Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. Cabinet secretary, I asked one of the previous panels this question. Religious education is one thing, but do you believe that the bill’s provisions could be extended to other subjects? As you might know, I have introduced the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which makes domestic abuse education in schools mandatory, but which would also give parents the option to withdraw their children from such courses.

Similarly, we have heard that primary schools are working with controversial groups such as LGBT Youth Scotland, with many parents expressing concern about what their children are being taught. Do you believe that the bill will end up setting a precedent whereby children as young as primary school age can override their parents, even when it comes to controversial subject areas that could harm them?

Thank you for that clarity. You talk about children’s views being heard. I will break it down and give an example of a possible scenario, to see whether I am hearing what you have said correctly. If a child decides to go against what their parents have decided, they can do that, because you have said that their views should be heard. Those views will be heard by somebody—a teacher or a headteacher—in their school, and that person will have to make a decision about whether that child is capable. It does not matter what age the child is—we have heard that one child can be capable at the age of 13 and another child can be capable at the age of 15. Again, I go back to the point that somebody has to decide and, whether it is right or wrong, the parents may not like that decision.

How do you see such scenarios playing out? I accept that you say that there might be only a small number of cases, but every child is different and, obviously, every child has parents who care about them and might want a different arrangement, so there might be a conflict there. Like Tess White, I would like to know where teachers and headteachers can get help in such situations. Who makes the decisions in such cases, because the parents might not like the outcome?

I took RE when I was younger. Although I agree that religious education brings in certain good values and that it is especially good for people to understand different religions, I have to say that I see that there is a conflict, and I want to hear how, practically, that can be managed.

Cabinet secretary, the committee has heard from several witnesses who are worried that the bill is a temporary and short-term solution that does not address the underlying issue of legislation being compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Alongside others, Professor Angela O’Hagan from the Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee that we are

“looking at yet another add-on, with another legislative instrument added as a sticking plaster to patch up legislation whose proposals have not been well defined in the first instance.”

Similarly, Fraser Sutherland from the Humanist Society Scotland said:

“the bill documentation and the pre-bill consultation clearly show that the Government does not fully understand what is happening.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 48, 30.]

We are here to make good legislation, but it has been clearly stated in evidence that the bill is simply not good enough and is another sheer example of a “sticking plaster” approach to fixing bad legislation. How do you respond to that?

Thank you for that clarity. When the gates are opened, precedents are set, and people start looking at other subject areas. It is great to hear from you today that this is about the provisions of this bill only, and that it will not set precedents in other areas.

There has been some concern about schools having to decide whether a child is capable of forming a view about religious education and/or observation. I asked one of the previous panels about that, when I raised the fact that children under the age of 18 cannot serve as jurors or get credit cards—and there are many other things they cannot do. With that in mind, how do you think that teachers will be able to determine that a child is mature enough to make a decision about their education and whether their parents are right to withdraw them from religious education or observance? Is it a decision that teachers should be making? Are you able to explain the Scottish Government’s position on the approach that will be taken through the bill?

I understand that you have answered similar questions from Maggie Chapman and Tess White, but I think that teachers already have a lot to deal with right now without being put in such a position. How are you going to create balance so that teachers can understand what a child is capable of?

In another evidence session, I gave an example of two children from one family, where the teacher might think that one child was capable of making a decision but the other was not. How do you balance the rights of those children?

I note that you just used the word “balance”. I am sure that you have spoken to stakeholders.

Have you had a chance to speak to the people I quoted? They were concerned about the sticking-plaster approach and, because they brought it up, I am bringing it up with you today. We on the committee have to listen to all the evidence, whether it be good or bad, in relation to the bill that you are putting forward.

Sorry, I should say that when I talked about sexual education, I was not talking about the usual sexual education that schools provide under statute; I was talking about educating children on matters such as trans rights, which Muslim parents did not want. I was referring not to the normal syllabus, which I had when I went to school, but to something different that the school brought in.

Good morning. My question centres on the ability of children to make their own decisions. We know that children under the age of 18 cannot serve as jurors or hold a credit card, and there are many other decisions that they cannot make. How will teachers determine which child is capable of participating in religious education and observance? Do you think that there should be some kind of assessment?

In a scenario in which two children have different views from their parents, but one child is seen as capable of withdrawing from religious education and the other is not, would one child not be given more rights than the other? The children might come from the same family.

I spoke to the witnesses on the first panel about a scenario that took place in a religious setting—in a mosque. At a round-table event, parents told me that they did not want their children to learn certain things. They went to the school, the school understood and the children withdrew. At the same round table, there were other parents who belonged to the same family, whose children went to another school, but the school did not allow the children to withdraw and decided that the children should carry on that education. Will the fact that there is no uniformity across schools become an issue?

I have one more question. In panel 1, there was a lot of talk about precedents being set. We are talking about religious education, which is one thing, but what about the precedent that is being set for other subject areas? For example, I have a member’s bill—the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill—currently going through Parliament, and I have put in it a provision that education on domestic abuse should be mandatory. However, I have also put in that parents have the option to withdraw their children from such a course.

I would like to hear the witnesses’ views on whether, if a precedent is set in the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill, it means that if we jumped from the subject area that we are considering today, which is religious education, to another subject area in school, we would have to comply with that precedent. Could people bring that forward and set it in law in a different area? I would especially like to hear the Law Society’s understanding of that.

Oh, right—okay. I was just going to ask Elaine Sutherland another question on the same point. Sorry, Rachel—on you go.