Meeting of the Parliament 25 November 2025
We did not doubt that withdrawal is happening—there is evidence that it is. I was referring to the specific and particular data that we wanted to see in order to know and understand the issue a bit better. We have asked the Scottish Government to look into providing us with that data.
We have asked the Scottish Government to undertake research to better understand how withdrawal is monitored, and to look at what schools put in place for young people who have been withdrawn. As it stands, if withdrawals continue to be at a low level, the impact of the bill might be minimal, but its impact must be monitored, as greater numbers of withdrawals could have a significant impact on schools.
I turn to the main concerns about part 1 of the bill. First, the committee heard concerns about the bill’s conflation of religious observance and religious and moral education. Under the bill, withdrawal from both is treated in the same way. However, witnesses told the committee that the two should not be treated equally. It was suggested that withdrawal should apply only to religious observance. A majority of the committee agreed with that, recommending that
“opting out from RME should not be possible for either young people or their parents/guardians. In an ever more fragmented society, RME seems an increasingly important subject and one from which the Committee considers children should not be withdrawing.”
We note the Scottish Government’s reasoning for not adopting that approach, but we urge it to reflect again and to lodge amendments in that respect. That approach has been adopted in Wales, and we do not see why it could not be adopted in Scotland, too.
We also heard concerns that familial conflict might be precipitated as a result of the bill. We recognise that there is the potential for such conflict, and we urge the Scottish Government to monitor the impact of the bill and ensure that schools have the resources and training to enable them to meet those challenges.
Witnesses also expressed disappointment about the lack of an independent right for the child to opt out of religious observance. The bill provides a right for the child to opt into religious observance and religious and moral education where a parent has exercised their right to withdraw a pupil, but it provides no right to independently opt out. In that regard, the bill falls short of meeting the concluding observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
While we recognise the support for that independent right, a majority of the committee understood why the cabinet secretary had sought to chart a middle ground on the issue in seeking only to make provision for the opt-in. However, we still appreciate that there are strong arguments for that independent right, and a majority of the committee agreed to invite the cabinet secretary to consider making provision for that in future legislation.
Some of the evidence that was presented to the committee expressed concern about the absence of a prescribed age at which a child is considered to be capable of forming a view on withdrawal. It was suggested that that would place undue pressure on teachers to make decisions on capacity. Others suggested, however, that teachers are making those kinds of decisions on capacity all the time.
A majority of the committee agreed with the approach that is taken in the bill not to prescribe an age at which a child is considered to have capacity. However, we recognise that that will present challenges for teachers, and they will need to be supported and resourced to make those decisions.