Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

Deputy Stanton and I tabled a number of these amendments. In regard to the Minister's amendment No. 123 and our amendment No. 124, in our consideration of this section — this also relates to our amendments Nos. 126 and 127 — we are conscious of ensuring that failure is not ascribed to a child and of ensuring that the language used is positive. In amendment No. 124 we propose that the education plan may need to be modified. I understand from where the Minister is coming in proposing amendment No. 123. It covers more or less the same point, but he has put it in a different way. We have to be able to recognise that goals may not have been achieved for whatever reason. I can accept the language the Minister has used in amendment No. 123 and, on that basis, I will withdraw amendment No. 124.

Amendment No. 126 proposes to delete the words specified. Amendment No. 127 is important because to state that a child is not achieving is an unfair comment to make in respect of a child. It would be better to insert that the goals are not being achieved, as proposed in amendment No. 127.

Amendment No. 128 is important because while I acknowledge that the Minister is trying to be practical, a review after four months would be preferable to one after six months, as provided. If one takes January as a starting point, a review after six months would bring one to the end of that school year. Having a review of the plan after six months would mean that a child would have moved on to the next school year, which might be from sixth class to post-primary school. Therefore, a review of the plan after four months would at least be more reflective of term time, from September to Christmas, and one would have a chance to review the plan within the next phase of the school year before a child moves to the next school year. If a child moves from fourth class to fifth class, he or she has to deal with a new teacher and the process will have to start again, to some extent, likewise and more especially when a child moves from primary to post-primary.

Amendment No. 151 is an important amendment because this section deals with young people who have reached 18 who no longer come under the terms of the Bill. We must have regard to meeting the goals set in the plan, but we must also have regard to the possibility that the plan has not worked. I am aware the Minister might argue that the inclusion of this amendment may impose a liability on the State. However we must recognise that if a child up to the age of 18 has been failed by the State, the Department or whomsoever, that must be recognised. If the education plan for the child did not achieve its goals, that must be recognised. If a plan was not provided for a child for whom it should have been, that must also be recognised. A young person on becoming an adult at the age of 18 is not covered by the Bill, but that person should have his or her rights or entitlements met if the legislation failed him or her when he or she would have had rights under it.

See this speech in context