Chamber and committees

Ms Don-Innes leads on the children’s rights scheme. I think that it is part of the Promise—is that right? [Interruption.] I am being told that it relates just to children’s rights. However, I think that the timing of the guidance being published in November is quite complementary to the passage of the bill. We are nearly in November, and we are only at stage 1 of the bill. The committee might or might not be content with that update when it is published, so feel free to come back to the Government to probe us on the issues. However, we are strengthening children’s rights through our approach.

I will come back to the point that the member raised with Denise McKay about the 1980 act, because it goes back to the points that Pam Gosal made about mandating certain aspects of the curriculum. If you were to open up the 1980 act, you would see that there are lots of things that we could do. We would not have a five-page bill in that case, and some big, serious questions would potentially have to be asked about the delivery of education.

If the committee is interested to know—probably not for the purposes of the bill before us, but in the education space generally—I have commissioned John Wilson, a former headteacher in Edinburgh, to lead a piece of work for us on school governance and what comes next in how we fund our schools after the Scottish attainment challenge, which is meant to come to an end. We have extended it for a year, but such things need to be considered in the round. Indeed, Pam Gosal’s parliamentary colleague Oliver Mundell is very interested in how we provide support to our schools and local authorities. We have 32 councils, and we have heard today about some of the challenges that that can create. We should not separate those issues from wider considerations on public policy.

I am sorry, but I thought that the question was about compatibility.

It has not, at the current time, but that is not to say that it might not be used in the future.

I will come to your second question first. I was struck by some of the evidence that the committee heard on that point, because a number of stakeholders said that parents are perhaps not aware of that legal right, which has existed for many years. In the guidance that will sit alongside the bill, if it is passed, we will provide further clarity on that.

One of the parental organisations that the committee took evidence from—it might have been Connect—talked about disparate approaches to school handbooks and the situation not being communicated in the way in which it would have expected. I am happy to reflect on that. The passage of the bill will, in itself, draw parents’ attention to the fact that they have that right, and that will foster better understanding. The guidance, which has also been raised by stakeholders in evidence given to the committee, will provide further clarity on parental rights.

On how the guidance works at the current time, we have very low rates of withdrawal. The committee took evidence on that from Barbara Coupar from the Scottish Catholic Education Service, and I spoke to her yesterday. We are looking at very low percentages for withdrawal rates. Lewis Hedge might want to give the committee the specific numbers. I think that there is a 0.59 per cent withdrawal rate overall—that is 0.56 per cent from religious observance and 0.19 per cent from RE. Is that correct, Lewis?

Forgive me, Ms Chapman, but are you talking about the independent right to withdraw?

Okay.

The bill is very technical and focused, but the committee has—rightly—probed some of the issues in relation to the 1980 act. As members will know, I am regularly asked in the chamber about how that interacts with ministerial responsibilities. The statutory responsibility for the delivery of education does not sit with ministers—it sits with COSLA and local authorities. Therefore, to achieve greater consistency, COSLA needs to be supporting and working with local authorities.

We have different approaches to the delivery of education across Scotland. We also have different approaches within local authorities and within schools. That is because curriculum for excellence is meant to be about local delivery and it is meant to empower our teachers to look at how to deliver education in their context.

Elements of the evidence that the committee has heard—probably from the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland and others—have been about consistency on reporting requirements. I am happy to look at those issues in detail. Through the Verity house agreement, we established the education and childcare assurance board, which brings together ministers and local government to talk about that assurance work and to look at how we can drive greater consistency. I am happy to take those issues away, because I think that there is an ask there in terms of how education is delivered.

There are wider questions around the 1980 act, which I do not think that this five-page bill will resolve. Those questions are very interesting in the context of wider work that we might have in the reform space. The committee will know about the work on curriculum improvement and how we are looking at reforming the curriculum. I think that the committee might have heard some evidence on that previously.

I might defer to the lawyers on this because, as cabinet secretary, I need to be careful about giving explicit examples. I do not know whether the lawyers or Lewis Hedge have any such examples.

The exemption could relate to a process that concerns children’s hearings, education or healthcare. Essentially, the exemption allows public authorities to continue delivering those services while the other potential incompatibilities are looked at and resolved in legislation, if that is needed.

The provisions are extraordinarily technical. They are about future proofing the legislation as it currently is. As Joe Smith said, the UNCRC is a living, breathing piece of legislation, so it will adapt over time. We need to respond to that accordingly, which is what part 2 of the bill aims to deliver.

I have seen the evidence that was given to the committee, but I am not sure that I would agree with that point.

Could you repeat the final point that you made? I might bring in officials in relation to the interaction between the bill and the specific UNCRC articles that you mention.