Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:“Dáil Éireann, while supporting the principle that change is needed in relation to the role of religion in school admissions, declines to give the Equal Participation in Schools Bill 2016 a Second Reading for the following reasons:

(a) Dáil Éireann last June agreed that the Labour Party’s Equal Status (Admissions to Schools) Bill 2016, which aims to deal with this issue but does so in a very different way, would proceed to Second Stage in 12 months to allow sufficient time for scrutiny by the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Skills;

(b) the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Skills has recently held consultations on this issue and this Bill takes no account of the results of those consultations;

(c) the Bill, as drafted, would have devastating impact on minority religious communities, including Protestant, Muslim and Jewish communities, and their ability to run primary schools in accordance with their ethos;

(d) the Bill, as drafted, would remove the ability of a school to maintain a ‘characteristic spirit’ whether its ethos is of a denominational, multidenominational or non-denominational nature - this would also remove the possibility of a school, for example, to have a particular linguistic ethos, as in the case of Gaelscoileanna, or a particular ethos in respect of special educational needs as in the case of a special school, and all of this would have far reaching consequences on our capacity to run an education system which depends, as it does currently, on patrons to run schools; and

(e) the Bill has a number of aspects which would appear to be unconstitutional.”.

I thank Deputy Coppinger and others for introducing the Bill. Unfortunately, I have to oppose it and cannot support it as outlined. I fully recognise the need for change in this area, which is something I have been determined to do from the very start of my Ministry.

I recognise, as does Deputy Coppinger, that in the recent census 10% of the population said they were of no religion, and in the age cohorts of those who are bringing their children to school the percentage is even higher. I recognise that one third of people are now getting married outside any denomination. There is clearly a need to change, and the question is what change we want to have. We need to promote more choice and diversity. I have pledged to introduce new types of schools that would be multidenominational or non-denominational and expand their number in order that there would be wider choice. I have taken a number of initiatives in that area to drive on that process.

I also believe that we need to change some features to which Deputies have referred. It is unfair that a parent of a child would find that his or her child who is of no denomination is passed over in favour of a child living miles away who comes into a school area and gets preference because of denominational reasons. It is not fair that parents should feel pressurised to baptise their child in order to get into a local school. We need to come up with changes that provide for a way in which parents can get access to local schools on a fairer basis. In order to achieve this change in a way that does not throw out everything good in our existing education system, we need to do that in consultation with people who are players in the system,.

As we know, under the Constitution parents are the primary educators. I do not share the Deputies' belief that it is wrong that a person of a particular denomination should want to bring his or her child up in a faith and have him or her educated in a school that has a characteristic spirit reflecting that faith. It is not something that every parent wants, and that is what we have to recognise.

The Bill is designed to try to move us to a position whereby there would be just one type of school and does not recognise the characteristic spirits of different schools. It is very evident that there is a different characteristic spirit in an Educate Together school, a community national school or a Gaelscoil, which is welcome. The Bill would put a red line through all of those provisions. We need to recognise that this is an area where we need change, but we need change in consultation with others and to bring people with us.

In the admissions Bill that is before the House, every school must accept every child if it is not oversubscribed. Some 80% of our schools have to accept every child. They cannot decide that they will not accept a child because of his or her religion or for any other reason. It is only in the case of oversubscription that the possibility of a selection process arises. It is important not to portray our system as one which blocks out people on a universal basis because it does not but, as I said, it needs to change.

Deputy Coppinger said her Bill protects minority religions, but I would say the opposite is the case. If a person is a member of a minority religion and wants his or her child to be raised in the ethos of one's religion, the Bill kills that stone dead. That cannot happen under the Bill. There cannot be a Methodist, a Church of Ireland or a Presbyterian school because under the Bill such schools could not have a selection process that would allow them to select children from that ethos. I do not think that protects minorities. Rather, it discriminates against minority churches.

At the weekend I attended the conference of Church of Ireland managers and associations, which Deputy Coppinger did not attend. Representatives expressed concerns about what Deputy Coppinger deems wholly inadequate. They expressed much concern about how they would be protected under the various options that are available. There are very different views, and we have to accommodate them. It is good that we show respect to the very strong traditions within our community and recognise that the desire to have children raised in a tradition is a reasonable aspiration. We, as politicians, in recognising that parents are the primary educators should seek to support them as best we can, while not leaving others without.

That is the reason I have outlined a series of steps. As the House knows, the Labour Party proposed a Bill this time last year in which it advocated a process of catchment areas. A religious school could only give preference within the catchment area of the school. That is clearly one approach. A child from outside an area could not be given preference over local children. Another approach I have outlined is a quota system, whereby a school could only provide preference to a certain proportion of children of a particular ethos but other places would have to be offered on an open basis to children who wished to attend the school.

A third approach would be to consider the possibility of amending the equal status legislation and, in certain circumstances, allowing a minority church which found that the number of children of its ethos dropped below a certain threshold to reintroduce a preference for children of a religious denomination in order to protect the ethos of the school. It could have a school that would retain a characteristic ethos that represented a religious approach. They are fair and balanced approaches. The Oireachtas committee has held hearings in this area.

I fully respect that, at the end of the day, the Legislature is sovereign in this area and will have to decide on this matter. It is absolutely right for me, as Minister for Education and Skills, to hold a consultation process in order to allow stakeholders in education to have a chance to express their views.

Not only have I held that consultation and received submissions, which I appreciate, I am going to follow it up with a forum to tease out some of the thorny issues so that we will be in a position to come forward with legislation in circumstances where the House, in making a decision, will have had full access to the views of those who would be impacted by it.

See this speech in context