Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee 16 December 2025 [Draft]
I thank Maggie Chapman for that intervention. I will certainly revisit the evidence that was taken, as I was not on the committee at that time. However, my understanding from my conversations about the amendments and the stage 2 process is that there is concern in the denominational sector about how to separate RE and RO in a Catholic school, for example, when the two things are interconnected. There are two aspects to that, which I was coming on to express.
First, RE in a Catholic school is, by its nature, Catholic. Although there will be study of other religions and moral systems, there will be a catholicity to what is taught in RE. RO in a Catholic school permeates the entire ethos of the school. It is not as it is in the non-denominational sector, where there will be set times for RO at periods during the year. In a Catholic school, there will be opportunities throughout the day to observe the Catholic religion. That is true of the Jewish school in East Renfrewshire as well—culturally, the religion will permeate the day in terms of prayer and things like that.
It is hard to decouple RO and RE in such settings, and many people in the denominational sector are concerned that we are taking, I suppose, a secular view of RO, or a view of it that would exist in a non-denominational setting, rather than looking at the interconnectedness of RO and RE in the denominational setting. There is concern for the value of both RE and RO in such settings. As I said, they have a unique place in those schools.
If we flip that on its head, I also have a slight concern that parents being unable to withdraw their child from RE in a Catholic school in particular is more problematic than we might at first have considered it to be. If someone wants to remove their child from very specific RE that is Roman Catholic, they will not be able to do that. It is more difficult for them to remove their child from RO in a Catholic school because, as I said, it permeates the life of the school. I have a concern about parental rights in that space.
I also have a wider concern that we are not talking about exactly the same thing when we discuss religious, moral and philosophical studies in a non-denominational school and RE in a denominational school. As I have said, there are complexities here, and that is particularly true of the amendments that we are discussing.
It is a long-standing matter of statute in this country that we have denominational schools and, in particular, that we have Catholic schools. It is my party’s position and the position that I continue to hold that we support that long-standing definition. However, it is wrong to assume that only pupils and families of particular denominations choose and attend denominational schools. We probably all recognise from our regions that those schools are attended by a variety of young people for a variety of reasons. I reiterate the importance of ensuring that we take a careful and considered approach to how amendment 9 would work in the denominational sector.
I have raised those issues with the cabinet secretary, but I understand from Ms Chapman’s comments that the Government intends to support her amendment. I caution that it is not right to support the amendment without understanding exactly how it will impact on denominational education more widely. Rather than having to try to fix something at stage 3, I would prefer that we take our time and take a considered approach to the matter, which we can then revisit at stage 3.
More widely, because of the many complexities that I have referenced, I cannot support the amendments in the group in the names of Maggie Chapman and Stephen Kerr. I have outlined my reasons for that. I would welcome further contributions in order to understand the Government’s position.