Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's amendments because they go some way towards addressing the baptism barrier. It is imperative, especially in the new Ireland in which we live, that we adopt a consistent and non-partisan policy response to this difficulty, which has gone on for too long. Like many other Deputies, I have repeatedly called for the inequality of the baptism barrier to be addressed. I have advocated for equality of educational access and opportunity to be secured for all our children. Now, in a changing landscape, is the time to get our policy in this area right so that we do not have to revisit it.

I do not think we should single out any religion because this is about all religions. If other religions do not face enrolment challenges right now, well and good. We need to legislate in a dispassionate way that treats everyone - Catholics and those of other religions or none - the same. This legislation must be applicable to one and all with no exceptions. That is the best way to ensure our children's right to access education is at the heart of this legislation. We must acknowledge, embrace and cater for the changing society we live in by ensuring all children are treated equally when it comes to education.

The solution to the current difficulty is very simple - the Minister needs to remove the baptism barrier from all schools that receive State funding. It is much simpler than the Minister seems to be making it, or wanting to make it. I disagree with his amendments in principle because ending discrimination based on one religion while continuing discrimination based on other religions is another form of inequality. The serious problem with how these amendments have been drafted is that they are creating an overly complicated, convoluted and complex system that seems to leave out secondary schools for some reason I cannot understand.

I ask the Minister to consider the amendments I am proposing. Amendment No. 42 proposes to disapply section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 from the admissions statement of any school that receives public funds. Amendment No. 53 seeks to disapply section 7(3)(c) of the 2000 Act from the admissions policy of any school that receives public funds. Amendment No. 140 seeks to amend section 7(3)(c) to provide that this exemption from discrimination cannot be applied to any school in receipt of public funds from the Department. It is a simple as that. We need to legislate in a dispassionate way that treats everyone the same.

I would like to ask the Minister about amendment No. 2. The Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination across society on nine grounds, including religion. However, religious-controlled schools were given a derogation to allow them to give priority to children of a certain faith. Does this derogation now apply to secondary schools only?

I think there is a risk that the Minister's amendment No. 137, which is detailed and convoluted, will result in all sorts of unforeseen circumstances. It allows all schools other than Catholic primary schools to discriminate on the basis of religion. Therefore, this proposal discriminates against Catholic schools. Regardless of whether 90% or 10% of schools in this country are Catholic schools, it is still discrimination. It is bordering on sectarian. Secondary schools will still be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. This will be a major issue for the children living in the areas surrounding the 20% of secondary schools that are oversubscribed.

It is proposed that primary schools of minority religions will be able to apply for recognition as recognised primary schools under section 10 of the Education Act 1998. Amendment No. 137 defines "minority religion" as:

... a religion other than a religion whose membership comprises in excess of 10 per cent of the total population of the State based on the population as ascertained by the Central Statistics Office in the most recent census report published by that office setting out the final result of a census of population of the State (whether or not that is the most recent such census of population).

When I looked at the most recent census, I learned that 9.6% of the population falls under the category of "no religion". Will "no religion" be considered to be a minority faith? The lengthy, confusing and convoluted definition of "minority faith" that is being proposed in amendment No. 137 suggests that the minority religion of the moment could change with each census. I think it would be more logical and simpler to accept amendments Nos. 53 and 140 as a means of ensuring children have equal access to all schools regardless of religious belief.

See this speech in context