Chamber and committees

Amendments 9A, 20 and 44, in the name of Stephen Kerr, would bring clarity and coherence to an area of education law that has become confused through age and custom. The amendments are grounded in what the committee heard at stage 1, when the evidence repeatedly highlighted the need to clearly distinguish between religious observance and religious and moral education. That distinction is well understood in practice but is poorly reflected in the governing legislation.

Amendment 44 would introduce statutory definitions of “religious observance” and of instruction “in religion” or “in religious subjects”. Those definitions reflect the reality of the curriculum for excellence and the experience of our schools. The term “religious observance” refers to “reflective” or “spiritual” activities, while religious and moral education refers to curricular learning about “world religions, belief systems” and “moral reasoning”. Bringing those definitions into statute is not an attempt to change the curriculum but is simply an attempt to ensure that the law accurately reflects what teachers already deliver.

Amendment 20 would work hand in hand with that clarification, ensuring that any requests for withdrawal from religious observance or from religious and moral education would be treated as distinct processes. That point was raised by several contributors during the committee’s evidence sessions. They noted that the bill as drafted risked conflating the two areas, which is something that has already been addressed. Amendment 20 would protect the curricular entitlement of every pupil in Scotland to a religious and moral education, while preserving the long-standing right of withdrawal from religious observance. It would restore coherence and prevent misunderstandings in implementation.

Amendment 9A would add a further technical clarification by confirming that the term “instruction in religion” includes denominational religious education. It would avoid any confusion about how the bill interacts with the existing denominational school settlement and would provide reassurance to parents and communities who rely on those long-established statutory rights.

I say to the convener, the cabinet secretary and the committee that those amendments would not challenge the intentions of the bill but would strengthen it by removing ambiguity and by setting out in clear terms what the law means. The amendments are principled in their purpose and respect the vital role of parents. They would protect the integrity of the curriculum and offer reassurance to teachers and to faith communities that the terminology used in statute will align with what actually happens in schools.

I move amendment 9A.

We received evidence from the legal profession to say that the law is all over the place on age. In certain cases in the justice system, the age is 25; in other cases in Scotland, it is 18; and, in the majority of cases, it is 16. The Greens and Conservatives fundamentally disagree on that. In this case, we believe that parents have the right and the responsibility. I refer members to the parental responsibilities as set out in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. In relation to a child, the parent has a responsibility to

“safeguard and promote the child’s health, development and welfare”,

and

“to provide, in a manner appropriate to the stage of development of the child ... direction”

and

“guidance”.

There is a reason for that, which is why I have made those proposals through my amendments.

We fundamentally disagree about the age of maturity, but frameworks have to be set; otherwise, it is chaos. It is not fair for the teachers, who are not qualified or trained in this area, to make a decision about maturity. It is not fair on them when parents have the responsibility to decide on the guidance and on what is right for their child.

I hear what the cabinet secretary says about a necessary hurdle, but paragraph 151 of the stage 1 report says that

“Very serious concerns have been presented to this Committee about both Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill”,

and paragraph 154 says that

“That support is, however, still predicated on very significant amendments being made to the Bill”,

which we have not really heard a lot about today. I suppose that amendment 55 would force a proper consultation and impact assessment.

I hear what my colleague Paul O’Kane says about placing a duty on a future education committee of the Parliament, and I understand that, but the two amendments are about good lawmaking and they would help to ensure that the bill is implemented in a way that is proportionate, workable and informed by evidence. I will therefore press amendment 55 and I intend to move amendment 56.

The amendments are about basic transparency and making sure that we understand how the system is working in practice. At stage 1, we heard concerns that, without proper data, it will be difficult to know whether the bill is having unintended effects on children, families or schools, and the amendments address that gap.

Amendment 35 makes a small but important technical change by linking the reporting duty to the new definitions in the bill so that data on withdrawals is recorded consistently and clearly. That would help to ensure that information is accurate and comparable across schools and local authorities.

Amendment 39 would introduce a clear reporting requirement by requiring schools to report annually on requests for withdrawal from religious instruction and religious observance. It also requires reporting on how often pupils objected to a parental request and how often those objections were upheld. The amendment does not ask schools to record beliefs or motivations. It simply collects information on how the process is being used and where the disagreements are arising.

I move amendment 35.

Cabinet secretary, I hope that you will be pleased to hear that, based on what you have just said—that you will take the amendments away, consider them, review them and then come back—I will not press my amendment. Thank you for that, and I look forward to working with you on that.

Amendment 35, by agreement, withdrawn.

Cabinet secretary, convener and committee, these amendments are about making sure that we properly understand the impact of the bill before it comes into force, rather than dealing with problems after the fact. My colleague Paul O’Kane has referred to the fact that we have just over three months until the end of the parliamentary session and it feels that the bill is being rushed through, but it is not a simple bill.

At stage 1, we heard concerns about workload, resources and the effect on relationships between schools, parents and pupils. The amendments would ensure that those concerns are properly considered in advance. I have raised the point that only three educational authorities were consulted—I stress that, because it shocked me.

Amendment 55 would require the Scottish ministers to carry out and publish a pre-commencement impact assessment on the likely effects of the bill. That assessment would have to look specifically at the impact on families, parents, children, teaching staff and support staff. That matters, because the bill introduces new duties and new processes for schools, and those changes will affect real people in real settings.

Amendment 56 would make sure that the impact assessment is considered by a parliamentary committee with responsibility for education before the act is commenced. That would give Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise the findings and ensure that any risks or pressures have been properly thought through.

I move amendment 55.

The Deputy First Minister has said that the quality of provision differs across Scotland, so can she explain why she does not support the establishment of a national oversight board?

Yes, of course.

Does the Deputy First Minister think that having a target for deaf BSL teachers, as we do for GPs, would be the right thing to do?

I know that Dr Gosal met Chief Constable Jo Farrell this week and mentioned her bill, so it is now very firmly and squarely on the table as a result of that committee work. In addition to the issue that Carol Mochan raises, there was powerful input from a deaf advocate and survivor of domestic abuse, who told the committee that finding an interpreter is always at the front of a deaf woman’s mind. Can members imagine how bad it is, when someone has been abused and the police are coming to the door, to have to deal with those feelings of isolation, loneliness, threat and fear? That came across very powerfully. Even when there is an interpreter, many deaf survivors feel more comfortable speaking to someone whose first language is British Sign Language.

We have explored in the debate the lack of national oversight, which is an issue that needs to be addressed. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for taking my intervention on that and for saying that the issue is very much on the radar.

As Karen Adam said, the Scottish Government’s second national plan received mixed responses at committee. However, despite the Deputy First Minister’s insistence that the plan is clear and ambitious, in reality it faces a number of issues, particularly with its lack of focus and measurable goals. Alexander Stewart cited Deaflink, which said that there has been a

“dearth of appropriately trained Deaf BSL Tutors in Scotland”,

which is having a huge impact on the development of BSL users.

When my committee members asked me whether I was going to raise the issue with the Deputy First Minister, I said, “Too right I am.” I asked the DFM and her officials how many deaf BSL teachers there were and whether the position had improved from 10 or even five years ago, but neither the Deputy First Minister nor her officials had the figures to hand, which is a case in point. Data capture is important: we cannot manage what we do not measure. The committee asked the Scottish Government to consider a national BSL centre for excellence.

I realise the time, Presiding Officer, so I will come to my final comments.

Unless there is sufficient national oversight, issues around a shortage of qualified interpreters, deaf BSL teachers, limited resources and a lack of enforceability will not improve. In conclusion, although the 2015 act has brought significant benefits, the committee recognises that there are substantial challenges and that, as our convener said, substantial opportunities still remain.