If everyone will bear with me, I must read a number of formal notices. I remind members of the constitutional requirement they must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

Our next order of business is our engagement in relation to petition No. P0006/25, to give practical application to the right not to attend religious instruction in school. From Atheist Ireland, we are joined by Ms Jane Donnelly, human rights officer, and Mr. Michael Nugent, chairperson. I will hand over to our witnesses, but I must first explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the House with regard to references that may be made to other persons in the witnesses' evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose that we publish their opening statement on our website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, the witnesses are very welcome. I thank them for giving of their time. I will hand over to them for their opening statement. We will then have a chance to have some questions and answers.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for inviting Atheist Ireland to address them today. For context, Atheist Ireland was established in 2008. We are partners in the dialogue process between the State and religious and philosophical belief groups under the Lisbon treaty. We have UN consultative status, and have taken part in many reviews of Ireland under various treaties. We currently have three submissions with other Oireachtas committees about the education system.

We are speaking today about a very specific issue: the failure of the State to give practical application to the constitutional right of a child to attend a publicly funded school without attending religious instruction. This is not an abstract issue.

It affects real families in a particularly frustrating way because the right itself is clear but the State has largely declined to vindicate it in practice.

The starting point is Article 44.2.4° and Article 15.2.1° of the Constitution. Article 44.2.4° states that legislation providing State aid for schools shall not "be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school." Article 15.2.1° states, "The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas". That lays the responsibility and duty for this right with the Oireachtas.

Our petition points to the Irish text, which is important because the Irish text takes precedence. The wording used refers to attending, in the sense of being present at, religious instruction. It does not describe a weaker right to stay in the classroom but not join in or to opt out symbolically while remaining physically present. “Teagasc creidimh” translates directly into "religious teaching". That distinction matters because in practice over the years, this right has been steadily watered down. In most cases, when parents seek to exercise the right, schools simply supervise the child inside the religious instruction class. In some cases, schools refuse the request. The Department stated in a recent letter that “practical considerations involving available space, supervision requirements and class arrangements" are not "a cause or reason for not facilitating parental request.” In other cases, particularly at second level, schools and the Department say that what is being taught is religious education rather than religious instruction and, therefore, the constitutional right is not engaged. The Department’s policy - circular letters - states that withdrawal does not arise in these circumstances. This is despite the fact that the Oireachtas amended section 5 of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act 1878 in order to introduce exams in religious education at second level. Section 5 had banned exams in religious instruction. Our petition argues that the Department’s approach has no sound constitutional or legal basis.

The Oireachtas itself has recognised the category of religious instruction in legislation. Section 30(2)(e) of the Education Act 1998 states that the Minister shall not require a student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to conscience. The older intermediate education Act of 1878, which remains in place, makes State payment conditional on children not being kept in attendance during religious instruction against parental wishes and on the timing of such instruction being arranged so that children who do not remain are not excluded from the advantages of secular education. That older section is striking because it shows that this issue was understood long ago, not just as a matter of formal exemption, but as a matter of practical equality. A child who does not attend religious instruction must not be excluded, directly or indirectly, from the benefits of the secular education provided by the school, yet that is exactly where the present system is failing.

Parents are commonly told that schools do not have the resources to supervise children elsewhere or offer them another subject and, therefore, the child must remain in the religion class. That effectively turns a constitutional right into an optional extra, depending on local goodwill, staffing levels or funding. However, Article 44.2.4° does not state that the right exists only where convenient. It states that State funding must not prejudice that right. This is why we say that this is not simply a patron body or school-level issue and not simply a matter for the Department to put in place policy.

Our petition stresses that because the Constitution frames this right in the context of legislation providing State aid, the Oireachtas bears responsibility here. The Minister may administer the law, but neither the Minister, patron bodies nor schools can redefine or dilute a constitutional condition attached to public funding. The Supreme Court has made clear that the State cannot free itself from the restraints of the Constitution or transfer away its responsibilities unless the Constitution expressly allows it.

There is relevant case law on the broader educational context. Mr. Justice O’Donnell, in the Burke case on the leaving certificate and Covid, held that Article 42 conveyed the sense that the State could not interfere with the right of parents, subject to the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in the campaign case in 1998 that parental rights under Article 42 must be read in the context of Article 44.2.4°. The Court of Appeal, in the Burke case in relation to the leaving certificate and Covid, confirmed the continuing authority of that case and described the relationship between parents, the State and the child as a constitutional trifecta of rights, duties and powers. The courts have made clear that this right is not under the control of any patron body or school to define and implement according to its ethos. Therefore, this is not a niche issue. It sits within the Constitution’s wider structure on education, conscience and State obligations.

Over the years, we have raised this issue with national and international bodies. There is international support for action. In 2023, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged Ireland to establish statutory guidelines to ensure children’s right not to attend religion classes. That recommendation is important because it focuses exactly on the practical gap we are describing today: the difference between nominal rights on paper and enforceable rights in everyday school life.

Too often at national level, the responses have been no response, an acknowledgement or an attempt to describe the matter as policy. However, a constitutional right is not a policy option and saying that a one-size-fits-all solution does not suit everyone is not an answer to the fact that no practical application is being given to the right at all. Three months ago, the Minister’s office asked us to send a three-point agenda for a meeting with the Minister for education. Last week, we were informed that this meeting would not go ahead as planned as the Minister, Deputy Naughton, was too busy.

We want to stress that this is not an argument against religion or against religious people. We have worked on these issues with minority religions. It is an argument for the State honouring its own Constitution in schools that receive public money. A publicly funded school system must be able to accommodate children of minority religions and philosophical beliefs on an equal basis. This is a minorities issue, a conscience issue and a rule-of-law issue.

We are asking this committee to recognise four simple points: first, the constitutional right exists and its wording is clear; second, the State is not currently giving that right practical effect; third, the Oireachtas should act to ensure that all publicly funded schools, primary and second levels, must have a clear, workable and properly resourced means of enabling children not to attend religious instruction without educational disadvantage; and fourth, the constitutional condition for State aid to schools under Article 44.2.4° should be reflected in legislation and the Oireachtas must have oversight of it. In other words, the State should stop pretending that a child has meaningfully not attended religious instruction when that child is still sitting in the class. If a constitutional right exists, it should work in the real world.

I thank Ms Donnelly very much for her evidence. Before I go to our committee members, I welcome Deputy Cleere as a new member to our committee. I thank Deputy Dolan for his work on the committee. As is our custom, I am going to put this out for any questions that members may have. Deputy Buckley, le do thoil.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. Ms Donnelly and I have met before on something else.

I think so.

I think so. The point she made was interesting. She said in her opening statement "the Department say that what is being taught is religious education rather than religious instruction". She further states, "Section 30(2)(e) of the Education Act 1998 states that the Minister shall not require a student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to conscience." If there were an amendment added to say attended instruction, it would have to be specific. It would have to say "religious instruction and-or religious education". Would that change the whole ethos because it would give the Minister the power? It states here that it does not require the student to attend instruction under the 1998 Act, but it never mentioned religious education. It only says instruction. However, if that was added, it might change it but there will be consequences. The final of their four points is, "If a constitutional right exists, it should work in the real world." Unfortunately, from our experience you can quote so many UN conventions on X, Y and Z, and optional protocols, etc. The problem is trying to enforce them. Would it be a start to look at changing, adding or amending section 30(2)(e) to change or add religious education specifically? It states that the Minister shall not require the student to attend instruction in any subject. However, if we insert "education" specifically for religion, would it help what they are trying to achieve? I am asking about that tweak. Words like "shall", "may" and "will" are very different.

I am not sure. The Education Act reflects the Constitution, and the Constitution refers to religious instruction. After looking at case law, we believe religious instruction refers to religious teaching, "teagasc creidimh". Looking at the Act, every place instruction is mentioned usually means teaching. Going through the different articles, it means teaching. They talk about instruction all the time. The Act is clear. People can choose not to attend any subject that is against their conscience, but we believe the Oireachtas has expanded that right. Article 44.2.4° only refers to religious instruction. For example, if there were issues with regard to sex education the Minister could make policy, if she wanted to, for children whose parents do not want them to attend sex education, but for religious instruction it is in the Constitution. She cannot make policy on that because it is not a policy. It would not solve the issue where we believe there is a gap in legislation. The Education Act does not reflect that it is a condition of funding. It is not there. Article 44.2.4° starts with the word "legislation", so that is the Oireachtas. It states: "Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious ... nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child..." The funding is in there. The law is in there, so legislation is in there. The funding cannot do harm to the right, and that is the gap left out. Under section 30(2)(e) it is in the curriculum section. It is not in the funding section.

There is a gap there. We believe that particular item is essential and that is why our petition is here. It was put there for a reason. We know the constitutional review group report in 1995 said that the purpose of Article 44.2.4° was to protect the rights of minorities. We know that under Article 42 the State is obliged to respect the education of all children and of parents' beliefs. We know that is there. However, there was an extra article put in that specifically relates to religious instruction. It connected the law on funding with the right not to attend religious instruction. It took the right not to attend religious instruction out of the policy of any Department and put it at the door of the Oireachtas because it relates to legislation and funding, and Article 15.2.1° states that only the Oireachtas can make legislation. It was specifically there to protect minorities in schools, but it has failed to do so because it was not looked at in the context of funding. It should have been in the funding section, which I believe is section 12, of the Education Act because it is a condition of school funding. That means the Oireachtas now has no oversight of the funding of schools and the constitutional condition for that funding when the Constitution says they should have that.

There is another issue with the wording "instruction and education". Those words are used fairly loosely at Department level and at school level. The word "instruction" is in the Constitution and there was a Supreme Court case with the campaign to separate church and State versus the Minister in the late 1990s. It was about the funding of chaplains in what were then VEC schools. How the Supreme Court has defined the instruction and education in the context of religious instruction and education is that instruction is what happens in the classroom, and education is the wider school environment. That was the mechanism by which the Supreme Court justified funding chaplains in those schools. It was because they were helping parents with the religious education of their children outside of the classroom, while instruction referred to what happened within the classroom. That is consistent with the use of the word "instruction" throughout the Education Act. The word "instruction" already has a meaning as determined by the courts, regardless of what people decide to call it informally. The other key issue is that attempts have been made to unilaterally redefine the word "instruction" to mean instruction in the rites of one religion. However, that is not what the Constitution says. It does not say anything about the rites of one religion. If a child of Protestant parents has the constitutional right not to attend religious in the rites of Catholicism, then a child of atheist parents has the right not to attend religious instruction in the context of any set of religious beliefs.

I recognise that this is not anti-religion because it is in their statement. Some people looking in here might be thinking this is X, Y or Z. The Supreme Court case in 1998 was mentioned. It stated the Supreme Court held that it should be read in the context of Article 44.2.4°. Ms Donnelly said that article does not say that the right exists only where it is convenient. The Department is suiting itself with the magic word of "education" instead of "instruction" but it also states that State funding must not prejudice that right. Is it the Department? My reading of this is that since 1998, we are going back a bit, any time we are dealing with rights, it is a choice-based right. That has to be read in the context of Article 44.2.4° but it is not being treated as that. Is section 30(2)(e) the piece they are using as an excuse? Do we actually remove section 30(2)(e)?

No.

Would that be an advantage because that would take the power from the Minister to pick and choose between instruction versus education? It would allow the Supreme Court's decision on Article 44.2.4° to be the go-to piece of legislative action within education. Therefore it would remove the so-called convenience of picking and choosing from schools whereby some will say it is religious education and others will say its is religious instruction. That would be gone because of that Article and because the right to insist when convenient would be removed. What we would have is that State funding must not prejudice that right. That would mean that the State cannot instruct the Department of education or schools to say that they cannot pick and choose based on whether they have resources or not. They have to respect the rights of every individual that is being educated.

The more comprehensive way of doing it would be for the Oireachtas to legislate to explicitly reflect Article 44.2.4°.

That is what I was thinking, in terms of trying to move away from the other one so that we are actually on a par. We are doing the rights-based stuff. We are giving the Department of education and schools a one-liner, a two-liner or a paragraph saying what the rule is and why that is the rule, which is because there was a High Court case back in 1998 which referred to Article 44.2.4°. Would that actually fix that gap? Where there is an action, there is a instant reaction, so some schools would be afraid to do something but others will do it and will accommodate. Some will use the excuse of resources but would this fix the problem or bring it a bit closer to a rights-based solution whereby we cannot use section 30(2)(e) but have to specifically work under Article 44.2.4°. Would that work better? I hate maths, not to mind numbers.

I am not sure what will work because several times the Oireachtas has tried to protect this right, including with the Education (School Admissions) Act 2018 which contains a section providing that schools must put details in their admissions policies of the arrangements for not attending religious instruction but that is just literally ignored. It is gone. There was a WRC case and the WRC said that schools did not have to do that, even though the specific reason the Oireachtas put that provision into the legislation was to bring transparency to parents so that they would know what the arrangements would be in schools. I can see how the Oireachtas thought that provision was going to help us. There was a lot of discussion and debate on it and everybody said that it would give transparency and that was it, but it has completely failed. In that context, it is very hard for me to say what legislation would help us because at every turn - and I do not know who is to blame - we have ended up without our constitutional right. It was specifically put in the Constitution to protect minorities, it was specifically linked to legislation and funding and taking it out of the control of policymakers and various Departments and under the control of the Oireachtas.

The key is that the legislation should include oversight mechanisms and ways to ensure that it actually happens in practice. What happens in practice at the moment is that successive Ministers say it is up to the schools to decide how they administer the right. In one sense, that would be accurate if they were administering it in different ways but they are not. It is like me owing you money, you saying the manner in which I give you money is up to me, it can be by cheque, cash or electronic transfer and me saying the manner in which I will give you the money is that I will not give it to you. That is not doing it, so talking about the manner in which they do it is a distraction because they are not actually doing it.

That is contained within the title of the petition, which is to give practical application.

We can go through the Constitution and all of the articles but I just have to go on what I see, living in a Border town in Monaghan as someone from a Protestant background who went to a Catholic school. I know that when I was there during religious teaching I was excused from the class. What are we trying to do here? We are trying to get this written into the Constitution. I know it as something that works well, although maybe the witnesses will think differently. I hear of people who send their child to primary school and when it is time for first holy communion, the priest comes in to the class but any parent can ask that their child is excused from that if that is what they want. I stand to be corrected on this but as I understand it, schools are excusing children from religious education. In terms of secondary school, there would be very few church-run secondary schools. There would be some but most are ETBs and private schools. I do not think there would be priests or ministers coming in to do religious education. It would probably be a teacher that is doing that. If parents of students in secondary schools anywhere in the country say that they do not want their child to partake in religious education, the witnesses are saying that the schools are not allowing that to happen. The child has to sit in the class and has to be, as parents would see it, indoctrinated in something that parents do not want their child indoctrinated in but from what I am hearing, that does not happen. The child can be excused. If the witnesses have evidence that it is not happening, then that is not right. It seems to work well, from what I see. I talk to parents a lot and have been on school boards for the past number of years. If a child of whichever religion, or no religion, came into the school, he or she was accommodated to sit out of the class. The witnesses said earlier that some children were forced to sit in the class. They did not have to partake but they had to sit in the class. Are we saying that we need to provide in law that the child has to be removed from the classroom and given supervision outside the classroom? Maybe there are schools that cannot do that but any time I hear about this, I hear that children are removed and they go and do a separate activity. They are not made to sit in the class but maybe the witnesses will advise me that I am wrong.

Just before the witnesses respond to that, the Deputy is asking a very good question. The petition before us is a very practical one and the Deputy is asking a fairly practical question. It would be helpful for us as a committee if we could get an understanding of the situation. I am the opposite to the Deputy. I also grew up in a Border town. I was nominally from a Roman Catholic family but I went to a Church of Ireland school. I did not see any harm in as much as my beliefs do not run beyond that which I can see and feel. It was of no advantage or disadvantage to me to be in or not in and it was not something that my parents had a particular concern about. There was not a massive amount about it in secondary school. Practically speaking, and the petition is very practical, what is happening currently? Have the witnesses had parents on to them to talk about it? Are we talking about an issue of resources, which is obviously linked to funding? Are we talking about an issue of resources in schools to facilitate the removal to another class or some other form of learning? I have a ten-year-old grandson and I know that every child would have their hand up to opt out if they thought it would be a chance to get out of a class or have the option to do something else. Is that where the funding link is? Practically speaking, are we talking about large or small numbers? I understand that where there is a constitutional right, it does not matter whether we are talking about one person or 1 million people but it would help us as a committee if we understood the extent of the issue. Could the witnesses share with us any information they might have in relation to the numbers and how it happens in practice?

From what we know, most children are left sitting in the religion class because schools say that they have no resources for supervision and at second level, they will not give students another subject. There was a WRC case about a year ago involving a parent who had tried to remove a child from religion classes at second level.

The parent was trying to put the child into another class that was streaming at the same time. It would not have cost the school any extra money. The WRC found that the school need not to do that because the school had argued that if it did that it would cause chaos in the schools. Those were the words of the WRC. That is an issue, that there is a WRC case. We have mentioned that in our submissions. Another thing that the WRC said was that if a child who did not take religion classes got another subject, then the child who took religion could have a case of discrimination against the school. We do know where it got that, but it did say that. We have provided a link to that in our submissions.

We want to be clear that we are asking for this particular thing that says "not attend". Every word in the Constitution matters. There is one little word in the Constitution, "for", where it says the State shall provide for education. That is a three-letter word and look at what that has got us in this country. We want the right to not attend. We would prefer our children to have an option to get another subject. That would fit in with human rights law. Remember, there are obligations there under human rights law. It is something that the UN and the Council of Europe have been raising with Ireland for a considerable amount of time. We have sent in the most recent recommendation from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child committee.

From what we know, children are left sitting in the classroom. Sometimes, schools have said if it supervises children outside of the class or if they get another subject, that the floodgates will open. While I believe they feel that all children will want another subject, our constitutional right should not be subject to their concerns. We still have our rights there. We are looking for our children to not attend because they are left sitting in the class. It is so difficult to try to get one's right. We were delighted that the Oireachtas put in place section 62(7)(n), through the Education (Admissions to School) Act 2018, whereby they had to put it in their admissions policy. The parents would look at the options of schools and say, "Well, my child can get another subject" or "My child will be supervised". Nothing. It just says that parents have to come to a meeting. That defeated the whole purpose of the Act. In that case, the WRC said that it was reasonable for the school to ask parents to come a meeting to discuss their constitutional rights.

We did a survey shortly after it came in of 100 school admission policies. We followed up two years later to see how many of them were complying with the requirements of the admissions to school Act. None of them were. They either said it was not religious instruction or to come in for a meeting. The Deputy is probably right that a lot of schools facilitate parents and their children. However, our constitutional rights should not be dependent on the goodwill of a particular set of principals, board members or whatever. Constitutional rights apply across the board.

It is a very onerous condition. We have had so many issues in Ireland on constitutional issues where we have had to have referendums to address constitutional issues. If there is a constitutional obligation to vindicate that right and a constitutional condition of receiving State funding to vindicate that right for schools, then what has happened? I am not laying the blame in particular on anybody here or anyone along the chain. However, somewhere along the way, State resources that were constitutionally obliged to be allocated to facilitating vindicating this right have been misallocated to something else. By having them misallocated, the school said that it does not have the resources. That is because the resources that constitutionally were obliged to be allocated towards doing that have been allocated somewhere else

It is fair and reasonable to contend that there is not a budget line for this right within the Department of education-----

No, there is not.

I am not looking at the Estimates right now but there is not a budgetary line-----

No. It comes out of general funding.

Exactly. There does not seem to be a focus or any parameters in place to draw down that funding to specifically to do that. It is more in the general pool of funding. In Atheist Ireland's submission, it refers us to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation in 2023 that the Department should establish statutory guidelines - the Oireachtas would not establish those guidelines. That would tend to give me the impression that we do not need a legal change. What is needed are those statutory guidelines. Statutory guidelines can be issued by a Department. Have the witnesses had a discussion with the Department about the statutory guidelines? Is it saying "Yes" or "No"? This is no disrespect intended to any one Minister or another, it is nearly worse if he or she agrees with you but does not do it because at least you can argue back if someone says he or she does not agree with you. If there is acceptance that at some point these statutory guidelines are going to have to be developed, have the witnesses had any engagement with the Department on those?

No. We were to have a meeting with the Department, but she is too busy for us.

In its last letter, it stated that practical considerations involving available space, supervision requirements and class arrangements are not cause or reason for not facilitating for parental request. It has accepted it but it is not implementing it.

What Deputy Maxwell and I and the witnesses are talking about is the practicalities of it. Saying not having the resources or teachers should not be a barrier to it is somewhat meaningless unless you can demonstrate that there is that gap and the funding-----

It is about the funding. Section 30(2)(e) is in the curriculum section even though it is linked to funding in the Constitution. As far as I can recall, funding comes under section 12. It is not in the funding. Teachers in schools say that they have not got the funding for this and the Department is not giving them any funding. There were Catholic guidelines for second level at one stage. In the previous lot of them, it mentioned that there was not funding for this. Everybody thinks that there is not funding for it even though it is a constitutional condition of the funding that the school has got. When we are trying to tell a school, teacher, patron body or Minister that they have got this constitutional right, sometimes it means nothing. Parents tell us that they just cannot get through to anyone and that they are not being listened to. This is a right, but it is given no practical application on the ground.

There is something in the Constitution group report from 1998 that said it was meant to protect minorities. They said that if Article 44.2.4° did not provide safeguards, the State might well be in breach of its internationally obligations. If that was to occur, it would also mean that the State was in breach of Article 42.3.1°. That 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". There is a broader issue in relation to that of other constitutional rights connected with Article 44.2.4°. It is all the rights in relation to parents and the education system. That is where we are going with that.

Is there any case law - not specifically about this issue - that would support the link? Are there other similar cases of a right within the Constitution requiring a link with the funding? Are the witnesses aware of any case law that we could refer to? I appreciate that we are not all constitutional lawyers.

Not that I know of, particularly in relation to Article 44.2.4°. We have gone through every case in relation to education and religion. There are not many on education. Believe it or not, the judgment in the Burke case in relation to the leaving certificate was very supportive of parental rights under Article 42 of the Constitution. In the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice O'Donnell said that the State could not interfere in the rights of parents under Article 42.1. The Supreme Court has also said that we must look at Article 42.1 in the context of Article 44.2.4°. Those articles are all linked together in relation to parental rights. Parental rights are very strong under the Constitution. The High Court said that parents in Ireland had more rights under the Constitution than they had under human rights law. Either Mrs. Justice Costello in the High Court was wrong or the Department is wrong.

There is another case that is relevant, which is the Louise O'Keeffe case. The State's counter against her was that it was the school that was responsible. The State won that in the Supreme Court, but when it went to the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, the ECHR found that, while it was permissible for the State to allow private bodies to run the schools, that did not absolve the State of its responsibility to oversee the human rights of-----

The protection of children from sexual abuse.

In essence, the State had outsourced - I use that word in its simplest form - the responsibility, the duty or the job of instruction of all forms to the various patron bodies, boards of management and so on, but the witnesses' contention is that the European judgment in the O'Keeffe case actually links the constitutional right, the funding and what happens in practice in the school and lays all of that at the door of the State.

Yes. The State is still responsible for overseeing.

Okay. This is complicated. I do not need to tell the witnesses that because the witnesses have done a huge amount of work on it. At this committee, our instinct and our contention is always that we want to be helpful and assist where possible. As the witnesses have said, they are asserting a very important right that is in no less a place than the Constitution. We do not have a Gaelic scholar handy, but it strikes me that some of it comes down to the difference between "instruction" versus "education" as it is. The witnesses have stated that we must accept the Gaeilge, which we should and have to, because that is the first language. Obviously, we will have to go and do our own work following this meeting, but for our information, do the witnesses believe that there is a substantial difference between the emphasis in the Irish version of the Constitution and the emphasis in the English version?

There is a document called "Bunreacht na hÉireann: A study of the Irish text", written by Micheál Ó Cearúil and published in 1999 by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which as far as we are aware is used within the Oireachtas for interpreting the Irish text. In terms of Article 44.2.4°, "legislation shall not discriminate" is expressed as "ní cead" or "it is not permitted to", "to affect prejudicially" is expressed as "í do dhéanamh dochair do" or "do harm to", and "attend" is expressed as "a fhreastal". Ó Dónaill cites "an scoil a fhreastal, to attend school’ and "freastal ar léachtaí, to attend lectures’ as examples of ‘freastail’, ‘attend’, in the sense of ‘be present at’." Religious instruction is expressed as "teagasc creidimh". "Teagasc" is translated as "teaching, instruction" by Ó Dónaill, who cites "teagasc ábhair" as "teaching of a subject".

There is a difference of emphasis between the version as Gaeilge and the version as Béarla.

Yes.

In that instance, the Gaeilge takes precedence. We know that. It might be open to us to seek the Department's views on what its interpretation is. We can write to the Department and ask that question.

I am struck by what Deputy Maxwell said. I will be very straight with the witnesses. This is an issue that has come across my desk. It is not huge but it has come across my desk a few times. My understanding is that very many children are accommodated for various reasons. It might be down to the individual teacher or the ethos of the school. However it is done, some children are accommodated. To a certain extent, though, that is not good enough when it comes to a constitutional right. It cannot be-----

It should not be a charity model.

Exactly, but if you have a constitutional right to something and it is linked to the funding, our job is to try to get a view from the Department on that link in lieu of the meeting that was mentioned. We have no control over who the Department meets - the witnesses know that, but I say it just for completeness - but perhaps it is open to us to ask the Department if it can help us understand what the difference is between the understanding we have heard today about where that right lies and the link to the funding and what the Department's understanding is. I would also be interested to know if the Department has had any engagement with, or engaged in any kind of study on this, with parents. To be fair, I know the Department has a fair amount of engagement with parents but I am just wondering if that will come back. The views of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, INTO, may also be useful. It is not only an issue in primary schools, although it will manifest there because the two big religious events of the communion and the confirmation happen in primary schools. I would be interested in the views of the INTO on this matter as well. Perhaps we might seek an opinion from it in that regard. Given that its members are there on the front line of teaching our children, their views might be interesting to us.

We have met the Department in the past about a circular letter from a few years ago that attempted to bring in in education and training board, ETB, schools that, first, they had to allow parents to opt their children into rather than out of religious instruction and, second, the children had to be provided with an alternative subject. We were delighted when that came in. It was one of our big breakthroughs in what we were doing. Then there was a backlash against that from the Catholic Church, from the ETBs and from the teachers' unions. They were worried about religion teachers losing jobs.

It was at second level.

Yes. Another circular letter was then issued. On the face of it, it clarified the first letter but it effectively just withdrew it.

As a former trade union official myself, I absolutely respect the right of every trade union to represent their members where jobs are under threat. I am sure it is a matter of indifference to the individual unions where that threat comes from. Their job is to man the barricades and protect the jobs. I am only saying this because that used to be my work

At second level, it is a particularly difficult issue because religion at second level is an exam subject. Most schools make that a core subject, which means a student does Irish, English, maths, history, geography and religion. It is not a choice.

Okay.

The Department will argue that the religious education curriculum is suitable for all students and those with no religion, but we do not accept that. We have gone through that curriculum and it is not objective, critical and pluralistic, which are the key human rights terms. We object to that on the grounds of conscience and we want our children to not attend that and to get another subject because they are educationally disadvantaged if they do not get to do that exam and get the points from it.

We might ask the Department if, and the extent to which, it has undertaken any study on this being a core subject. If is not a core subject, then it is not an issue because students would have a genuine choice. I will be straight in saying that it is a very long time since I was in secondary school, but when I was, it was not a core subject.

Not in all ETBs, but it is in a lot of the ETBs, and it is a core subject in all denominational schools. With regard to some of the ETBs at second level such as the community and comprehensive schools, the judge in the campaign case said that they were denominational, but they are listed as multidenominational now. Some of the designated community schools and colleges have Catholic chaplains. It is not clear for parents exactly what is going on. At primary level last year, the Department asked schools to give it the number of children who were not attending religious instruction.

I think it was to do with the POD and the information they give over. We have not seen what the result of that is. However, I know a lot of parents who, because it is so difficult to exercise the right, just leave their children in the class even though they do not want them to do religion. They let their children take the class. Otherwise, they would be left in the class anyway and then the child feels left out or whatever is going on. For very young children, we know from relatives, friends and people who contact us that their small children pick it up if they are left in the class. They come home and they want to say their prayers at bedtime and all this kind of thing. They start asking questions about holy God and all these issues. Parents find that very difficult to deal with. They were never meant to have to deal with it because the Constitution-----

That was the point I was going to make. As Ms Donnelly says, if the right in the Constitution, as she has interpreted it, was fully vindicated those questions would not arise. It simply would not happen.

Atheism is protected under international human rights laws as a positive belief and world view. It is not just the absence of religion.

Secularism is as well.

As I am related to more than one atheist, I have had this explained to me. I do understand that and also the protected characteristics. For the purpose of this committee, my proposal will be that we engage with the Department. We will get its view. I will try to see if we can get any information on that to establish the extent of it and also to get the Department's view as to where that right interacts with the funding, the circular and the practical. As the witnesses say, it is a fairly practical thing. Although it seems like a deeper question, it is actually not. It is one around resources and practical application. I appreciate that. We will correspond with the Department of education, try to get its views and see if it can add anything to our debate. All the correspondence we get back from the Department will be forward to the witnesses and we will facilitate them making a comment. When we come back, it might be the case that we will have officials from the Department before the committee. That will be a matter for the committee to discuss and we will take a decision on that basis.

If there are no further questions from our members, I will thank the witnesses for being here with us. I thank them for the evidence they have given, the information they have provided to us and all their work on this issue. It has been very informative for us. Thankfully, I no longer have to deal with that issue. I have no smallies, only a very grown-up daughter, but I am sure those parents who do are very glad the witnesses are here to give the practical application about which they were very explicit in their petition and in their request. It is a practical request that will facilitate both parents and-----

We want our constitutional right facilitated on the ground in every school. That is what we want. As a minority in this country, we feel we have a right to that. It is a republic and we want our rights.

To finish off, I will give the context in which I was raising atheism as a belief. We find this sometimes helps people who do not understand the strength of feeling on it. If schools were actively teaching children in class that there is no God - obviously, we do not want this - and if Catholic parents had to send their children to such schools and those children had to stay in a classroom where it was being taught that there is no God, we would never hear the end of it until it was resolved. The exact same logic should apply to this right.

It is the same sauce for the goose and the gander, etc. We absolutely hear the witnesses. We are very grateful as a committee that they have come in to us and that we have had a chance to have an interaction. We know now the questions we are going to be asking the Department of education. We will put those questions to the Department. Whatever we get back from them - in no way do we control what the Department says - will be shared with the witnesses. We will welcome any feedback and any commentary they can give us because that will help us when and if we decide we are going to engage with the Department. On that basis, we thank the witnesses for their work, for being here with us and for the evidence they have given. They have given us a lot to think about. We will have a chance to discuss this as a committee and then to ask the questions of the Department. When we get those answers, they will be shared with the witnesses and we will welcome their feedback at that stage.

We would like thank the committee as well. This committee has been the most constructive and helpful of the ones we have dealt with, in terms of facilitating and engagement of views.

We have been around a long time and it is very difficult.

I thank the committee very much for that.

I do not think there is a Cathaoirleach in the Oireachtas who would not like to hear that, so on behalf of the committee I accept that. There being no further questions, I propose we suspend for a few minutes to allow our witnesses to leave.