Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 96 seems okay. We feel the council must have regard to the school that is in the best interests of the child to attend. I have no problem with that in principle.

With regard to amendment No. 100, tabled by Deputy Martin, the Bill already provides the council must have regard to the school's ability to accommodate the child. The amendment proposed would reword this to refer to the school's ability to make all reasonable efforts to accommodate the child. I consider the current wording, referring simply to the school's ability, is adequate and takes account of the fact this will depend on the school in question. Inserting the proposed wording might cause confusion about this provision and potentially dilute its meaning.

I wish to point out, with regard to amendments Nos. 113 and 124, that the Bill applies to recognised schools only. It does not apply to schools that are not funded or recognised by the Minister for Education and Skills. Such a non-recognised school should not, therefore, be designated under this section. Accordingly, amendments proposing that these particular provisions of the Bill be confined to schools that are not aided by the Department, in other words, non-recognised schools, do not make sense in the context of a Bill that does not apply to non-recognised schools. I therefore do not accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 115 and 126 relate to a parental appeal, and it must be pointed out that the designation powers in the section are targeted at very specific situations. They are aimed at children who have no school place at all, including where their parents have tried and failed across many schools to secure a school place for their child. These provisions are not about ensuring parents in those circumstances get their preferred school or school of first choice. The provisions give the council or the agency, as applicable, a power of last resort which can be used after a child has been refused access to many schools. These provisions are not about creating new places in schools that are already full, nor are they about ensuring that the preferred school of choice is designated. Where a school is designated for a child, the school is required to admit that child. There is no corresponding compulsion on the parent to avail of the place in the designated school. The parent may yet decide to pursue other applications or appeals under section 29. It is, however, appropriate that there would be an appeal process for the designated school as the school is being compelled to admit the child. A school could be designated, even where it has already lawfully refused the child and an appeal decision under section 29 has upheld that decision. Therefore, it is reasonable that a school would have a final opportunity to appeal when such a significant interference in its affairs is in question. It should be noted that an appeal will only be upheld where the appeals committee is satisfied that the agency or council, as applicable, has not complied with the requirements of this section or where the school has established that the decision of the agency or council is unreasonable.

Under this section, parents can appeal where the agency or council has failed or refused to make a designation. It must also be noted that the agency or council under the Bill must have regard to the wishes of the parents and the school that, in the view of the agency or council, is in the best interests of the child concerned. However, I do not consider that there should be an appeal on whether the school that has been designated is the preferred school for the parents. For these reasons I do not accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 121 to 123, inclusive, all propose to delete the provision allowing a designation to be cancelled where a school has proved that the refusal to admit the child is essential to maintain the ethos of the school as provided for by section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act. I have provided for this provision to be removed as already outlined.

Amendment No. 147 defines "all reasonable efforts" by a parent and I do not consider that such an amendment is appropriate. It will be a matter for the agency, council or appeals committee concerned to determine whether a parent has made such efforts. The agency or council must itself also have regard to the interests of the child and the availability of places locally.

Deputy Shortall raised the question about the amendment which inserted the words, "must have regard to the admissions policy". This is to look at issues such as the gender of the school and that a requirement would not be imposed on, for example, an all-girls school. The overriding situation is that the best interests of the child is what will be served but this is a factor the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, would bear in mind.