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

I absolutely recognise change. The census is very clear. The proportion of Catholics is down six points from 84% in 2011 to 78% in 2016. The proportion of those with no religion is up from 6% to 10%. Among parents between 20 and 40 who have children going to school, the non-religious proportion is 60% higher than that 10%. We are talking about one in five or even more across the country who are of no religion or non-Christian religions. I recognise that we need to change in the face of that and I want to see more diverse schools being opened. I want to see the transfer of patronage from existing Catholic schools to other patrons, but I believe also that it is good that parents want to send their children to schools of their own faith. That is something parents are entitled to want and I respect and value schools of different ethos. The strength of our system is that we have schools of different ethos. Deputy Boyd Barrett does not believe that there should be a different characteristic spirit and ethos in our schools.

To be fair, my experience is that schools of all denominations strive to be open and inclusive. As Deputy Burton said, many of them have children from many different religions and countries and they work hard to be inclusive and open for them. That is my experience generally.

There is a constitutional obligation that these schools must respect the right of parents to withdraw their children. We are providing that this must be stated openly as to the arrangements they will put in place to provide that for the children who want to opt out. I support that and want to see that evolve through the parents and children's charter, and that we would see that improve over time. Good practice guidelines have been developed by both groups of both denominational schools and otherwise. The question is whether we start imposing regulations and saying it must be this or that. We then get down to the practical issues. For example, what provision has been made in one-room schools? Are we providing that they must have a separate place and so on? The difficulty I have with regulations is that every school is different. There are 4,000 different schools and to come up with a one size fits all system that is fair and reasonable to the different situations in which schools find themselves would be an extraordinarily difficult proposal.

I recognise Deputy Byrne's point, and he has an amendment to the effect that these arrangements should not be unduly onerous, which is correct. There should be a test of reasonableness for schools as to how they provide, but if we come along with regulations and tell schools these are the regulations they must have there is a risk that many schools would say they need the Minister to provide them with extra rooms, for which I do not have the budgets. Practical issues arise.

Developing a system where we change and evolve, putting pressures on the system and testing its reasonableness in the system such as the right to go to an Ombudsman if one is unhappy with the way this provision is being made is the way we evolve from a system which has enormous strengths. Every day, I go into schools, many of which are denominational, and they do not fit into what some Deputies are portraying as the way in which children from other denominations are treated within them. They are treated with dignity and huge respect for their diversity. That is the dominant approach of schools that are denominational. I am not saying it is perfect in every instance. That is why I believe there should be a charter and a right of appeal to have that tested. However, to go down the road Deputies seem to favour of a legislative framework being imposed on 4,000 schools of a different ethos and many approaches does not fit with the evolutionary change we need to see to respond to the greater diversity of the population coming to our schools. It risks portraying many denominational schools in a very black light that does not reflect the reality. Many parents of other denominations choose denominational schools because they value the ethos they believe they will find in those schools, even though they are not of their own denomination. That is the reality.

I am trying to evolve with what I fully recognise is a changing situation. I will ask my Department to examine this rule 69 which, to be honest, I knew nothing about. My notes inform me that rule 68 was removed.

I am happy to have that identified with a view to removing it, as from what the Deputy has said it does not sound appropriate. What I am trying to do is respond across the frontier of our education system to the changing environment but I do not want to impose impractical obligations on schools that makes it more difficult for them to do the outstanding work that is being done in most cases. The communities around the schools have a commitment to their school. My approach is to try to strike a balance. I think our approach is evolutionary; it is not to impose a model that we have decided on. I do not think that is fair to those who have invested their time and effort into creating outstanding institutions across the country. However, we must create the pressure for change and articulate obligations, such as what we are introducing in the Bill, so that we continue that progress.

While I will not accept this group of amendments, I will reflect on the points made by Deputies Thomas Byrne and Catherine Martin. My instinct is that setting up regulations is difficult when one has to accommodate 4,000 different situations. I would like to see a test of the reasonableness of the efforts so that schools are continually trying to improve the way they accommodate people. That is the approach that the famous American Disabilities Act took. It did not require immediate action but it operated in the expectation that people would evolve over time. That is the approach that can be embedded in a parents and students charter and can be tested as it evolves over time.