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

I will share time with the chairperson of the Oireachtas education committee, Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin. She certainly will have an interesting contribution to make as she will be central to much of the debate taking place on this.

Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. We are supportive of the overall thrust of the legislation. It is old legislation but it has been brought forward, at last. It requires schools to publish an admission policy and it gives the Department of Education and Skills new powers to determine what admissions criteria schools can use. As the Minister has acknowledged, the Bill must be strengthened and other matters are to be included in it. I am not entirely clear on the issue of religious preference, but it appears that the Minister is proposing that it not be dealt with in this Bill and that it be dealt with separately.

Maybe the Minister can explain his view of it in more detail when he sums up. It was not my impression. My impression was that we could merge the equal status issue with it at some point to get an overall Bill. Many people are watching the issue and their voices need to be heard as best we can.

We need to introduce amendments to the Bill to achieve a stronger legislative framework that would more fundamentally reform school admission policies. As I said during Question Time today, every child deserves to be admitted to his or her local school. Without any issue of discrimination, there are areas where there is no room in the local school to admit children. This must be addressed and I will bring forward amendments on it to make Tusla and the Department of Education and Skills work more closely, particularly regarding capacity issues, which is becoming more of an issue around the country.

The Bill does not address the elephant in the room, namely, the religious preference issue. Fianna Fáil believes no parent should have to baptise his or her child simply to get the child into a school and that all children, regardless of their religious denomination or outlook, should have access to a school in their local communities. There are independent studies that demonstrate that the vast majority of schools do not need to operate a religious preference, given that there is no issue of oversubscription. However, it is an issue in urban areas and in parts of my constituency. It has been well documented.

We favour the introduction of standard selection criteria for oversubscribed schools based on locality and catchment. Selection rules should be based on two criteria. First, there should be a sibling principle. We would certainly allow siblings of pupils to be enrolled preferentially. It makes sense for families. There was an issue about it previously and I am glad it is out of the equation. It is only sensible. Second, children living in designated catchment areas would have to be prioritised. Catchment areas would have to be drawn up in order to have a workable solution. In certain parts of the country, particularly the city, people are able to move around in order to get into particular schools, and local people can lose out. In other parts of the country, particularly suburban towns, the issue is that there is not enough provision to cater for the demand, and the demand for diversity, that exists.

We recognise what the Minister said, which Oireachtas committees have said previously, that the "baptism barrier", or the issue of religious preference, is a complex legal and constitutional issue. We must be cognisant of the rights of minority faith schools especially to protect their ethos and identity. I say this most sincerely. The Church of Ireland community is very worried about any proposal to open up school admissions. A very simplistic approach to remove the issue of religious preference would have a disproportionate effect on our Church of Ireland communities. We will support them and their schools. The State owes them the preference in order to ensure their communities can continue to thrive. The issue is also a concern to some Roman Catholics. Roman Catholic priests I have talked to in my area, where this is an issue, are not overly concerned about it. One priest described it as an issue of administration and said he would prefer if it were not there. This is not the common view.

We must also say we value the Roman Catholic church's contribution to education and acknowledge that many parents want to have their children educated in Roman Catholic schools. This choice and diversity is essential. The Minister will have to expedite the establishment of new non-denominational schools to give people the choice. There are people who want to continue to go to Roman Catholic schools and this choice should be respected. There are people who want to go to multidenominational schools and they must be given the opportunity to do so. Although the choice is excellent in certain areas, in large parts of the country, they are not able to do it. A constituent contacted me tonight about a particular town in which there are several Roman Catholic schools and there are no options. One school has told the constituent the child definitely will not get in given that the child is not baptised. The other school has said, as things stand, the child will get in, however there is no guarantee and it may change by the time the child reaches school age. I do not know what the answer is. Presumably the answer it to provide an extra school. Divestment has caused too much controversy. It just gets people's backs up and has not achieved much.

We welcome the other main provisions outlined in the Bill, including the requirement that every school prepare and publish an admissions policy. Many schools do and the legislation simply tightens it up. We welcome the ministerial power that will allow the phasing out of waiting lists and other discriminatory admissions practices and we welcome the ban on non-fee paying schools charging application fees or admission fees. It is an oxymoron. I welcome the provision that a direction can be made to a number of schools to work together on an admissions policy. I presume the Minister means that in certain geographical areas, a common enrolment list would be prepared. Maybe the Minister could elaborate on it. If it is the intention of the section, it would be welcome. Schools do not know how many of the children on their lists are enrolled at other schools. It causes serious problems. It causes stress for parents who do not know which school their children will get into. A common enrolment policy would greatly help the Department to know the numbers in areas of high pressure.

New powers are to be given to Tusla and the NCSE and this is very welcome. The Minister will bring further amendments on it and I may bring amendments too. This will enable these bodies to designate a school that would be obliged to admit a child who cannot find a school place elsewhere. The Minister mentioned they will not be able to interfere in issues of capacity. As I said earlier today, I have an issue in Ashbourne in which Tusla is trying to find a place for a child. There should be a provision in school admissions that children should be admitted to their local school. We have a situation in which a child who had been in senior infants since September before moving to Ashbourne has been told by a very hard working welfare officer in Tusla that the only option available is a place in junior infants in Ashbourne or a similar class in Garristown, outside the town. It is wrong. We need Tusla and the Minister to work much more closely together regarding the capacity issues that are appearing in certain parts of the country. When I took this brief, I was unaware that the issue of getting a school place in a child welfare context was with a separate agency or Department. It is crazy. It is not joined up thinking. The Minister should seek for it to be brought into his Department or, at least, to have a formal structure between Tusla and his Department on the issue. It is a difficulty. Talking off the record, civil servants agree with me.

There are more powers and obligations regarding patrons and the role of the patron is becoming more entrenched in the system. Patronage is an inheritance we have and we must live with it. Patrons offer excellent services and a particular ethos to schools. They are being asked to do more and have been given more powers. The complaint I am getting, particularly regarding second level patrons, is that the funding is not there and they do not know how they will do it. Often, they have been funding their activities themselves. I would be wary of further entrenching the patronage system. While it is good for what it should be there for, namely providing the ethos or value system in which parents want their children to be educated, I am wary of the patrons getting even more involved. Patrons themselves are wary of it, given that they do not have the resources. It is all right for ETBs: they are State agencies and this would be the expected work for them. However, it will present difficulties for the voluntary secondary schools.

What concerned me was the appeals mechanism established regarding the intervention of Tusla and the NCSE. The Minister could clarify it, and we will have plenty of time on Committee Stage to examine it. There seems to be an appeals system for the school. For a school to fight an appeal to prevent a child from being admitted seems a weird situation. Although the Minister may tell me it is necessary for fair processes, it seems weird. That is the best word. We will be seeking a new appeals body to be established in the Department for parents who believe their child has been discriminated against by a school in the admissions process.

This will make it easier for parents who feel their child has been unfairly treated achieve redress.

This is a good Bill. It tightens things up that by and large are happening already in some ways. We will have to examine closely the issue of special needs. We will deal with the issue of religious preference on Committee Stage and I know that Deputy O'Loughlin will speak about that, but I would also like to hear from organisations involved with special needs education on Committee Stage. I invite them to contact members of the committee with their views on what is involved. Do they feel enough is being done or that anything can be changed? It is certainly something that people are beginning to contact us about.

A lot of work is required. I think all of us gave a commitment in the Dáil last summer, when the Labour Party tabled its Private Members' motion, that the issue of religious preference would be dealt with in time for admissions next year. The clock is ticking. I want to see us live up to the commitment, while recognising that it is an extremely complex area with many interests, but the interests of the individual children must be at the heart of it.

I will now yield to my colleague, Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin.

See this speech in context