Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise that I will have to go to the Dáil in a few minutes but I will read the responses in the Official Report. The submissions are very helpful, very clear and concise and there is a lot for us to follow up on. I will follow up with parliamentary questions, as I am sure my colleagues will do as well.

There is not much I disagree with. Notwithstanding Senator Ruane's comments on the pre-2011 supports, it seems they did some good. At a minimum I would support bringing them back but I accept what Senator Ruane is saying too. That probably needs to be considered.

Mr. Collins and I corresponded yesterday about Senator Kelleher's Bill and I have discussed these issues with her. Mr. Collins invited me to ask why that Bill is important to Travellers and the community. I set out our views publicly; we do not like putting curricula into law even though we support compulsory subjects. I have no difficulty with this being on the curriculum, I support it, but it is not written into law that any other subject should be on the curriculum. It is not written into any law that Irish, English or mathematics have to be taught. Could the witnesses set out the reasons they would support Senator Kelleher's very noble Bill? I have no difficulty with its principle but legislating for this is a problem. We have had this problem before, famously with sex education and history. One of my colleagues wanted to make history compulsory and I said we supported it being compulsory but not in law. The reason is that it then becomes a political football and other issues come in, as they do around the world. That is a side issue. I will follow up on many of the important points the witnesses have raised.

I would like the representatives from the Traveller organisations to respond to a question that arises from Mr. Brougham's submission. He mentioned that primary enrolment was 100% before 2011 and then it may have dropped, anecdotally. Do the representative groups have evidence of that or do they support that contention? Is that correct? What are the reasons for that? Does the State have a responsibility to rectify that or are there other reasons that people are not attending primary school?

I am sure the committee will issue a report taking on board what has been said and each party will do its own thing on the issue too.