Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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 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.