Does the Scottish Parliament fully understand UNCRC Article 12?

Reflections on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education) Bill

Scotland’s national approach to supporting children and young people, Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC), is designed to ensure that all children grow up safe, loved, and protected, with their rights upheld in every aspect of their lives. Central to this approach are the SHANARRI wellbeing indicators, which provide a framework for assessing and promoting children’s wellbeing. In particular, the indicators “included” and “respected” closely align with the principles of UNCRC Article 12, which states that children have the right to express their views freely in matters affecting them and for those views to be given due weight.

Below Joe Higgins, Policy and Campaigns Officer at Humanist Society Scotland, reflects on ongoing challenges in realising this right in practice, suggesting that legislative approaches may still fall short of fully respecting and including children’s voices in decisions that directly impact them. Within the context of GIRFEC, ensuring children feel both respected and included requires not only listening to their perspectives but meaningfully acting upon them, reinforcing the importance of embedding children’s rights into policy, education, and everyday practice.

In February, the Scottish Parliament passed the first Bill since UNCRC incorporation that specifically aimed to address a children’s rights incompatibility… except it failed. The new withdrawal arrangements for religious observance in schools simply replace one incompatible system with another. MSPs’ reluctance to respect children’s rights in this context reveals a limited understanding of how UNCRC Article 12 is realised in practice.

For background, all state schools in Scotland must provide acts of religious observance (RO). This is distinct from religious and moral education (RME). Non-denominational schools are, in theory, expected to ensure that all pupils and staff are able to take part in RO assemblies “without compromise to their personal beliefs”. But the reality is often different. Recent analysis of FOI data from 280 non-denominational schools found that 70% of RO activities were led by a Christian representative. And over half of the observances identified involved pupils participating in worship or prayer. Our testimony report, Preaching is not Teaching, laid bare the impact of non-inclusive RO practices on humanist pupils:

“I don’t like to go to church with my school because it feels like I’m being forced to paint my room a colour I don’t like… The minister doesn’t use words like ‘Christians believe’ and instead uses words that imply it’s a fact.” – Pupil

“Children often ask me why they are required to attend Christian services. One child pushed further and asked whether he had to pray and sing hymns. I told him that I wouldn’t make him do anything he was uncomfortable with. He later told me he felt pressure to join in.” – Teacher

In this context, questions have been raised about the compatibility of longstanding withdrawal arrangements with children’s UNCRC Article 12 and 14 rights. Parents have always had the right to opt their children out of RO. But pupils have no equivalent right, no matter their age, maturity, or personal beliefs.

At a basic level, Article 12 has two key elements: (1) children must be given the right to express their views in all matters affecting them, and (2) those views must be listened to and acted upon. The former is universal, while the latter is qualified by a child’s ability to form their own view.

Importantly, Article 12 doesn’t work in isolation. In this case, a child’s thought, conscience, and beliefs (protected under Article 14) will inform their view on participation in RO. But in bluntly prioritising the view of the adult, the law (first established in 1872) fails to recognise the differences of beliefs that exist within families. Indeed, very few of us grow up to hold an identical worldview to our parents.

Interpreting how Article 12 should be realised can be challenging for states. Thankfully, the UNCRC committee has done our work for us in Scotland. Their Concluding Observations and General Comments are clear and specific: a child capable of forming their own view must be able to decide for themselves whether to take part in RO.

But instead of adopting the UN’s own interpretation of the Convention, the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education) Bill sought to address these questions using a “middle approach”. The reforms agreed by MSPs give pupils with capacity a new right to object when their parent tries to withdraw them from RO (i.e. an independent right to opt in). However, children who wish to opt out still require permission from home.

During the final parliamentary debate, MSPs opposed to the UN recommendations provided no concrete alternative that upheld Article 12. Instead, they raised alarm at the prospect of asking children what they thought and taking those views seriously:

“Children aren’t mature enough to meaningfully decide on their own beliefs”.

“Schools’ authority and ability to function would be undermined.”

“Parents always know best about their child’s education.”

As a result, we now have a system that gives children no legal right to be heard on their participation in RO unless their parent first initiates a withdrawal request. This caveat denies children the automatic right to express their views freely, and reserves the right to be taken seriously only to those who want to participate.

Perhaps most concerning of all, minority- and non-religious children who want to opt out of RO have no right to be heard, nor the right to be taken seriously under the law. According to the 2022 Census, over 70% of school-aged children fall into these belief groups.

The Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education) Bill demonstrates a clear failure to understand Article 12 (and its intersection with other Convention rights). In a Parliament that incorporated the UNCRC less than two years ago, this legislation should be of real concern to all those working to advance children’s rights in Scotland. As Dr Claire Cassidy points out, the 54 Articles of the UNCRC apply to all children in all circumstances. We, as adults, cannot pick and choose which ones children enjoy… or, in this Bill, which children get to enjoy them.

Further Reading:

(2025) Preaching is not Teaching: Insights into religious observance in non-denominational schools, Humanist Society Scotland

(2025) Humanist Society Scotland explores the issue of withdrawal rights for religious observance for children across Scotland, Joe Higgins

(2026) Let’s not withdraw: Philosophy with Children as an alternative, Dr Claire Cassidy

End of page.