Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

I have had meetings with a number of groups on this issue. The most recent such meeting was on 21 October when I met with the Committee on Management for Protestant Schools. I extended an invitation to that committee to join a working group with my officials to identify particular measures to support the schools and to consider options that might deal with their needs. Regrettably, the committee declined that invitation. On 18 November, senior officials from my Department met with some of the bishops to consider how the issues could be progressed. An arrangement is now in place to provide particular information that can assist my officials in their work on identifying measures aimed at sustaining schools in the Protestant sector.

What has been sought at the meetings with me is a simple reversal of the budget measures, determined solely on a denominational criterion. As I have explained previously in this House, that is not legally possible. The Constitution, in Article 44°, permits State aid to denominational schools, but only on the basis of no discrimination between schools under different religious management.

I am concerned at some of the claims that have been made on why legal advice was sought on the matter. I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position in respect of the legal advices. Work was under way in a more general context to identify legal advice on a range of issues. However, this specific issue arose when, following an oral parliamentary question from Deputy Quinn on 18 October 2007 on the block grant and Article 44° of the Constitution, the Secretary General of my Department asked for an assessment of all legal advices and legal opinion on the difference in funding arrangements for Catholic and Protestant fee-charging schools. That work identified a number of advices from 1983 onwards.

The legal advice was brought to my attention during the preparation of savings options for consideration by the Government prior to budget 2008. The issue was raised between the Attorney General and me in the context of the budget in October 2008. It is clear that the provenance of the legal advices did not relate to the outcome of a High Court hearing, as has been claimed. The High Court hearing concerned did not take place until June 2008. My Department acted correctly in both ensuring that the lawfulness of the funding arrangements for fee-charging schools was considered and in identifying its relevance in terms of decisions taken collectively by the Government in budget 2008.

See this speech in context