Alex White (Labour)

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, affirming the principle that no child should be denied access to education on the grounds of religion or race, notes with deep concern the crisis which occurred this September in the provision of primary school places; further notes that this crisis, which has had profoundly unacceptable consequences, arises from:

the haphazard manner in which new school sites are identified through the planning process, both nationally and through local authorities;

the apparent failure to apply adequate criteria, based on demographic and other relevant factors, in the assessment of whether additional schools or classrooms are required in a given area;

the role of the Department of Education and Science in the procurement of school sites; and

the effects of particular enrolment policies applied by primary schools themselves; and

calls on the Government to establish a National Convention on Education to address the future of Irish education, and to plan for the needs of a changing Ireland.

I welcome the Minister. It is important to state there are few, if any, issues which may come before the House of greater import than the future of education. I strongly believe the post of Minister for Education and Science is the most important in any Government.

This is an important debate for reasons of which we have been aware in recent weeks, but it is one we should be having in any case. The purpose of the Labour Party motion is to debate in the House and the wider community the direction the school system should take.

Public discourse often tends to be dictated by the latest crisis, whether it is the state of the health service, Shannon connectivity or the crisis in the provision of school places experienced in Balbriggan a few weeks ago. I am sure the people at the centre of these very public spats would prefer not to be the subject of public controversy and to get on with their lives when the particular difficulty they face has been resolved. In this context, while my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan, might touch on the subject, we might not want to dwell for too long on the particular situation that arose in Balbriggan. I am sure we would all want to join in wishing the pupils in particular, their parents and the staff of the new school in Balbriggan every good fortune in their future endeavours, notwithstanding the very public nature of the establishment of their school. They are at the centre of this issue and should be supported in every way, as I am sure they will be.

The real opportunity offered by this debate and the convention we suggest should be established — I regret the Government is not supporting it — is that of ensuring there would be no recurrence of what happened in that instance. This ought to be the single objective of the House and, most importantly, the Government. In that context, it is unfortunate the Government parties have sought to amend the motion. I am not naive enough to think Private Members' motions from the Opposition are not subject to amendment by the Government — I understand the practice and procedure in this regard. However, without being overly pedantic, I would have expected that the principle set out at the beginning of the motion, namely, that no child should be denied access to education on the grounds of religion or race, was one which was beyond controversy and discussion in the House or anywhere else. I would have thought it was a touchstone. In the spirit of debate and discussion, it might occur to the Government parties that they might not contest this principle and might instead agree to it, notwithstanding the other aspects of the amendment.

The motion we have tabled seeks a debate. We cannot have the last word today on all of these complex issues but that we simply seek to advance the debate should be a laudable objective. It is surprising the Government appears not to wish to do this in the manner we propose.

The motion refers to haphazard planning. It may be this phrase that does not appeal to the Government. What we are treated to in the Government amendment is essentially a list of bullet points detailing the various improvements in construction work and expenditure that have apparently been made. However, it is clear planning is haphazard or we would not have experienced the recent problems.

What many cannot understand is how the Department of Education and Science and Government agencies do not seem to have the basic demographic information on population movement, including immigration trends, that would, at least, ensure meaningful advance notice of a demand for places. One hopes they have that information, but there is no point having it to hand if it is not put to use and if the policy decisions we expect the Department to make are not informed by this information. We only have to look about to see that commercial organisations, campaigners of all kinds and political parties have very detailed and sophisticated information on population movement, where people are located, their likes and dislikes, the pubs they drink in and their preferences across a range of products.

It is not huge to ask of a Department that it have at its fingertips such demographic information on population trends and movements in our cities, suburbs and towns to inform its policy. This would ensure meaningful advance notice of such problems. However, it should do more than this. It is not enough to simply claim we are able to avoid a problem by knowing about it a few weeks or months in advance. Planning should go much further — it must ensure schools are constructed at the same time houses are built. Why is this such an extraordinary notion in the Ireland of 2007? Why is a development such as the one in Adamstown the exception rather than the rule? After more than ten years of economic growth, the like of which we have never seen in our history — I have no problem conceding this is the case — why can we not have schools at the same time as we have houses?

Can anybody answer this question? What does it say about our priorities and those of the Government? Ensuring the provision of a school should be as vital in a housing estate as the completion of any other infrastructure, roads or otherwise. Surely the school is at the heart of a community and is an essential element of our infrastructure, physical and otherwise. Why has this simple objective not been achieved?

As the Minister will no doubt inform the House, schools do not just materialise, they must be made to materialise. Active, forceful and tenacious intervention by the State is required to achieve this outcome. We should not expect developers to provide schools, other than by imposing an enforceable legal requirement similar to the provision originally included in the planning Acts in respect of social and affordable housing. Unfortunately, this provision was subsequently amended. This requirement must make the construction of a school a social dividend which developers and others who build houses in our suburbs must deliver at the same time as the houses they build. They must give the provision of a school the same level of priority as bricks and mortar for housing.

The Government amendment refers to certain measures in the programme for Government in this context. We will await developments in that regard. However, as was pointed out in the other House last week, it is noteworthy that the area development unit referred to in the programme for Government has still not been established. I hope this fact is not an indication of the level of urgency with which the Minister and her Department approach the matter.

In recent weeks, there has been considerable debate on enrolment policies in national schools and their implications for the overall debate on education. The attitude of Catholic school managers in particular has been raised. We all accept that society has changed dramatically in recent decades, in particular in the past ten to 12 years. During this period, the State has been slow to address growing demand for non-denominational schools, although I acknowledge that some progress has been made in this respect. These are precisely the types of issues that could be productively considered and debated in a convention or public forum established to address educational issues. The Archbishop of Dublin has even called for such a debate and indicated that the Catholic Church has no interest in being the sole provider of primary school education in the Dublin area. Clearly, the Catholic Church cannot have it both ways. While the need to preserve and support religious ethos in schools is a legitimate concern, given that public funding is at stake, this must not be simply a matter of red-circling support for particular religions. The issue must be considered in the round. We must examine priorities, the changing nature of demand for primary school education and all the issues which arise in that context. While I would welcome the involvement of the Catholic Church in such a debate, it will need to change its stance on a number of relevant issues.

The motion does no more than call for a national debate on education in a public forum. There cannot be a serious or meaningful objection to having a public discussion of the relevant issues. That is the basis on which the Labour Party tabled the motion.