Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee 16 December 2025 [Draft]
Amendments 9A, 20 and 44, in the name of Stephen Kerr, would bring clarity and coherence to an area of education law that has become confused through age and custom. The amendments are grounded in what the committee heard at stage 1, when the evidence repeatedly highlighted the need to clearly distinguish between religious observance and religious and moral education. That distinction is well understood in practice but is poorly reflected in the governing legislation.
Amendment 44 would introduce statutory definitions of “religious observance” and of instruction “in religion” or “in religious subjects”. Those definitions reflect the reality of the curriculum for excellence and the experience of our schools. The term “religious observance” refers to “reflective” or “spiritual” activities, while religious and moral education refers to curricular learning about “world religions, belief systems” and “moral reasoning”. Bringing those definitions into statute is not an attempt to change the curriculum but is simply an attempt to ensure that the law accurately reflects what teachers already deliver.
Amendment 20 would work hand in hand with that clarification, ensuring that any requests for withdrawal from religious observance or from religious and moral education would be treated as distinct processes. That point was raised by several contributors during the committee’s evidence sessions. They noted that the bill as drafted risked conflating the two areas, which is something that has already been addressed. Amendment 20 would protect the curricular entitlement of every pupil in Scotland to a religious and moral education, while preserving the long-standing right of withdrawal from religious observance. It would restore coherence and prevent misunderstandings in implementation.
Amendment 9A would add a further technical clarification by confirming that the term “instruction in religion” includes denominational religious education. It would avoid any confusion about how the bill interacts with the existing denominational school settlement and would provide reassurance to parents and communities who rely on those long-established statutory rights.
I say to the convener, the cabinet secretary and the committee that those amendments would not challenge the intentions of the bill but would strengthen it by removing ambiguity and by setting out in clear terms what the law means. The amendments are principled in their purpose and respect the vital role of parents. They would protect the integrity of the curriculum and offer reassurance to teachers and to faith communities that the terminology used in statute will align with what actually happens in schools.
I move amendment 9A.