Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here. I do not have many questions but I have some observations. My degree was in law and I learned some of the rules of interpretation. One of them is called the mischief rule of interpretation, which is the idea that one is trying to interpret something on the basis of the mischief it is trying to achieve or the problem it is trying to resolve.

I have heard of the Stokes case. The objective of this legislation is to try to address that type of mischief. Some of the discussion last week was around how frequently the issue in question arises. In many respects, it does not arise very frequently, but the existence of the Stokes alone case justifies a response. We do not know whether John Stokes would have got access to the Christian Brothers High School Clonmel if this rule had not been in place. It has been clearly demonstrated that his chance of accessing the school was significantly diminished. The existence of that case alone justifies the legislation.

In many parts of the country, enrolment policies are not a problem because schools are not oversubscribed. That is how we would want it to be. I have some sympathy with the argument made by some of the speakers last week that what we need to do ultimately is resolve the issue of inadequate supply of school places, which is a particular problem in the greater Dublin area, Wicklow, Kildare, Cork city, Limerick city and many of the big urban centres. That is probably going to get worse before it gets better because there is a demographic bulge at primary level that is going to transition into second level. Subsequently, it might, perhaps, be alleviated. Ultimately, if there is going to be pressure on places, we need to resolve that issue, but there has to be equality in terms of how a limited number of places are going to be allocated.

I reiterate my support the legislation. In terms of additional issues related to admissions, a good point was made last week by the Joint Managerial Body in regard to a potential two-year admissions process for children with special educational needs in light of some of the documentation and so on that is needed. In terms of managing the transition, that is a fair point if any of the witnesses would like to offer observations on it. There is an issue. If people are living in an area where places are in short supply it is reasonable for them to try as many options as possible. What is not reasonable is that once they are offered a number of places they are holding on that number of places. There needs to be a cut-off in that regard.

I have a specific question for Ms Lynch of National Parents Council Primary in regard to an issue that I raised last week as well. School planning areas are quite often large. They can take in several towns. A school can be located at one end of the school planning area. This is mostly an issue for new schools. This can mean that a child who is living within 2 km or 3 km of a school could be of a lower priority than a child who lives 15 miles down the road but who is still within the school planning area. Dr. Muldoon may have come across this as well. We need to figure out a more flexible approach in that regard such as, perhaps, a school that is on the edge of school planning area being able apply to the Department for a derogation and being able to identify its correct catchment area. For me, the priority in terms of access needs to be the local child. It has been well articulated that the children who could lose out in respect of this issue are those whose parents did not attend secondary school in Ireland and the children of Travellers and migrants who did not attend secondary school. The local child needs to be at the heart of it.

I reiterate my support for the legislation. I would welcome a response from the witnesses on the points I have raised.