Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill and thank the Socialist Party for putting it forward. It is timely that we should debate it now, in the aftermath of the historic and overwhelming endorsement by the people of marriage equality in the recent referendum. When one looks at the wording of this, one cannot help but be struck by how we are still grappling with historical legacies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when this State and its institutions were being put in place. The system of educational provision was outsourced. There was such distrust in the institutions of the State that it was required that our health and education systems would be run by religious institutions. That is not in any way to cast aspersions on the religious because no-one else was providing health care or education at that time. They were stepping in to fill the gap and to provide a service that was vital. It is instructive to look at the wording of the 1937 Constitution, which was written under the close eye of the Catholic hierarchy at the time. It says that the State "shall provide for free primary education". It does not say that the State shall provide it but that it shall provide "for" it. That key word, "for" , changes the entire constitutional dynamic by which we can interfere in, govern or legislate for our education system. It essentially says that the State provides the architecture but must allow for others to provide the service. That is a huge distinction and it was designed to protect and promote a system of religious education which is at the core of our Constitution. It means that when we talk about what schools and religious authorities can demand from those who work for them, we are constrained by very significant constitutional provisions and legal architecture which cannot simply be dismissed.

If I were to go back in time and have a say in the way the education system operates, I would not be happy with our model. Neither would I be happy with the compromise model as suggested by the forum on pluralism and patronage, which is to divest schools and create Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, non-denominational schools and so forth. I do not think that works. It is segregation; it creates differences based on beliefs and puts people into boxes or separate institutions. If I had my way, I would follow the German model, having worked there as a teacher for a year. In Germany, instruction for all religions takes place within the school. One of the classes is religion and for that period, students are segregated but they come back together again for English, mathematics and so forth. That is a much better approach but unfortunately, unless there is a very serious redesign of our Constitution, we will not be able to do that. Four years after starting the divestment process, very limited progress has happened which suggests that trying to do anything more radical will not be possible in the short term.

The nub of this issue is tolerance versus acceptance, "equal but we're better" and the "don't ask and don't tell" mentality. The message is, "Yes, okay, but shut up". That is not equality or acceptance. It is not giving people the pride and dignity of their own self worth and their own humanity or assuring them that, in the eyes of everyone, they are equal and deserving of respect for who they are. That is the crux of the matter.

The efforts being made here by both Bills to change this situation would probably be approved of by a majority similar to that which passed the marriage equality referendum. However, we are still dealing here with an entrenched position on the part of Catholic schools and, indeed, other denominational schools. There will be entrenched opposition to this, which is why we should err on the side of constitutionality and work within what we know are the confines of the Constitution. That is the better way to proceed. I understand that some sections of the Bill as proposed are deemed to have the potential to conflict with the current constitutional architecture whereas the Bill that was put forward by the Minister of State and Senator Bacik, the Employment Equality Bill 2013 takes a more nuanced view and fits within the confines of the Constitution. Either way, the efforts by the Socialist Party, the fact that this issue is on the agenda, is being debated and that the Minister of State has given such a welcome commitment are all things to be positive about. I hope we can have the legislation enacted as soon as possible.

See this speech in context