Ms Eukaria O'Grady:

That is fine. I will just brief members on what the presentation contains.
My focus is on head 3, which relates to section 15(2)(d) of the Education Act 1998, and the allowance that is made in respect of discriminating under section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000. I was shocked when I discovered that such discrimination is allowed, particularly in light of everything I, as a citizen, had read in recent years from the Irish Human Rights Commission, etc. I acknowledge that the proposed education (admission to schools) Bill 2013 will bring about a great deal of change and that much of the work relating to it is absolutely brilliant. However, I am concerned about the discrimination to which I refer. When such discrimination is allowed under the Equal Status Act 2000, it means that someone must provide proof of denomination or membership of a denomination in order to access a State-funded right to education. This runs contrary to constitutional and human rights. In that context, I refer, in particular, to the European Convention on Human Rights by which this State is statutorily bound since 2006.
When it comes to parents, what is involved here could be a violence of their conscience and law preference and particularly with regard to those whose children attend the 1,700 stand-alone schools. Why should parents be obliged to disclose this information? In turn, this breaches their constitutional rights and those rights they are guaranteed under Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the latter articles, people are not obliged to disclose the information to which I refer. The main point I am trying to make is that this matter does not revolve around religion, ethos or ethics. As is the case with any institution, one can state that one will sign up to and respect the mission statement, ethos or ethics. However, one should not be obliged to prove membership of a denomination in order to access a human right that is State-funded with taxpayers' money.
The next part of my presentation relates to stipulations and requests from the Department of Education and Skills and the line Minister, Deputy Quinn, issued in September and October. When seeking submissions, the Minister stated that the system is quite unfair and arbitrary, indicated that he wanted to make it more inclusive and said that he would respond to reasonable suggestions. The Irish Human Rights Commission, the relevant boards and the Equality Authority all submitted papers on this matter to the Department. The most recent of these is the report of the advisory group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector, which states that the derogation in section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 may impede the duty of the Department of Education and Skills to provide for education for all children. I was highly confused because the request for submission even states that this matter requires further consideration in the context of possible amendment. We have included the derogation in the draft scheme of the Bill, which makes the State legally culpable. Education law experts Mawhinney and Glendenning stated that the refusal to maintain the ethos of schools has yet to be teased out in law. That is where we are going. If we include the derogation in the eventual Bill, that will be the next step because we will be legally culpable. If we proceed with what is proposed, we will be operating contrary to all the advice we have received and for which we have paid - including that from the forum - because what has been put forward impedes our policy of education for all. We will become legally culpable in the context of children's rights under the Constitution and we will also be legally culpable before the European courts. Is that the next step if what is proposed is included?
I included some recommendations and remedies in my presentation. The Equality Authority has stated that if it is eventually passed, the legislation may need to be amended. It referred, in this regard, to an incident where 50 non-Catholic children could not gain admission to their local school and where a charity had to provide them with emergency access to a school. Similar incidents could arrive if that to which I refer is included in the eventual Bill. Until the principal Act is amended to exclude discrimination under section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000, there must be a response to reasonable suggestions. Such suggestions have been made and even if the relevant provision is included, the Oireachtas must respond and indicate why it is the case. As citizens, we deserve to know that.
My final point relates to how, in circumstances where we are legally culpable, we explain how a five year old cannot gain admission to his or her local school because his or her parents cannot provide proof of membership of a particular denomination and is obliged to attend a school five miles away from his or her home, family and neighbours. How is it possible to justify this in legal terms? How can one explain it to the five year old involved?

The remedy is that the city and county councils could do the administration of admissions. They could go to the school and that is what happens in England.

In terms of children in care, in England all SEN provisions in terms of legislation apply to children in care. Under this Bill SEN provisions can come under a directive of the National Educational Welfare Board. This Bill presents great hope and I hope it can provide the equality which we as citizens and a nation, on the basis of what has been put forward by all the advisory boards, are capable of ensuring is put in place.