Seòmar agus comataidhean

As, I think, I intimated in a previous response, we could have adopted that approach, which might have appeased some of the stakeholders that you heard from, but we would not have appeased them all. The Government has taken a pragmatic middle ground, to try to work through balancing parental rights. In recent years, as members around the table know, there have been issues with regard to parental rights in education and how parents’ views are listened to. I am very mindful of that. I think that the parental right to withdraw a child from RME and RO is important, and we are not proposing to change that. The change that we are proposing is to ensure that children’s views are taken cognisance of. Currently, there is no real legal requirement for that to be done. There is guidance, but, in essence, children can be withdrawn at their parents’ behest. We think that it is important that the matter is put beyond legal doubt, which is what the bill will do: it will ensure that children’s views are listened to and that there is a discussion about withdrawal from RO or RME.

We have charted the middle ground. I absolutely accept Ms Chapman’s point that this will not appease all stakeholders—it might not appease her. However, I have to balance the views of those stakeholders against the views of other stakeholders who are on a different side of the argument. We have to come to a collective view, because, fundamentally, the bill is about strengthening children’s rights. Currently, there is a question about how children’s views are listened to. The bill puts that matter beyond doubt. The updated guidance that we will publish alongside the bill will help to provide more clarity to schools in that regard, which is the important point that, I think, Mr MacLennan made earlier.

[Inaudible.]—Ms Chapman, so I am not sure that I agree with you on that. [Laughter.]

I think that we are. I do not think that the committee has taken evidence from Education Scotland. I was thinking about that this morning. We have a national senior education officer—I think that it is still Joe Walker, from when I was last there, many years ago—who leads on religious, moral and philosophical studies at a national level. We also have a national adviser who is working with our faith-based organisations and across the country on how we should update the curriculum. It may be that the committee wants to write to Education Scotland or engage with it on those issues—I will leave that up to the committee.

Ms Chapman has raised some important points. The bill requires headteachers to inform pupils of a parental request, so we would expect there to be a discussion and a conversation. We do not want young people to be othered. At present, though, children can be withdrawn from religious education and RO against their wishes. We do not think that that is tenable, so we need to look again at how we deliver on children’s rights. I absolutely accept that Ms Chapman may be persuaded by the views of others that we need to go much further than we have. I could have gone there, but, in doing so, I would not have had the support of other stakeholders. As the cabinet secretary, I have to try to bring parties together on this. As the bill progresses through Parliament, there will be opportunities and means—through guidance, which the member has alluded to—to do that and to provide greater reassurance.

On the point about conflict, I mentioned in my response to Ms Chapman that I was struck that, when we look at the responses from stakeholders such as Together, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Educational Institute of Scotland and a number of others, we can see that they are broadly supportive of the principles behind the bill, but, when we get into it, we can see that there are issues around how it will be implemented. I am more than happy to listen to those views as the bill progresses and to seek and find compromises, as Maggie Chapman mentioned.

I am, however, not sure that stakeholders would be unanimous on the point about conflict, because the committee has heard that conflict already exists. For example, at the moment, if a young person does not want to be withdrawn from religious education or religious observance, they have no legal right to say no to that. The parents’ rights would absolutely overrule the young person’s. We do not think that is right, because of where we are with the UNCRC, so we need to balance that.

This is not about the state; it is about listening to children and young people, so I do not agree with that point. We are talking about listening to the views of children and young people. I agree with Tess White that schools already do that and that there should be conversations, but the law as it stands does not stipulate that that needs to happen. Putting that beyond reasonable doubt is the approach that we have taken.

As I say, we could have gone much further by taking a much more interventionist approach with an independent right of withdrawal, which I do not think that Tess White would necessarily have supported. I would not support that, for all the reasons that I have just discussed with Maggie Chapman. We have to take a pragmatic approach through listening to children while maintaining the rights of parents and carers to withdraw their children from RME and RO, which are set out in statute. We are not proposing to change that.

I am not sure that I would describe it like that. It is a five-page bill. I hear that it is causing the committee a lot of additional work, but I have taken much more extensive legislation through the Parliament. This is a technical bill, and a lot of different issues have been raised with the committee in evidence sessions. There are a lot of different views on the issue, and I am happy to listen to those views and to engage with stakeholders. I have to chart a route forward.

The issue might not be at the top of teachers’ lists at the moment, but we need to reflect better on how the UNCRC interacts with the parental right to withdrawal and balance that with the rights of children.

It is a technical change that, I appreciate, is taking up the committee’s time. I apologise for that, but we are where we are in the parliamentary session.

I am sympathetic to Ms Gosal’s points about supporting teachers in how they deal with these discussions, because of all the points that Tess White made. Therefore, statutory guidance on the updated RO and RME withdrawal process will accompany the implementation of the changes.

As I think that I alluded to, we will engage with stakeholders, teachers, professional associations, parents and carers on that guidance. We will also look at how the guidance might support the delivery of inclusive RO and RME. I think that the national guidance might help to allay some of the quite fair concerns that Ms Gosal has raised.

Ms Don-Innes leads on the children’s rights scheme. I think that it is part of the Promise—is that right? [Interruption.] I am being told that it relates just to children’s rights. However, I think that the timing of the guidance being published in November is quite complementary to the passage of the bill. We are nearly in November, and we are only at stage 1 of the bill. The committee might or might not be content with that update when it is published, so feel free to come back to the Government to probe us on the issues. However, we are strengthening children’s rights through our approach.

I will come back to the point that the member raised with Denise McKay about the 1980 act, because it goes back to the points that Pam Gosal made about mandating certain aspects of the curriculum. If you were to open up the 1980 act, you would see that there are lots of things that we could do. We would not have a five-page bill in that case, and some big, serious questions would potentially have to be asked about the delivery of education.

If the committee is interested to know—probably not for the purposes of the bill before us, but in the education space generally—I have commissioned John Wilson, a former headteacher in Edinburgh, to lead a piece of work for us on school governance and what comes next in how we fund our schools after the Scottish attainment challenge, which is meant to come to an end. We have extended it for a year, but such things need to be considered in the round. Indeed, Pam Gosal’s parliamentary colleague Oliver Mundell is very interested in how we provide support to our schools and local authorities. We have 32 councils, and we have heard today about some of the challenges that that can create. We should not separate those issues from wider considerations on public policy.

I am sorry, but I thought that the question was about compatibility.

It has not, at the current time, but that is not to say that it might not be used in the future.

I will come to your second question first. I was struck by some of the evidence that the committee heard on that point, because a number of stakeholders said that parents are perhaps not aware of that legal right, which has existed for many years. In the guidance that will sit alongside the bill, if it is passed, we will provide further clarity on that.

One of the parental organisations that the committee took evidence from—it might have been Connect—talked about disparate approaches to school handbooks and the situation not being communicated in the way in which it would have expected. I am happy to reflect on that. The passage of the bill will, in itself, draw parents’ attention to the fact that they have that right, and that will foster better understanding. The guidance, which has also been raised by stakeholders in evidence given to the committee, will provide further clarity on parental rights.

On how the guidance works at the current time, we have very low rates of withdrawal. The committee took evidence on that from Barbara Coupar from the Scottish Catholic Education Service, and I spoke to her yesterday. We are looking at very low percentages for withdrawal rates. Lewis Hedge might want to give the committee the specific numbers. I think that there is a 0.59 per cent withdrawal rate overall—that is 0.56 per cent from religious observance and 0.19 per cent from RE. Is that correct, Lewis?