Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My amendments in this grouping all relate to a new provision that I am inserting in section 29F. On Committee Stage, Senator Ruane proposed an amendment providing that an applicant could seek a review of a decision of an appeals committee not to hear or determine appeal under section 29. At the time, I advised the Senator that I accepted the intention of her amendment but wished to have the opportunity to draft the new subsection in conjunction with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. As can be seen by the number of new subsections required to provide for this review, it was important to undertake that drafting work to ensure the new provisions will work effectively.

Amendment No. 1 inserts a new subsection (k) to provide for procedures to set out the manner in which and period during which such a review shall be undertaken. The Bill provides for consultation with the educational partners on new procedures for section 29 appeals, and this amendment will ensure that these procedures and the relevant consultation will also cover the manner in which this review can be undertaken and the timelines for requesting and conducting a new review. Amendment No. 2 is a consequential numbering amendment as a result of the new subsection (k).

Amendment No. 5 provides for the review itself. It provides that where an applicant receives a copy of a decision from an appeals committee that it is not going to hear or determine an appeal, that applicant can request for the Minister to review that decision. Where the Minister receives a request for a review, he or she shall appoint a member of an appeals panel to review the decision. This person shall not have been a member of the appeals committee that made the decision to refuse to hear or determine the appeal. The person appointed shall review the decision, and following the review shall make a recommendation to the Minister that the decision of the appeals committee is either upheld or set aside. Where the Minister receives a recommendation that the decision should be set aside, the Minister shall direct the appeals committee to proceed to hear or determine the appeal.

I am satisfied that the amendments meet the intention of the Senator in proposing the amendment on Committee Stage. I agree with the Senator that it is important to allow a parent or guardian to seek a review where an appeals committee has decided not to hear or determine an appeal. It is an important new provision within section 29, and I am pleased to have been in a position to facilitate the Senator in bringing it forward. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, are numbering amendments consequential to amendment No. 5.

The other amendments in this grouping are amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6. I have considered amendment No. 3 and understand the intention to copper-fasten the action of the school must be taken after internal review where an error or failure on the part of the school has had a material effect on the student's application for admission. Amendment No. 3 will ensure that where a school finds an error or failure in how it applied its admission policy during an internal review by the board and that error or failure had a material effect on a student's application, the school must rectify the matter appropriately. Where the error or failure related to admission, the school must admit the student, and where it related to a student's ranking on a waiting list, the school must adjust the student's ranking. On the previous occasion, the Senator rightly pointed out that there was an ambiguity in the way the original provision was phrased. I am happy to accept her amendment, which will bring greater clarity to the internal review on the admissions conducted by the schools' board of management.

Amendment No. 4 provides that at the request of an applicant, a section 29 appeals committee may facilitate "consultation between the applicant and an appropriate member of staff in a neighbouring or otherwise appropriate school, for the purposes of preparing an appeal under this section". The position with this amendment is somewhat different. I do not consider it appropriate and, therefore, it would be appropriate to accept it. Section 29D(2) provides that, "oral hearings shall be conducted with the minimum of formality consistent with giving all parties a fair hearing".The Bill provides for procedures on section 29 appeals to be developed after consultation with the education partners, including bodies representative of parents.

Under the current procedures for hearings and determining section 29 appeals, the parent or guardian can bring up to two additional persons to attend the hearing with him or her. In addition, with the prior approval of the appeals committee, one of these two additional persons can make the appeal at the hearing on behalf of a parent or student. It is my intention that the new procedures for hearing and determining section 29 appeals will also provide for a parent or guardian to bring an additional person of his or her choosing to an appeal hearing if he or she desires.

While I appreciate the good intention behind this proposal, the approach set out is not technically feasible. It is based on an appeals committee that can be appointed only after an appeal has been made, facilitating this arrangement in advance of any appeal being made. It also potentially opens up the charge of actual or perceived bias should a committee consider or become involved in the issues under appeal before the appeal is even made. The Bill already provides for Tusla's education and welfare services to appoint an independent person to take an appeal on behalf of the student. It also provides for the education welfare services or the National Council for Special Education to support a parent's appeal by the making of submissions to the appeals committee. I consider this to be the more appropriate approach to providing parents with impartial and independent support in regard to section 29 appeals.

The amendment is asking the appeals committee, which must hear independently the case being put forward, to become involved in facilitating the presentation of an appeal. That would not be regarded as a legally sound way to proceed. By contrast, there is already provision for the expertise of either Tusla or the National Council for Special Education to support a parent, or for the parent to pick his or her own people to attend the hearing and support the presentation of the case.

As for amendment No. 6, I am providing an alternative version. While I am not accepting amendment No. 6, I have provided an amendment that meets the intention of Senator Ruane.