Dr. David Doyle:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss our research findings at this meeting. The research, funded by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, focused on the discriminatory practices faced by children in accessing education in Ireland. It was based on 30 semi-structured interviews with politicians, educators and representatives of various relevant interest groups. These interviews were conducted prior to the commencement of Education (Admissions to School) Act 2018, but a common theme running through the research was that the Act, although undoubtedly a significant step in the right direction, did not go far enough in ensuring accessibility without discrimination to Irish schools. As one participant put it, the law is "inherently discriminatory and the law should be changed".

The discriminatory impact of section 62(10)(b) of the 2018 Act can be demonstrated by applying the provision to the facts of the well documented case of Stokes v. Christian Brothers High School Clonmel. John Stokes, a child from the Traveller community, had applied for a place in the school, which was oversubscribed - the school had received 174 applications for 140 places - due to its strong academic reputation. John Stokes met two out of the three criteria set out in the admissions policy in the event of oversubscription, but he did not meet the third because he did not have a family connection with the school. His father, like most Traveller men of his generation, had not attended secondary school and he was the eldest child in the family. Of those who satisfied the three criteria, 57 applicants were allocated a place on the sibling ground and 36 boys secured a place by virtue of the parental rule. This meant there were 47 places left for the remaining 84 applicants. A lottery was subsequently held and John Stokes, like 37 other boys, failed to secure a place. Crucially, if the so-called parental rule had not been included in the admissions policy, there would have been 83 places available for 120 students. In other words, John Stokes's odds of success in the lottery would have increased from 56% to 69%. Importantly, for the purposes of our discussion here today, the subsequent decision to limit the number of places that could be reserved for the children of former pupils to 25% in the 2018 legislation would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever to John Stokes. After all, 36 out of 140 places equates to 25.7%.

My view is that any admissions criteria in oversubscribed schools will result in discommoding certain students and families but it should not automatically discommode Traveller or Roma children, the children of minority ethnic groups, the children of same-sex or single parents, whose fathers might not necessarily be identifiable, or of those who are forced to move county or country for employment reasons. I am very happy to discuss any of the issues raised in our research.