Such a principle of Scottish education goes back to 1872, when, as members will know, RME in our schools was very different in nature and far less objective. We need to be careful, because there are legal provisions that protect parents’ right to opt out of RME and RO but that do not apply to any other aspects of the curriculum. We need to be clear about that. When we talk about other aspects of the curriculum, that is not what this is about, and we should be very mindful of that.

Ms Chapman asked why we have not separated RME and RO. I go back to the policy memorandum. We did look at that, and I encourage members to read the policy memorandum if they have not done so. There are lots of views on the matter, and finding alignment would be very difficult. For example, it would not result in a five-page bill being presented to the committee, so the process might take a lot longer. I am not suggesting that we will not come back to the matter in the future, because there are other ways in which it can be considered. Indeed, I touched on that only yesterday in my discussions with the Church of Scotland and other stakeholders. I am happy for us to look at the issue in its totality and in the round. However, I do not think that we will be able to find a route through the issues that Ms Chapman has raised today in a short, technical bill such as we have at the current time, for all the reasons that we have heard during the consultation with stakeholders. Lewis Hedge or other officials might want to say more on that.

There are currently very low rates in relation to how that practice operates. Back in 2017, Education Scotland published a supplement to the guidance—I think that the committee heard evidence on that point. I spoke only yesterday to the Church of Scotland, which is supportive of the guidance.

I think that there is support at the current time for the way in which we approach the issue. I have given the committee the rationale for why we have to slightly adapt our approach, but I think that, in broad terms, stakeholders have been supportive of the nuanced approach, and I am more than happy to work with them as we progress through this. However, to go back to Paul McLennan’s original point, I recognise that we are talking about a very small percentage of children overall.

We think that part 2 is necessary, for the reasons that I have set out. With regard to children’s rights, I go back to some of the points that were made to the committee by Together, which views this as an opportunity to strengthen children’s rights and is broadly supportive of it.

I take the member’s point, but we think that part 2 is necessary, because of the compatibility duty and the potential for something to arise with a public authority—for example, a council. I am being careful not to give direct examples; I am just discussing the matter with officials and trying to think of things that I can provide the committee with, but it is difficult to give a specific example.

We need to think about circumstances in which a local authority might withdraw or pause a service because of the incompatibility duty. Part 2 puts the position beyond doubt with regard to responsibilities and future proofs the current frameworks. We think that that is a requirement that needs to be undertaken. I appreciate that some concerns have been raised about part 2, although I think that, from the evidence to the committee that I have seen, fewer concerns have been raised on part 2 than have been raised on part 1. Indeed, some people have been quite supportive of part 2.

I am happy to listen to and engage with stakeholders—Ms Gosal referred to two of them, and I have already met the Humanist Society Scotland—but I note that Together has been very supportive of part 2. I am more than happy to listen to stakeholders about how we might strengthen the provisions with regard to children’s rights, but we do view part 2 as a requirement.

I have.

Well, we are strengthening children’s rights.

I am struck by some of the points that you made. You said that it is unlikely but not impossible that future bills will be incompatible with the 2024 act, which is why we are future proofing the legislation. I remind the committee about Joe Smith’s points about the Human Rights Act 1998 and how the approach that is being taken in the bill is a mirror image of that taken by other legislation.

On justice, the committee heard earlier from Denise McKay about some of the work that we have been doing to support children and young people to get access to justice. More broadly, we have implemented the 2024 act, and it is fair to say that there has been a cultural shift in the way in which children and young people’s rights are respected. The duty to not act incompatibly with the UNCRC requirements and the ability to use courts to enforce children’s rights apply only when a public authority is delivering functions under an act of the Scottish Parliament. However, many functions that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament were conferred by the UK Parliament, so they are not subject to that compatibility duty.

We want to embed children’s rights as widely as possible, so it is important that we have the judicial options that we have already mentioned today, as well as non-judicial remedies. That is why we are working with a number of partners to support the remedies that are already available, including through the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, specialist child law centres, children’s advocacy services and relevant tribunals. Even when children and young people can use the courts to enforce their rights, we hope that that will be a last resort and that, when there is a concern about access to rights, it can be resolved as soon as possible.

It is worth pointing out that we have given funding to the SPSO for a five-year project to look at a child-friendly complaints process. That is an important element of the mix that we are considering, and I know that the committee has taken evidence on how children interact with the complaints service. I am sure that members will have experience of dealing with the ombudsman, as I do. Having a child-friendly approach is important for access to justice.

I am mindful that ministers are currently subject to a pay freeze, although we have now moved to take the MSP salary, which is a shift in our position. However, we have taken that position to show restraint as a Government, and I am mindful of the pressures that people face. It would be remiss of me, as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills—or of any minister—to comment on the salary levels at independent, autonomous institutions. I am very mindful of the challenge that we currently face with one institution, which I am sure that we will come on to discuss, but I do not think that it is for ministers and the Government to talk about the salary levels of independent institutions. However, the point that you made about restraint is important.

I know that that issue was dealt with previously through a letter of guidance from the Government. The minister and I might wish to reflect on that, given the committee’s evidence from last week’s session.

I believe that Ms Duncan-Glancy and I are going to engage in trading statistics this morning, so, if I may, I will consult my notes.

The proportion of pupils who achieve the expected level in literacy and numeracy across primary and secondary schools reached its highest level ever in 2023-24. The poverty-related attainment gap between young people from the most and the least deprived areas who are meeting literacy standards has reached record low levels. The gap between secondary pupils from those areas who achieve third level in both literacy and numeracy has reached record lows, too. Therefore, I do not accept all the challenges that Ms Duncan-Glancy has put to me in that regard.

Ms Duncan-Glancy also mentioned issues in relation to positive destinations. The proportion of pupils who have gone on to a positive destination three months after leaving school is 95.7 per cent, which is the second highest since records began.

We can engage in trading statistics if Ms Duncan-Glancy wishes to. However, I intend to engage in the substantials in relation to my responsibilities. I do not accept all the challenges that she has set out, because we are seeing improvement in our schools on the narrowing of that gap. For example, the achievement of curriculum for excellence levels—ACEL—data tells us a much more positive story. The examinations data shows a trajectory of improvement since the pandemic. In addition, as I said, we have the second-highest level on record in relation to positive destinations.

I am not clear whether Ms Duncan-Glancy and I will agree on the statistics that we have traded, but I am happy to take any questions that she might have.

I know where the data is taken from—it is Scottish Government data.

I might bring in Mr Logan, because Mr Mason mentioned him. To answer the point, we might argue that the variance on ASN that we see across the country—this relates to Mr Rennie’s point on teacher contracts—has been a feature of our educational landscape for many decades. It is what happens when, sometimes, 32 councils are doing 32 different things.

That is not always good for parents and children, particularly children with identified additional support needs, who need consistency. There is a feeling among parents groups in particular that support might look different in different local authorities and, as a result, might be better elsewhere, which I do not think is fair. The revised code of practice, which Ms Dunbar asked about earlier, is about giving a clearer, consistent message. For example, it will provide further clarity on the previously addressed point that a diagnosis is not needed to obtain support.

To respond to Mr Mason’s point, the code will also give further clarity on the reasons for placing request decisions that fall under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The transitions chapter will also be strengthened, reflecting concerns about ASN pupils moving from primary into secondary.

The code will also look to clarify the relationship between co-ordinated support plans and other children’s and young people’s plans through a staged intervention model. That goes back to the point that I discussed with Ms Dunbar about whether we should have a national staged intervention model, which would be quite a radical departure from where we are currently. However, it is important that the Government reflects on that and responds to it accordingly, given the concerns that MSPs have recently raised and debated, so that we can consider it all in the round when we agrees the scope of the ASN review that we have committed to.