Chamber and committees

I will not move amendment 122, but the prevention of separation of families is an area that I am interested in pursuing, alongside Sue Webber, with the minister. I am especially interested in reunification. It is important that voices have expressed the fact that there are no specific provisions in the bill to strengthen that.

Amendment 122 not moved.

Amendments 216 and 217 not moved.

I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its work on the bill, those who have given evidence and the organisations that provided briefings ahead of the various stages of the bill.

From the outset, Scottish Conservatives have stated that we believe that it is important that children have a say in their education, but any change must also respect the crucial role that parents play in shaping their upbringing. As we have seen with the recent passage of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, the ability of ministers to incorporate the UNCRC into law is becoming more and more problematic. That is also quite clear from what we have seen in the passage of this bill.

Scottish Conservatives have consistently expressed concern that the bill risks creating confusion and conflict within families, with unclear safeguards around how parental rights and children’s views would be balanced in practice, while also placing significant burdens on schools and teaching staff at the very time that they are telling us that they are facing so many other challenges. As I stated at stage 1, we support the principle of children being informed about and involved in decisions that affect them and their education, but we already have a system in place that makes sure that that happens at an age-appropriate stage in young people’s lives. Although data is not always available—it is estimated that 4,000 pupils in Scotland are currently withdrawn from RME and RO—ministers must now be concerned that the legislation is likely to be challenged in the courts. The fact that the bill has reached stage 3 in such a position is regrettable.

As For Women Scotland has stated in its briefing ahead of today’s debate:

“The Scottish Government must exercise its powers in a manner which is compatible with the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the second sentence which has been incorporated into Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:

‘In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.’

Consequently, parents have a fundamental right, which the State must respect and protect, to raise their children in accordance with their own views and beliefs”.

The Deputy First Minister has pointed towards that club being held in a school, and I imagine that that is likely to be discouraged, given that scenario.

I am concerned about what a religious service, or a service in general, will look like. What will a Christmas service fundamentally have to become to incorporate everybody? For many rural village schools, the minister has always been connected to the school. I worry that the bill will start to unpick that.

To conclude, Presiding Officer—you have been very generous with the time—I think that the cabinet secretary now realises in hindsight that ministers tried to sell the bill as being a minor technical reform, but that is not the case. It has the potential to negatively impact our school environment and, indeed, Scottish family life. The bill is a fundamental change in the relationship between parents, pupils and the state. It risks confusion for families, inconsistency across Scotland and unnecessary strain on overpressed schools and teachers.

For those reasons, and because the balance struck in the final version of the bill does not adequately respect parental responsibility, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time.

19:16

The report by Marie Curie is a wake-up call for us all regarding unmet need. Does the minister recognise that, in the 2025-26 budget, there is currently a shortfall of £3.9 million in the amount that the sector asked for to be able to deliver parity in pay awards between national health service staff and hospice staff? What plans does the Government now have to make progress on a national funding framework ahead of the election?

The courts will have to judge whether the Government has overstepped the mark in the legislation, given the contradictory UNCRC and European human rights protocols that will now be in place. We will see who brings that forward.

It is important that we look at what this means for teaching professionals. The debate has seemed very bureaucratic as we have gone through the amendments this afternoon, but we have heard about the bureaucratic burden that teachers and schools already face and the concerns that that will raise in the wider school community.

I was lucky enough to attend Auchtergaven primary school in Bankfoot in Perthshire, which is in the First Minister’s constituency. At that school, we saw a valuable relationship with the Church of Scotland minister and his wife, who contributed so much to the school, from school Christmas plays to the work in the school halls. Fundamentally, the Church of Scotland was making a positive contribution to our school life. This bill now sits uneasily around where religious organisations can make contributions to education, and whether it would be much easier to remove that completely in case there are future challenges. I do not know whether that is what the Government necessarily wanted the bill to point to, but local authorities will probably want to start providing guidance from the Government, which we have not had an opportunity to see. Those are real concerns.

That is an individual case. Looking at how this will play out in the different scenarios that bureaucratic systems will look towards is very different.

The courts will have to judge whether the Government has overstepped the mark in the legislation, given the contradictory UNCRC and European human rights protocols that will now be in place. We will see who brings that forward.

It is important that we look at what this means for teaching professionals. The debate has seemed very bureaucratic as we have gone through the amendments this afternoon, but we have heard about the bureaucratic burden that teachers and schools already face and the concerns that that will raise in the wider school community.

I was lucky enough to attend Auchtergaven primary school in Bankfoot in Perthshire, which is in the First Minister’s constituency. At that school, we saw a valuable relationship with the Church of Scotland minister and his wife, who contributed so much to the school, from school Christmas plays to the work in the school halls. Fundamentally, the Church of Scotland was making a positive contribution to our school life. This bill now sits uneasily around where religious organisations can make contributions to education, and whether it would be much easier to remove that completely in case there are future challenges. I do not know whether that is what the Government necessarily wanted the bill to point to, but local authorities will probably want to start providing guidance from the Government, which we have not had an opportunity to see. Those are real concerns.

The Deputy First Minister has pointed towards that club being held in a school, and I imagine that that is likely to be discouraged, given that scenario.

I am concerned about what a religious service, or a service in general, will look like. What will a Christmas service fundamentally have to become to incorporate everybody? For many rural village schools, the minister has always been connected to the school. I worry that the bill will start to unpick that.

To conclude, Presiding Officer—you have been very generous with the time—I think that the cabinet secretary now realises in hindsight that ministers tried to sell the bill as being a minor technical reform, but that is not the case. It has the potential to negatively impact our school environment and, indeed, Scottish family life. The bill is a fundamental change in the relationship between parents, pupils and the state. It risks confusion for families, inconsistency across Scotland and unnecessary strain on overpressed schools and teachers.

For those reasons, and because the balance struck in the final version of the bill does not adequately respect parental responsibility, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time.

19:16

That is an individual case. Looking at how this will play out in the different scenarios that bureaucratic systems will look towards is very different.

The report by Marie Curie is a wake-up call for us all regarding unmet need. Does the minister recognise that, in the 2025-26 budget, there is currently a shortfall of £3.9 million in the amount that the sector asked for to be able to deliver parity in pay awards between national health service staff and hospice staff? What plans does the Government now have to make progress on a national funding framework ahead of the election?