Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Bill appears to attempt to deal with the issue of discrimination on religious grounds when it comes to admission to schools. It looks on first reading of the Bill that there is a right to attend a school and opt out of religious education, which the school must facilitate, but the Bill appears to place the onus on parents to assert that right.

The second amendment to section 7 of the 2000 Act is explained as giving effect to the principle that if a local State-funded school is the only reasonably available school for a child, "religious education in that school must be severable", meaning religious education must take place outside the classroom. My concern is that this section appears to place a parent in a situation of conflict with the school to assert that right. Many parents would not want to be in that situation, and why should they have to be? The State as the body that delivers on the right of all children to receive an education should ensure religious education in all publicly funded schools is severable.

This week EQUATE published a commissioned opinion on the constitutionality of reforming section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000. Opinion from three constitutional law experts agrees that the church has no constitutional right to unconditional public funding for private or denominational schools and that the Constitution permits the imposition of reasonable conditions on the provision of public funding. While it found that the outright repeal of the section may be open to challenge in that this may be seen as excessive interference with the management by religious denominations of their own affairs within private religious institutions, it also stated in its opinion that an amendment of the section could be made in order that it cannot be relied on by publicly funded schools. It would not prevent religious denominations from operating discriminatory admissions policies in private religious institutions but solely make the provision of public funding to such institutions conditional upon non-discriminatory admissions policies.

The courts in dealing with attempts by the Oireachtas to reconcile competing constitutional rights have established a strong presumption of constitutionality. This means there is a presumption that the Oireachtas has considered the competing rights and has attempted to strike a balance. The Labour Party in this Bill has relied heavily on the Constitutional Review Group report from 1996 which is 20 years old now. I believe the opinion from EQUATE is more up to date and deals with recent case law.

For most families outside of Dublin and the major urban areas there is no choice in what school to send their children to. If I had wanted to send my children to a non-denominational school in Donegal, I would have had to send them to a school 50 miles away, which would not have worked for anybody. While our local school did not and does not insist on children having been baptised to attend, the current system would allow it to and that needs to change.

I would be inclined to support the Bill, but only on the condition that it could be amended substantially in committee. I note that the Government wants the Bill to pass Second Stage in 12 months' time, which is too long. Surely the committee could consider it much sooner. I am not sure how the Minister wants to achieve it. It might be worthwhile to have that discussion in committee, but at the end of the process we must have legislation that means no school can discriminate on religious grounds against any child. I believe that is what we must achieve.

See this speech in context