Joe O'Toole (Independent)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus roimh an mBille. Tá sé tábhachtach agus in a lán slite tá muid ag feitheamh leis an Bhille seo leis na blianta. Tá na rudaí istigh ann pléite go maith ag an Aire, againne agus ag múinteoirí sa chéad agus sa dara leibhéal le blianta: na deacrachtaí balance a fháil i gcomhthéacs chúrsaí smachta i scoileanna, go mbeadh cearta na ndaltaí agus cúram na múinteoirí go hinmheánach sa scoil.

Leis na blianta bhí i gcónaí deacracht ann go raibh brú ar scoileanna cód smachta a chur le chéile agus na rudaí nach bhféadfaidís a chur isteach ann. Cuireadh deireadh le pionós coirpeach i 1982 agus bhí folús ina dhiaidh sin. Bhí sé deacair ag an bpointe sin aon rud a chur isteach ina áit ach thar na blianta, tharla a lán rudaí.

The most extraordinary event of those years was our dealing with the issue of psychological assessments in one of the Education Acts, a matter that was also addressed in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. Having tried every other process, parents could be compelled to agree or their permission would not be required to insist on a psychological assessment. This was a major move forward, as we were afraid to examine the issue for years.

During the 1990s, there was a sense among teachers that the Department did not or could not support them. The Department was more concerned with telling schools, teachers and boards of management what they could not do in an attempt to ensure the children who were compliant with a school's code of discipline were being properly educated without interruption by disruptive pupils. There were all sorts of difficulties at that time. Officials did not speak about sanctions such as detention, suspension and expulsion other than to tell us they could not be used.

I once dealt with an appeal to the inspectorate in the case of the principal teacher of a school in south Leinster who had been severely reprimanded for isolating a student within the classroom. The child, who was very disruptive, had been told to sit on his own by his teacher, who was a responsible, caring and sensitive professional. This case serves as an example of how officials sometimes fail to understand the impact of their decisions. The teacher in this instance did not sleep for six months until his appeal was heard. The inspectorate understood and accepted the man's argument, in fairness, but not before he had undergone a great deal of hardship. The issues of suspension and expulsion were not even on the radar screen at that stage. It is important that now we are providing that they can be considered.

Many factors will have to be taken into consideration when the appeals committee comes to a decision on an appeal against an expulsion or suspension. I spoke ten or 15 years ago in favour of providing for suspension and expulsion in certain circumstances. I said that the nature, scale and persistence of any behaviour should be taken into consideration by a school before it makes a decision. Each school should be judged on the reasonableness of its attempts to deal with the problem child. It is important to consider whether other children in the class are deprived of their right to education if two or three students continually act in a disruptive manner. A balance must be struck. Schools need to accept that they must follow certain processes before they can take the penultimate or ultimate step. Health and safety issues must be considered, for example. Schools are in a better position when they deal with the appeals board if it is clear that they have checked all the boxes and done certain things. The quality of that process also must be examined. This system will give everyone a sense of security. If I was to make any complaint about the Bill, I would point out that it was needed many years ago. Perhaps that would be an unfair criticism, because I recognise that this legislation represents progress.

This Bill will give authority to schools and boards of management. They will know that the decisions which are made can be appealed. When I spoke recently to a group of teachers about the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, I outlined to them the eight or nine different appeals which will be possible under the Act. Further appeals will be possible under this legislation. It would be helpful if the Department of Education and Science could make training courses available to those who will implement the provisions of this legislation. Such people want to know what will be considered as reasonable, for example. We all know what we consider reasonable, but the official view should be made known. How do we measure the reasonableness of any efforts made by the school to enable the student to whom the appeal relates to participate in and benefit from education? I do not suggest that it can be absolutely measured, but what will we look for in that regard?

There will be fewer appeals if this process is structured properly. Appeals tend to occur when people think they will be successful. If schools know that the process could lead to an appeal, they will have to be very careful. Schools should be helped to understand how they can contribute to the quality of the process. That would give confidence to school authorities in facing an appeal or giving evidence to a board of appeal. If the decisions of schools are being appealed, at least their representatives should be able to say that they followed the relevant steps properly. If they do so, the appeals board will have to accept their arguments or give reasons for not doing so. The board might find that the school authorities did not engage in enough consultation with parents, for example, or that they tried to implement other sanctions before taking this step. I think that some clarification would be helpful. While some guidance is being given, it would be nice for it to be a central part of what must take place. It is a matter of time before people decide to go to the courts after an appeal has been rejected.