct route to challenge breaches or to seek remedy if their rights in relation to the new provisions are not upheld. As well as the separation of RE and RO and the independent right to withdraw, the amendment is one of the key changes that Together requested in its letter to the committee last October—changes that are designed to ensure that part 1 of the bill fully aligns with the UNCRC. I welcome Together’s support and the support of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland for amendment 10.
I understand that there might be some technical issues with the amendment as drafted, and I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s comments before I decide whether I will press it.
I move amendment 10.
Amendment 10 seeks to fundamentally alter the long-established balance between parental responsibility and the role of the state. Although it is framed as giving children a voice, it goes much further than that. It would give a pupil an effective veto over a lawful parental decision to withdraw them from religious observance. That is not simply consultation; it is the removal of the parent’s final say in an area—religious and moral upbringing—that sits at the heart of family life.
Jeremy Balfour said that the amendment would allow a child to override their parents’ wishes and not be involved in RO, but the bill already allows a child to override a parent’s wishes and opt back into RO. Why the discrepancy?
Amendment 10 would fundamentally undermine the parental role with regard to what they should be doing in their family. As I was just about to point out, parents ultimately carry the legal responsibility for their children’s welfare and education. We would not lodge amendments to say that children could opt out of maths, English or physical education, because, as with this subject, it should be up to the parent to make decisions on those subjects. With responsibility must come the authority to make decisions, particularly on matters of belief and conscience.
Amendment 10 could also place schools in the middle of family disputes and transfer decision-making power away from parents. It represents a significant shift in the relationship between parent and child and, for that reason, I cannot support it.
I call Stephen Kerr. [Interruption.] Paul O’Kane no longer wants to contribute.
I should have known better than to second guess you, Presiding Officer. I thought that you had perhaps missed out Paul O’Kane.
I concur with what Jeremy Balfour said. Amendment 10 would replace section 1 of the bill with a free-standing statutory framework that governs pupil involvement in withdrawal from religious observance, and we should be clear about what that means. I reiterate that it would not only be a technical adjustment in law; it would be a rewriting of the architecture. The stated intention is to ensure that children are heard, which is legitimate—no one in the chamber disputes that young people can and do form thoughtful views—but this is not simply about listening. Amendment 10 would create a formalised statutory mechanism under which a parental request can be blocked if a pupil objects. It would require schools not merely to consult but to intervene. It would require them to inform, invite objection, seek discussion and, ultimately, adjudicate, which would be a significant shift in law.
Parents are not incidental participants in the upbringing of their children. They carry legal and moral responsibility for their child’s welfare, moral formation and development. The conscience clause in section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 recognised that settlement clearly. It located the right of withdrawal with the parent because matters of observance engage conscience and upbringing. Amendment 10 would recalibrate that balance. Once the school becomes the referee between a parent and a child on a question of conscience, the state is inserted more deeply into family life. Although that might be necessary in some circumstances, it should be avoided whenever possible and never be routine. The principle that parents carry the ultimate responsibility for their children is a fundamental right that must be maintained. Amendment 10 would undermine that principle.
We should also consider proportionality. The bill has already removed the parental right to withdraw their child from religious and moral education. It introduces a structured process by amending the 1980 act with its proposed section 9A. Amendment 10 would not simplify that framework; it would replace it with something more elaborate and prescriptive. At some point, incremental procedural additions become cumulatively transformational—we are close to that point.
There is also a practical reality. Schools are already under pressure, and amendment 10 would create a detailed case-by-case decision-making structure. That would require training, generate uncertainty and risk creating inconsistency across authorities. It would not reduce the likelihood of dispute but increase it.
The Scottish Conservatives’ argument is not about silencing children; it is about setting out who decides. The principle of evolving capacities must sit alongside the principle of parental responsibility—one does not erase the other. Respecting a child’s voice does not require us to diminish the role of the parent or formalise the school as an arbiter in every disagreement. When the Parliament legislates in matters that touch on conscience and faith, restraint is a virtue, and clarity and proportionality are essential. Trust in families matters. Although I am sure that it is well intentioned, amendment 10 would move the balance too far. It would amend a statutory adjudication model when careful involvement would suffice. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 10.
Group 5 consists of amendment 10, in the name of Maggie Chapman, which would create a stand-alone provision in the bill, rather than amending the 1980 act. Although the intention is commendable, the amendment would have significant consequences for the structure and effect of part 1 of the bill. If amendment 10 were agreed to, none of the changes that section 1 of the bill makes to the 1980 act, including those that were agreed to as a result of our stage 2 amendments, would take effect. I do not think that that is Ms Chapman’s intent.
Furthermore, amendment 10 would only deal with withdrawal from religious observance. It would not make provision for pupil involvement in decisions about withdrawal from religious and moral education. The current law on withdrawal from religious and moral education would remain unchanged, and pupils would have no right to be involved in those decisions. Additionally, any stage 3 amendments to section 1 that were agreed to before amendment 10 would fall away entirely.
Amendment 10 also raises several other concerns. By creating a stand-alone provision, it would remove the withdrawal process from the wider legislative framework of the 1980 act. Key terms such as “pupil”, “parent” and “school” are not defined in the amendment, and the 1980 act definitions would not apply automatically. Without those definitions, ordinary meanings would apply, which could exclude legal guardians, carers and others with parental rights and responsibilities. I do not think that that was Ms Chapman’s intention, but that would sit uneasily with the rest of the statutory framework and could create uncertainty for schools and families.
The Government’s view remains that the correct and pragmatic approach is to amend the 1980 act directly. It is a complex and long-standing piece of legislation, as we have heard this afternoon, and all the other provisions concerning religious observance and RME are in that act. The bill therefore makes focused amendments to the act to address specific concerns, rather than attempting to replicate or replace entire sections of the existing statute.
As I think we debated during stage 2, re-enacting only parts of that framework within a new act would risk producing fragmented and incoherent legislation. The consequences of amendment 10 demonstrate why I resisted such proposals at stage 2, as I have alluded to. Although the proposals are well intentioned, stand-alone provision would risk creating legal uncertainty here.
I am mindful of the time. For the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support amendment 10 and I ask Maggie Chapman not to press it.
I will just make a couple of points in winding up. It is utterly nonsensical to say that a child must be listened to when they want to opt into RO but that a child must not be listened to when they want to opt out of RO. That makes no sense.
To address another point that Jeremy Balfour made, we separated RO and RE at stage 2. RO is not a matter of education; it is a matter of faith. That point really needs to be made. There is nothing in my amendment 10 that would leave the possibility of withdrawal from maths or any other education subject.
Having said that, I reiterate my disappointment that the way in which the bill has been drafted takes it out of the scope of the UNCRC. I accept the points that the cabinet secretary has made, however, and I will therefore not press amendment 10.
Amendment 10, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 1
Amendment 11 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] Apologies—my vote has come through now.
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 104, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Amendments 22 and 22A moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 22A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 109, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22A disagreed to.
18:15
I call Maggie Chapman to press or withdraw amendment 22.
I press amendment 22.
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The division list for amendment 22 will be published as soon as it is available.
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 87, Abstentions 19.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The division list for amendment 12 will be published as soon as it is available.
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 91, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Elena Whitham].
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze, but I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Hoy. I will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 73, Against 45, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Business Motion