I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must be seconded.
Equal Status Bill, 1997: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 12, to delete from and including "or it refuses" in line 33 down to and including "of the school" in line 37.
The Bill, apart from this section, is positive and progressive and I regret that most of my contribution has been negative. However, I feel strongly about this issue and I believe the Government is making a serious error. I appeal to the Minister to listen carefully to the arguments and to be flexible in his approach.
This issue is related to the Employment Equality Bill. Last week the Minister said it was not his intention to set a commencement date for this Bill until the Supreme Court made a decision on the Employment Equality Bill. What did the Minister mean when he said he would revisit both Bills if this Bill is passed and the Employment Equality Bill is found to be unconstitutional? This issue was left unresolved the last day.
I am concerned about section 8 which states that an "educational establishment does not discriminate...where... it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination...provided that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school". Any attempt to prevent a child having access to a primary school recognised by the State is wrong, offensive and unconstitutional. Even if it was not unconstitutional, public representatives would not support anything which prevented a child enrolling in a school. We are talking about a four year child being told by the school authorities that he will not be allowed into the school because he is of the wrong religion. Last week we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the foundation of the State. One wonders what type of State we set up if we present four year old children as a threat to the ethos and character of a school.
It is impossible to believe that the constitutional lawyers advising the Government allowed this to be included in the Bill. There is no doubt the Constitution supports denominational education. My amendment does not challenge, undermine or restrict the nature of denominational education if that is what parents decide they want for their children, rather it seeks to protect the right of access to denominational schools.
Article 42.1 of the Constitution states:
The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
Use of the term "inalienable right" means that no one can remove such a right from parents to do so. "Ceart dochánta" atá sa leagan Ghaelige. It is absolutely clear that parents make decisions about the education of their children. No one will argue with that point. Article 42.2 states "Parents shall be free ["Tig leo", mar a deir sé as Gaelige] to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.". They can choose to have their children educated in a school established or recognised by the State. There are two steps under the Constitution, namely, parents are enabled to make decisions about their children's education and that they can choose to send their children to a school recognised by the State.
Article 42.3.1º states:
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
Equally, there is no way the State can declare that parents may not send their children to schools because they are of the wrong religion. That cannot be right. In the past we have discussed issues of this nature. Why is the Government restricting the choice of parents in this matter? Why are children being separated on the basis of the denomination of their parents? There are words to describe this and we would use them if discussing similar situations in other countries.
Earlier this week a senior figure at one of Northern Ireland's universities described this type of education as "sectarian". A major row ensued and the university in question tried to distance itself from her remarks. Today, however, the Alliance Party has defended her right to make such statements. Last November I used the same word to describe education of that nature which caused an outcry from some of the Churches. I recognise that my use of the word "sectarian" was somewhat insensitive but I did so to shock people into seeing that the Bill proposes a system of apartheid. It was not my intention to cause offence. The nature of pluralism is not about allowing every group to flourish within the Republic, it is partly that but it is mainly to do with the relationships between people of different beliefs and backgrounds.
Article 42.1, 2 and 3 gives parents the rights to which I referred. I would like to ask the Minister of State his view on Article 44.2.3º which states "The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status". We are about to pass legislation which states that an educational establishment will not be guilty of discrimination if it refuses a child entrance to a school on the basis of his or her religion. That is unacceptable. I raised a similar issue about which I was concerned on the employment equality legislation. I am very concerned about the matter under discussion.
I know better than anyone in public life the consequences of refusing children entry to a school. I will advise every teacher throughout the country that, under no circumstances, should they refuse a child entrance to a school on the basis of his or her religious beliefs or background. That is unacceptable and it is a denial of a constitutional right. The parents of a Catholic child may decide that even though they were both raised as Catholics and educated in Catholic schools they do not want their child to have a Catholic education. They may decide that their child should be educated at a school run by the Society of Friends or at a Jewish or Muslim school. It is their constitutional right to make such a decision and it seems that there is a constitutional imperative on parents to follow through and implement whatever action they believe is in the best interests of their children.
On Committee Stage I stated that if the Bill is accepted in its current form and is not found to be unconstitutional, it will remain in place until a parent is faced with a situation where his or her child is refused admission to a school on the grounds of religion. The Articles of the Constitution I read into the record will be repeated ad nauseam in the Supreme Court in a case against the State or the authority of the school concerned in respect of a denial of constitutional rights.
In 1977, the union I represent made a mistake by depriving children of the right of admission to primary school, not on religious grounds but as part of an industrial action. We were wrong to do so and paid for our decision for many years. It cost my union almost £3 million to discover that it is unconstitutional to deny a child access to primary education. I believe the provision under discussion represents the most serious and fundamental error. Will the Minister of State reconsider the position?
On Committee Stage, the Minister stated that the character of any particular school is determined in different ways. He did not describe what might be those ways. However, I have never held the opinion that a school's character or ethos is determined by the religion or beliefs of its pupils. The character, denomination and ethos of a Catholic school is determined by the actions of the school authority, by the hymn sung at assembly each morning and by the fact that the pupils construct a May altar, attend church for confession on a monthly basis, say the Angelus at 12 noon each day or that their holidays coincide with the feast days of particular religions. These are the things which determine the denominational ethos of a school and that is the case regardless of the religion of its pupils.
Proof of my case is offered by multi-denominational schools which have a clear and absolute ethos that is well recognised. They achieve this by encompassing the different beliefs of all their pupils. The ethos of such schools is in no way compromised, undermined or threatened by the fact that their pupils come from different denominational backgrounds or have different beliefs, religious cultures or faiths. To insist that a child's religion has something to do with determining a school's ethos is not an option.
On Committee Stage, the Minister stated that this provision was put in place on the advice of the Attorney General. The Minister's words came from the Attorney General's advice on a document entitled The Governance of Schools which formed part of an agreement between the Churches, management authorities and teacher unions about the governance of primary schools. Under that agreement school authorities were given absolute discretion regarding the admission of pupils. The INTO refused to accept that on the grounds that it is probably unconstitutional. We were informed that the wording had been approved by the Attorney General and legal advice insisted it was required. We now know that is not the case. This form of words is a weak attempt by the office of the Attorney General to put a constitutional safety net under the refusal. He was asked to find a form of words to give schools a right to refuse in a way that might satisfy the Constitution and the wording used is “provided that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school”, whatever that means.
The Minister of State has not explained how the admission of a child could undermine the ethos of a school. He asked if I wanted Protestant schools swamped by Catholics or vice versa. If he had thought more about it he might not have used those words. I do not think he meant them to be offensive but they sound offensive in that they suggest that one religion might swallow up another. However, that is the difficulty with this issue — these provisions imply that different religions cannot live side by side and that people cannot respect each other's beliefs. These provisions design a society which is anything but pluralist, a society whose "pluralism" is defined by its differences. That is not what pluralism and inclusiveness are about. We say people should learn to live with each other.
On Committee Stage I said that the best way for people to appreciate, value and understand the richness of their culture, faith or ethos is to see it in comparison with others. For example, it is often the case that people do not understand their Irishness until they go abroad; people do not understand the beauty of the Irish language until they are overseas and use cúpla focal.
It is when people learn about each other's beliefs and religions that they can best appreciate them. If children of different religions sit beside one another they may talk about their different religions. An event such as a First Communion can become a talking point among the children of the other faiths who may learn about it and become part of the celebration. Pluralism will find its home when people of different religions can share, celebrate and perhaps participate in the feasts and event of other religions. When a Catholic child can tell his Jewish classmates about Confirmation and the Jewish child can explain the bar mitzvah to his Catholic classmates, they can celebrate each other's events and respect them. Thus they will not become a basis for fear or ridicule.
I believe we are making a serious error here. I have argued that it is unconstitutional. However, I appeal to the Minister of State as a public representative, on the basis of what the Government stands for, what the Constitution is about and what freedom of citizenship in a republican, pluralist and inclusive state is about. That freedom must begin with children. We must not use four year old children as pawns in this game. We cannot be comfortable with a provision which considers a four year old child a threat to the ethos of a school or institution. There is something intrinsically wrong with such a proposition.
This provision is unconstitutional, unacceptable, offensive and morally questionable. It must be unacceptable to public representatives in a pluralist, inclusive and republican State.
This is an excellent Bill but I have reservations about this section. Since the foundation of the State education has been organised on a denominational basis in primary and post-primary schools, with the exception of the vocational level. Like Senator O'Toole I was shocked by the reaction to the words of my friend Rabbi Julia Neuberger when she spoke about denominational education in Northern Ireland. Such a reaction would not occur in the South.
Protestant schools have never operated on an exclusively Protestant admissions only basis. They were the original multi-denominational schools because they admitted all children whose parents did not want them to attend Catholic schools. The Protestant schools, most of which were run by the Church of Ireland, catered for Muslim, Jewish, Baptist and Presbyterian children and the Protestant schools want this state of affairs to continue. They do not want to become exclusively Protestant. I am sure the demand for places in such schools will increase. The Department of Education has not challenged this arrangement. It has always been able to depend on these schools to provide places for those who did not want to attend the schools run by the majority religion.
This section proposes to protect minority schools in the main by allowing for refusal of admission. It is the Church of Ireland schools, the primary schools mainly, which will be affected. Three quarters of Church of Ireland primary schools have three or fewer teachers. They are small schools.
Senator O'Toole was right to ask how one could refuse a four year old child admission because the child is of a certain religion. That will prove extremely difficult for the small Church of Ireland primary schools. The parents of the children who are non-Church of Ireland would not send them to the Church of Ireland schools if they felt they would be proselytised. Religious education in such primary schools is based on Bible studies and all preparations for the sacraments take place outside school hours. There is no question of catechism or other elements of dogma singular to one denomination which might be unacceptable to other Christian denominations being taught. However, values are transmitted within these schools and the small schools are anxious that they would remain in a position to continue to do so. The values involved are much cherished by Irish society and it does not want them diluted.
Fine Gael recently celebrated its part in the foundation of the State 75 years ago. When the State was founded Archbishop Gregg asked Michael Collins if he wanted the archbishop's flock to leave the island. Collins replied that, on the contrary, he wanted them to play an important part within the State. The Church of Ireland and the other smaller Protestant churches have played an important role, particularly in the education system.
I am sure the Bill is designed to protect minority schools so that they can refuse to accept children. However, I do not know how these small schools will manage to refuse to take in children because they are of a different religion. How can it be said they will affect the ethos of the school? The State is devolving its responsibility for pluralist schools to the schools themselves. What will happen to these children if schools refuse to admit them? Parents, who are obviously the prime educators of children, do not want them to go to another school in the area. Whoever refuses to admit them should be conscious they are doing something terrible.
Looking at the legislation, it appears that parents, if their child refused admission, would be in a position to sue the school and not the State. This is an important Bill which contains vital social legislation. However, often within a broad sweep of policy we introduce small areas where we think we are protecting minorities but the effect may be unforeseen consequences.
Senator O'Toole asked if the Employment Equality Bill would fail its constitutional test. That Bill provides for the Director of Equality Investigations. If the Bill was to fail a constitutional test, this Bill could not be enacted without this provision.
Senator O'Toole stated that a denominational school can still maintain its ethos even when children of another denomination make up the majority of the pupils. During the earlier part of the debate, Senator Norris mentioned a Quaker school in the United States where only two students were of that religion. However, not all denominations would be happy with such a situation. For example, the Church of Ireland Board of Education has argued for its right to have a denominational balance in the pupil intake to Protestant schools. The board says it has been happy to accommodate the parental choice of Catholic parents who wish to send their children to Protestant schools, provided a mechanism exists whereby the school management could give a preference to the enrolment of Protestant children and could have means to determine the desired size of the school.
Section 8(3)(b)(i) protects the interests of Church of Ireland and other denominational schools in this respect. Senator O'Toole has made much of the right of parents to have their children educated in a Protestant school. Nobody questions that right. However, all this exception permits is the preferment of a child of a particular denomination to one of another denomination or the refusal to admit a child who is not of a particular denomination where the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school.
The Minister is advised that the provision of Articles 42 and 44 of the Constitution, taken together with the decisions of the courts, means there is an entitlement under the Constitution to schools which are run in accordance with a religious ethos and the preservation of that ethos will otherwise be seen as discrimination.
Senator O'Toole has said it is unacceptable that legislation should constrain a person's right to participate in religion or that the State should demand children be sent to schools of a particular denomination. This provision does nothing of this kind but merely gives discretion to schools in certain defined circumstances to prefer children of one denomination over those of another or to exclude children who are not of a particular denomination. Senator O'Toole argued that as a pluralist State we should ensure children learn and grow together. He cogently argued for multi-denominational education. However, this should not imply we force people into multi — or nondenominational education or that we effectively outlaw denominational education.
Senator O'Toole did not acknowledge that at present schools have a right to refuse people on the grounds of religion. I am advised that such a right exists constitutionally. It is the view of the Church of Ireland Board of Education, based on their representations to the Minister, that it has such a right. There is one Protestant secondary school which imposes a 15 per cent quota for the admission of Catholics because of the level of demand for places from Protestants. Other such schools may have higher proportions of non — co-religionists. Since schools have the right to refuse on the grounds of religion, the exception we are discussing confers no new rights on schools in this respect. In fact, the second part of section 8(3)(b)(i) will place limits on the right to refuse.
Senator O'Toole referred to the threat of a four year old to the ethos of a school. This is simplistic and he knows it. In Celbridge in my constituency there are not enough places provided by the State or any church for the numbers of children there. There is over application for all primary school places. The vast majority of these children are Roman Catholic and large numbers are being taken into one relatively small Church of Ireland school in the town. The four year olds will not affect the ethos of that school — the parents will. They have an absolute right to determine policy under the Education Bill. Senator O'Toole knows that better than probably anyone else in this or the other House.
The Senator also effectively praised the merits of the multi-denominational system. However, we have to make up our minds whether we will tell the public it cannot have denominational schools and that multi-denominational schools are more desirable. This is what Senator O'Toole is saying.
One would know the Minister was reared in a Fianna Fáil house. I never said any such thing. The Minister should not assert such a notion.
The thrust of the Senator's argument is there is merit in children of different denominations sitting beside each other and at four years of age explaining their religious differences.
The Minister gave one example in 20 minutes.
We have to make up our minds whether we will allow denominational schools. If we allow them to exist and flourish, we cannot include a provision which allows other denominations to take over the places in that school. It will be the right of the school, not the Minister, to determine that and the level of input of other denominations. I suggest that Senator O'Toole withdraws his amendment. He knows we are not talking about four year olds diluting the ethos of a school. We are talking about a majority of parents determining the ethos. If we are talking about discrimination it would be bad to send out a message to minority religious groups in our community that the majority group will have a right to send their children to a minority school, take over and put parents on the board. That would be the effect of the Senator's amendment.
That was a valiant effort by the Minister to defend the indefensible. Was the Minister's example of the 15 per cent quota that of a secondary school?
Yes.
That puts everything in context for me. I respectfully advise the Minister's advisers to read the Constitution. All my comments related to primary level. The Constitution is only concerned with primary education as regards parental choice. Everybody knows that. The Minister should not give an example of a 15 per cent quota in a secondary school. Secondary schools have always been entitled to refuse children because there was no constitutional basis for them not to.
I have read in the newspapers and heard Ministers and commentators say that schools have a right to refuse children and have done so on the grounds of their religion. Every time I have heard that or read it, I have checked every available source. I have more information on the primary education sector than anyone in this country and I have never found a situation where a child was refused entry on the grounds of religion alone.
If the Minister had been in the House on Committee Stage he would be aware that I made it absolutely clear that where there is a question of space limitations, school authorities must make certain choices. In Celbridge, they may have made a choice on the basis that children had siblings who were enrolled in the school or that children lived within a certain distance from the school. My argument is that children should not be refused admission solely on the grounds of religion; it does not apply to situations where there are space limitations or problems of overcrowding. The Minister's response was partly specious and largely spurious. No two paragraphs of his response were directed at the points I made.
I did not propose that there should be multi-denominational education for all children. I would be utterly opposed to that. The case I am making concerns choice for parents. Parents should be able to choose a school with a multi-denominational, denominational or non-denomiational ethos. The latter is not available in Ireland at the moment. Ethos is determined not by the religion of the children in the school but by the way in which religious authorities run a school and allow an ethos to permeate its activities and organisation.
The Church of Ireland Board of Education referred to the question of preference which arose on Committee Stage. I wrote to them last October in relation to that. When I raised the issue of preference with the Minister he asked whether that would also be denial of a constitutional right and I acknowledged that he may have been correct.
There might be one place remaining in a school by virtue of regulations which stipulate that there should be x square feet per child in a classroom, school yard and so on. If two children applied — one of a denomination which was in line with the ethos of the school and the other of a different one — for admission to the school, the school authorities might decide that it might be desirable to give preference to the child of the same ethos. That decision would respect parental choice and would be a pragmatic and valid one in line with the Constitution. I believe the question of preference should be provided for and I made a similar statement in relation to the appointment of teachers in such schools.
I would like to ask the Minister to consider a situation where there are, for example, two schools in a town, one a Church of Ireland school and the other a Catholic. There might be two "practising" atheist or agnostic families living in that town who do not accept the religion of either school. However, if these are the only schools available the families may wish to enrol their children in one. Both schools might refuse admission to the children on the grounds that they would undermine the ethos of the school. What would happen then? Where would those children's right to a free primary education, provided for under the Constitution, be delivered?
I did not suggest that all children should attend multi-denominational schools; I simply used that as an example of the way in which children can learn from the interaction of different religions. I would be totally opposed to any kind of totalitarian prescription in education where people's choices would be restricted.
The basis for this amendment is to allow for parental choice. Education can be enriched by providing choice and by having denominational, non-denominational and multi-denominational education. That is the route we should take. Education in this country has been enriched in practical and philosophical ways by its denominational complexion. We could have a multifaceted, pluralist society in education which would respect, support, encourage and propagate children's cultures. What we are doing in this Bill is fundamentally wrong. It is prescriptive, it isolates children and it does not provide for dissenters. I do not know where a dissenter would go in this situation. If dissenters are refused everywhere, as this legislation allows them to be, the State must provide for their children in some way.
This issue may be put to the test in court and the situation will be no different to that which prevailed for years in relation to special education. In the past I heard Ministers say that children with special education needs did not have the same constitutional right to education as other children. They would not dare say it today. The judgment in the Cork case ensured that the State is now obliged to provide access to education for children with special needs which it should always have provided. In this Bill we are ensuring that children can be refused admission to a school on the grounds of religion.
I believe I have lost this argument but I do not intend to withdraw the amendment. The Minister is being completely inflexible. However, I remind him that when a similar issue was raised in relation to the Employment Equality Bill only four Members of this House voted against it and the President found it necessary to refer that Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.
She did not say the Bill was incorrect.
There might be even fewer people voting on this Bill tonight but I think a few people with conviction constitute a majority in themselves. I believe that what we are proposing is the right and constitutional thing to do. We are taking a stand and our amendment is a gesture of support for children, families and religions in this State.
Amendment put.
Votáil.
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand". On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Henry, Norris, O'Toole and Ross rose.
As fewer than five Senators rose in their places I declare that the question is carried. The names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Notwithstanding the agreement on the Order of Business this morning I propose that, by agreement, we continue until we complete all Stages of the Bill.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 16, to delete lines 14 to 30.
I submitted this amendment on Committee Stage but did so incorrectly due to the manner in which it was drafted. My intention is that section 13 (1) should read:
A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) another person ("the victim").
The subsection contains a list of groups or persons against whom it would be an offence to sexually harass. When we made a request under the employment equality legislation the Minister said he would add additional categories of people. There is a fear that one might omit a category of person against whom it may be an offence to harass. It would be better if the section simply stated that it was an offence to sexually harass another person without specifying the category.
I second the amendment.
The sexual and other harassment provisions of this Bill apply to areas generally corresponding to those in which discrimination is prohibited. The prohibition on sexual and other harassment in the Employment Equality Bill is similarly confined to the context of employment. The Senator's amendment would have the effect of bringing all sexual and other harassment, irrespective of the area in which it takes place, within the scope of the Bill. This would be outside the scope of the Bill as provided for in the Long Title. It would duplicate the provisions in the Employment Equality Bill and would be very difficult to enforce as it would cover sexual and other harassment in all spheres of public and private life. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
It should be an offence to sexually harass anybody. I accepted the Minister's recommendations regarding the Employment Equality Bill because it was a specific Bill. However, this Bill is much broader in attempting to give equal status to all. What the Minister said supports my view that this subsection should read as I have stated.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 18, lines 39 and 40, to delete "may, with the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications," and substitute "shall".
I redrafted the amendment on the Minister's advice. As I stated on Committee Stage, the term "may" is too weak. I fear that the regulations specified in sections 19 and 20 may never come into force. The Minister said that if I pressed the amendment as drafted on Committee Stage it would be inoperable because the Minister could not force the hand of another Minister. He said agreement could not be reached by force. The amendment suggests that the Minister should make the regulations and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications should then take them on board and enforce them.
I reread the section which is good and I am satisfied that the onus on those who provide public transport would not be too great. Section 19(3)(a) deals with the number or proportion of an operator's vehicles or any class thereof to which the regulations apply, while paragraphs (b) and (c) relate to the time or times when the regulations come into effect and the terms and conditions. The Minister has huge scope in the drafting of the regulations. I am not telling him what they should include but he must make the regulations. The only way that can be done is by deleting the term "may" and replacing it with the word "shall".
I second the amendment.
I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed by the Senator but I cannot accept the amendment. It would not be appropriate to require the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to make regulations without reference to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
The technical aspects of such regulations would be a matter for the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. I said agreement could not be reached on the basis of the Senator's Committee Stage amendment. However, this amendment as drafted would be equally unacceptable for that reason. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Senator.
I do not accept the Minister's point. I am confident Ministers could draw up regulations over a cup of tea if there was goodwill on both sides.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 19, lines 8 and 9, to delete "may" with the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications," and substitute "shall".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
It is not a good night for us.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Senators for their contributions and for facilitating the passage of this important legislation.
I agree with the Minister that this is a most important Bill. It would have been improved if some of the amendments had been taken on board but that does not take away from its effectiveness.
Much media emphasis has been placed on the provisions in section 8 in relation to religion. That is unfair to the Bill because its aims are much greater. A number of the Independent Senators said it was the kernel of the legislation but that is not the case. My amendment relating to access to public transport for the disabled and other amendments were as important as any of the amendments to section 8. The fact that few Members supported calls for divisions on the Employment Equality Bill and this Bill does not mean we were wrong and the Independent Senators were right. The fact that the President referred the Employment Equality Bill to the Supreme Court does not mean she considered it at fault. I welcome the Bill.
I also welcome the Bill. As a member of the Government, Fine Gael is proud to be involved in the passage of this important progressive legislation. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials for their excellent work on this Bill over the years. Despite all the controversy which surrounded its compilation, it is a good Bill.
I spoke at length on this legislation and I am glad it has been passed. However, I regret that Senator O'Toole's amendment was not accepted because that particular provision is dangerous; it is a time bomb in the Bill. A comment was made that schools would be swamped by an influx of Catholic children. However, one is not usually swamped by something pleasant. It is a pity this weakness is included in a Bill which is so good otherwise. I compliment the Minister on the 98 per cent of the Bill which is good. The House did a good job in examining the legislation minutely and subjecting it to critical scrutiny. That is the purpose of the Seanad and although the debate may have appeared tedious at times, it was honestly intended and should have strengthened the Bill. I wish it had strengthened it more.
Question put and agreed to.