Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 28, to delete "relevant." and substitute the following:

"relevant, and where an appeals committee finds that a school has acted—

(i) properly, in terms of notifying the student and his or her parent or parents at each step of the process towards sanction,

(ii) reasonably, in terms of taking the final decision to sanction the student, and

(iii) in accordance with its policy or policies and where—

(I) the policy or policies were well communicated to the student and his or her parent or parents, or

(II) the school had made reasonable efforts to communicate the policy or policies to the student and his or her parent or parents,

the appeals committee shall not overturn the decision of the school save in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.".

I welcome the Minister to the House. There is concern among boards of management and VECs about the situation that potentially exists regarding the appeals mechanism. There is also a concern about the power of the Secretary General of the Department, based on previous overturns of appeals. In all those appeals, there was no indication that the Department was taking responsibility for anything. That is most unusual. In all eight cases that were overturned, the Department had palmed off responsibility onto other boards of management or VECs. That worries many people and I hope the Minister can deal with it.

In many of these cases, it was simply an administrative difficulty that was overlooked. The boards of management proceeded in the appeals with fairness and due consideration, but they are only human and they make errors. If the error is simply procedural, it is very unfair that an appeal would be upheld in favour of the disciplining child on those grounds, and against the boards of management and VECs.

In the vocational educational sector, a student or a parent has a right to an appeal in the first instance through a subcommittee of the local vocational educational committee and thereafter to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science. Once the appeal is made to the Secretary General, it is administered by an appeals administration section of the Department, which in turn establishes a three-person appeals committee to hear and decide on the case. This committee is serviced by an official of the appeals administrative section of the Department. The experience of VECs around the country in the operation of this scheme has been very negative. The biggest concern among VEC members is the willingness of members of the appeals committee and officials of the Department to apply strictly procedural requirements to members of the boards of management and VECs, who are respondents in the appeals cases, while patently failing to apply the same strictures to themselves.

I wish to give an example of this. The appeals administrative section of the Department gave advice to a VEC that it was in order for it to hold over a particular decision for a single day for a meeting of the committee. Subsequently, officials from this same section of the Department decided that this advice was in error. It used this very fact, that the VEC had delayed by one day to admit an appeal against it, to decide in favour of the appellant parent and against the VEC. The possibility of this scenario being repeated is what is causing concern.

There is a concern about a conflict of interest within the Department due to the make-up of the committee. Can the Minister say that the three people on the appeals committee have the necessary training and requirements to make those decisions? I do not wish to cast aspersions on the professionalism or otherwise of the members who are involved. It is of the utmost importance that the Minister can confirm this. It is a very serious situation because the smallest human error can have great consequences down the line. I am conscious of the fact that many of them may not yet have the proper training in crisis management and so on.

To allay some of the concerns that I have, the Minister should consider the establishment of an absolutely independent appeals board. The Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 could be amended to provide this facility and to ensure that independence would have to be seen to be in operation. That would provide an indication of independence in this instance.

Another matter about which I am concerned is the entitlement of the Secretary General to extend the period. In certain instances it may be necessary to request a report from a particular agency regarding the difficulties identified in respect of a pupil. The Minister will acknowledge that if a child is expelled from school today on foot of serious disciplinary problems relating to questionable behaviour aimed at his or her fellow students, teachers or other members of staff or school property, the likelihood is that because of the forthcoming Easter and summer holidays — and despite the 44-day rule — a final decision on the matter will not be handed down until next Christmas. The Minister's officials are shaking their heads to indicate that this would not be the case. However, the likelihood is that it could happen. The Minister is a former teacher. Is she in a position to visualise what would happen if a child were obliged to remain outside of school for the period to which I refer before being reinstated following an appeal? Can she imagine the humiliation that might be visited upon the teacher involved in dealing with the initial incident, the board of management or the school principal who would be obliged to deal with the child's reinstatement?

Six months ago there were media reports regarding a child who had been suspended or expelled from school and who met a group of his peers in the local town. He was clearly overheard expressing his delight at the fact that he would be rehabilitated and back at school within 30 days and that his intention was to make life miserable for a particular teacher.

This is an extremely serious matter. Amendment No. 1 in my name suggests the inclusion of the following in the Bill:

"relevant, and where an appeals committee finds that a school has acted—

(i) properly, in terms of notifying the student and his or her parent or parents at each step of the process towards sanction,

(ii) reasonably, in terms of taking the final decision to sanction the student, and

(iii) in accordance with its policy or policies and where—

(I) the policy or policies were well communicated to the student and his or her parent or parents, or

(II) the school had made reasonable efforts to communicate the policy or policies to the student and his or her parent or parents,

the appeals committee shall not overturn the decision of the school save in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.".

Unfortunately, the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to which the amendment refers do occur. It is important that the Minister should confirm that the Department will not overturn decisions simply for procedural reasons.

Amendment No. 2 states:

"(4A) Where a student has been—

(a) suspended, or

(b) expelled,

for the use, or threat, of violence against—

(i) another student,

(ii) a teacher or any other member of the staff of the school, or

(iii) property, whether held by the school or a person referred to in paragraph (i) or (ii),

the appeals committee shall have particular regard to that fact, and shall not overturn the decision of the school save in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.".

Both amendments are reasonable and provide safeguards. I hope the Minister will consider amending the Ombudsman for Children Act in order to provide a mechanism that can clearly be seen to be independent. In addition, the power of the Secretary General to extend the time period should be clearly outlined in the legislation.