Chamber and committees

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studies teachers at the idea that their discipline is somehow unique and that it is acceptable for a pupil to be withdrawn from that academic subject when that cannot happen with other subjects that are taught in school.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.

I associate myself and the whole of the Scottish Labour Party with the First Minister’s remarks and with all those who have offered their condolences to the families and friends of those who were murdered in the horrific antisemitic terror attack that occurred over the weekend in Australia. Such vile acts of terror and antisemitic hate shock us at any time, but it is all the more painful for those within our Jewish community as Hanukkah gets under way.

I also associate myself with the remarks that Jackson Carlaw has just made. He and I know the community in Eastwood well, and we know that there is a real sense of fear and horror about what has occurred in Australia and about the potential that something may happen here, at home.

I very much associate myself with the exchange on Calderwood Lodge primary school, which is a symbol of hope and a beacon of the resilience of the Jewish community in Scotland. Over the past few days, none of us could have been unmoved by the displays of resilience in the Jewish community as people came together to light their menorahs and to stand together against hate.

Tomorrow, at Calderwood Lodge primary school, the children will be taking part in their Hanukkah play. I do not think that there is any greater way that they could show their resilience, defiance and desire to go on than to stand and join in singing the songs of Hanukkah. I ask the First Minister not only to give his support to those children and young people and their teachers—of course he will, I know—but to say what consideration has been given to the security of the buildings over the holiday period, when there may be fewer people around and fewer people in the community, to ensure that nothing happens to those buildings in that time.

I recognise what the minister says about the strength of engagement, but does she recognise that everyone across the chamber will have had communication, even as late as this week, from school leaders about their concerns, particularly on staffing and the resource that will be available? Does she accept that those concerns will need to be clearly addressed in guidance? What can she say to those school leaders to give them further reassurance?

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I recognise that I have come somewhat late to the process at stage 3, but I have been following the bill because of my interest in it. We have heard a lot in the debate about the genesis of the bill, and how it has developed since the initial concerns that were raised at stage 1 through the work by a number of colleagues across the chamber to refine the bill and get it into the place that it is in today, as we consider it at this final stage.

I join colleagues in paying tribute to Liz Smith for her work and her dedication, for trying to improve the bill at each stage, and in recognising the significant challenges that remain and will have to be dealt with in the guidance that the Government will produce.

The first thing to say in summing up is that we all recognise the significant impact and contribution that outdoor education and residential outdoor education make to children and young people in Scotland. We join in paying tribute to all those who have joined us today in the public gallery, who are specialists and experts in that field and who have given evidence at every stage of the bill as to the impact of their work.

We have heard a lot today about the importance of protecting those organisations and specialisms, and about the challenges that have been posed, not least by the pandemic. We need to ensure that we have a strong sector of outdoor residential education in Scotland. That is very important.

It was nice to hear some snippets of personal experience from people who have undertaken outdoor education. I say to Ross Greer that another interesting fact about Castle Toward is that it served as HMS Brontosaurus in the second world war, and that Winston Churchill was a frequent visitor—something that Ross Greer can perhaps share in his next engagement with Piers Morgan.

However, what is important is that everybody recognises the value of the bill. That said, it is clear that significant challenges remain, not least those that have been outlined in relation to the financial considerations and the pressure that is on local authorities.

In my exchange with the minister, I referenced some of the remaining concerns of school leaders. Those are focused on a number of challenges to do with staffing, including ensuring sufficient staffing and cover; ensuring that a significant contribution is made by those parents who can do so; and ensuring that people do not feel that they cannot make that contribution.

The minister and I were councillors in Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire. I do not know whether the minister served on the Renfrewshire Educational Trust when she was a councillor, but very often it was such bodies that were required to provide the additional funding that was often required for residential outdoor trips. What is clear is that we need to get the balance right between those who can make a contribution and those who need that additional support, which will come from the Government. I recognise much of what has been said about the challenges in the financial memorandums leading up to this position.

Some of the concerns that have been raised by school leaders and teachers are perhaps reflective of wider issues that exist in Scottish education. After 18 years of the current Government, there are a number of significant challenges, which we will debate on other days. However, those are the issues that are at the forefront of the minds of many headteachers and teachers, and I think that that is being reflected. I think that they would say that they absolutely recognise the importance of outdoor education and the importance of doing something about it, but that does not negate the other challenges that they have to deal with on a daily basis. The member has absolutely recognised that in terms of her leadership on the bill.

I am conscious of time. We will of course support the bill. The principle is absolutely right. What we must do now, as with any legislation, is ensure that the guidance is robust, the data is well gathered and the finance is appropriate in order to support local authorities and individual schools to be able to deliver a meaningful outdoor residential experience for every child in Scotland, and to ensure that that can be done for many generations to come.

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.