Chamber and committees

The point that am making, which I think that I made to Maggie Chapman during stage 2 proceedings, is that, if we are going to have a wider discussion about an independent opt-out, due regard must be given to the parental rights that are set out in article 14 of the UNCRC and to the law in Scotland as it stands on the rights of parents to direct their children.

If we are trying to do that at this point in our scrutiny of the bill, it strikes me—as I also said at stage 2—that this is a rather rushed process that does not allow us to give that due regard to the role of parents, either in the bill or in the proposed guidance.

The cabinet secretary supports amendment 21. Does she also recognise that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has suggested that the proposals that RO should be

“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”

have the potential to create ambiguity and to be open to interpretation or to potential challenges about the denominational nature of education in Catholic schools?

Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, which is a good example. In Catholic schools across the country, children will learn about Lent. They will learn about it in an academic sense, probably write down what they will do for Lent and likely write a prayer to help them do that. They do all that in an RE class, but it is also RO. Does Maggie Chapman recognise that that is what I am talking about?

I add my thanks to all those who have been involved in the bill process. Scotland has a long tradition of providing parents and families with the option to send their children to denominational education in a setting that they choose. Much of that stems from a long history—it is more than 100 years since the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 brought Catholic schools into the state sector, which created a fairly unique social contract in Scotland. Colleagues will be glad to know that I will not re-rehearse all the reasons for that this afternoon, but the difference in provision stems from a time when there were certain prejudices about the Catholic community—particularly the working-class Irish Catholic community—in Scotland. It is important that, at the outset of our debate this afternoon, we recall that heritage, that history and the importance of the place of those schools in our public life.

That was followed by denominational schooling in the Episcopalian church and the establishment of our Jewish school, Calderwood Lodge primary school, in East Renfrewshire, which I know very well. Therefore, it is fair to say that, for at least 100 years, there has been denominational education in the state sector, which is provided by our local authorities in conjunction with religious bodies.

Amendment 24 seeks to reiterate the Parliament’s commitment to the story of faith education and denominational schooling in Scotland. It also responds to the serious concerns that have been raised about the lack of direction that the bill sets. Amendment 24 would set out in the bill the Parliament’s continued support for the role, place and function of denominational schools—most notably, Catholic schools, which account for the overwhelming majority of denominational school settings in Scotland. It would put beyond doubt that any provisions in part 1 of the bill would not infringe on or negatively impact section 16 or 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or section 18 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1918, which established the right for denominational provision to exist and set out the powers, functions and responsibilities relating to the operation of such schools.

Amendment 24 responds clearly to concerns that the bill, or other amendments that we are considering today, would put into question the long-accepted settlement on denominational education in Scotland. In particular, I note the concerns that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has raised about amendments 6 and 11, which would change the terminology in statute from “religious instruction” to “religious education”.

When I intervened on Maggie Chapman, we had a brief exchange about how complicated the issue is in many ways, and there is perhaps a lack of wider understanding of how these things operate in practice. I note that concerns have been raised that that change in nomenclature would weaken the protections that are in place that recognise that religious observance and religious education are inherently linked in a faith school. I simply put the point to Maggie Chapman that it is very difficult to separate those two things, particularly in a faith school. In a religious education class, there will be moments when the lesson goes into religious observance, so it is not simple to separate the two.

Mr Mason makes a fair point. I am arguing that the two should be interlinked. My understanding from my own education is that the two things are interlinked for a very strong purpose, which is about the unique ethos of a Catholic school being about both practice of someone’s faith and learning about faith in an academic sense.

Going down the road of trying to separate religious observance from religious education in a denominational setting would be extremely problematic. It would also be hard to do, particularly in a Catholic school, although, from what I understand of Calderwood Lodge, having been there, I think that that would also be true of Jewish schools. The two things are interlinked. The link is probably more acute in the primary sector. In Catholic schools, children are taught how to prepare for their sacraments in an RE lesson, but that will involve an element of practice, as Mr Mason will understand. I do not think that the two things should be decoupled in such settings, and it would be very difficult for them to be decoupled in practice, if the Government chose to go down that road.

As I have said, narrowing the definition of RE in a faith school to, extensively, interpretations in the academic curriculum could lead to more problems than are being anticipated. As I said to Maggie Chapman at stage 2, I understand the desire to separate the two elements in a non-denominational setting, because I understand the academic value of religious, moral and philosophical studies compared with what religious observance looks like in a non-denominational school. However, I do not think that we can compare the two settings, because they work in different ways. For those reasons, we will not support Maggie Chapman’s amendments.

We have concerns about amendment 21, in the name of Elena Whitham, because, although guidance on RO would be welcome, some of the text of the amendment suggests that it might lead to the deletion of ethos and nature within denominational settings, which I have referred to already. There would need to be strong assurances that it would not be used as a pretext to constrain or interfere with the ethos of faith schools.

I am conscious of time so early on in the debate, but I might just reflect on some of the information that was provided by the Bishops Conference of Scotland, who said:

“The inclusion of denominational schools in the state system in Scotland continues to be an example of a diverse, pluralistic, democratic education system in action.”

The statement also pointed out:

“Religious Education gives knowledge of faith, while Religious Observance is the living expression.”

That points to how those two things are interlinked in the denominational sector.

It is for those reasons that I urge members to support amendment 24, to make a clear statement about the value of faith schools in society and to affirm our commitment to their long-standing place and their future.

Given the concerns that were expressed at stages 1 and 2 about the lack of evidence and data on religious observance and withdrawals, it is right that we work to address that deficit. However, it remains odd that we are making changes to withdrawals without having the data and without that work having been done before the bill was introduced. That clear oversight must be addressed. I welcome the conversations that I had with the cabinet secretary on the matter, and the fact that work that can now be undertaken to address the issue.

Scottish Labour will support amendments 8 and 12, which are balanced, reasonable and clear. However, we cannot support Elena Whitham’s amendment 23. Most of what that amendment seeks to do would be achieved through Maggie Chapman’s amendment 12. I refer back to the arguments that were made on an independent opt-out earlier this afternoon. The specific reference to that in amendment 23 means that we cannot support it.

I will, of course, refer to much of what Maggie Chapman described in my contribution in this group, so I do not intend to detain the chamber in that regard.

However, Maggie Chapman has made a number of assertions in her speech thus far, and I want to point out to her that, as we referred to at stage 2, there is a clear difference between denominational and non-denominational schools, in terms of religious education and religious observance.

As I said to Maggie Chapman at stage 2, I can understand where she is coming from on decoupling religious education and religious observance in a non-denominational setting, but does she understand and respect that RE and RO in a denominational setting are intrinsically linked, which would mean that some of what she is trying to do would actually be very difficult to implement in a faith school?

15:45

I am always happy to be a conduit for members to have a wider debate, and Mr Kerr has put his view on the record. He makes a fair point, and that is what I was trying to allude to in response to Mr Simpson: we have to have a system in which the views of children and young people are taken into account under the UNCRC, having due regard to parents and to the school.

Additionally, we have to be cognisant of unintended consequences in how things might work in practice, particularly in the denominational sector, where, as I have already said, there are not clear distinctions between observance and education. Therefore, children choosing to opt out of religious observance and education without any discussion or parental involvement might, in effect, be opting out of the whole school setting, which was chosen by their parents for the very reason that it is a faith school. It might be impossible for those young people to remain in that school without the wider conversation and discussion that I have spoken about.

Going to the heart of the issue, we would all accept that, in many ways, the whole bill will introduce fundamental change. It would be wrong for an independent opt-out to be introduced by ministerial power without further significant and lengthy debate in the Parliament. The fact that we are still considering the issue at stage 3, without any debate on pre-legislation or the myriad practical and ethical challenges that might come up, shows that it is perhaps wrong for the bill to be taken forward in this way, with so little time for debate and discussion on these amendments.

I will leave my remarks there.

I presume that Mr Simpson is pointing to a desire for that young person to be able to unilaterally opt out of religious observance or religious education. The point was made at stage 2 that there is a broader discussion to be had about how to ensure that both parents and their children can be included in the discussion about opting out of processes.

The cabinet secretary supports amendment 21. Does she also recognise that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has suggested that the proposals that RO should be

“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”

have the potential to create ambiguity and to be open to interpretation or to potential challenges about the denominational nature of education in Catholic schools?