Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 22 April 2015
7. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills her plans to totally remove the ability of schools to reserve places for children of past pupils; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15480/15]
View answerThe UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that discrimination, whether it is overt or hidden, offends the human dignity of the child and is capable of undermining or even destroying the capacity of the child to benefit from equal opportunities. While the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015, which is on the Dáil's legislative agenda this year, could introduce a 10% cap on the reservation of school places for the children of past pupils, what we really need is a completely level playing field and to offer equal access to all. I ask the Minister if she will completely remove this discriminatory policy.
I thank Deputy Wallace. I recently published the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill. The Bill will clarify the power of the Minister to make regulations. A key objective of the Bill and its associated regulations is to see improved access to school for all pupils. The draft regulations which were published with the general scheme in September 2013 provided for an over-subscribed school to allocate a maximum of 25% of available school places to children of past pupils.
The Oireachtas joint committee's report on the draft general scheme considered that a school should not be permitted to give any priority to children of past pupils. I am of the view that a much lower percentage than 25% - I am saying perhaps 10% - is as high as such a threshold should be set. However, I intend to listen to all the views on this while the legislation passes through the Houses. Revised draft regulations will then be published for further consultation with the relevant education stakeholders before any final decision is made on this matter.
The Minister is well aware of the fact that if any level stays in place, even 10%, it is an element of discrimination and people will suffer. According to the Irish Traveller Movement, only 10% of adult Travellers have been to school. What chance have they got of getting a fair opportunity if a 10% quota is introduced? Likewise, there is no doubt that new migrant communities, minority faiths and children with disabilities are finding it a bit more difficult to get into schools.
I have an example of a girl called Martina from Slovakia who works in one of our wine bars and who has been in Ireland for ten years. She applied to a girls' national school in Glasnevin, which is her nearest school, and was told that the child would not be suitable because the school was mostly made up of Irish children. Her friends have had the same experience. How in God's name are we going to get to a place where people are being treated equally and fairly if we are going to allow schools to discriminate? Does the Minister not admit that this 10% will continue a certain form of discrimination?
I wish to reiterate that there is no final decision on this. I have just put forward my own view and have said from the very start that I do not believe I have heard a good argument for reserving 25% of places for the children of past pupils. That is why I expressed my own view on it. If a school has room - if it is not over-subscribed - it cannot refuse a student, no matter who he or she is. Schools have to take the children if they have room. About 20% of schools in the country are over-subscribed and they are the ones that have admissions processes and criteria.
All schools have admissions processes but they are the ones who have to apply them and make a decision as to who is admitted to the school. That is the context of this discussion. I will make the regulations when we have had the full discussion. The Bill will be fully discussed in the House and in the other House and I will go back to the Government in order to make the regulations once these have been discussed. There is no doubt that views are mixed among Members on this issue but I will make a decision at the end.
There is no doubt that the schools that are over-subscribed are being given the opportunity to discriminate and the State needs to stop this practice, given that the State is funding these schools. The same problem arises with regard to religious schools. While section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 allows religious-run schools to refuse to admit a student of another denomination, provided the school can prove that such a refusal is essential to the ethos of the school, this provision is effectively an exemption from equality legislation. Unfortunately, the proposed schools admission legislation will do nothing to combat this discrimination. Given that 95% of national schools are denominational and mainly Catholic-run, it leaves many parents with no choice in this area. I have heard of parents who have no religious beliefs getting their kids baptised in order to try to gain access to certain schools. One could be forgiven for suspecting that the religious position on the admission of children to certain religious schools is driving people into this situation where they are having their children baptised in order to qualify for admission. Surely this should be severely dealt with by the State.
I reiterate that if the school has room, irrespective of who runs the school, it must take all the children who apply. The legislation I have published is operating under the current equality legislation which, as the Deputy says, allows a school run under a religious denomination to maintain the ethos of the school. If that involves admitting certain children and not others when the school is over-subscribed, that is the current equality legislation under which the system works.
The decision whether to baptise a child is a decision for the parents and it is up to them to decide the denomination of their child. That is the parents' right. Every child has a right to go to school. It is only the parent who wishes the child to attend an over-subscribed school who is faced with this dilemma. My personal view is that I do not believe anybody should baptise a child simply to get the child into a school. I reiterate that the equality legislation allows a school which is over-subscribed to make the decision on the basis of protecting the ethos of the school.
I completely agree with Deputy Wallace on everything he has said. The school admissions Bill is a missed opportunity. The Minister stated in her response that she sees no good reason that the level should be kept at 25% and she has expressed a personal opinion of a level of 10%. However, I have heard no good reason from the Minister as to why she has set the figure at 10%. The only good reason I have heard is from the report done by the education committee which said it should be zero, and that there should be no places set aside for children of past pupils. Such a policy discriminates against people. The sibling rule is in place which means that a child whose sibling is attending a school has an automatic right to attend that school. We have a changing dynamic in Irish society. I refer to people who are moving to find work and migrants who are coming into the country; I refer to the Traveller community and people in foster care who are being moved to new communities. Whether we like it or not, these people are being discriminated against.
On the question of the ethos of a school, in no modern society should any school have any capacity to discriminate against a child based on his or her sexual orientation. I do not think a gay child will damage the ethos of a Catholic school.
I ask the Minister to explain why she does not believe there are good reasons for an allocation of 25%. I ask her to explain why she believes there is a case for an allocation of 10%.
In reply to Deputy O'Brien on the question of the sexual orientation of students, the equality legislation provides that a person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.
The ethos of a school.
The ethos of a school is one thing but on the question of sexual orientation specifically, the equality legislation provides that one cannot be discriminated against on that basis. If there is any doubt in this regard I will be very clear that schools cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
In reply to Deputy McConalogue, I have expressed a personal view but there is a discussion to be had and there are different views.
Can we hear the Minister's views?
I have expressed my view. I said I thought that 25% was too much and I felt that I needed to go a bit further and give a personal view.
Why is 25% too much?
As Deputy O'Brien said, there is a right for siblings to go to the same school and in my view that is fair and it should be retained. In some cases there are rights to attend a local school and there are other kinds of rights of entry depending on the specific school. I want to be fair and I want to ensure that children are not kept out of schools for any particular reason. That is why I came to a view that 25% was too high. I will take account of the report of the education committee because the view of an Oireachtas all-party committee has to be taken very seriously. As I said, there are different views in this House and the matter is for discussion because it has not been decided. I will be coming back to the Government before any decision is made.
Why do we need 10%?
I must call Deputy Terence Flanagan for the next question.
