Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The introductory part of the Minister's speech was well written and moving in its aspirations. I could not agree more with the Minister's view that we should use our economic success to build a fair and compassionate society. I could not agree more on the need to remove soft barriers in the way children with special needs are accommodated. I could not agree more that we need schools to publish enrolment policies and end waiting lists. I could not agree more that we need to ensure we do not discriminate against parents and children on a number of grounds. However, I am not at all happy with the Bill and I think many people take the same view. This is an historic opportunity to do something that no man has dared to do before in this country.

I will read a letter from a constituent of mine. She begins by saying the Dáil will debate the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill this week. She says the Bill makes many reforms that have the potential to affect the lives of children and families in a positive way. She cites the example of how schools will have to publish an official policy for pupils who want to opt out of faith formation during the school day. However, she goes on to say it is unacceptable that the Bill does not deal with the baptism barrier. She says she finds it incredible that we allow our publicly-funded schools to use a child's religion or non-religion to discriminate in respect of a school place. She states that this is no longer acceptable in a modern pluralist Ireland and that it is discrimination towards children, plain and simple. Her view is that no institutions in receipt of taxpayers' moneys should be allowed to discriminate against any citizens.

She asked me to raise these points with the Minister during the debate. She called on me to ask the Minister for Education and Skills to remove the baptism barrier as part of the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill in time for September 2017. She asked me to call on the Minister to publish the standard guidelines on opting out of faith formation so that all schools can use them as a template and to ensure schools would comply with the requirement under the Bill.

I strongly endorse those comments. This constituent referred to how it was incredible in this day and age that we have not dealt with this issue and that we are unwilling to deal with it This reminds me of how difficult it has been in recent years to try to get this House to agree to a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. At issue in both cases is the legacy of the domination of the Catholic Church over our lives, including every aspect of our bodies, health and education.

When we are marching and protesting to repeal the eighth amendment, we use a slogan: "Not the church, not the state, women cannot wait, repeal the eighth". Obviously, the slogan does not fully apply here but a version of it applies in respect of school admission policies. I find it astonishing that no one has had the courage to face down the dominance of the church in education in this country in the 21st century. This year has seen the centenary of the Easter Rising. In 1916, Pearse, who was passionate about education, signed the Proclamation, which referred to how all of the children of the nation should be treated equally. They are not being treated equally. If they are not baptised, they cannot access 96% of schools. What in the name of God is that about? That is not to deride or abuse the idea of baptism or Christianity or the will of parents who want it to happen. Rather, it is to say that this is utterly unfair, unequal and discriminatory towards children.

The Minister referred to expectations changing and to how we must have the capacity to change with them. This Bill does not do that. Instead, it makes concessions to the idea that the Government has received certain legal opinion. This view has been expressed by the Minister, his predecessor and the Taoiseach. Apparently, the legal opinion states that it would be unconstitutional to remove from the legislation section 7(3)(c) of the relevant Act. This section effectively allows religious schools to discriminate against children of different religious backgrounds from the patron. We have other opinions and there are more opinions taking the view that this is not the case and that it would not be unconstitutional to remove that section. We may have a problem with the Constitution and we may have to point out other aspects of the Constitution that should be put to a referendum or that require repeal.

The current set-up does not fit the modern Irish State. It does not fit the demographic make-up of the State. Certainly, it does not fit a modern Irish State that has utterly rejected the dominance exercised on the people for decades through fear and power. Such was the imbalance of power held by the church over the lives of every man, woman, child, community, school, hospital and institution. There is no need for me to go over the litany of desperation that such dominance wrought on our society.

I echo the comments of my constituent. The Minister should put into the Bill a ban on schools being able to discriminate on religious grounds. The Minister went through the list of grounds of impermissible discrimination. He referred to every other ground under the sun except for the ground of religion. Removing the baptismal ban would echo the comments made by the Minister so eloquently in his introduction. It would give meaning to his aspiration to use the economic success to create a fair and compassionate society. If the Minister really wishes to do that, then he should use this opportunity.

The neo-conservatives in America famously said that one should never waste a good crisis. They did not waste a minute of the economic crisis. Similarly, not one of the troika, this Government or the previous Government has wasted a minute of the crisis. We should not waste a minute of the crisis resulting from religious domination in this country. We should use it to the full and get rid of all the legal bars on treating children, women and everyone else in this society with full equality.

I put it to the Minister that he should have courage. He may lose it or he may be constitutionally challenged. If he is, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It would bring this to a head and instil in the Bill the vision to which my constituent referred. I am referring to the removal of the baptismal barrier and getting rid of section 7(3)(c) of the relevant Act.

There is no compassion in using the baptismal ban. It is utterly disgraceful. If we go forward from this debate without removing it, the Government will have absolutely failed. Having said that, we do not intend to leave it there. AAA-PBP has a Bill in the pipeline that challenges this head on and aims to get rid of this section. We may lose when it comes to a vote, but it does not matter as we must challenge these matters head on, not pussyfoot around them and not create other sections of Bills and laws that allow for the continuation of discrimination rather than its total abolition.

See this speech in context