Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.