Meeting of the Parliament 17 February 2026 [Draft]
The debate has been thoughtful, and I thank members from all parties for their contributions. Everyone who spoke did so out of a genuine concern for children and young people in Scotland’s schools.
The cabinet secretary has tried to get a balance in the bill, but how do we balance article 12 of the UNCRC, which states that a child who is capable of forming views has the right to express them, against article 5, which states:
“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom”?
It is a difficult road to travel. The Deputy First Minister’s intervention on my colleague Miles Briggs highlighted the issue. She described a situation in which somebody requested to go to a playgroup because they wanted to but the parents did not want the child to be in a religious playgroup. That highlights the issue that we have been talking about regarding which side we would possibly choose. If the parents then forced the issue, the playgroup would be forced to become the mediator between the family and the child.
I highlight the points that Miles Briggs, Stephen Kerr and Graham Simpson made about the conflict between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UNCRC. Because those two forms of legislation are not compatible in this respect—there are contradictions—I think that all those members are right that there could be a legal challenge.
My last comment on members’ speeches is about the point that Paul O’Kane made in his speech about what the bill is for and why we are doing it now. That was a very interesting point. I, too, look forward to the cabinet secretary giving us an answer to that question in her response. The points that he and the Labour Party have raised on denominational schools are valid.
Now that I have commented on the debate, I want to add a few lines. Children should have their say in decisions about their education. The UNCRC recognises that. As I said, article 12 states that a child who is capable of forming a view has the right to express it and that that view should be
“given due weight in accordance with … age and maturity”.
We accept that. However, the convention also recognises that parents have the main responsibility to guide their children in using those rights as they grow and mature. For decades, Scottish educational law has kept that balance by listening to children and respecting the role of parents. It values independence and family responsibility. The central issue with the bill is that it alters that balance.
After stage 2 changes, parents will no longer have the final say in withdrawing their child from religious and moral education. Instead, schools will need to notify the pupil, tell them that they can object, check their understanding—with no set minimum age—and, in some cases, let the child’s objection overrule the parent’s request. That represents a significant legal and cultural shift in how educational decisions are made.
Major stakeholders have raised concerns about whether the bill is needed, how practical it is and what resources it would require. The Church of Scotland has asked whether there is any evidence that a new law is needed. The Educational Institute of Scotland has warned that the resource demands may be underestimated and that the bill could affect workloads and relationships in schools. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland has said that it is hard to see how the bill could be put in place without adding burdens for schools, parents and pupils. Those are not minor voices; they are the people who will have to put the legislation into practice.
I question whether the bill properly addresses the issue. It risks creating new disputes between parents and children for schools to manage. The bill also changes the UNCRC compatibility duty by increasing the number of situations in which public authorities can act against the convention because of primary legislation. That is a technical but important legal change. Amendments that were made at stage 2 already expect legal disputes and set out ways for senior legal officers to get involved, but we should not pass legislation and resolve its consequences after the fact.
Religious and moral education in schools is meant to help pupils to explore beliefs, values and ethical questions; it is not about indoctrination. Current guidance already asks schools to consider the child’s view when a withdrawal is requested, allowing for fair, age-appropriate discussion without forcing schools to act as the arbitrator in family disputes. The bill will replace a flexible approach with a legal process that assumes that children of any age have capacity and that asks schools to decide between parent and child. That is not a minor adjustment; it fundamentally redefines roles and responsibilities.
The Scottish Conservatives support children’s rights and believe that young people’s voices matter. However, rights exist within relationships, and parents retain primary responsibility for guiding their children. Because of that, we will not vote for the bill at stage 3.