Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. It is heartwarming to hear the support for the Bill, which I drafted. What has been interesting this and last week is that this has opened up a wider discussion on the nature of Irish education and who it serves. It is beginning to become clear that, effectively, it serves the patron. What happens every year is that parents and children are at the heart of this scramble for what is perceived to be the better or best school in their area. It is depressing that we have come to assume there has to be such a suggestion that one school is better than another and that not every school could be of a similar standard and have similar outcomes and resources.

I believe fundamentally that we need a Finnish revolution in Irish education. We have 4,000 schools in a country that has the same population as Manchester. We have schools competing against each other. When there is that level of competition it leads to inequality. This debate comes down to a scenario where some children are struggling to get into a school, and that should not be a reality. I think all members of this committee, regardless of our background, agree that we do not want a scenario in which children are turned away from a school, for whatever reason. If the State was front and centre in the provision of school places, there would be a school in each individual school district that could accommodate every child in the area, not the current multiplicity of schools that separate children on the basis of religion, gender and sometimes income.

With that in mind, what we have been doing in the past two weeks, unbeknownst to ourselves almost, is having a wider conversation about school provision, the patronage model and the lack of involvement by the Department of Education. Within all that, I believe a certain sector that wants us to keep the generational bloodline of succession within its schools exercised a disproportionate influence over the Education (Admission to Schools) Act. As Deputy O'Callaghan said last week, the relevant section in the Act is completely contradictory because another section in the same Act states there should not be familial advantage for any particular family. Despite that, this provision, which does not read with the rest of the Bill, was wedged in at the behest of a certain strong lobby group.

I agree with everything the witnesses have said. I do not have too many questions. The only defence for this provision last week was along the lines, "Ah sure, it is never really used." That is a pathetic excuse because even if one child in this Republic was on the rough end of this provision because their father, mother, grandfather or grandmother did not attend the school, that knowledge would probably sit with that child for life. It would make that child feel for life that they were just was not the same because their father, mother, grandfather or grandmother did not have the same opportunities.

It is funny because - my mother would probably kill me for saying this in public session but I will say it anyway - I am reluctant to ask in my own family whether all of my grandparents went to secondary school because I am pretty sure not all of them did. I am still reluctant to ask that question because there is a level of shame attached to that. Last week, Senator Eileen Flynn, who cannot be here today, gave very powerful testimony about how nobody in her family had been to secondary school - neither her father or grandfather - and how emotional she felt that this could potentially be a disadvantage to her.

Education is so personal and emotive. It says everything, too much, about us. For those trying to break through poverty, education is their only chance. Family will provide help and support but for people who do not have education in their family background, education is their only chance of breaking through intergenerational poverty. That is why a provision such as this is so wrong and elitist. It goes against anything that education is supposed to achieve that because someone's father went to a certain school, that person has a better chance of attending it.

For someone who is not from this country or from a particular area and does not come from a tradition of school attendance, having any of these factors as a reason for not being able to attend a certain school would, as I said, have a lifelong effect. It would also make that person feel that regardless of any genuine efforts to try to row in or to move into the mainstream, for example, by changing their accent or pretending to live somewhere else, changing the way they dress or cut their hair, they will never be let into the club because their father did not go to a certain school. I imagine that would make some young people pretty angry, even if that is only one person.

I saw some heads nodding when I brought up the contradiction within the Bill. Does anyone wish to speak to that? Apart from the emotional argument I made, there is also the legislative argument that it is legislative nonsense to have two provisions in the same Bill aspiring to two different things. I appreciate the witnesses' support for what the committee is collectively trying to do.