Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus leis na hoifigigh atá os ár gcomhair tráthnóna. This is an issue that, anecdotally, people would have had some sense of. Unfortunately, with regard to the Traveller community, there would have often been a tacit awareness that in many instances they were not getting the full benefit of the school places that they held down. Great credit is due to this committee and also to Inclusion Ireland and Technological University Dublin for the report. The committee and report have forced action on this issue. It is unquestionably the case that the mechanisms that exist were being abused in a way that frustrated these children's ability to gain an education and their full potential. There is no question that the level of the abuse in the examples that were given and the frequency or the time that people were out for is absolutely unacceptable. I am glad that there is movement now. There are difficulties, as has been outlined with regard to the guidelines. While it is an interim report, the Minister has, as I understand it, had sight of it. Does he accept what is outlined in that document and does he agree with the recommendations made in it? I particularly endorse recommendation No. 9, which outlines the need for additional psychological supports. The Minister needs to provide additional resources in the upcoming budget.

Section 2 refers to regulations and guidelines and I ask for clarification about which it is. I do not view a regulation as being the same as a guideline. I would imagine a regulation as having much more effect. It comes to a point raised by Deputy Martin. Point E states that, ideally, the period on which a student is on a reduced timetable should not exceed six weeks, and a reduced timetable must not be carried forward from one academic year to the next. Ideally, it would allow some wriggle room. An issue with the guidelines as a whole is that if a school does not comply with the objections that have been set out by the Department, what are the consequences and the sanction? I do not see any and that is a difficulty. It will always be open to a school to try to point to the extraneous circumstances it has had to go beyond what the Department has in mind. How do we avoid that and ensure that schools do not frustrate the intention of the Department and that there is a sanction if a school is once again using some mechanism, either through this set of guidelines or any other way, to frustrate the intentions of the Department, the committee or the entitlement of these children to gain a full education?

I have a query relating to point H, a requirement to provide appropriate work to the student while not in school and to arrange for this to be checked. Instinctively, I am not sure if that is necessarily always appropriate. It may be appropriate in some circumstances, but I can imagine a situation where that might be the source of conflict or disagreement or that it might not be appropriate or aid the reintegration of a student into the class, which is intended to be the objective of having any kind of flexibility with regard to this. The purpose of any kind of flexibility is to enable reintegration. I have a query about whether that is appropriate.

There is no excuse for the fact that some schools allowed this abuse to happen, but this would probably have occurred in schools that were under significant pressure.

That has to be acknowledged and additional resources need to be allocated to those schools. There is no excuse for the manner in which the mechanism was used. A very robust line needs to be taken to ensure that procedures such as this are not abused in future.