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

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I am glad that various charities, including AsIAm, and the Traveller organisations highlighted this issue for the joint committee and that we put the spotlight on it at the start of the summer because as I noted then, the practice is a national scandal and must end. I think everybody sitting around the table is in agreement. What the Department states in reply to parliamentary questions is correct. The practice is different and I hate to say it, but the guidelines differ from it. The guidelines open everything up and that will not be acceptable to Fianna Fáil. We must start from the premise that every child has a legal right to an education. We cannot start from the premise that this practice is allowed if procedures are followed. That is what I worry will happen.

The Minister mentioned challenging behaviour quite a number of times. The committee does not have evidence that challenging behaviour is the primary reason for engaging in the practice. In fact, we do not have much evidence at all and we certainly do not have evidence that challenging behaviour is the reason for it. It should not be because in replies to parliamentary questions the Department states reduced timetables can only be in place for medical reasons. Therefore, I am not sure from where the reference to challenging behaviour comes. It can be dealt with in many other ways. The guidelines also do not address the issue of Travellers being disproportionately affected by reduced timetables.

I have been criticised by some teachers for highlighting this issue. They say they operate in difficult circumstances. I have no doubt that many of them do, but we all have a role to play in the education system, regardless of whether we are policymakers, Ministers or teachers, to ensure each child's right to an education is upheld. I would worry about anything the Minister proposed that moved away from the words of the Department in replies to parliamentary questions about exceptional cases and involved a return to a school acting on professional advice. Doing anything else would be wrong.

The representative from Tusla was excellent at the last meeting. I was delighted when he was very clear that where it was not done in accordance with the guidelines, it amounted to suspension or expulsion. I do not think that is mentioned in the information that is required to be given to parents. We must take a really hard line if we are to take the issue, the needs of children and their right to an education, seriously. The committee has blown it up. Schools need to get the message that this is not the way to deal with disciplinary issues. The premise of the Minister is almost that this is a disciplinary issue when it cannot be. Under the law, as he has set out in replies to parliamentary questions, disciplinary issues do not come into it at all. Therefore, I do not know why challenging behaviour has been mentioned, unless, of course, it is a medical issue, but it does not look like that.

The Minister mentioned the special school that is to be established this year. Will he confirm whether it has opened and, if not, when will it open?

I am not entirely satisfied, but I am glad that action is being taken. However, it requires a change of mindset - even on the part of parents. For all the good work they do, some advocacy organisations seem to think it could be possible to do it in circumstanes even broader than those outlined by the Minister as long as there are guidelines. I would take a much harder line. I do not think it should be possible, except where there are medical issues, as the Minister mentioned in replies to parliamentary questions. If schools cannot cope with children with special needs, clearly the required resources and training are not available and it is up to policymakers and the Government, in particular, to make sure they are provided. The bottom line is that each child is entitled to an education and there are no "ifs" or "buts. I am afraid that this document brings in a lot of "ifs" and "buts" and does not address a number of the recommendations we made during the summer.