Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for having me and all the presenters for their presentations, which I really enjoyed. I am very lucky to be able to sit in on the committee meeting today.

I have a couple of points of observation that I think might be useful as well as a couple of questions. Mr. Irwin mentioned that, in his opinion, religion was a lower concern compared to, say, location and quality for parents when making their decisions. However, we know from a particular poll that was carried out that most respondents in rural areas would prefer non-denominational options rather than religious ones if they were available. I might humbly suggest that in some senses it may not be a criterion that people are applying to their choice because the option is not available. That is not to say that it necessarily reflects a lack of concern or desire to have a non-religious or multidenominational option.

I will return to the issue of admissions but it is worth noting that Mr. Mulconry noted in his presentation that no Catholic school wishes to exclude a child from a Catholic education. The key concern is that we have many situations throughout Ireland where the only option for an education is at a Catholic institution. There is that question. We need to move to a position where no school wishes to exclude a child from an education and there may be a Catholic or other religious ethos. That is an example of why we need to move forward to ensure that, with resources, we are delivering on the commitment to 400 other multidenominational or non-denominational schools. I point out that there is an onus in the provision of education that every child should have the option to be able to access education while also exercising his or her right to not practise a religion or to practise one. The question of withdrawals was made in a number of different ways. The question of whether it needed to be specified in the Bill was raised. I would argue that it is important that it be specified and that it be clarified in the Bill because it is a key point. There is also the question of resources. There is already an implicit question of resources. If we are to recognise a child's right to not receive religious instruction, as was rightly said it is not simply that children can be sent home half an hour earlier. There is a requirement that an option would be available. The Chairman spoke eloquently about how it is not an adequate solution to have children sitting at the back of a classroom and opting out while in the same room. That is not adequate provision. I would appreciate the witnesses' thoughts on what is adequate provision or what is an appropriate way to address the child's right to not receive religious instruction within a school. Practical proposals were put forward in the Bill but perhaps there are others. I personally would love to see philosophy as an option in schools. I am sure there are many alternatives. What are the possible proposals?

To my mind, that there were 100 refusals in the greater Dublin area does not necessarily include those who may, for example, have felt they had to produce a baptism certificate. People may have had concerns but may not have raised it as an issue. However, that there were 100 refusals is quite significant. I know that this is only a sampling and that it was different from the ESRI's sampling but it still merits consideration.

I have one other point. Ms Al-Tawash spoke eloquently about the importance of inclusion, the sense of building a community and the role a school has in both reflecting the diversity of its community and in providing a meeting point to generate positive diversity. I appreciate that role but I also appreciate some of the concerns raised by Mr. Fennelly, for example, on catchment area. I would appreciate Mr. Fennelly's thoughts on how to balance those issues. It is probably Ms Rainsberry who will address it. When she does, will she tell us how we should balance that role of schools in terms of building local cohesion and exchange?

I appreciate Mr. Ó hEaghra's presentation, which was very important. I appreciate that An Foras Pátrúnachta is working to ensure that there is a range of options available. Every child and family should have the choice of a religious, non-denominational or multidenominational option. They should also have the right to choose to be educated in their native language. That is an important right and both of those rights should not be forced into a position of compromise. I agree in terms of the question about whether Irish is a household language. I would have some concern, however, where one parent is an Irish speaker. As Mr. Ó hEaghra eloquently stated, the language is one of the deepest and most important ways to engage with the culture. We can look to where Irish is the language of a household - that is one situation - but most families in Ireland will be able to speak some words of Irish or have someone with some capacity in Irish. I would not like to see our Irish language schools under pressure in terms of resources and numbers. If we consider the number of households where Irish is spoken and also those households where one parent can speak Irish, I imagine there will always be more than enough to fill each school that becomes available. I worry about those who are coming in from new communities. We had a children's rights referendum and we want to ensure that every child has the right, regardless of their parent's capacity, to learn and to grow through Irish. It is different where Irish is spoken in the household because that is a separate right. Linking it too much to the parent passing a test, for example, might be prohibitive. I would really appreciate the witnesses' thoughts on those issues and thank them again for their presentations.