Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

This part of the Bill deals with the designation of a special needs child to a school, in particular where parents have been unable to find a suitable place. It sets down the procedure to be followed by the NCSE or the Child and Family Agency for designating a special needs child to a school. Included in this is an appeals process where the school may appeal against this decision.

The Bill has only two grounds where a school may successfully appeal such a decision. These are where the NCSE or the Child and Family Agency fail to follow correct procedures or where the child's religion is not compatible with that of the religious ethos of the school concerned. The school can prove that it needs to refuse admission on the basis of maintaining that ethos. The amendment I have put forward would remove the second ground for appeal.

The Minister proposes to amend the Bill to delete this second ground. Amendment No. 110 would, however, have the same effect as it sets down that the agency, in making a decision to designate, must have regard to the admissions policies of schools in the locality. This would appear to be a backdoor way of doing the same thing and allowing that discrimination on the grounds of religion. If that is the case, that makes for poor law. It is unacceptable because it would favour religious ethos over the rights of that special needs child. This should have no place in our legislation and it is very hard to defend on any grounds.

In the case of children with special needs, we are all too familiar with the difficulties they have in accessing schools and with schools not being prepared to make provision for them to the extent that they should. The idea that a child who is already disadvantaged due to special needs could be further disadvantaged by being refused on the grounds of religious ethos is an act of double discrimination. I am open to correction on this but that is my interpretation of what is proposed in amendment No. 110. If this is indeed the case, then I find it unacceptable.