Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

I congratulate Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan for bringing forward this Bill. The Bill seems perfectly logical, sensible and un-hysterical. It should be accepted by the Government without much hesitation. I am astounded at the opposition of the Government to the Bill and especially the accusation that those promoting it are in some way hysterical. Those behind the Bill have reason to be hysterical because the cuts in education are threatening those most dear to them, that is to say, their children and the cuts are threatening their children's education. The ultimate result of the Bill will be that some people will not get as good an education as others. The purpose of the Bill is to protect those minorities which may suffer as a result of the cuts being imposed by the Government. The cuts in education, which this Bill in particular addresses, have an effect on diversity, on communities and on the quality of education. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to see that no one, no body, no community or no school is discriminated against or disadvantaged because of geography, culture, ethos or because it is in a Gaeltacht area. This seems perfectly reasonable. The mathematics of this issue point to the fact that some schools are disproportionately badly affected because they are in certain areas or because they teach or cater for certain minorities. As a result not all children are equal and some children are more equal than others. It appears the Government deliberately wishes to ignore this fact and perpetuate the fantasy that the cuts are equal and fairly introduced but it does not recognise the fact that some schools are disproportionately affected.

Section 2 establishes that not only should all children have the same rights to education but that education should be considered in a long-term way. Deputy Catherine Murphy adverted to this. The Bill suggests that demographics should be considered in any decisions, with reference to census after census and the long-term trend rather than the immediate short-term result, before any chops or cuts in certain areas. Education is a long-term decision. Seen from a purely financial viewpoint, it is a long-term investment as well. It is short-term and myopic to suggest that a given school has no short-term future because the population or demographics have been wrong in recent years and, therefore, certain changes must be made. We must examine future projections and past trends in education if we are to get the best value not only for the State but for pupils as well.

I wish to address the issue of minorities. Often the yardstick of the degree of civilisation of a nation is how it treats minorities. We are and always have been good at lecturing other States - some of which are close to us - about how they treat their minorities. If this is the litmus test, then we are not passing it. As recently as two months ago at the Church of Ireland general synod, the bishops and other groups were up in arms about the treatment of their educational ethos by the State and how it would be affected by cuts, especially in Border areas. A Church of Ireland clergyman in Cavan established without doubt that 99% of his flock required transport to get to school. Some were 20 miles away and it would cost an extra €100 per child to reach the school each day. As a result these people would be compelled to send their children to a school, although very good, not of their choice and of a different ethos. The result is that, over time, the schools would close and the ethos would suffer.

Other examples of that were brought up at the synod. The Bishop of Tuam said three of the six schools of which he was in charge were in danger as a result of the disproportionate effect of the cuts. Bishop Michael Burrows said the school in Clonroche would have to close and that this would be the forerunner of many other closures resulting directly from the cuts.

Out of 174 schools of which the Church of Ireland is patron, 130 are small. The people to whom I refer are not people who rise up in alarm. They are not necessarily people who whinge. They have a genuine worry that the cost of the cuts will be the dilution, if not the disintegration, of their ethos. This is important because if one destroys a community, ethos and culture and affects a geography, one is ultimately doing something irreversible. I ask the Minister of State to think again about what is happening as a result of the cuts, particularly in so far as they affect the smaller groups that are more helpless and less defensible. I ask him to make special provision for them and to accept the main principles of this Bill.

See this speech in context