Meeting of the Parliament 17 February 2026 [Draft]
Well, I think that the bill is a mess. It has struggled its way through the different stages in this Parliament, and today’s stage 3 amendments were evidence of that. I found it particularly dismaying that the Government caved in to the Scottish Greens—for the simple reason, I am sure, that it realised that, without the Scottish Greens, the bill would not become law. Ministers have sold their shirts, frankly, and I am not sure what for, to be honest, because the bill is totally unnecessary. There is no need for it.
Miles Briggs is right. We have ended up in a situation where no one is very happy about what the bill contains, and I predict, in support of my colleague, that it will be the subject of litigation. I do not think that there is any doubt that it will be in the courts. I am not sure that the cabinet secretary is at all convinced about the necessity for the bill, either.
What we had until the bill arrived was some clarity on the legal position on religious observance. Parents had the right of withdrawal and schools implemented that parental wish. The lines of responsibility were well understood. The bill replaces that clarity with a statutory mess that formalises disagreement and inserts the school into the space between parent and child on matters of conscience. Teachers and school leaders will now be required to assess maturity, interpret capacity and, potentially, refuse parental requests. They will be drawn into adjudicating on questions that go into belief and upbringing.
The bill is not a simplification but a complication, and it will place teachers in an invidious situation. They are educators. They are not arbiters of conscience within families. Absent safeguarding concerns, they should not—