Chamber and committees

The specific issue relates to article 12 of the UNCRC, which is about the right to be heard, and article 14, which is about the right to freedom of thought. Part 1 of the bill will put the position in Scotland beyond doubt by introducing a legal requirement to consider pupils’ views. It is about how the UNCRC interacts with the right to withdraw from religious observance at the current time—that is why it is happening.

I absolutely appreciate the fact that the issue might not be at the top of stakeholders’ lists, but the reasons for looking at the issue have been fully discussed in committee previously.

I am more than happy to look at that. Going back to the points that I made to Marie McNair, we need to remember that, to our mind, the bill is not about more children coming out of religious observance or RME. We think that we will see an increase in the number of children opting in, because we are putting into statute the right of children to opt back in. We are not changing parental rights; we are saying that more children might be in.

Therefore, I do not think that there will be an increase in the number of people withdrawing, but I am more than happy to talk to organisations such as School Leaders Scotland, which is the professional association for headteachers. If there are areas that we can look at in guidance, I am more than happy to give that support.

I read the evidence that you are referring to and was quite shocked by it. That should not be happening in our schools.

As, I think, I mentioned, I had a helpful discussion about othering with the Church of Scotland yesterday. The representative from the Church of Scotland is a former headteacher and RME teacher, which is helpful. He made the point that headteachers are very good at dealing daily and weekly with issues such as that. We need to trust our headteachers to respond to those issues as and when they arise. One of the other issues that the committee alighted on was the idea that the bill might create conflict. However, the committee also heard that conflict exists in the current system.

There is a legal right to withdraw; the issue is how that is administered. This is about people and relationships. We do not want our young people to feel othered when their parents choose to opt them out of religious education. That is their right—that is what they are entitled to—and schools are already good at managing that. I have seen some of the anecdotal evidence that the committee has taken, but I go back to the point that the Church of Scotland made to me, which is about trusting our headteachers.

There are opportunities through the guidance and our continuing engagement with schools. We will listen to stakeholders throughout the passage of the bill, and, if there are ways to strengthen the guidance to provide greater reassurance, I am more than happy to implement them. I do not think anyone around the table today, regardless of their position on the bill, would want a young person to feel othered in our education system. We have an inclusive approach to education in Scotland, and it is important that that is protected.

I thank Ms Gosal for her question. It might give her some joy to know that I discussed her bill with officials this morning. I am interested in her bill because of the proposed introduction of the mandatory education element. That goes back to Maggie Chapman’s point, which is that that is not the approach that we take to education in Scotland currently. I am also interested in the bill because, as cabinet secretary, I am regularly told that we need to mandate things—we need to mandate the banning of mobile phones or practices in relation to behaviour. I also go back to the points that were made by Paul McLennan and say that that is not how our schools are run in Scotland.

The committee is chipping at bigger questions related to the 1980 act. I am not sure that we are going to resolve them in a five-page bill, but that is not to say that I do not think that they are important. There are question marks around which parts of the curriculum should be mandated and what that should look like—for example, how would it be delivered in a rural context and what would it look like in an urban environment? We are also asked whether we will have different approaches to staffing arrangements.

Ms Gosal is taking her bill through Parliament, and I am more than happy to meet her and talk to her about the specifics. I am interested in her bill and in how we can strengthen the approach to domestic abuse and, in particular, support children who might experience domestic abuse at home.

On what is taught, I have seen some of the evidence on that, which Ms Gosal put to other witnesses in her lines of questioning. I go back to the point that I was speaking to Tess White about. This is about parents engaging with and speaking to their headteacher. Currently, the legal requirement in relation to an opt-out applies only to RME and RO. It does not apply to other parts of the curriculum, and we are not proposing an extension in that regard.

On children’s views, I know that the committee has probed issues around capacity. The Government always expects—this is set out in the guidance—there to be discussions with young people about their views. If a young person’s mum, dad or carer wants to take them out of RME and RO, there will be a discussion with the young person about how that happens. At present, such discussions are good practice, but it is not set out in statute that they will happen. We need to make sure that children’s views are listened to in such discussions. That is what the bill is about.

Ms Gosal made a further point about other organisations. I do not necessarily share her views, but that is a wedge issue that is separate from the bill, which is quite technical in nature and is very focused on religious education and religious observance.

I do not think that we are proposing that teachers get to decide. This is about young people’s views being listened to. Essentially, at present, teachers do not need to listen to young people’s views on decisions about withdrawal. We do not think that the current legislation goes far enough; we have discussed why that is the case. The decision to withdraw a young person from RO and RME is not a decision for teachers—it remains a decision for parents and carers. All that we are saying is that you need to speak to the young person about their views.

On teachers managing such situations, they already deal with them, so I do not think that they are necessarily new. Such things are already happening and being dealt with, and, as the committee heard when I gave the statistics earlier, we are talking about a tiny percentage of pupils withdrawing from religious education. We are not talking about lots of young people.

We already have a small number of pupils who withdraw. As and when that happens, good practice, which is supported by the national guidance, is that the headteacher or another teacher has a discussion with mum, dad—the parents—or the carer and the young person and listens to their views. However, they do not have to do that, and the bill puts it beyond doubt that they will have to do so.

Officials may want to add something from a legislative perspective, but my understanding is that the decision is not one that teachers have the capacity to take.

Colleagues will have looked at the financial memorandum; the concern that has been raised is not our understanding of how the provisions will operate in practice. It is worth saying that, in effect, the changes will align legislation with the existing guidance. To our mind, the current guidance does not provide that protection; that is why we are amending the legislation. However, we do not expect there to be an increased workload as a result.

I remind members—I know that you have taken extensive evidence on this—that we are not removing the parental right to withdraw. We are introducing a child’s right to opt back in. If anything, we will see more young people opting back into religious observance and RME, for example, so we do not expect that the bill will drive a workload in that regard, because we could have fewer young people opting out than has been the case in the past.

However, I link the member’s point to the points raised by Mr McLennan, because I am pretty sympathetic to the view that has been expressed to the committee that not all parents are aware of their legal rights under the 1980 act. Taking the bill through will help to draw attention to those rights, as will the updated guidance, and that will help to inform different approaches to policy and practice in schools and communication with parents.

The committee heard evidence on that point from Connect, which is the national parents organisation that the Scottish Government funds. I am happy to engage with Connect on those issues, because parents being aware of their rights around withdrawal is important.

Going back to the evidence that the committee has taken—I have heard a number of stakeholders express views—colleagues around the table will be aware that the policy memorandum looked at the issue. It is fair to say that views diverge on it, as the committee has heard is the case on a number of topics that the bill considers.

As part of the changes, we looked at removing parents’ right to withdraw a child from RME, which is what has been done in the equivalent curriculum area in Wales. In particular, we looked at the benefits of RME as an academic discipline for all pupils, as well as its important role in helping to promote community cohesion. However, during stakeholder engagement and in consultation responses, many different concerns were raised about restricting parental rights, so we decided that there was not sufficient support for such a change at this time.

Ms Chapman can correct me if I am wrong, but she made a point about putting RME on a statutory footing, which is not how the curriculum is currently delivered in Scotland. We have curriculum for excellence and our eight curricular areas, but we do not mandate certain parts of the curriculum. If we were to do that, the bill would be a much bigger piece of legislation than what is currently proposed, which is a bill that is very focused and technical in nature.

I am not diminishing Ms Chapman’s points, which cover an important issue. I discussed the matter with the Scottish Catholic Education Service yesterday, and I am more than happy for us to look at some of the work on it as part of the curriculum improvement cycle, which I mentioned to Mr McLennan earlier. I am usually in front of the Education, Children and Young People Committee talking about the cycle, which is led by teachers and involves updating our whole approach to the curriculum. I am more than happy to look at Education Scotland’s role in providing greater clarity on the issue, which I know has been raised in evidence sessions.

I do not think that I would have been allowed to introduce it if it was not compatible, so yes—and I have just checked with the lawyers. We will obviously have different opinions on these things, but what you have said is not our understanding.

We could have done that—it is fair to say that. The committee is probably aware that a range of areas were considered in relation to where some items would sit in the legislative space. The Government has decided to postpone the human rights legislation; there was another legislative vehicle that could have been used.

The bill that is before us represents the first opportunity and, as the minister, I do not think that I am permitted to sit back and make us wait. It is important that we act as soon as we are able to in this regard. I take the member’s point that there are different ways of doing things. Officials may wish to say more, but we view the bill as the first legislative opportunity to resolve the issues in the way that we have done. The committee has heard evidence on that.

For all the reasons that we have discussed this morning, we cannot wait—we need to make progress in this area. That is why we have a short, truncated bill. It is technical in nature, and it is very focused. I appreciate and accept that it could have done lots of other things, but there will be further work in relation to the UNCRC, as the committee will be aware.

I might pass that one to Joe Smith, as that sits within his team. I had to do quite a lot of engagement with the UK Government on the Education (Scotland) Bill, and I have to say that we worked very well together on sharing information and on the crossovers between reserved and devolved competencies. The dissolution of the Scottish Qualifications Authority was possible only because of that cross-Government working.

As cabinet secretary, I would say that that approach is applied to where we are in terms of children’s rights and the UNCRC, but I will defer to Joe Smith and the on-going work that is being led by Ms Don-Innes at the ministerial level.