Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 20 Jun 2014

Vol. 844 No. 4

Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection on the General Scheme of Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2013: Motion

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move:

That Dáil Éireann shall consider the Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection entitled "Report on the Draft General Scheme of an Education (Admission of Schools) Bill 2013", copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 5 March 2014.

I welcome the opportunity to debate in the Chamber the report on the draft general scheme of an education (admission to schools) Bill 2013. I would like to speak first about the process involved as it is a new one whereby, before publishing draft legislation, Ministers publish the heads or general scheme of a Bill and refer it to the relevant Oireachtas committee. In the case of this scheme, the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection decided to invite submissions, hold hearings and draw up a report, potentially including recommendations. That is actually what happened. The committee received more than 50 written submissions on the draft general scheme of the Bill. It was made clear in the call for submissions that if people wished to make an oral submission also, they would have to indicate as much in their submissions. We invited everyone to the hearings who specifically requested the opportunity to make an oral presentation. Subsequently, 23 groups and individuals attended to make their oral presentations having made written submissions.

Having previously dealt with the heads of a gender recognition Bill, what the committee did differently this time was to bring in individuals as well as groups. I suggested that course as Chair of the committee because the point had been made to me that in the Oireachtas we tend to meet with groups, particularly lobby groups, and do not have enough individual citizens in. We need that voice too. There are a huge number of professional lobby groups in every sector, often charities or representative associations, but one needs to hear the voices of citizens also when the Oireachtas has stakeholders expressing viewpoints.

The joint committee held three hearings. In addition to the hearings, I note that the written submissions themselves ranged widely across diverse issues raised by the heads of the Bill. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. In helping the joint committee to draw up the report, the service put together a discussion document which included a great deal of background information. It went through every submission and covered all the different themes that were raised in the submissions and hearing process. Without the help of the Library and Research Service, the joint committee would not have produced as good a report. That work was extremely helpful.

To give an example of that, the report goes through the current legislation. On page 13, it talks about previous reports. I will go into that because this section of the report is important because this issue has been looked at by the Department for some time and work has been ongoing with regard to this issue. For example, there was an audit of enrolment policies in 2008. The then Minister for Education requested this audit the aim of which was to identify any disparities between schools in terms of their admission policies. The audit included pupils from the Traveller community and those with special needs. It looked at how the enrolment policies of some of these schools compared with their actual enrolment patterns as well as the effect of the admission practices and policies on the distribution of newcomer pupils across schools. This was important because when the Minister and his Department were drawing up the draft general scheme, they obviously took this into account. There were a number of findings about that.

One of the things it would have brought out, that was also brought out during our hearings, was that there are aspects of written enrolment policies that may be deemed exclusionary, for example, pre-enrolling children from birth or providing preference to children of past pupils thereby putting new arrivals to communities at a disadvantage. An ESRI study in 2009, Adapting to Diversity: Irish Schools and Newcomer Students, looked at a similar issue. It drew from the first national survey of primary and second-level principals on diversity and complemented this with 12 detailed case studies of primary and secondary schools. It found that newcomer students comprised 10% of the primary school-going population and 6% of the post-primary school-going population in 2007. Notably, this was not evenly distributed in primary schools and four in ten primary schools had no newcomer children while others had a very high proportion of newcomer students. That report identified a similar problem which the Minister is attempting to address in the legislation he is planning.

I will go through the recommendations but the media publicity around the committee hearings tended to focus on certain issues. For example, an article by Kitty Holland in The Irish Times at the time concentrated on the issue of the discrimination involved in giving priority to students with a baptismal certificate or who have been brought up in a particular faith so that would apply to faith schools such as those run by the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland. In fact, this is not reflective of the audit and the ESRI report I have just outlined, which identified the issue of enrolment policies which are basically "first come, first served" where children must be enrolled from birth. This is possibly a much greater problem in terms of discrimination in practice.

One of the issues that was brought to the attention of the committee and which would not have got much publicity related to two submissions. I am very aware of this issue because it is an issue in my community. The submissions were from Lucan from Ms Colette Kavanagh who is principal of Esker Educate Together national school and Mr. Tom Moriarty who is principal in Adamstown Castle Educate Together national school. Ms Kavanagh said that parental school choice has been shown to be a significant determinant of segregation in schools and that unregulated parental choice should not be granted at the expense of social cohesion. She argued that the current system of school choice favours the Irish-educated Catholic parent over the immigrant in almost all cases. Mr. Moriarty made a similar point. He said that there are schools in Dublin existing side by side where one is almost completely international in nature and the other is exclusively Irish. He said that we are essentially looking at racial segregation. He argued that where there are a number of schools in an area operating under the same patron, they should be obliged to operate a common enrolment policy. Again, we took that on board when we were drawing up our recommendations.

The Oireachtas Library and Research Service looked at the international situation and referred to a 2009 paper that looked at parental school choice in the Netherlands. It found that the more that parental choices are influenced by the ethnic mix of a school's students, the more segregated they are likely to become over time and the more difficult it is for policy makers to ignore the fact that schools are segregated. The OECD published a working paper in January 2012 that looked at current policies regarding school choice in OECD countries. This review showed that more than two thirds of OECD countries have increased school choice opportunities for parents over the past 25 years. However, the author of the paper describes the debate around school choice as perhaps one of the most ardently discussed issues in the current educational policy debate with school choice advocates claiming that expanding school choice will increase equity while school choice critics argue that it leads to segregation based on socioeconomic status and ethnicity.

This is not something that is very much in the public domain but it did come up in the submissions and debates during our committee hearings. On a personal level - I am not speaking as Chair of the committee and I know the two principals involved - this is a real problem in Lucan. There is an issue there about racial segregation. The situation will change this year because the Department has given the go-ahead to a new building for Esker Educate Together national school so the new school will be much nearer to where the children are coming from. Currently, most of the children in that school are bused out of their communities to this school because they could not get places in the local school. These children are largely from new communities that have come to Ireland and made their life here. This is a very sensitive issue. It is a very sensitive issue for me to raise as the local Deputy but it is the type of thing we need to know about because it is happening.

I will go through the conclusions and make a few points. Conclusion one was a huge issue of debate. On the face of it, it is so obvious that giving priority to children because they have baptismal certificates or have been christened or brought up in a particular faith is discriminatory. There is no question but that the views expressed by committee members would be that this is not the ideal situation and that a school in a small town outside urban areas should cater for everybody. That issue was raised in many different submissions but it was also discussed among committee members. We could not really come up with a proposal to deal with that particular form of discrimination because of the Constitution-----

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I was hoping that they would.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

We had people on one side who wanted this type of discrimination to be prohibited in future arguing that it was unconstitutional while on the other side, representatives of the trusts or patron bodies for Catholic, Church of Ireland or other faith schools argued the exact opposite. UN documentation contains protections concerning people being educated in their own faith so it is a very fraught issue. The report gives both sides. My understanding from the advice given to the committee is that these issues have not really been adjudicated in the courts to allow one to say that a definitive answer had been given on this. From the Minister's point of view, the important thing is that it is a concern.

While this legislation cannot address it, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. That is the reason our second conclusion mentioned the issue of multiple patronage, therefore, it is very much related to the patronage issue which is also a difficult issue to solve. Over time, that may be the way we can solve this issue. Conclusion No. 2 states that multiple patronage and ethos as a basis for policy can lead to segregation and inequality in the education system. The objectives of admission policy should be equality and integration. That relates to the point I made earlier that the division of students in accordance with different patrons can lead to segregation and inequality. There is an element of that in a community where there are several schools. In urban communities we have the luxury of several schools but in practice it means that children are divided under different patrons so they are not being educated together, they are being educated by different patrons based on the principle of parental choice and multiple patronage and ethos. Committee members had different views on this matter. Some members felt there should be diversity of patrons and that parents should have a choice in that regard while other members felt it was not ideal. What we were taking on board was the fact that it can lead to problems as stated in our conclusions. That is very much a matter for the patrons. My personal view - this is not the view of the committee - is that over time the aim should be to move to a State multidenominational model for schools but I realise there are difficulties in that and that it is important that all stakeholders are brought on board. The mechanism of how to do that is not straightforward, an issue with which the Minister is trying to grapple.

I agree with the Minister that because most schools are Catholic and run by Catholic patrons or trusts, they have a responsibility. If they have the only school in a village they have a responsibility to ensure those schools are, in effect, multidenominational and inclusive. To be fair - this point was made at the committee - in practice, Catholic schools are often the most inclusive from socioeconomic and ethnicity points of view. They can be the most inclusive but not always, and they can be the reverse. It is important that there is balance in the debate but that point was raised at the committee.

The report made a number of other conclusions. However, I realise my time is limited. I do not think we have proposed drastic changes from those proposed in the Minister's original scheme but we have some important differences with the Minister. I hope that, where possible, he will do his best to take those on board.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lyons)

I call the Minister.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

My understanding was that I would be responding to the debate rather than speaking next.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lyons)

That is fine. I will move to the next speaker, Deputy Charlie McConalogue.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I commend Deputy Joanna Tuffy on chairing a number of hearings and her work and dedication to producing the report. I acknowledge the many groups which presented before the committee, the Library and Research Service and the other members of the committee who contributed to the report. I commend also the work of the Minister and his officials. I welcome the officials accompanying him today and thank them for their efforts and ongoing work on this issue.

In Fianna Fáil we believe it is important that parents living or moving to an area have certainty about the choice of schools available for their children.

We have previously acknowledged that the provisions of the Education Act 1988 dealing with enrolment have not fully realised that original objective and we committed both to reviewing the enrolment provisions of the Education Act and to introducing a new regulatory framework for school enrolment. We need a new framework and while 80% of schools enrol all applicants there is still an issue with the remainder. One in five schools is oversubscribed. When the draft proposals were published, the INTO made the point that where problems have arisen at primary level, in the main these relates to the failure of the Department of Education and Skills to provide school places in an area. The union also made the point that the legislation did not address the issue of parents making multiple applications to different schools and then accepting places in several schools, a situation in some cases being compounded by schools not being told that a place is not being accepted. Such decisions can affect the staffing and funding of schools. Perhaps the committee conclusion that schools in a particular area should, irrespective of their patronage, co-operate in respect of admissions, might help.

The Minister published his draft plans last September and sent them to the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection for our consideration and we had a very useful and constructive engagement with all the interested parties. The committee's report was published just over three months ago and I think it is fair to say that there was a broadly positive response to that report. For example, the National Parents Council welcomed the recommendation for a new independent and transparent appeals process to oversee schools' admissions policies.

The Minister's draft Bill proposes to remove the current system, known as a section 29 appeal, where parents can appeal decisions to the Department of Education and Skills. Ms Áine Lynch, chief executive of the National Parents Council - Primary, said planned new legislation aimed at standardising such policies should lead to fewer appeals but "parents do need someone else to go to" when schools fail to adhere either to their own admissions policies or national guidelines. The committee endorsed the need for an independent appeals mechanism, with the suggestion that this could possibly be provided for on a regional basis. The National Parents Council - Secondary welcomed a separate recommendation for the Department to provide resources "within a statutory timeframe" to any school designated to enrol a student with special educational needs.

I said earlier that Fianna Fáil believes it is important that parents living in or moving to an area have certainty about the choice of schools available for their children. In that context I am pleased about the committee's conclusion on waiting lists which the report says can give rise to discrimination against newcomers to an area. I fully endorse the view that we should move to address this discrimination sooner rather than later and that unless there are legal obstacles, waiting lists should be phased-out as soon as possible. The report also points out that the transitional use of waiting lists could be viewed as particularly unfair towards children in care and could potentially place them at risk of isolation in their community. The report says that this could be lessened by giving children in care a high priority in relation to school admissions policies.

The report clearly states that schools should not be allowed to give priority or preference to a student on the basis that he or she is the son or daughter of a former student or a staff member of the school. However, we do say that schools should be given the all clear to give priority to a student with a sibling currently attending the school. This is a sensible and practical suggestion that I think everyone will welcome. I hope the Minister acts on this recommendation. I am aware that Ms Emily Logan, the Children's Ombudsman, has also called for an end to preferential access for the children of past pupils.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Would the Deputy confine that to siblings who are currently in the school or siblings who have been in the school and have left?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

To siblings who are currently in the school. The report also concludes that the integrity of Irish medium schools should be protected while ensuring that no discrimination takes place in relation to admissions.

Foras na Gaeilge, in its submission, pointed out that the State's overall strategy document for the development and promotion of the Irish language, 20 Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010-2030, sets challenging goals for the Government in respect of the preservation and promotion of the language. This was also made by An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta, COGG, which highlighted the strategy's objective to triple the total number of daily Irish speakers from 83,000 to 250,000 by 2030.

The report states that where a school is designated to enrol a student with special educational needs, resources should be provided by the Department of Education and Skills within a statutory timetable. I ask the Minister to indicate whether he will take this on board and provide for it in the Bill. Both Down Syndrome Ireland and Inclusion Ireland made a compelling case to the committee that the Minister's initial proposals did not tackle the issue of schools being under-resourced to deal with special educational needs. They both argued that additional resources must be made available to any such school.

There are a few other points I wish to raise. The report deals with oversubscription in one fifth of schools that are oversubscribed. It is appropriate to note also the issue of admissions to schools which are not oversubscribed, particularly those that are struggling, especially smaller schools.

I will refer to the impact on some of them of the Government policies of the past two or three years. In particular, the increase in the threshold for retaining teachers is putting pressure on small schools. Many wonder how they will survive in the medium term. This will have a knock-on effect on their admissions, as I am sure the Minister is aware. Parents are left wondering whether those schools will remain for the duration of their children's education and retain their current number of teachers. They also wonder what the schools will be like by the time their children finish attending them. These concerns arise from the repeated cuts that have made life difficult for such schools. The increase in the threshold has particular relevance for minority faith schools, as the Minister acknowledged in the midst of the recent local election campaign. He stated that he would begin listening to those schools about their difficulties and the impact of his policies on them. When responding to this motion, he might elaborate on what he meant during the campaign and whether he will take the matter seriously.

The small schools review needs to be published. It relates to schools that are struggling to get numbers as opposed to the admissions end of the spectrum where schools are oversubscribed, which is the subject matter of this report.

As part of this report, we recommend that, where a child attends a school, priority should be given to the admission of his or her siblings. This sensible suggestion should be reflected in the Minister's school transport policy. Under the measures he has introduced, a child who starts at a school that is not the closest to the family home will not be entitled to school transport even if a sibling is already attending that school. This is unfair. Many families with a number of children attending a school are finding that, when the youngest starts, he or she cannot get on the school bus. If there is no space-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

When we have a schools admission policy, the transportation should reflect that. There should not be a contradiction, but let us get the admissions policy right first and then fix the transport one. Would the Deputy accept that this is a perfectly solid argument?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

That is quite possible, but it is a current issue.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Yes.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We only started encountering it last year. It should be addressed before September, as it is unfair on families to have to find means of transport to other schools. It does not make sense.

There are significant difficulties in terms of the supports for special needs pupils in schools, as I am sure the Minister would agree. In many situations, soft barriers are encouraging parents of children with special needs to consider other schools.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lyons)

The Deputy's time is up.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I commend the Chairman, the rest of the committee's members and those who provided support on getting the report to this stage.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I do not sit on the education committee, but the Minister and Chairman know that this is a subject in which I am interested. The Minister and I represent the same constituency and have often debated the issues in the Chamber, so he might be glad to hear that I will stick to the committee's report on the proposed Bill instead of raising any constituency-specific issue.

School admissions pose a problem, particularly in certain constituencies, including mine where there is significant oversubscription at certain schools. This has created a waiting list system. In some cases, lists stretch to an incredible 11 years. This system discriminates against people who have just moved up from the country or from elsewhere in Dublin. They have no chance of an admission to the local school because of the waiting list system. It creates anxiety and stress for parents. Even if they are given holding numbers of three, four or five years out, they might not even be sure in the preceding 12 months of their children getting places. This is a difficult situation for parents.

A further result is that children cannot be located in their local communities. This is not the model of education we want. At primary level in particular, we want children to be able to attend school in their local communities. They could walk to school, which would be good for their health and fitness, make friends in the area where they grow up and be close to home.

In my constituency, the issue is not just one of oversubscription, but of how the waiting lists are managed. Sometimes, parents must send their children to fee-paying schools that they cannot afford, stretching them financially. They take out loans or borrow from family members, which is not right. This represents a failing on the part of the State. However, I am glad that the Government is trying to address it.

We have not debated the details of the legislation, as we have not had Second Stage yet, but I welcome the robust, important and long overdue reforms that the Minister is pursuing. A key fear expressed to me is that the Department might be trying to centralise power so as to ensure control over schools' admissions and so on. We must keep refuting such fears. We are trying to move to a system that is open, transparent and fair and works for educators and parents alike, which is always the primary goal. Currently, it works for neither. The best interests of the child should be at the centre. This is what we are trying to do. As parliamentarians, it behoves us all to keep repeating this mantra because certain people and interest groups are raising unwarranted fears. In any case, we will have a chance to get stuck into this matter on the next Stage when we move from contemplating what will be in the legislation to debating its details. I look forward to going through each section.

I commend the Chairman and the committee on their work. They have spent a considerable amount of time on this detailed and lengthy report. Approximately 60 submissions were made, a number of public hearings were held and the committee considered the matter. It is important that the committee be commended, as this issue is not always noticed. It is not sexy enough for the media, so it does not get the column inches that it should, but it is of concern to parents. They appreciate it and express their thanks when one tells them of the committee's work and report. They read the report, get involved and comment on the matter.

I held a public meeting in Donnybrook with educators, parents and some officials to debate the proposals that were in the ether from the heads of the Bill. It was great to see people's passion and engagement. They came with particular interests, be they from Gaelscoileanna or fee-paying schools or be they principals. It all fed into the meeting. Unfortunately, the submissions are not listed in appendix No. 5 to the report, which I am sure is an oversight, but I will cite a couple of the proposals made at the meeting, as they are worthy of comment.

Before doing so, I will discuss a number of the report's conclusions. The first, which ties into the second, is the lack of diversity of school types. It is incredible that most parents in 2014 do not have a choice of schools. For example, they cannot choose not to send their children to religious schools or their children might not be able to attend their local schools because of a difference in religions. Indeed, children might be placed further down the lists because they have not been baptised. Some people scoff at the Minister for pursuing this matter, but forget them. This is the right way to go. Parents want choice. They want to be able to send their children to local schools that reflect their beliefs and ethos. The key issue is children being unable to attend school because they are not of the right religion. I have been approached by parents who had their children baptised just to get them further up the waiting lists. This is ridiculous, but it is the society in which we live. As such, I urge the Minister to continue with his reforms. This matter partly relates to admissions, but also to patronage, in which regard more work needs to be done.

I do not agree with conclusion No. 7 of the report, which relates to the derogation for the children of past pupils. There should be a derogation. As far as I am aware, the Minister's current proposal stands at 25%.

That is modest. Much of the work done in schools is done out of hours by parents on a voluntary basis. Parents, because they have a connection or association with a school they attended and want to send their children there, will get involved and hold cake sales and fund-raising events for that school, which funding is important to every school in the State. No school in this country exists solely on the money it receives from the State. Much of the funding for schools is raised by parents through different initiatives. If there is a derogation to allow children of past pupils to attend a school, parents will remain involved and continue doing this work. Not only the children of a school but everybody benefits when parents take an interest in their local school.

Conclusions Nos. 11 and 12 which deal with co-operation between schools in a geographical area in terms of admissions are, in my view, key. The situation in my constituency, which is also the Minister's constituency, in respect of this September is an exception in terms of the explosion of pupils in the area. Often places are available and additional schools are not required. It is the unco-operative nature of schools in terms of the management that results in unnecessary anxieties right up to the last minute. We need to do our best to address that.

I would like, if I may, to read into the record a couple of points raised at the public meeting which I held last November, although some of the information may be a little outdated at this stage. In regard to inclusivity and resource management, the obligation on schools to operate inclusive admissions policies for children with special educational needs was strongly welcomed. The issue of sufficient resources for schools in this context was raised. It was stated that the necessary support would have to be forthcoming from the Department in a timely manner so that schools could be confident of operating an inclusive admissions policy without fear of being unable to secure the necessary resources to do so.

In regard to Gaelscoileanna, it was confirmed that Irish proficiency could still be used as an admission criterion. I hope that remains the case. However, there was no derogation in the current proposals to allow Gaelscoileanna to continue the practice of holding admission interviews to determine that the applying pupil came from an Irish-speaking family. It was said that this would also impact on the management of waiting lists for the period of the sunset clause in the proposed legislation and would present practical problems for Gaelscoileanna which would need to be addressed during the legislative process.

On past pupils, it was noted that the past pupil provision for admissions - holding a maximum of 25% of places for children of past pupils - was not time bound. While the figure in this regard was not at that time definitive, any increase in that figure in the course of progression of the legislation would mean further discrimination against other areas of admission. It was recommended that the past pupil criterion be applied separately from other criteria, including sibling preference. For example, the first child of a past pupil to attend the school would be admitted under the past pupil criterion but his or her sibling would not as he or she would qualify separately under the sibling rule. This area needs to be clarified further in the legislation.

Issues were also raised around the designation of primary schools as feeder schools for secondary schools, which should be permissible, the practice of fee-paying schools using ability to pay as a criterion for admission, which should continue, and eligibility of foster children under different criteria, which should be addressed in terms of the definition of guardianship in the legislation.

I am aware that Deputy Tuffy, as Chairman of the committee, and the Minister, Deputy Quinn, have had sight of this report but as it was not listed in the appendix as a submission I will forward a copy of it to them.

A huge amount of work has been already done in this area because of the reforms introduced by Government in relation to how legislation is dealt with. I am anxious that we get to the phase of debating the legislation. It is important it is enacted as quickly as possible because it will take a couple of years after the introduction of the new provisions in respect of admission, particularly those relating to the operation of waiting lists, for the system to correct itself. Parents in my constituency, which as I said is also the Minister's constituency, are, as I am sure are people in other constituencies, anxious to see this system introduced so that they can be confident of having their child educated in one of the local State schools. I commend the chairman of the committee, Deputy Tuffy, on her hard work in this area.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

I too congratulate Deputy Tuffy on her chairmanship of the hearings on the Bill, which I found very informative. A number of sessions were held at which a diverse range of submissions, covering almost all aspects of the heads of the Bill, were presented. Some of those submissions threw up some interesting scenarios. One of the conclusions I reached during those hearings is that we cannot legislate for every possible scenario. That is just not feasible. What we need to do is legislate to ensure the system in place is fair and transparent. While exceptional cases will arise that may be hard to address, that the system be fair and transparent and properly communicated to students and parents is all that we can ask of the Department.

Most of the issues arising have already been covered so I would like to focus on two particular issues, the first of which is the assessment of students as a soft barrier. It was stated in one of the submissions that as part of the interview process for a post-leaving certificate course there is an assessment based on academic ability. One of the unintended consequences of what is being proposed could be elimination of that assessment. As stated previously in the Seanad by a Minister, we must be careful to ensure there are no unintended consequences from this proposal. As I understand it, there is a need at post-leaving certificate and further education level for assessment based on academic ability.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I do not foresee that arising as a problem because we are talking about the State requirement to have a child at school up to a maximum of 16 years. It is different. However, I know the point the Deputy is making. It is an understandable concern but I do not think that will happen.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

That is fair enough. As I said, it is important to ensure there are no unintended consequences as a result of what is proposed. I believe the matter is adequately addressed in the heads of the Bill. I look forward to debate of the legislation.

Another issue of concern, which was touched on earlier, is the sibling rule. In my opinion, this should apply to a sibling currently in a school. As I stated earlier, it will not be possible to legislate for every scenario. For example, where a primary and post-primary school are located on the same campus, as is the case in my constituency, and a sibling of a child already in the post-primary school is hoping to attend the primary school, the general consensus is that the sibling rule would apply to pupils currently in the educational institution at the time.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the debate was on the provisions of section 29 of the Act. All of the submissions to the hearings commented on it. While some were in favour of maintenance of the section 29 provisions in terms of their being transparent and easy to operate, others found them to be cumbersome and difficult to work with. Everyone was agreed that there needs to be some form of independent appeals process and that what is proposed in terms of the judicial review was not the way to go as it would be very costly for parents faced with the prospect of a student being refused enrolment. Of concern to me is that what is now being proposed is that a board of management will set out the enrolment policy for a school. It will then be up to the principal to implement that policy on behalf of the board of management. Where an issue arises, in terms of refusal of enrolment of a student, the appeal will be to the board of management which set the policy in the first instance. I believe this is an issue on which we need to have further discussion.

The issues of the past pupil-parent rule and children with special educational needs were also raised a number of times. As I said, the report is comprehensive and includes many good recommendations. The one which intrigued me the most - this was referred to by the previous speaker - was the introduction of a common application policy covering a number of schools.

That is certainly worth developing, whether it is done on a regional basis or on a smaller scale. If a number of schools within a local community are all under the same patronage, it would make sense to have a common application process.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Is the Deputy talking about North Monastery CBS?

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

Yes; unfortunately, I am talking about the North Monastery again. The situation is that an individual who is a trustee of a primary school and is also the patron of another primary school less than a couple of hundred yards down the road. They have different enrolment policies and different application processes, even though both schools have the same individual as either a patron or a trustee. I do not see the sense in that. The relevant conclusion in the report - No. 10 or No. 11 - certainly warrants a little more investigation and development. We had a presentation from a gentleman in Limerick where they have such a process.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

It was Noel Malone.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

That process seems to be working quite well.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It works very well.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

It is something that we could develop. I do not know whether the Minister has plans to do so within the current legislation, but it seems to make a lot of sense.

I want to touch finally on children in care. We had a presentation from an individual who talked about how children in care are moved from home to home in their early years. They might come into a community at the age of four, five or six hoping to get a place in a school. If school places in that community are oversubscribed, it can cause a difficulty. It is an area that we should investigate more.

Overall, the process was worthwhile. Many of the presentations were informative and threw up issues that we need to look at in greater detail. It we cannot do that as part of this Bill, we should certainly do so in the context of wider education policy. We look forward to seeing the legislation go through the Houses as quickly as possible.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I am delighted to see the legislation that the Minister is introducing and recognise the work done by Deputy Tuffy and the entire Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. It is also worth acknowledging the Minister's use of the pre-legislative process. This kind of debate and the report from the committee are incredibly useful in enabling us to give this type of feedback to the Minister and his officials before the draft legislation is published.

I am going to use two live examples in Wicklow to illustrate two issues, one of which is addressed in the Bill while the other is not, and then go on to some things that I like in the Bill and three areas that I want to bring to the Minister's attention.

The first live example illustrates the geographic problem. Thankfully, there is going to be a new north Wicklow Educate Together school in Bray, which needs to serve all of Wicklow and parts of south Dublin.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Is it the post-primary school?

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

Yes. However, when the admissions policy came out, it said that it would serve parts of south Dublin and Bray, but nowhere further south, which is a huge challenge for other parts of north Wicklow. Wicklow town has a primary Educate Together school, so I have been contacted by a lot of people asking what they are meant to do. The Bill does not address this problem. There is probably some hybrid model to be found. For Roman Catholic schools, which are obviously all over the place, geographic prioritisation is perhaps allowed, but other schools which are much more sparsely spread, such as Church of Ireland schools, Educate Together schools, Muslim schools or Jewish schools, have to be allowed to cast their net widely.

My second live example, which the Minister and I have discussed, is the shortage of primary school places in the Greystones-Delgany and Kilcoole area. There are nine schools and, in theory, there is fantastic choice. They are all fantastic schools: we have Educate Together, a Gaelscoil, a Church of Ireland school and a Roman Catholic school. The problem is that, because the system is overburdened, first, there is not really any choice, and parents just try to get their kids in wherever they can; and, second, the system is complex. The nine schools all work together closely, but parents have to apply to all nine schools and see where they get in. The lack of capacity means that, this year, we will have four year olds and six year olds starting junior infants together, which is one problem. The other problem is that there is huge complexity and a lack of transparency, which I stress is not the fault of the schools. The Bill addresses that to a point by saying that single admissions structures can be put in place for local systems. That would be welcome. I hope the Minister and I can sit down and discuss the issue of a new school for the area. It is not an issue for today, but it is very pressing.

I welcome various elements of the Bill. The first of these is heads 8 and 9, which address special needs. I am delighted to see that power will be given to the National Educational Welfare Board and the National Council for Special Education to designate schools for kids with special needs. The heads say that the power will be given to the Minister or to the bodies "for the time being". That seems a little vague and the Minister might want to look at that.

Head 4 is fantastic. I really like the idea of no fees or contributions being sought for admissions. We all know that are there some quite elite schools that charge a prohibitive amount of money to low-income and some middle-income parents even to put their kids on the waiting list, so that proposal is very welcome.

I welcome the move whereby waiting lists before the year of admission are taken away. We had the crazy situation in which any parent moving into the Greystones-Delgany and Kilcoole area with kids who were seven, eight or nine, or even when the kids were four, had no way of getting them into the schools, so this is a fantastic measure.

I also welcome the preclusion of schools from interviewing parents. We all know, although there are obviously no data to back it up, that those interviews are used by some schools as a form of soft discrimination, allowing them to say, "Well, maybe little Johnny would not be suitable for our school," for whatever reason. I applaud the Minister's introduction of that measure.

There are three areas where the Bill could possibly go further. When I read the heads of the Bill, I was really excited, particularly when I read the explanatory note on head 1. I thought that it was an incredible statement of intent and a fundamental shift from a highly discriminatory admissions system to one that is fantastically progressive and non-discriminatory. However, as I read down through the rest of the heads, my enthusiasm ebbed, because the Bill left in lots of exclusions. I thought it was going to be a radical piece of legislation; it feels more like a modest and very sensible step in the right direction.

The first area is religious exclusion. I have no issue with religious patronage or religious ethos. I was educated by the Holy Faith nuns in Greystones and am very grateful to them for that. I have no issue with there being a religious ethos in a school, but I have an absolute problem, as a matter of principle and values, with any school being able to say, "We're not letting you in because you are not of our faith." If a church wants to set up, run and pay for its own school and says that it is going to let in only Church of Ireland, Muslim or Roman Catholic children, there may be an argument for that, but it is certainly not acceptable of a State-run institution. As a private citizen before the last election, I ended up in a communication with the previous Minister for Education and Skills as I began to think about my own children and where they might be able to go. If the State says to the parents of a child, "You are not coming in here because you are a Protestant," it is to me like saying the child will not be admitted to the accident and emergency department of a hospital or to a university because they are Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or whatever religion. It is a point of principle and Ireland should move on from this.

I would love to have seen provision in this Bill allowing for religious ethos but providing that it was no longer possible to exclude a child from a State-run institution because of their faith or their parents' faith. It was a good opportunity.

The second matter is gender, which is much more difficult. Personally, I would like Ireland to move away from segregated education.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It is Government policy now, but existing schools cannot be compelled.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

That is what disappointed me. As I read the heads of the Bill it appeared to say one was not allowed to discriminate based on gender, unless one discriminates based on gender. I wondered what we are actually changing here.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

The Deputy would be surprised at the number of parents who still want single-sex schools.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I am aware of that and for that reason it is correct that the legislation would not enforce co-education everywhere. There is a very strong parental preference for it. However, perhaps the Bill could be ambitious in laying the groundwork for moving from a situation where somebody is told they cannot go to a school because of their gender. It is a personal preference. I realise other parents want segregated education but I would like Ireland to move away from a position where boys and girls at three to six years of age are separated from the other gender for no obvious reason that I can see.

The third area where I would like the Bill to go further in is fees, which are essentially a proxy for exclusion based on parental wealth. Again, I thought I read in the heads of the Bill that there would be no exclusion based on fees, but later the Bill excluded where it was already happening. It more or less says that the school cannot charge fees, unless it charges fees. It cannot exclude based on parental wealth, unless it excludes based on parental wealth.

I have a proposal for the Minister. I do not favour the State pulling funding from fee-paying schools, mainly because it would end up costing the State more money at a time when it has very little money. The economics of it do not make sense. However, there should not be a situation where schools can exclude based on parental wealth. It is elitist and bad for society. My proposal is based on the model used by Harvard. It has a very elegant system. It charges fees, which are quite large, but under its system if one is accepted, one will not have to turn one's place down on financial grounds. It will help a person find a bursary, scholarship or zero or low interest-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It only has approximately $60 billion of funding in its back pocket. If the Deputy can produce $60 billion, I will be quite happy to play with that figure.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

It has a large amount of cash. It is just something to consider. I wonder if we could find a solution whereby if one is accepted into a school, a way will be found, perhaps through a means test of some description, to ensure the student need not say "No" because of the amount of their parents' disposable income. The Harvard model is something of a stretch, but it is the same type of principle.

I salute the Minister for what he is doing, but I believe he could be more ambitious.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I join Members in congratulating the committee on the work done by the Chairperson and the people who drafted the report. It has been very useful and helpful.

The origin of this was in June 2011 when Martin Hanniffy, assistant secretary of the Department, gave me a paper outlining the difficulties that have arisen since the enactment of the Education Act 1998. It addressed a number of the issues, so it is based on that. Many people have different opinions about this. We are dealing with an existing system, and that system is a public private partnership that caters for just under 1 million people, including teachers and pupils, not to mention parents and extended family. At primary level, the system has been in existence for over 180 years. It varies in the post-primary sector but many of the schools were established in the middle of the 1880s and many more in the 1920s and 1930s, when Ireland was very different. We are not dealing with a greenfield site. We would design it differently if we were, but we are not. People are established in the system and have rights.

We have the free voluntary sector, as it is called. Schools were invited to get rid of fees and voluntarily come into the new scheme. A small number chose not to do that. There are 4,000 schools in total. Almost 800 are in the post-primary sector, of which 55 are fee-paying. Almost half of those, 22, are in the minority faiths. They did that for fear of being swamped, in effect, by the Ne Temere decree, which forcibly made the Protestant parent in a marriage to a Catholic commit to rearing their children as Catholics. That is the history of it.

The reason we are formulating the legislation in this way is that some of these proposals might not work in practice. That is the reason the powers are set out in the primary legislation, which I hope will be before the House and possibly enacted by the end of this session in July. We also have power to put the operation of many of the provisions, such as waiting lists and so forth, into a statutory instrument. Therefore, if it does not work, the Houses can change the statutory instrument by consent without having to go through the legislative process of each Stage in both Houses. That is the thinking behind it, because some things might or might not work.

Special needs and the resourcing were raised by a number of Deputies. First, no school will be able to refuse enrolment because one's child is not smart enough or has special educational needs. If there is no space available or there are capacity problems, the National Educational Welfare Board will ultimately be able to require a school to take in a child. That is a positive advance. Last Wednesday, the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, published a report - presentations have already been made to individual Deputies - on a new model for the allocation of resources in special education, where we are currently spending approximately €1.3 billion. I am not referring to SNAs but to resources for special education provision in a school. Some of those resources came to a school with an individual child.

What the NCSE is proposing to do is profile the school and resource it so it is capable of accepting children with special educational needs or learning difficulties that can be addressed by a resource teacher. SNAs cater for a different category of need and they are not part of this resourcing. In the past a school could say that it could not take a child because it did not have the resources to provide the child's education. Hopefully, we will be able to remove that as a criterion for refusal. That is the reason we are making that refusal illegal. However, the resources must be there and that is why we will be doing that.

With regard to over-supply, 80% of schools have no problem and can accept pupils, so it is not an issue. However, it is a major issue in areas of population growth, and it will be an issue through to 2026. We have a 50% above average demographic growth rate in our population. It is 50% above the European Union average and all the demographic projections, although it is not a perfect science, suggest that it will plateau in 2026. We are planning for that. It is the reason we have a problem in our school provision with regard to schools that have substandard accommodation but the capacity available to me is to provide additional space and with a limited capital budget, that is the inevitable consequence.

A number of issues arose in the consultations. In 2011, we published the document that Martin Hanniffy had put together from his experience in the Department. There was a great deal of consultation on it and this legislation was considered as well. There are issues with siblings, past pupils and access in a particular area, and they are all related to something I regard as a major resource in this country. I increasingly reached that conclusion when I was spokesperson on education in Opposition and subsequently in my current office. It is the incredible commitment Irish parents have to the education of their children and the level of their engagement across the spectrum. It is not just fee-paying schools, but all types of schools. We consider it normal because we have grown up with it, but it is not normal. There is virtually no French parental involvement in the French school system and if a parent presented themselves at a lycée in France they would have difficulty getting in, even to talk to the teachers.

Every system is different. From my knowledge now - I now know enough to know I do not know very much - I know that this is a unique resource and Deputy Eoghan Murphy referred to it, in part. It also reflects the public private partnership that is the system we have currently. For example, there may be families where sport is a major part of what keeps them together - their social glue - and they want their son or daughter to go to a particular school not because of the academic side but because sport is very much part of their life. They might be the third generation to play for the county and, therefore, having that choice is important.

I consulted a number of schools on the fee-paying side and on the non-fee-paying side. People tend to say this is exclusively a fee-paying elitist sort of thing but it is not. Schools, even primary schools, are feeder schools for local clubs in the world of the GAA. There is a relationship with a certain school, and St. Vincent's in Glasnevin comes to mind. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Lyons, knows the relationship between St. Vincent's and the Dublin GAA culture. Many people who see it as a big part of their life want to ensure they have access to it, and hence this motivation. As Deputy Eoghan Murphy said, those parents will do whatever they possibly can for those children. In many cases, that commitment to the school continues long after their children have left the school.

That is a resource we must recognise. We must see how we recognise it and how we allow it to present itself openly and transparently while, at the same time, not disadvantaging anybody else because the system should be fair. That was the thinking behind that 25% criteria, namely, that it could be provided for.

In the area of siblings, quite a distinction was made between siblings in the school at the same time, for ease of school runs in the morning, and siblings who were in the school at different times, which is a reality for large families and so on. By extension, this would apply to foster and other children. Given parental engagement in the school, they will know the history teacher, Mr. Quinn, is not that good and that there are two other history teachers in the school. They will want to ensure that when it comes to second level, the stream into which the child goes is not the one with Mr. Quinn but somebody else's. This can be the level of knowledge families will have about a certain school. They like everything about the school but they know there are a couple of plonker teachers and they will not want their children, if possible, to be in a particular class. The Teaching Council or a whole lot of other things will deal with that, in part, but that kind of knowledge cannot be ignored. It will be for the House to decide whether the sibling rule should include children who are not in the school at the same time. In drafting the legislation, we have dealt with that because the sibling could technically be related to a past pupil.

I refer to demand. There was a major social problem in Limerick city and a Fianna Fáil Minister, Mr. Noel Dempsey, intervened. That problem related to some of the socioeconomic problems in that city, which have, to a certain extent, been dealt with. By agreement, he introduced a mini-CAO system for secondary schools in Limerick city. Parents put down their first choice for schools and places were divvied out. By and large, it has worked fairly well. If Members talk to any of their colleagues who come from Limerick city, they will get a reaction but there are still problems of people leaving Limerick city to get away from what they consider difficult elements and to get to a safer place.

Some people like to send their children to schools in the countryside away from the local town because of the phenomenon of drugs in the town. Some parents do not want their child to be in that place and they will deliberately choose to send them to a countryside environment where they will not run into that difficulty.

How does one deal with oversubscription and avoid the problem of children having to travel, in particular children who want to socialise locally and who could possibly walk to school? I think Deputy Murphy spoke about that. Some schools are beginning to introduce priority based on the catchment area in which the school is located. Priority will be given to those in the area. All of these things work fairly well if there is capacity. When one gets too much demand, one has a problem.

I was interested in what Deputy Donnelly said that one would ask a denominational school to find another criterion other than religion for admissions policy while still maintaining the religious ethos - we are talking predominantly of the Catholic ethos - as part and parcel of why that school is there in the first place. That was the mission of the church. Religious orders were established for that purpose. Like Deputy Donnelly, I am the product of the Spiritans, or the Holy Ghost Fathers as they were known, and have nothing but good memories of that experience. For people coming here with an IDA-type company and trying to get their children into schools, the idea that they have to be a Catholic to get their children into a particular school in the 21st century blows their minds. If one talks to the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, one will hear some interesting reactions from senior executives about that.

If one is a practising Catholic and one wants to get one's child into a school but one has come late to the process or one is in the wrong area, it is very hard for one to understand why somebody who is a lapsed Catholic or not even of that tradition, for example, a Muslim, should be in that Catholic school when one cannot get one's children into it. It is complex. What will resolve the problem is providing sufficient choice and supply. The issue of supply in my constituency and that of Deputy Murphy, Dublin South-East, has been addressed to a certain extent. However, demand is enormous. At the end of the day, we will have a more transparent and fairer system of admissions. There is no doubt about that, whatever the final details in the admissions Bill when it is enacted.

We will not get everything right which is why the statutory instruments will be there. If something is not working, we can fix it relatively quickly. It will not be fixed by the Minister of the day but by a statutory instrument which will have to be debated in the House. I will make it such that it will not be a passive statutory instrument. A statutory instrument is laid before the House for 30 or 60 days and if nobody objects, it becomes law, but I would change it to a system where it must be debated by the House, so we have democratic engagement. The reason I am building that flexibility into the system is that demand will always create different kinds of anomalies if it is in excess of supply, but we should be able to respond if we have certain policies in admissions which are not working with the intended outcomes we expected as legislators in the first instance. That is what that provision is there for.

There are two categories of people, including the newcomers referred to in Dublin West and in Lucan. We will probably have to socially re-engineer the configuration of the schools population with the agreement of parents because, in some cases, there is 100% foreigners in a local primary school where for more than 50% to 60%, English is not the language spoken at home. There are enormous challenges. Some teachers have told me that the ideal option would be no more than 25% newcomers or foreigners in a primary school where there is a language difficulty. Resources have forced us to reduce the language support system also. These are all challenges.

We are all much wiser now due to the work done by the committee. I will certainly use this debate, the 14 recommendations made by the committee and other information which has been brought to our attention. As I said, the Bill is being drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. I hope to publish it before the end of this session and, if possible, advance it to the point of completion, which is probably ambitious. It will probably be another year before it can be activated. In areas where there are waiting lists, a timeframe will be devised for the phasing out of those waiting lists if that is appropriate. I thank everybody who participated in this debate.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lyons)

I am sure Stephen Cluxton and Jonny Cooper will be delighted that the Minister mentioned St. Vincent's.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I will use my concluding remarks to respond to some of the issues raised by other speakers. The Minister spoke about the importance of parental involvement and the great interest that parents take in the education of their children. Parents try to do their best for their children by giving them the best advantages of our education system. However, in doing that, other children can be disadvantaged. The Minister gave the example of people who move with their children to quiet rural towns because of issues that might arise in urban areas. That can concentrate disadvantage because other parents will not have the ability to make such a move. The best school is the local school which everybody attends and where there is a mix of students from different socio-economic backgrounds. This is a universal phenomenon but it is something we need to moderate.

A number of Deputies spoke about local schools. The local school is most important to me. I would send my daughter to the local school even if I disagreed with other aspects of the school because I want her to be able to walk to school and be with her friends.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

She would have friends living close by.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

That is important to many people. Deputy O'Brien referred to the principal, Mr. Noel Malone, who raised that aspect of schooling. The outcome should be that people predominantly go to their local school. That is not always possible but we should seek to bring about a proper mix that is reflective of the local community. The Educate Together schools in Lucan are trying to develop their own common enrolment policy to deal with the inequalities we have referred to in this debate.

We received a considerable number of submissions on the subject of schools in Gaeltacht areas and Irish medium schools. The committee did not go so far as to make any particular recommendation on how the integrity of Irish medium schools could be protected because when we discussed the various proposals, the majority view was that if preference was to be given to children who attended naíonraí or who came from homes in which Irish was spoken, it could discriminate against other children. We took on board the idea that the integrity of these schools needs to be protected but it is difficult to decide how to do that in a fair way.

This Bill cannot solve the issue of patronage. It can only prevent discrimination by taking account of the existing system. The Minister and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin have referred to the resistance that can come from parents when schools try to increase their diversity. I find that understandable but perhaps we need to find a more radical solution which would involve the co-operation of the church. Rather than change patron, perhaps a school could declare itself as multi-demoninational.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

That has happened in the Church of Ireland school in Ballina.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

That is interesting. It might be an avenue worth exploring.

Parental choice is moving in the direction of co-educational schools. My daughter goes to a single sex school because it is the local choice. I would much prefer a co-educational school, however. From a policy point of view, it is desirable that schools be co-educational.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

That is policy. All new schools have to be co-educational.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

There are limits to parental choice. Sometimes parental choice is not right. I would not welcome a society in which a large number of different faith schools emerged, whether Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or Protestant. I do not think that is the ideal solution.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I agree.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

The best approach is for children to be educated in one place. I would favour a model that could cater for other preferences in a school that also caters for everybody else.

I thank the members of the committee, including in particular Deputies McConalogue and O'Brien, for their significant contributions to the debate as Opposition spokespersons. I also thank the Senators, who are not here today, for their contributions, all the other Deputies who contributed, the officials from the Department of Education and Skills and the stakeholders who made submissions to the committee. The general consensus is supportive of the Minister's approach and I look forward to the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 1.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 June 2014.