Is the Government concerned that when short-term sentences are eventually automatically reduced to 30 per cent of the sentence, and if it adopts the Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission’s recommendation to ban sentences of one year or less, that could result in charges increasing sentences to take account of those measures? Has any work been done with the judiciary to ensure that the purpose of those measures is not defeated?

There is already concern about the court delaying the case until 27 May, so will the Lord Advocate be more specific about whether it is normal practice for a First Minister who is not the complainer in a case to be briefed in this way, and will the Lord Advocate tell the Parliament whether there are any other aspects of the trial that will be briefed to the First Minister?

The Parliament needs to know how many times this has happened, because it seems that, if it is the only time, it could be a dangerous precedent to set.

Is the Government concerned that when short-term sentences are eventually automatically reduced to 30 per cent of the sentence, and if it adopts the Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission’s recommendation to ban sentences of one year or less, that could result in charges increasing sentences to take account of those measures? Has any work been done with the judiciary to ensure that the purpose of those measures is not defeated?

There is already concern about the court delaying the case until 27 May, so will the Lord Advocate be more specific about whether it is normal practice for a First Minister who is not the complainer in a case to be briefed in this way, and will the Lord Advocate tell the Parliament whether there are any other aspects of the trial that will be briefed to the First Minister?

The Parliament needs to know how many times this has happened, because it seems that, if it is the only time, it could be a dangerous precedent to set.

Is the Government concerned that when short-term sentences are eventually automatically reduced to 30 per cent of the sentence, and if it adopts the Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission’s recommendation to ban sentences of one year or less, that could result in charges increasing sentences to take account of those measures? Has any work been done with the judiciary to ensure that the purpose of those measures is not defeated?

There is already concern about the court delaying the case until 27 May, so will the Lord Advocate be more specific about whether it is normal practice for a First Minister who is not the complainer in a case to be briefed in this way, and will the Lord Advocate tell the Parliament whether there are any other aspects of the trial that will be briefed to the First Minister?

The Parliament needs to know how many times this has happened, because it seems that, if it is the only time, it could be a dangerous precedent to set.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

I am trying to follow this debate, and I may not have understood it, but if it is the Government’s position that, instead of amendment 7, there should be primary legislation, I agree with that, because I think that, at this late stage, it is wrong to bind a future Government. However, if the Government’s clear position is that it should be done through primary legislation, I do not understand why it would accept amendment 7, because it does the opposite. Amendment 7 says:

“Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for pupils to have a right to request withdrawal”.

It also mentions consultation. That is no different from what happens with any other secondary piece of legislation in the Parliament—we consult.

There is a bit of a contradiction in what the Government is saying. Surely you should stick to your guns. If you think that it should be primary legislation, you should not vote for amendment 7, because it does the opposite: it gives us secondary legislation and it binds a future Government. I do not really understand what the Government’s argument is. Are you just trying to put out an olive branch? That is the only way in which it would make any sense to me.

I will make a short contribution in support of amendment 24, in the name of Paul O’Kane. We are debating legislation on the right of a child to withdraw from religious education, but it is important that that does not undermine the ethos of denominational schools. If we ask any headteacher what is successful about those schools, they will say that their entire ethos is about the discipline and character of that school and that, without that, they would not be as successful.

The 1918 act is a key piece of law for Catholic education, which is enshrined in our education system. The 1918 act corrected historical inequalities, and it is important to note that that is one of the things that it does.

We have a highly successful Catholic education system. It is part of a modern system that reflects the minority character of the Catholic community while giving choice to all parents regardless of their religious background. I think that that is right for a modern Scotland.

16:00

This is what I want to say to the Government—although I have obviously not yet heard the Government’s argument. The Government must recognise that there have been periodic attempts to eradicate or remove Catholic schools from the education system. I have had many letters over 20 years, and that point has been argued by the Humanist Society and others. Everyone has their view. I do not have any criticism of the Government in this regard but, if the Government recognises that that has happened, then, for the avoidance of doubt, we must ensure that the right of the child that we are dealing with today does not undermine that ethos in any way. It is imperative that nothing in the bill does that.

I would like to hear what the Government has to say about that. I do not see why the Government would be opposed to amendment 24. As I have said, the 1918 act is a very relevant piece of legislation. I would be interested to hear what the Government has to say. I will strongly support amendment 24 for the reasons that I have set out.

I did not understand what you meant, cabinet secretary, when you spoke about the 1918 act. It is a century old, but it is still the law. It does not really matter how old that act is, and we have laws that are much older than that. The 1918 act is really important for denominational education, so can you clarify whether that is the source of your technical problem with the amendment? Do you accept that it is still the law?