Meeting of the Parliament 17 February 2026 [Draft]
I will limit my remarks to amendments 22 and 22A, on requiring schools to provide parents and children with detailed information about planned religious observance at least 14 days in advance. That information must include not only the format and content but the assessment of whether the observance is
“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”.
I begin by saying that transparency is not the problem. It is right that parents should understand what is happening in their child’s school, and it is right that observance should be inclusive and respectful. I do not think that anyone disputes that, but amendment 22 would go much further than transparency. It would introduce into primary legislation a formalised statutory test that misunderstands what religious observance is. Observance is not a classroom lesson in comparative religion. It is not an academic seminar. It might be reflective or devotional. In denominational settings, it is part of the faith character that parents have consciously chosen. To require schools to certify in advance that observance is sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic is to apply a secular analytical framework to something that is not designed to function in that way. That is not a small drafting point—it is a conceptual mistake.
There is also a question of proportionality. We do not require 14-day statutory reports for assemblies, commemorations, themed events or visiting speakers. We do not require advanced legal assessments of whether those events meet an abstract standard. Why, then, single out religious observance for that level of prescription?
Amendment 22A would extend that requirement to denominational schools. That raises an even more serious issue. Parents who enrol their children in a denominational school do so in the full knowledge of its ethos. To subject those schools to a statutory objectivity test risks eroding the distinctive character that the Parliament has long recognised and protected. There is a difference between accountability and control. There is a difference between guidance and rigid statutory prescription. If further clarity is needed about the meaning of observance, guidance is the proper vehicle. Schools need flexibility; they do not need another layer of bureaucratic reporting embedded in statute.
The bill already seeks to narrow the parental conscience clause by removing the right to withdraw from religious and moral education. I happen to agree with that. It already seeks to introduce a new formal process around observance. In that context, we should be cautious about layering on additional statutory burdens that risk confusion, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative strain.
Matters of conscience and faith require careful handling. We should legislate with balance. That means respecting children’s voices but also respecting parental choice and the integrity of different school types in our system. For those reasons, although I understand the intention behind them, I cannot support amendments 22 and 22A.