Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I recognise the argument that Martin Whitfield has made.

The commission warned that, without safeguards such as requiring public authorities to notify the Scottish ministers when relying on the exemption, we risk creating a lack of transparency and undermining accountability. Those concerns struck me as reasonable and serious. Human rights organisations contend that, if those concerns are not addressed, the bill will not fully comply with the UNCRC.

It is also worth drawing attention, as Maggie Chapman did, to the polling that was commissioned by the Humanist Society Scotland that shows that 66 per cent of the population support a young person’s right to withdraw independently.

Another issue that was raised repeatedly was the lack of clarity that has been created by treating religious observance and religious and moral education as though they are interchangeable. We have heard a lot about that already today. As the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland reminded us, they are different activities with different purposes and, therefore, different rights and implications. Blurring that distinction does not help pupils, parents or teachers. It only adds to confusion and it could undermine community cohesion, and none of us wants that to happen.

All this takes place against the backdrop of last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Northern Ireland that found that a predominantly confessional approach to religious education, even when accompanied by the right to withdrawal, was incompatible with human rights standards. That ruling is a stark reminder that relying on withdrawal alone is not enough. Education must be objective, critical and pluralistic from the outset. For someone with a humanist world view, the significance of that decision cannot be overstated. It aligns with what many of our stakeholders have been telling us for years, in the context of Scotland, and issues that have been laid bare in the Humanist Society Scotland’s recent report, “Preaching is not Teaching”.

I want Scotland to be a place where every young person, whether they come from a faith tradition or have no faith at all, feels equally respected in their school environment, and where their conscience, curiosity and developing sense of identity are nurtured rather than constrained. Although I am therefore willing to support the general principles of the bill, my support comes with a clear expectation that the Government will take seriously the evidence that is offered in the committee’s report. We must strengthen children’s agency, ensure transparency and guard children’s access to justice. We must clearly distinguish religious observance from religious and moral education, so that rights and expectations are clearly understood. If the Government addresses those issues—and I sincerely hope that it will—the bill has the potential to move Scotland meaningfully closer to having a rights-respecting, pluralistic education system in which every child, no matter their belief or background, is truly seen, heard and respected.

I express my appreciation to the committee for the depth and care that it has shown in its stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and I thank all stakeholders who gave evidence.

Today, I offer my tentative support for the bill. My support is rooted in my long-held humanist values—values that are centred on the rights, dignity and evolving capacities of children and young people—and in my desire to see Scotland continue to embed human rights in everyday practice.

The bill seeks to bring our education system closer to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For the first time, schools will be legally required to inform a child if a parent requests their withdrawal from religious observance or religious and moral education. Crucially, that child must be given the chance to express their own views. When a young person’s wishes differ from those of their parents, schools must seek to understand and respect the child’s perspective.

As a child in a Catholic school setting, I was opted out of RO, and I opted my children out of RO. However, I fundamentally believe that my children should have the right to challenge me. Indeed, I hope that I have raised my children to have the capacity to challenge me if, for example, I was to seek to withdraw them from sexual health education. From a humanist standpoint, that matters immensely.

The bill’s approach recognises children not merely as passengers in their educational journey but as rights holders—individuals who are capable of forming and expressing their own beliefs. The Government’s assessments acknowledge that that strengthens articles 12 and 14 of the UNCRC, on the right to be heard and on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That is a welcome step forward.

The bill attempts to resolve a long-standing tension in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 by creating a narrow exemption for public authorities when they are caught between conflicting legal duties. I understand why the Government feels that that is necessary. Our schools and public bodies should never be placed in an impossible legal position, so the bill aims to provide clarity.

However—this is why my support for the bill remains cautious—the committee heard compelling evidence that the bill, as it stands, will not fully realise the rights that it seeks to protect. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, the National Secular Society and the Humanist Society Scotland made the particularly powerful case that the bill does not provide children with the independent right to withdraw from religious observance. Only children whose parents initiate withdrawal are given any voice at all. That falls short of the UN committee’s recommendations.

As things stand, under the bill, a child whose parents have opted them out of religious observance is empowered, once they are sufficiently mature, to opt themselves back in. However, a child whose parents do not opt them out has no equivalent right to opt out on their own. That is a fundamental asymmetry and would create a hierarchy of rights, which would be wholly contrary to the UNCRC’s emphasis on the child being a rights holder, with their own capacity, not merely an extension of parental belief.

The committee heard concerns about access to justice. By carving out an exemption to the 2024 act, the bill risks weakening the framework that was expressly designed to help children to challenge rights breaches.

You mentioned public procurement, which is a hobby-horse of mine, so I want to explore that aspect a bit further. If we think about the landscape just now, we have pockets of really good work that has been done to push the envelope on public procurement in thinking about community empowerment and community wealth building; indeed, we will be debating the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 later today. However, while we see those pockets of good work, we also see that things can change on a dime when a tendering package has been put forward: the cost is what wins it, rather than the idea of having due regard to sustainable development and wellbeing.

Is it your intention to ensure that public procurement also reflects the aims of the bill, so that, where we see progress being made—with positive proactive decisions supporting local businesses and creating a thriving economy in an area—we do not start to slip back because, for example, a big multinational that is not thinking about sustainability can undercut those businesses?

When you developed your bill, what lessons from the experience in Wales did you draw on?

You mentioned the national performance framework. The committee has heard views that the existing duties that are placed on public bodies through the NPF and related legislation are too weak. Do you agree with that assertion?

Since your bill was introduced, Audit Wales has assessed that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—we are now a decade down the line—has been

“changing conversations, influencing longer-term planning, and impacting day-to-day decision-making and working practices”,

but has not yet driven

“the system-wide change that was intended”.

We are looking for the golden thread of how to get policy coherence and deliver on wellbeing and sustainable development. How would your bill achieve the system-wide changes that we are looking for?

In taking evidence, the committee has heard overwhelming support for the policy objectives that are set out in the bill, including the one about policy coherence for sustainable development. We have also heard some witnesses say that those objectives could be met without a change in the law. How do you respond to that assertion?

We have pockets of really good practice in Scotland, too. We might think of the moves that have been made in North Ayrshire with community solar farms and energy generation, for example. In the absence of a commissioner and legislation, would we just continue to have some pockets of good practice where public bodies have regard to sustainability and wellbeing in their local area? Could a revised national performance framework and revised national outcomes drive that change? Do you really believe that we need to have it in legislation?

We heard in evidence from the Scottish Government that it is reviewing the national outcomes and the national performance framework. It believes that what it will set out will help to deliver what you are trying to deliver with your bill. Is it possible that the Government will be able to achieve those aims with a review of the national performance framework and the national outcomes?