EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND – FEBRUARY 18: Jenny Gilruth MSP, newly-appointed as Scottish Minister for Europe and International Development in Nicola Sturgeon’s mini-reshuffle this week, in the lobby of the Scottish Parliament on February 18, 2020 in Edinburgh, Scotland. (Photo by Ken Jack/Getty Images)
Highland MSP Emma Roddick and Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth.
By Bill Heaney
Catholic schools are frequently accused of being breeding grounds for the kind of poisonous bigotry that flows down from the stands at football matches in the stadiums of Rangers and Celtic football clubs.
These claims however – most often made after trouble with a sectarian element to it at games attended by large crowds – are denied frequently by the Churches, particularly the Catholic Church in Scotland, at whose door they are most often laid.
This is possibly because Catholic schools label themelves as what they are, Catholic schools, and so-called Protestant schools are officially identified as “non denominational” schools.
However, with the 20th and 21st century influx of immigrant children whose religion is not mainstream Protestant or Catholic, some parents and pupils have asked why their children should be forced to attend religion classes and church services organised by faith groups to which neither they nor their children belong.
This is a complicated and often vexatious question to which the Scottish Parliament is now seeking answers.
It came up yet again at Holyrood on Thursday when Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, claimed the bill drawn up to solve the problem would, in its current form, “strengthen the rights of children and young people in Scotland, building on our commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
She added: “The changes aim to strike a balance between that commitment, parental rights, the wide range of stakeholder views and the practicality of implementing the changes for schools.
“The approach represents a clear improvement in the consideration of children’s and young people’s views on withdrawal from religious observance.
“In accordance with current guidance, schools should already take an inclusive approach to religious observance, reflecting the diversity of faith and belief in the school community.”
However, Emma Roddick MSP, disagreed. She said: “There is a fundamental inequality in that. Although the bill gives school pupils the right to overrule their parents in order to opt in to religious observance, non-religious children will still need parental permission to opt out.
“That creates a hierarchy of beliefs, with the views of religious pupils being taken more seriously than those of non-religious children and young people. Why is that?
“Will the cabinet secretary address that worrying bias, or are religious children’s views officially more valid than the views of those who do not hold those beliefs?”
Jenny Gilruth replied: “I do not agree with the substantive final point of Emma Roddick’s question. I am more than happy to engage with the member on that point. Today, my private office has reached out to all members of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which will be considering the bill in due course, to offer to engage directly.
“I met the Humanist Society only last week to hear some of the points that Emma Roddick has raised. The point that I made in my initial response is that it is important that the Government strikes a balance in relation to the rights of parents and the rights of children and young people. We need to be mindful of that balance and of it potentially becoming out of kilter.”
Ms Roddick added: “The aim of the bill is to ensure that, in the context of the long-standing parental right to withdraw a child from religious observance, children’s and young people’s views are given due weight in that process.
“I think that that was the member’s substantive point, and the provisions in the bill reflect that aim.
“It is a technical bill that aims to strengthen our alignment with the UNCRC, and it will put the position in relation to ministers’ UNCRC obligations in this area beyond doubt.
“As I said, I am more than happy to meet members, and the committee will consider the bill in due course.”