Chamber and committees

Cedars was already struggling to attract pupils. That was one of the problems. I think that there were 75 pupils in 2023 although it had capacity for 120 pupils. There were a number of issues over many years that I will not go into, but there were clearly financial issues. As I understand it, the church was subsidising much of the work of the school. Is it your view that Cedars would still be here if it were not for the 20 per cent VAT? Is that the contention?

On the Cedars issue, Lorraine, you said that the closure put pressure on state schools in Inverclyde—or that is what I took from your comments. I recall that, at the time, my colleague Martin McCluskey, who is a member of Parliament, asked Ruth Binks, the director of education, directly whether there was capacity in Inverclyde schools to support those young people and what the ASN provision would be. She confirmed that there was indeed capacity in Inverclyde and that there were plans around ASN. Will you clarify what you meant?

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in this group. However, I place it on record that we remain concerned that the Government has still provided no coherent justification of why it felt the need to introduce the section 6B exemption with such urgency and, indeed, what prompted that introduction. It is clear that something has changed between the reconsideration of the bill on UNCRC incorporation that we had considered earlier in the session, which was finally enacted, and now. If nothing has changed, why these changes were not in the original bill, and why they are needed now, is even more inexplicable.

Given that lack of clarity, it is important that we have transparency and accountability over the use of the proposed section 6B exemption. I believe that all the amendments in the group would strengthen that accountability and transparency, so they will have Scottish Labour’s support.

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.

As we have concluded the amendment stages of the bill, I join others in thanking the legislation team for their ever-present support with drafting amendments, all those who have taken an interest in the bill and who have engaged with me and colleagues on it, those who have prepared briefings and, of course, committee colleagues for their work at stages 1 and 2.

At the start of the bill’s passage, the cabinet secretary sought to reassure Parliament and the wider public that it would be a short technical bill and that she was seeking consensus across the Parliament. Instead, she has managed to unite some unlikely bedfellows in opposition to the bill. What has been created is a halfway house that appears to please nobody.

Coming to today’s proceedings, we were faced with a range of amendments that could shift, change or reset whole parts of the bill and amendments that could result in fundamental shifts in the position of parents’ rights, as we have heard, and in the position of denominational schools and how they deliver RE and RO in Scotland. That cannot be the outcome that the Government was looking for at the start of the process, and it speaks to much of what I referenced in the proceedings on amendments.

The heart of the matter is that the Government has introduced a bill without a clear answer to the fundamental questions that we should all ask ourselves when considering legislation, which are, “What is it for?” and, “Why are we doing it now?” As a consequence, the bill has had a chaotic, short journey and has caused a level of uncertainty. Due to that, I want to put on record that I cannot support the bill at decision time.

The detail of part 1 of the bill is, I think, confused, and was further confused by the amendments that were lodged at stage 2. Fundamentally, I regret that the Government did not support my amendment, which would have sought to offer a degree of reassurance to those in the denominational sector. I do not believe that it was too much to ask that the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 be put into the bill for the avoidance of doubt.

I say that because those pieces of legislation are totemic for those in the faith sector in Scotland and, in particular, for those in the Catholic education sector. I referenced in my contribution on my amendment the reason why those pieces of legislation came into being and the opportunities that they have afforded generations of young people and their families in this country. As I said at the weekend in reference to that amendment, if people do not have a problem with faith schools in Scotland or with the continuation of Catholic education, they should have had no problem in backing that amendment. That is why I am disappointed that the amendment was not agreed to by the Parliament tonight, because it was an opportunity for the first time in the history of devolution to put those acts into and on the face of an act of the Scottish Parliament.

Substantial changes to practices in Scottish schools that have existed for decades—particularly those changes that affect denominational settings—should not have been rushed through by way of amendments in the last months of a parliamentary session. This policy required a much more considered approach and a fuller discussion. In my opinion, there has been a lack of understanding throughout the consideration of the bill about how denominational schools operate. We have seen that in the varied amendments that were considered earlier, which have resulted in the confused bill that we have ended up with.

It was remarkable to see some of the interventions that were made in the intervening period. The Bishops Conference of Scotland gave a stark warning about its concerns at the conclusion of stage 2.

Labour members are supportive of the long-standing position in Scots law on the protection of faith education, but we also understand that, if we are going to have a wider debate about the UNCRC and children’s rights, we cannot rush that through our consideration of the bill. I referred to that in relation to many of the amendments that were offered by Green colleagues today.

There is a fundamental and complex relationship between the rights that are advanced for children and young people and the rights of their parents. That will take a longer debate and a longer time to understand, and it cannot be rushed at this point in parliamentary proceedings.

Of course we cannot disregard the concerns that have been outlined. We cannot simply walk by and pass a piece of legislation because we believe that it has to be done by the end of the session. I outlined that more widely in relation to the question of what has changed between the reconsideration of the UNCRC incorporation legislation and now to make the bill before us so urgent and so necessary—particularly in its latter parts, in relation to the UNCRC. I do not think that we received an answer on that point. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will be able to say, when she sums up, what has changed and what her concerns are that have led us to where the bill is now.

Finally, and looking more widely, with mere weeks of this parliamentary session left to run, and at a time when resources for schools are already limited, I remain unclear as to why the Government felt the need to introduce the bill in the manner it did, and to allow it to be amended in such a way as to leave a bill that I think is confused and may do more harm than good.

For those reasons, I and Scottish Labour colleagues will vote against the bill tonight.

19:22

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.

On the part 2 provisions, will the cabinet secretary point to an example of where she thinks a public authority might require that exemption? I do not believe that she has been able to do so thus far, and it would be useful for the record.

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.

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 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.