Meeting of the Parliament 17 February 2026 [Draft]
I begin these stage 3 proceedings by thanking the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and her team for the many conversations that we have had about the bill over a very short period of time. I am grateful for that. We will come on to some of the areas of disagreement and agreement, but I want to put that on record. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and to all the organisations that have contributed so much to the development of amendments and by giving their views on the bill.
I turn to the first group. In giving children and young people the right to withdraw, it is important that we are absolutely clear about the meaning and character of religious education. As a result of stage 2 amendments that I lodged and that were supported, children and young people will have additional rights around withdrawal from religious observance but not religious education. We should not force children and young people into religious observance, which is also understood as worship, but it is equally important that they cannot withdraw from religious education, which is a core part of the curriculum.
As a society that respects those of all faiths or of no faith, and those who are not sure, it is important that children and young people receive education in different faith and non-faith beliefs. It is also important that they receive education to understand the diverse society in which we all live. However, in the bill, the remaining references to religious education use the original terminology of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 of “religious instruction”, which is an ambiguous phrase that could blur the important distinction between religious education and religious observance. My amendments 6 and 11 are tidying up exercises to avoid that confusion.
Amendment 22 is aimed at facilitating the exercise of the rights in the bill. Parents and pupils cannot meaningfully exercise those rights unless they know when religious observance is happening and what form it will take. Therefore, amendment 22 would require all grant-funded schools, except denominational schools, to inform parents and pupils at least 14 days before any planned religious observance in the school about the format and content of that observance and any alternative learning provision for pupils who are withdrawn. The amendment would also require an assessment of whether the information that is conveyed in any planned religious observance in the school is
“sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”.
Amendment 22A would apply that provision to denominational schools as well.
A court judgment recently ruled that the parental right to withdraw from religious observance is a necessary but insufficient mechanism for protecting parents’ and children’s human rights and that the observance must be objective, critical and pluralistic. Amendment 22 would support best practice and ensure that all pupils can take part without compromise to their personal beliefs. In cases in which elements of an RO activity might not meet the criteria that the court specified—that is, if it involves asking pupils to pray, worship, sing hymns or affirm their belief in God—parents and pupils will be empowered to act in line with their conscience.
Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment 21, which was lodged by Elena Whitham, is in the same vein and would require ministers to clarify what constitutes religious observance. I support that, in the belief that clarity is important.
I am unsure about the need for Paul O’Kane’s amendment 24, and I have a question as to whether it could confuse or potentially prevent certain things later on. If we wished to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 later, how would his amendment interact with that? I would be grateful if the member could address those points now or in his contribution.