Chamber and committees

If a victim would not be covered by the pre-2014 point that Ms Gilruth made, where should they go if they have a story to share?

My sense from the committee evidence sessions this morning is that the Government does not have a grip on many of the issues. Given the reporting earlier in the week, it is clear that there has been confusion within review bodies, multiple ministers have taken parts of responsibility, and there were no terms of reference. However, I note what the cabinet secretary has now said about trying to get more clarity on that.

This morning, I pushed the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on the importance of victims and their concerns about the landscape being too cluttered, not being clear on who is responsible and, ultimately, not having confidence in the process.

I thank Maggie Chapman for that intervention. I will certainly revisit the evidence that was taken, as I was not on the committee at that time. However, my understanding from my conversations about the amendments and the stage 2 process is that there is concern in the denominational sector about how to separate RE and RO in a Catholic school, for example, when the two things are interconnected. There are two aspects to that, which I was coming on to express.

First, RE in a Catholic school is, by its nature, Catholic. Although there will be study of other religions and moral systems, there will be a catholicity to what is taught in RE. RO in a Catholic school permeates the entire ethos of the school. It is not as it is in the non-denominational sector, where there will be set times for RO at periods during the year. In a Catholic school, there will be opportunities throughout the day to observe the Catholic religion. That is true of the Jewish school in East Renfrewshire as well—culturally, the religion will permeate the day in terms of prayer and things like that.

It is hard to decouple RO and RE in such settings, and many people in the denominational sector are concerned that we are taking, I suppose, a secular view of RO, or a view of it that would exist in a non-denominational setting, rather than looking at the interconnectedness of RO and RE in the denominational setting. There is concern for the value of both RE and RO in such settings. As I said, they have a unique place in those schools.

If we flip that on its head, I also have a slight concern that parents being unable to withdraw their child from RE in a Catholic school in particular is more problematic than we might at first have considered it to be. If someone wants to remove their child from very specific RE that is Roman Catholic, they will not be able to do that. It is more difficult for them to remove their child from RO in a Catholic school because, as I said, it permeates the life of the school. I have a concern about parental rights in that space.

I also have a wider concern that we are not talking about exactly the same thing when we discuss religious, moral and philosophical studies in a non-denominational school and RE in a denominational school. As I have said, there are complexities here, and that is particularly true of the amendments that we are discussing.

It is a long-standing matter of statute in this country that we have denominational schools and, in particular, that we have Catholic schools. It is my party’s position and the position that I continue to hold that we support that long-standing definition. However, it is wrong to assume that only pupils and families of particular denominations choose and attend denominational schools. We probably all recognise from our regions that those schools are attended by a variety of young people for a variety of reasons. I reiterate the importance of ensuring that we take a careful and considered approach to how amendment 9 would work in the denominational sector.

I have raised those issues with the cabinet secretary, but I understand from Ms Chapman’s comments that the Government intends to support her amendment. I caution that it is not right to support the amendment without understanding exactly how it will impact on denominational education more widely. Rather than having to try to fix something at stage 3, I would prefer that we take our time and take a considered approach to the matter, which we can then revisit at stage 3.

More widely, because of the many complexities that I have referenced, I cannot support the amendments in the group in the names of Maggie Chapman and Stephen Kerr. I have outlined my reasons for that. I would welcome further contributions in order to understand the Government’s position.

I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for taking my intervention so early on in her contribution. I recognise her view and that of the Scottish Green Party on the separation of church and state. Does that view extend to denominational provision in Scotland? Due to the 1980 act, we have a situation in Scotland that is, in some ways, almost unique in that we have what could be recognised as a social contract. Is it Maggie Chapman’s view that there should not be denominational provision? If we are to decouple things, we have to look at both spheres of education—non-denominational and denominational.

I do not intend to speak for long, as many of the underlying arguments are similar to those that have been expressed by Tess White and Maggie Chapman.

The committee was concerned at stage 1 about the fact that, when it comes to religious observance practices and withdrawal from RO and RE, we do not have good or accurate data on what is happening in schools. That is a concern that I share and I believe that colleagues on the committee also share. It is important that we have something in the provisions of the bill to collate and collect that data in an appropriate way, so that we can understand what is happening across Scotland.

In her reflections on stage 1 evidence, in fairness, the cabinet secretary accepted that point and accepted that the data that is being collected is perhaps not sufficient and could be better. I am also mindful of putting further burdens on schools and local authorities, but we could find the most appropriate way for the Government and members of the committee to move the amendment forward.

I am willing not to move the amendment today if the cabinet secretary will provide an assurance that we can work together on the monitoring and transparency elements of the bill and perhaps come back at stage 3 with something that would fulfil what we all want, which is that we have an accurate picture of all those issues across Scotland.

The only comment that I wish to make on this group is to reiterate the comments that I made on group 2: the Government needs to provide clarity on how the proposed changes will be carried out.

I agree with the intent behind the changes that are proposed in the bill, but there are significant concerns about their implementation, so there is a clear need for guidance for our schools and teachers. I am supportive of a general amendment requiring ministers to set out guidance. However, I am not convinced whether the amendment as drafted by Tess White, which would prescribe the contents of the guidance, is the right way to go.

That said, the cabinet secretary now has another opportunity to set out whether she will produce and provide guidance, and, perhaps, to detail what she considers to be a necessary part of that, including any other support for schools and teachers in that regard.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that intervention, mainly because my next sentence was going to be, “We need strong and robust guidance and directives on how the process can be managed.” However, I say to her that, when we formalise a process, that can give rise to conflict. When we get into a process—in particular, one that feels legalistic—we can have a degree of more formalised conflict. However, I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is cognisant of that, and it is useful to hear her assurance on the guidance.

Teachers in our schools rely in no small part on the relationship of trust between pupils, parents and school staff in order to carry out fully the functions that we all expect to happen in our schools. Pushing teachers to make determinations about capacity, for example, could intensify the issue, which is often very personal to families and, indeed, to a person’s religious beliefs and feelings and their sense of being on a journey around that. We need to be really cognisant of the challenges therein.

That also relates to one of the issues with amendment 24, which would require operators to consider pupils’ wellbeing. As with many of the amendments in the group, there is a good intention behind that. However, given what we have just discussed in relation to conflict, we need to be careful about legislating for things that require a degree of nuance and conversations and dialogue in schools. I remain unclear about how we would define wellbeing and how we would understand the measures that would be taken in that space. I contend that much of this needs to be dealt with in the guidance, which will, I hope, empower teachers and schools to feel confident about what they are asked to do.

I am not clear that the right measures to provide that clarity and support are in place at this stage. As I have said, I hope that we will discuss the matter further as we approach stage 3 and, if necessary, that we will amend the bill at that stage.

Having said that I was not going to speak for a long time, I actually did that. I apologise, convener. Thank you.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. On that basis, I am minded to support the Government’s amendments, because they are a starting point for the work that is yet to be done and will allow for discussions in advance of stage 3 with colleagues from across the committee.

I do not have much to say on the amendments, other than that I understand the intent behind them. However, I am concerned that compelling a future parliamentary committee through primary legislation is probably not an appropriate use of legislation. To my mind, that is perhaps not a sensible way to legislate, and it is not prudent to try to bind successors of any committee of the Parliament. It is worth putting on record that, although I understand the intent of the amendments, I am concerned about the process.

There was a degree of confusion and concern in the committee’s stage 1 report and, indeed, in the wider debate about why this amendment to UNCRC incorporation duties was being sought to fix a problem that the Government is perhaps not aware exists. I do not want to go over what colleagues have said, because it has been well laid out, but I believe that it is important that the Government and Parliament understand as soon as possible where and when potential conflicts between UNCRC duties and acts of the Scottish Parliament occur. Through early understanding, the Government and Parliament can step in and attempt to resolve the conflict, if that is desirable or needed.

I turn to the amendments in the group. I think that the cabinet secretary has conceded that the principle is that there has to be a form of notification and that it needs to be made as soon as a situation becomes apparent. Following the debate and discussion, I think that there is room to expand on the notification aspect.

I have sympathy with Maggie Chapman’s intervention on whether amendment 7 applies too late in the process. As the children’s commissioner pointed out, we would require a child to have navigated the complexity of the legal system and overcome quite a few barriers and proceedings before any notification would occur and, in reality, that is probably a fairly unlikely inflection point for the notification to occur at. I am open to various options for an early reporting mechanism, but I am yet to be convinced about what the right stage in the process should be and what the right amendment would be.

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has said this previously, but will she confirm that she is open to considering the intervention points? Is she willing to work on a cross-party basis, if that is appropriate, to try to find a solution in advance of stage 3? I appreciate that she will probably repeat what has been said, but it would be useful to have that for the record, if she wants to intervene. I am sorry, convener—I appreciate that this is not an evidence session.