Mr. Evan Buckley:

There were two, if not three, questions. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked about the legislation, the difficulty regarding the sub-committee that is a board of management and the ETB committee. This issue can be addressed by a small addition to the proposals allowing for decisions of the board of management to be ratified by the ETB committee. Currently, it is not open to a sub-committee of the ETB, the school board of management, to make independent decisions of its own accord. They must be ratified.

None of us wants an interview process that decides on admission for the wrong reasons, but interviews at the post-leaving certificate, PLC, level are important for significant reasons. Applicants' skills need to be appropriate to certain types of course. In the case of outdoor education and water sports, for example, one would need to check whether a person could swim. There are many adults participating in PLC courses and their previous education histories are important. If someone is applying to attend a level 6 course, it is entirely appropriate that he or she should have level 5 or equivalent experience to ensure he or she can manage the course's learning requirements. It is important that these issues be teased out with the applicant in advance. In practice, if a level 6 course is not appropriate, the person is never refused but directed to the appropriate place. The key element is the interview process with the applicant prior to admission to the course. We will seek to have this practice included.

I was asked a question about the concern that head 14 would repeal section 19 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, under which a school cannot refuse enrolment unless doing so is in accordance with the admissions policy. The reverse of this, where a school can refuse enrolment if it is in compliance with the admissions policy, needs to be retained in some way. This provision might have been lost in the way the Bill was constructed.