Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We have not got an answer from the Minister on the point about the defectiveness of the legislation itself, on its own terms. Setting aside amendment No. 15, which I will come to in a moment, the legislation is not clear in its execution of its own intent. That is the very specific point I am making. That is what we are dealing with. The Minister stated that the legislation would not allow for discrimination on religious grounds where there was not oversubscription. I do not believe there should be any discrimination and I will come onto that point shortly. However, even if that is the Minister's intent, the legislation does not make it clear. It leaves the door open for discrimination in cases where there is not oversubscription because it does not spell it out clearly. I think the drafters need to look at it because it leaves this open.

On amendment No. 15, which I did not realise we had moved on to, this is where I disagree with Deputy Burton. The Labour Party approach to this is a fudge between allowing some discrimination to continue but minimising it somewhat with the issue of catchment. However, there is the problem of how to define a catchment. As Deputy Burton rightly pointed out, one can expand the concept of catchment to anywhere so how is catchment to be defined? It is problematic to define it in any sort of meaningful or legal way. Therefore, I think the only way to deal with the issue is to delete the offending discrimination which is contained in section 61(2)(b), which echoes the wording of the infamous section 7(3)(c).

It is worth stating the irrationality of the wording of section 61(2)(b), which reads: "a statement that the school does not discriminate in relation to the admission of students where it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit". What the legislation is saying is that it is not discrimination to discriminate. It is just bonkers. It is so Irish, it is unbelievable. It is not discrimination to prefer one group over another on a religious basis. That is the definition of discrimination. Nowhere else could do this, except some sort of tin-pot dictatorship. It is Orwellian wording - freedom is slavery; war is peace; discrimination is not discrimination. That is what we are proposing to put into law.

That is what we are proposing to put in law. It is already in the Equal Status Act and now we are going to repeat it in the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2016, which purports to be reforming the problems in equal admission to school but is actually restating an Orwellian form of discrimination and trying to claim it is not discrimination or is somehow acceptable. It is totally wrong.

I restate that it is unnecessary to do this, never mind that it is actually wrong to do this to children of all people. I have made that point already, but who is the Minister doing this for? I presume he has read the survey of Equate, which is campaigning on this issue. The survey, which was done scientifically by a proper surveying organisation, shows that 71% or an overwhelming majority of parents, whether religious, non-religious or of minority religions, state the law should be changed so that baptism can no longer be a requirement for school admission in State-funded schools. Another 12% state that they do not care. Only 16% want to retain the status quothat the Minister is retaining. In this legislation, the Minister is pandering to 16% over the vast majority. Why is he doing this? I do not understand it.

The Minister has continued to refer to constitutional issues. I really want to get to the bottom of this, and I should have asked earlier, but at one point the Taoiseach and the Minister claimed the Government had legal advice about the constitutional difficulties involved in removing this discriminatory element of the law. I have asked repeatedly if we can see the legal advice the Government received, but we have never seen it. I do not believe the Minister has legal advice. That was spoof from the Taoiseach. In my opinion, it was "the man with two pints" talk. We have heard it only as a spurious justification for maintaining an utterly discriminatory law directed disgracefully against children. Could the Minister answer that point? How can he justify it? Why does he feel the need to do it when he is pandering to a tiny minority of the population? Where is the famous legal advice about the constitutional problem that might be involved in removing this discrimination from the legislation?