Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps I can be helpful. I intend to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that deals with the issue that Deputy Byrne and other Deputies have raised. It would provide that the National Council for Special Education could advise the Minister on the requirement to open a special class in schools. I will bring forward a Report Stage amendment on that specific topic.

I shall bring forward Report Stage amendments on some other topics that I will mention for the sake of speeding up the committee. While I am providing in primary legislation most of the provisions on prohibitive selective criteria, I will bring forward an amendment to provide that the Minister may still regulate on any criteria additional to those specified in primary legislation.

I will bring forward amendments to clarify that practices such as mandatory interviews, meetings, open days and testing of parents are prohibited in all cases, including where a school is not oversubscribed. I shall table an amendment that provides for the replacement of a section 29 appeals committee member. In other words, a member of an appeals committee could be replaced to allow continuity. It is just an efficiency.

I will consider a concern that has been raised by a number of Deputies. I refer to the ability of Irish language schools to prioritise children from Irish speaking homes. I will reflect on how that option can be achieved in a fair way. To clarify, I will bring forward amendments on Report Stage and there may be some additional tidying up amendments.

On the substance of amendment No. 1, everyone probably recognises that the Bill already provides for a definition of the Equal Status Bill in section 7. The definition of the NCSE has been provided in the appropriate section, which I think is section 66.

I wish to be helpful on the wider issue. The issue of religion in school admission is not currently in this Bill. Previously I have indicated that I intend to act on this matter but on a separate track. I have had consultations on the matter, as has the committee, and I know that the Labour Party is preparing a Bill. I have always indicated that I think it is unfair that preference can be given by a denominational school to a child who lives far away over and above a child of no denomination, no religion background or a different one who lives close to the school. I believe that parents should not feel obliged to have their child baptised.

If today's Bill is passed then religion will not be used in the admissions for 80% of the schools, namely those that are not oversubscribed and no child may be turned away. Religion cannot be used as a ground. It is in respect of the 20% of other schools that the issue needs to be addressed. Following the consultations and discussions, I would prefer to deal with this matter by removing religion as a criterion for admission to oversubscribed schools except in three limited circumstances - first, where it would otherwise be possible to maintain the ethos of the school; second, where the school is established by a minority religion in order to ensure that students of that religion can find a place in a school of that ethos; and third, where the school is established by a minority religion in order to admit a student of that religion who resides in a community consistently served by that school. This is a version of one of the fourth options put forward to deal with this issue that we discussed before. The reason I have put forward this provision is because I believe it is a fair way to provide options for parents of children of no denomination or, indeed, of a different one from their local school in order to get reasonable access to a school without unfairly encroaching on the rights of other parents who want to have their children educated in a particular ethos. This is a fair and proportionate way of using the religious aspect. It will mean that religion is only very rarely used as part of a school's admission criteria in the future.

At the same time the Bill recognises elsewhere other strengths of a school community. For example, the school decides its admissions policy. It can give priority to students from the local area, the siblings of existing pupils or the children and grandchildren of past pupils. There can still be a strong ethos around the school, which I support.

The provision protects minority religions. Many sides expressed that concern when we debated this matter in the House. At the same time the provision respects the Catholic community. Ninety per cent of schools are now Catholic. The provision ensures that a child can get reasonable access to a school of their denomination under the existing provisions where 90% of the children are accommodated.

I looked seriously at the catchment area.

Deputies from a number of parties were keen on that approach, but I believed it was not as good as the one I was taking because, although it would be an improvement, it would still leave children from non-denominational families at a considerable disadvantage in their local area. It would also not be as good for many technical reasons. There are no catchment areas. If we were to wait for various denominations to come forward with catchment areas, we could be waiting a very long time. There would need to be boundary commissions to deal with disputes over schools sharing catchment areas and so on, but that is a debate for another day.

This is a difficult constitutional issue. There are provisions in the Constitution on religion, education and equality of treatment and we must steer a proposal such as this or any other advanced by members through them. I will be consulting the Attorney General to make sure I can draft a robust amendment along the lines proposed to bring back to the committee in due course. It was not intended to be the subject of today's debate. We have had a separate track and separate consultations on it. I hope the committee will accept my good faith in this matter. Not everyone will agree with my proposal, but I ask people to consider it in order that when we do have a debate on the substantive issue, we can, I hope, reach some agreement on it.