Chamber and committees

I have followed the stage 1 debate and, having rejoined the committee for stage 2 of the bill, I must echo concerns expressed previously about trying to have a debate of this magnitude and depth with only three months remaining in the parliamentary session. It is perhaps for that reason that I want to try to explore some of the detail of what Maggie Chapman and others have been advocating.

Although I recognise what has been said about the UNCRC and the rights of children and young people, we have to look in full at the detail of the convention, particularly article 14. Paragraph 2 of that article, which is on the rights to freedom of belief and religion, states that:

“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.”

Throughout the process, people have been trying to achieve a degree of balance, which is important. Absolutely, there is a balance to be struck between hearing clearly the voice of children and young people, and giving due regard and respect the rights of parents, particularly given that, for us as a state party, pre and post-devolution legislation clearly outlines the rights of parents to direct the child and support them in decisions that are taken.

I have to say that, in amendments 1, 18, 3, and 4, I do not detect any reference to the right of parents to be involved, or to the fact that each individual state party should take a view on what that involvement should look like or how it should take place. We need to be more nuanced in our approach and not ignore other significant parts of the UNCRC.

It would be helpful if Ms Chapman could clarify whether she disagrees with those provisions in the UNCRC and what place she feels there is for parents in the process. As I have noted, the UNCRC leaves those matters to the discretion of states parties, and, clearly, there is an established precedent in Scots law on the rights of parents to direct their child.

However, further discussion needs to be had about how we balance those rights and duties, and I would certainly be interested in having that discussion as we approach stage 3. I am concerned that the amendments in the group might bring about the fundamental conflict between the competing—perhaps that is not the right word; I mean “interacting”—rights of both parents and children.

I am also concerned that there has not been a huge deal of scoping work on how widely any new right on the part of children might be used, on how it might impact on school leaders and teachers, and on some of the issues that we discussed in the previous group around the conflicts that will exist within school. We must be cognisant of unintended consequences with regard to how things might work in practice, particularly in denominational schools. I talked earlier about there not being clear distinctions between RE and RO, and about children choosing to opt out of one and not the other. I am concerned about those impacts.

There could be a number of unintended consequences. What has been highlighted with this bill is a sense of frustration at having to deal with such fundamental issues in a constrained bill and within a constrained timeframe.

Given all that, I am not able to support the amendment as it is before us today, but I am interested in having a further discussion about the balance of, and the interplay between, rights, because that is an important issue.

I am keen to understand whether the cabinet secretary has thought about how that might happen. She will know, through her time as cabinet secretary and her career, that the experiences and outcomes in religious education in Roman Catholic schools are different and distinct. Will she talk about the connection between observing your faith and learning about it in the context of the world and other faiths? I am keen to understand what work she has done or is planning to do on that.

I thank colleagues for their amendments in this group and for allowing us to have a wider debate about the scope of withdrawal rights and whether those should apply to religious education.

No issue in the bill better represents the complexity of the issues that have been brought up in the process. It is frustrating that we are having this debate at stage 2 and at a point where we have only three months of legislative time left in this session of Parliament given that it would have been preferable to work through the details more broadly.

I recognise, as I am sure many colleagues do, the frustration felt by many religious, moral and philosophical studies teachers at the idea that their discipline is somehow unique and that it is acceptable for a pupil to be withdrawn from that academic subject when that cannot happen with other subjects that are taught in school. Those teachers are subject professionals and are educating our children and young people with vital knowledge about religions and belief systems and about the encounters that those young people will have with those systems in the wider world, while equipping them with the skills to interrogate different moral and belief systems.

All of that is true in non-denominational school settings, but my significant concern is that the amendments do not seem to take cognisance of the different religious education that is offered in denominational settings. In Scotland, we find that predominantly in the Roman Catholic sector, although we find it in the Jewish and Episcopalian sectors as well.

I do not want to detain the committee too much by speaking to all the amendments in the group, but I want to speak briefly to the general issues that are raised by amendments 31 to 33 and others in the group on the operability of the changes that are proposed in the bill and how they might work in practice.

Thus far, the Scottish Government has not provided sufficient clarity on how the process of a pupil objection to withdrawal should be handled by schools in practice. Particularly given the risk of creating intra-family conflict and tension between pupils and parents who perhaps have distinct views on whether to participate in religious observance or education, the bill will put schools and teachers in the middle of that conflict.

That is fair. I infer from what you have said that there will be on-going work, even at that informal level, with consultees. That is welcome, and I am sure that this committee will want to reflect that in its legacy reporting.

I will move on to talk about compliance with the 2015 act. We know, from the evidence that we heard, that 62 per cent of listed authorities comply with statutory duties, with regard to BSL translations and their authority plans. What steps is the Government intending to take to improve compliance, which, at 62 per cent, is obviously not where we want it to be?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I have rejoined the committee at the concluding stage of this piece of work but was present for previous evidence sessions. In that evidence, we heard many views about the parity of esteem that BSL will be held in alongside Scotland’s other languages. Of course, nobody would want to set languages against one another. It is important that we recognise their richness and support them all.

However, we heard a lot of asks for there to be an oversight body for BSL, similar to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which has an important role in supporting the Gaelic language as well as being able to speak a bit of truth to power and very often compel, if that is the right word, local authorities and others to deliver on Gaelic. You and I spoke about that issue in a previous evidence session, but has your thinking evolved with regard to whether it might be worth considering establishing a national body for BSL?

That is welcome to hear, and I am sure that your position will be welcomed by those in the BSL community who gave evidence. I wonder about timing and the likelihood of action being taken, given that we are in a challenging timeframe, with the end of the parliamentary session approaching. What are the Government’s thoughts with regard to starting work on the recommendations before the election and then ensuring that there is a legacy piece? Do you have a view on how that might take shape? Would there be a consultation? I appreciate that it is hard to say, but I think that people will want a bit more detail on what the commitment is.

That is quite comprehensive and I am conscious of time, so I will hand back to you, convener.

Good morning. My questions will focus on the content of the annual report in terms of the funding and finance of SCoSS. From the 2023-24 annual report, we saw that expenditure would exceed the budget in 2024-25. That was not a huge overspend—it was £470,000 compared to the projected spend of £450,000. The committee is interested to know whether that has been resolved and whether there is a view about the financial sustainability of SCoSS going forward?

Do you feel that you are now in a position where the budget planning process will be easier because—to borrow a phrase—known unknowns are perhaps lessened by where we are in the process of transfer? Are you finding that the engagement with the Government on your needs—saying, “Here is a need. How do we get to the budget figure that will work for us?”—is a communicative and open process?