Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)

I wish to start by congratulating the new Pope. I believe there is white smoke in the Vatican. I congratulate the new Pope. It is great news.

I read the motion and I listened to the Social Democrats' contributions. To be honest I am quite surprised. They talk about pluralism and choice but it seems that the only choice they want to provide is the choice of those people who agree with them. There are thousands of families who are happy with the ethos of their school and who support the ethos of their school. Yet the motion seeks to deny parents, principals, teachers, and boards of management the ability to decide the ethos of their school. There is nothing pluralistic about this motion. I believe that pluralism is about inclusion and supporting the diversity in our culture. This is what we should be doing.

On the support for divestment, we believe that parents should have a choice. The choice must acknowledge and must recognise that where parents decide they support the ethos of their school the Social Democrats should not overrule or override that. This is what choice and pluralism actually means. Today's motion seeks to ban new schools in terms of faith patronage and to ban faith instruction. There is nothing pluralistic about that. What other countries in the world have sought to ban education pluralism? North Korea and Cuba. Those countries are not something we should be following. Politicians should never try to enforce their own rules on the public. We should celebrate the differences in our society and allow culture to be supported. I come from a teaching background. All children should be supported and families who wish to have their children in a school that is similar to their ethos should be supported. I am really disappointed that this is not captured in the motion.

Article 42 of the Constitution states that parents are the primary educators for their child. In that sense I do support the Minister's contribution earlier today around the survey that would seek to acknowledge that and support this in the education system. It is curious that the Social Democrats advocate for the removal of faith because of its perceived lack of evidence and yet they have no problem supporting a gender ideology in schools and puberty blockers, which have no basis in education at all.

The Minister referred earlier to a recent survey from the INTO at the conference. It stated that 60% of teachers voted against removing faith in education in our schools. They did so because parents actually do not support its removal. This is the case in many schools, I am not saying all. That is our perspective and that should be supported. Where, as the survey dictates, parents are happy with their school ethos then we should support that. The Irish Times also found that 70% of parents want their children to receive faith-based instruction. I ask the Minister to consider this contribution as well.

See this speech in context