Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House and I also welcome the Bill. Most people directly and indirectly involved in education are pleased that measures are being brought forward to help lighten the burden on teachers, who are the everyday practitioners in education, and on pupils who wish to work without hindrance in a school environment.

At a time when almost everyone avails of second-level education, it is inevitable that some students will have difficulties. Pupils at second level, and to a lesser extent at primary level, have been identified as having serious problems accepting the curriculum and the work procedures in a school environment where the majority of students aim to achieve the points to continue into third level education. I have experience of pupils with these difficulties as I am sure the Minister has from her former teaching role. However, that experience is not of the extent to which the problem now exists. Anything this Bill can do to lessen the problem is welcome.

The Minister stated the core of the proposal to amend section 29 of the 1998 Act is the establishment of a national behavioural support service. We must be conscious that 50 schools were identified from the 124 schools which made a submission. People will wonder why these schools stigmatised themselves by identifying themselves as having serious problems. I do not see it in that light and I would hate to see anybody use that broad brush on the schools involved and selected for the first phase of implementation of the support service proposed in the Bill.

What sum of money will the Minister invest to get this service off the ground? If we begin well and have visible positive results, the service will go from strength to strength. Regarding personnel, the structure involves 19 people, including co-ordinators. I am sure the person charged with overall national responsibility is one of the finest who could be found and I wish her every success in her difficult task. However, what was spent during recent years in this area is pence compared with the £450 million invested across the water in such a service. In Scotland, approximately €53 million is spent on this type of service for pupils identified as being in need of support and requiring their educational goals and achievements to be redirected.

We must consider the provision of classrooms if a situation comes to the ultimate decision and somebody must be taken out of mainstream education and placed in an identified support room. Such accommodation is not available in most schools. Did the Minister identify resources for the provision of these rooms? The issue will not arise until this is up and running, which will probably be the start of the new academic year rather than the end of this academic year. Do the 50 schools selected and identified have the space for this core requirement? It is important we know.

Regarding a crisis in discipline and with disruption in schools, less than one year ago the Minister wondered what crisis existed and stated people were exaggerating. Many people agreed with her. Broadly speaking, practically every teacher encounters an element of such disruptiveness on a daily basis. This may not be widespread but is evident in practically every school where there is a broad intake of all ranges of ability and where various outcomes must be anticipated.

Ultimately, those people who cause disruption must be identified and dealt with. I do not believe the best way to do this is to put pupils in a room, sin bin or whatever term will be used. A sin bin is used when people are sent from a playing field as a result of disruptive behaviour. They are off the pitch for a certain period of time, after which they come back.

Leaving aside the playing field, such people can be back in a scenario that can be more provocative to all people. It has a serious influence on the peer group within the school and class context. Perhaps it is unfortunate for a teacher who has had the initial experience and must pass it along to the board of management, principal and others involved in discipline within the school.

Thinking back to what some may term "the good old days" prior to the 1998 Act, the power to suspend or expel lay with the principal, president, teachers and school boards of management. Perhaps some would overreact. The matter would be dealt with and there was no appeal mechanism, which may have been unfair. Children may have transferred to another school and done well. Perhaps a great disservice could be done to a pupil who would have to go from one school to another and go on to succeed there.

It is important that the process is achieved quickly and that a prolonged assessment and torturous detailing of steps along the line is avoided. Although it is recognised that such a process is important, it is also important for it to be done quickly. This will leave a fair end result. A long and drawn-out process would be seriously detrimental in a case where a pupil is received back into a school.

We must think of cases where students are expelled or suspended for a long time from a school. Another mechanism should be available. The Minister mentioned the welfare system which is there, with the psychological service etc. We must think of an environment outside the existing school scenario. For example, Youthreach has done tremendous work over the years for students identified as having left the system for one reason or another, be it related to discipline or total rejection of the system within which they were initially involved.

I hope the task force would consider cases where a mechanism similar to that of Youthreach would be used with pupils identified in such a way. If a school has a room or area within which one or more of such identified pupils are contained or restrained, there will be serious problems. These will include identification and the prospect of pupils becoming targets for bullying. These and related problems would cause very serious disruption within a school environment.

I strongly support the introduction of this legislation and hope the Minister will clearly identify two or three issues I have mentioned. I hope the matter will quickly become national rather than remain a pilot scheme, for want of a better word, as it is currently. We should have a clearly defined budget relative to the numbers involved and the problem that can be identified.

Some 43 schools made initial submissions, but perhaps the advertisement seeking submissions may not have been fully understood by many schools. Most schools should be issued with a circular from the Department to invite them to make a submission at an early stage so we can have a full and comprehensive understanding of the problems out there.

The matter must be handled with the greatest of care. The initial steps to be taken must be seen to be effective, fair and manageable. We should set a benchmark for the future because what we have now is in some ways unacceptable. For example, it is not acceptable that professionals at work can be treated in some of the appalling ways that have been evident. I will not mention any particular isolated case that may have come to notice through the press.

It is imperative that the pupils who want to go ahead are allowed to do so in a proper environment. Those identified through this mechanism must be dealt with fairly and squarely, and they should have a definite opportunity of rehabilitation into a system. They may not necessarily continue within what could be termed a normal class situation.