Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Labour Party for introducing this Bill. It seems that, if we have proper consultation on this issue, it will be possible to reach a consensus in the Dáil. However, I do not see that consensus yet. For my part, that is primarily because I have not been able to meet all the interested parties. I have met some impressive lobby groups that made good cases in seeking the repeal of the Equal Status Act and other measures, but this is the holy month of Ramadan for Muslims and I have not been able to meet them as a result. The Church of Ireland has not been available to meet either, although it sent an urgent message this evening about its concerns with the Bill. For these reasons among many others, it is essential we take time to consider the Bill and speak to all the interested parties. They must be heard just like we and the impressive lobby groups that want change for good reasons must.

While Fianna Fáil supports the Government amendment, we would not allow the period to reach one year as a means of delay. As Deputy O'Loughlin, the incoming Chair of the Committee on Education and Skills, will agree, this issue can be addressed efficiently and must be dealt with properly. In recent years, time has been wasted on the divestment process, covering only a little of the distance that we must travel on the issues of choice and ethos in schools. Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut or demanding change without consultation or bringing people along has proven a barrier to change. A slightly different approach is necessary if we are to bring people with us. Everyone can see that the arguments are correct. Fianna Fáil accepts that the treatment of non-Catholic parents and children in the education system is an urgent rights issue and must be addressed quickly.

This situation has resulted from the changes in our society and the ever-increasing mismatch between patronage arrangements and the wishes of parents. I acknowledge the role of religious organisations in providing education via the national school system. Some provided it when no other education was available. While we must remember that some of the people involved shamed that work, I thank the religious overall. They are not in our schools as much as they used to be. In general, they did tremendous work for decades when the country had few resources.

The Equal Status Act 2000 prohibited religious discrimination in educational services. However, it allowed schools to enrol co-religionists in preference to members of other faiths when the schools were oversubscribed. Some 20% of schools are oversubscribed nationally, but particularly in Dublin. This has become a live issue. Having met those parents who cannot get their children into local schools, their case is inarguable to some extent and is one for which I have great sympathy. This situation has arisen on occasion in County Meath. I agree with the Minister that our policy while in government, that of providing choice, has worked in some areas. In Ashbourne and where I live in Meath, one generally has a wide choice of educational providers, for example, Catholic and non-Catholic Gaelscoileanna, Catholic national schools, Educate Together, etc. This is good and forms part of the solution to the problem.

No parent should have to baptise a child just to get that child into a school. All children, regardless of religious denomination or outlook, should have access to a school in their local communities. Every Deputy will agree that this principle should be self-evident. However, amending section 7 of the Equal Status Act in the manner proposed in the Bill is too simplistic. As some of the minority faiths that have contacted me today have said, this would endanger the ethoses of minority faith schools. I do not like the idea of them having to prove that a refusal or admissions policy is necessary to protect their ethoses. The Minister has outlined the constitutional difficulties with it. While I will not go into the detail, this approach would invite court decisions, which would not be right when the issue can be addressed in a better way.

We favour the introduction of selection criteria for oversubscribed schools based on locality and catchment while recognising that children of a particular faith are entitled to attend a school of that faith. The Bill does not address the so-called baptism issue in school admissions properly. Proving an admissions policy is difficult. Going through the question at the committee of what would be required to protect ethos would be useful. Ethos is difficult to define. There is a Catholic ethos, but some schools have different Catholic ethoses. Educate Together has its own ethos and, although it has been in existence since the 1970s, we have only become more aware of it in our communities in the past 15 years or so. What is ethos and what needs to be protected?

Fianna Fáil's policy refers to catchment areas, but I would be the first to admit that this issue needs to be examined. I agree with the Labour Party and disagree with the Minister that catchment areas will form part of the solution to the issue, as schools should have catchment areas. There must be a way of allocating resources fairly. We must work out what catchment areas are. I am unsure as to whether I agree with the Labour Party's approach of letting a school decide, since a school could apply an especially broad catchment area. I am unsure whether the State should get involved in parish boundaries. We should stay away from that if we can. However, we must have a way of recognising catchment areas. Some schools include catchment areas in their admission policies and there are bus catchment areas and so on, but this matter has not been properly examined by the State to date. Deputy O'Loughlin's committee will have to consider it to provide guidance for us.

We have only received brief legal advice on the Bill, as it was published last week, but we believe there will be constitutional issues with it. I say this in good faith. The Labour Party issued a statement on Monday asserting that this was the new politics and it would consult other parties about the Bill.

Quite frankly, there was no consultation. Although I met Deputy Burton and, in fairness, had a fruitful conversation with her, it was very much off the cuff. We just bumped into each other. It was a worthwhile conversation but it would not strike me as consultation. I do not wish to be too critical on the issue but believe that if I had this Bill before the House, I would certainly be canvassing opinion across all sides rather than simply going in for a Dáil debate. Canvassing opinion would have been worthwhile because we could have expressed some of our concerns on the Bill, perhaps at an earlier stage. In any event, this can be done by the education committee, and it needs to be done by that committee. We believe the Bill requires further scrutiny before it passes through Second Stage. The problem with simply passing Second Stage today is that the Bill will just proceed to Committee Stage, which traditionally does not provide for consultation or for people to come in to give evidence. It simply involves a line-by-line examination of the Bill.

See this speech in context