Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The amendments are interesting and they certainly raise issues. I am not supportive of amendment No. 2. However, there is no question that arguments can be made for it. My worry is that the ethos of the school becomes affected. I do not know how we distinguish between religious instruction, faith formation and the ethos of a school because they are intertwined in some ways.

Deputy Martin's amendment No. 56, which is grouped with this one, is reasonable and it would be very helpful if the Minister were able to reflect on it. I would be inclined to support it.

I agree we have to protect the rights of those who do not wish to attend religious instruction. My own children do not attend a Catholic school. Religious instruction takes place after school hours and seems to work quite well. It is entirely voluntarily, both on the part of the children and the teachers who do it. They work extra hours, but they are under no obligation to do so. They have no agreement with the school to do so, but they do it. As it happens, there is quite a large take-up, but that is a matter of individual choice.

This is something that works in practice. I would be reluctant to rush it through in this legislation. Catholic schools are entitled to be Catholic schools. That is a statement it is necessary to make. We either have faith schools or we do not have faith schools and if we want to go down the road of abolishing them, that is not a road I want to go down. I worry that amendment No. 2, in terms of putting religious instruction in faith schools into law, has the potential to effectively remove the ethos. From my reading of it, there would be no religious issue at all during the school day, for example, First Communion or whatever, or no talk of it. It would be kept completely separate. I am not sure that is reasonable for a faith school and it is a decision we will have to make.

If we are to take this debate to its logical conclusions, we should say that we will fund a State system and not have faith schools. I am sure that is Deputy Boyd Barrett's objective, and he is entitled to it. It works very well in the United States where there is no difficulty with it. Catholic schools work side by side and charitable donations allow poor children to attend those schools, so it seems to work reasonably well. On the other hand, if we say we will be like the United Kingdom and other countries and allow faith schools, they have to be allowed to be faith schools.

This is a much bigger debate than simply the wording of amendment No. 2. Deputy Martin's amendment is reasonable in terms of making some kind of regulation. However, personally I am not aware of all these stories of how children feel, and I have not seen the evidence of that. I am sure there are many examples, but I have not seen them and it is certainly something I would like to see before we start making decisions about it.