I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, subsection (3) (b) (i), to delete from and including "or it refuses" in line 33 down to and including "of the school" in line 37.
I want to address the issues I raised on Committee Stage. I listened carefully to the Minister's Second Stage reply. The best I could say about it was that it was absolutely specious. It made no attempt to address the issues I raised.
I find it extraordinary for a Minister to seriously say that a Member referring to the Constitution quoted selectively from it. I have dealt with lawyers for many years and I checked with two constitutional lawyers to ask if they ever quoted the Constitution in toto in support of an argument. Both said they had not and that the only way to deal with an issue is through selective quotation. The Minister responded by saying that I quoted selectively from the Constitution. There is no other way to refer to it in dealing with specific issues. The only time one can deal with the Constitution in its totality is when comparing it with a constitution of another country. I expected more from the Minister and I felt his response was not a serious one.
The Minister said I apparently wanted Protestant schools to be overrun and swamped. I may offer an interpretation of the Constitution as the Minister has done on a regular basis in court. I presume when he selects from a piece of legislation in support of a client that he does not necessarily agree with what is contained in the legislation, that it is used only as a supporting argument. I would argue about many Articles of the Constitution. I did not write it and have given my views on it on many occasions. Saying that my correct interpretation of the Constitution might create a problem for Protestant or other schools is not addressing the argument. I did not raise that issue or express any desire that that should happen and I am unaware that it would happen. If this is the correct interpretation then the Constitution should be changed if we want a different result.
The Minister asked why I referred only to religious schools and not to schools for those of different nationality or national origin. The only reason I did not refer to such schools is that I could not find any supporting sections in my selective consideration of the Constitution. Perhaps the Minister knows something I do not. Perhaps the entire section needs to be changed rather than simply the two aspects to which I drew attention. Will the Minister say whether I should have referred to the issue of national origin? It was specious of the Minister to raise this issue. It is like the old trick of saying a Senator said something he or she never said.
The point at issue is whether it is correct for the State to legislate along the lines that an educational establishment is not culpable of discrimination "if it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination". Can a child be refused admission to a school on the basis of its denomination and where enrolment would be considered a problem? In other words, is it all right to refuse admission to a child on the basis of maintaining the ethos of the school? This involves all sorts of assumptions. I know schools of particular denominations where the ethos has been maintained and respected over generations despite the fact that the teaching staff are of different denominations. I find the idea that the enrolment of a four year old child could damage the ethos of a school most offensive. I would like the Minister to explain how this is possible. I would like to see how the beliefs and background of a child or a number of children can affect the ethos of a school. The ethos is established by the board and the owners of the school. I do not understand how it can be changed by a four year old, particularly when the rules for schools specifically provide for parents to remove their children from religious instruction if they so wish in accordance with the Constitution. If the Constitution and the rules allow this to happen there must be an assumption that the enrolment of pupils differing in denomination from that of the school is not a threat to the ethos of the school. This is the only logical and sane interpretation.
I wish to again place on record my views on this matter. Section 8 (3) of the Bill purports to give schools the right to refuse to admit pupils on the grounds of denomination. This flies in the face of parents' rights to choose the ethos of their children's education and as such, it is unconstitutional. Parents have a right to make decisions about the education of their children. They have a constitutional duty to make the right decisions. The Constitution allows for a Catholic parent to send their children to a Protestant school. The parent can decide on the basis of his or her own experience and educational background whether they want their children to have an education of a different ethos. They are entitled and required to do this. Otherwise, they would be abdicating their duties as parents. Article 42 of the Constitution gives parents that right as primary educators. A Catholic parent can decide that a Protestant education would be best for their child and the State may not introduce legislation restricting that right.
Article 42.2 of the Constitution is also clear and unambiguous. It says parents shall be free to provide education in their own homes, a private school or in schools recognised by the State. This provision cannot be restricted by religious affiliation. The Constitution protects the rights of people to practise and impart their religion. It is unacceptable that legislation should constrain a person's right to participate in religion in any way. It is offensive to more than one Article of the Constitution.
The Constitution says the State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience or their lawful preference to send their children to any particular type of school designated by the State. I submit that there is an equal and opposite responsibility on the State to ensure that their choice is not rescinded. The State cannot demand children be sent to schools of a particular denomination. Neither can the State say parents cannot send their children to schools of a particular denomination. This latter position is in line with the demands of the Constitution, although I cannot support the case with legal precedent. However, it has to be the only interpretation.
The State and the churches are interfering with the constitutional rights of citizens. We are going down an extraordinary route. The vast majority of people have respect for religion and religious practice and ethos. Every Member of this House and the Dáil, including myself and the Minister, must have a duty and a sense of duty to protect the right of people to practise their religion. Any interference in that, whether by teachers or anybody else, must be challenged.
Anybody who interprets what I am saying as in some way anti-religion is completely misreading the situation. This issue is about religious freedom and choice and not restricting people on the grounds of religious beliefs. To say to somebody that their child may not attend a school because they are of the "wrong" religion is as bad a form of discrimination as anything we have read or heard about in any other milieu or part of the world. Segregating children on the basis of their religious beliefs, or worse, on the basis of their parents' religious beliefs, can only be described by a word considered by many people to be an ugly one. I will not use the word here but we all know what it is. As a pluralist State, we should be ensuring that children learn and grow together. There is nothing more beneficial to a community than allowing their sense of pluralism to develop and there is nothing more important for children than for them to have a pride in their religion in the same manner as they can have a pride in their culture. Irish people who go abroad may never have used an Irish word in their lives but when they are in Brussels, Berlin, Bangkok or wherever, they feel a very strong sense of Irishness. They will say "Dia's Muire dhuit" instead of "Hello" and they will explain to people what "sláinte" means. They find a new pride in their language in a different context. In similar fashion, I believe religions would grow and become stronger if children and their parents understood other religions.
There are also practical reasons to be considered in relation to this issue. The Minister took umbrage at my references to the North of Ireland, and I think he was incorrect in that. It is fair to say that when children live and are educated together, they will learn more about each other. We think that because we allow every single religious group to practice and flourish on their own, with walls between them, we have a pluralist society. We do not have a pluralist society. Any piece of legislation which restricts interaction between people of different beliefs, backgrounds and political affiliations is bad. The essence of pluralism can be measured not by the freedom to practice but by the quality of the relationships between people of different faiths and religions. To introduce into an Equal Status Bill something which allows schools to refuse entry to a child on the basis of his/her religion is completely wrong.
Wearing my other hat as general secretary of a teachers' union, I can inform the House that it cost my union approximately £3 million to find out what happens when a child is refused entry to a school. Whoever will have responsibility for implementing this legislation and refusing a child admission to a school had better change their property into somebody else's name quickly. They will not have sufficient money to pay for the costs they will incur. I can assure the Minister that it will not be a teacher who will refuse admission to a child on the grounds of religious affiliation. This provision is incorrect; it is a major mistake to allow this into a fine piece of legislation. At the end of the day we will all be ashamed if this legislation is passed. I urge the Minister to accept my proposal that the words which allow a child to be refused entry to a school on the grounds of his/her religion be deleted.
