Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Why is it needed? If we are creating an earlier obligation on patrons and boards to provide, then we need simply provide for sanctions. We would just move to the sanction stage if they are in breach of the requirements. The only reason for a 37A process is if it is somehow a rational thing.It would not be there unless it is a legitimate process. If a process such as this is being put into legislation but it is meant to carry some kind of badge of shame if it is ever invoked, I do not know of any precedent in legislation for such a thing. We are either saying that it makes sense that such a process would take place at some stage or, if it is a matter of shame and the implication of there having to be a section 37A process is that somebody is doing something wrong, then it should not come to a section 37A process but, rather, to sanction.

That links back to what Senator Seery Kearney said. She used the word "obligation". If we are talking about putting an obligation on the patron - the patrons want to be involved - then the language should be that patrons shall work to secure or, as far as practicable, ensure compliance or co-operation by the board of management with requests to provide special education. When that does not happen, one then moves to the section 37A process because a person is making an argument, the strength of which may be a matter of debate, against doing what he or she is being asked to do. If we turn legislation into some kind of shaming process, we are missing the point. We need to provide for what ought to happen.

If what is being created is an obligation on the patron of a school to ensure the board moves to provide a special class without a section 37A process, where is the power of the patron to do that, short of dissolving the board if it does provide such a special class? That is the logic. Is the Minister of State saying that if the patron does not co-operate, it has broken the law? We must remember that the patron has to get the result; it is not that it has to ask. It is not that the Bishop of Elphin has to ring up the board. I happen to be the chairperson of such a board. I could receive a phone call to tell me I need to co-operate and take a decision. If I say the board members are the people who have to run the school, what does the patron do then? Does the Minister of State want the patron to move to dissolve the board? She is the one putting in this obligation. I am not asking her to take it out; I am just asking her to link it back with section 37A and to provide that if there is not co-operation, then section 37A shall apply. The problem relates to the language of putting an obligation on a body. It is difficult to think of an analogy. Is it like asking President Higgins, as Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces, to ensure compliance by the Defence Forces with an obligation that we are going to put on them in law? It does not make sense as it is phrased and it needs to be linked back to section 37A. I do not think I can put it any further.