John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

I do not propose to accept these amendments because they would destroy what we set out to do in the Bill, namely, provide balance. Schools are of the opinion that at present there is a lack of balance regarding the consideration of appeals because criteria are not set down. The amendment of section 29 of the 1998 Act seeks to provide an appeals committee with criteria it can consider in order to ensure that the rights of an individual child who has been expelled from school will be recognised and then balanced against those of the remainder of the student population and teachers and that cognisance will also be taken of the health, safety and welfare of the latter groups.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 automatically favour schools and would ensure that the balance to which I refer would not be put in place. This matter was debated at length on Second Stage. Bearing in mind that a student who has been expelled has a constitutional right to an education, it is important that a school can show that it has done everything possible for that student and that it has made reasonable efforts to ensure that his or her needs have been met. Equally, however, this must be balanced against the other elements to which I refer such as the safety, health and welfare of teachers, etc.

The balance we are seeking to achieve by way of amending section 29 of the 1998 Act is crucially important. In the past, school authorities were of the opinion that matters were balanced in favour of the individual. Senator Ulick Burke's amendments would balance it in favour of the school, which would not be fair to either party.

The way matters are set out in the Bill means that a range of issues must be taken into consideration. In addition, it deals with the type of incidents to which Senator Ulick Burke referred. For example, it refers to the "nature, scale and persistence" any behaviour on the part of a student. This will allow an appeals committee to give serious consideration to one-off incidents or a succession of incidents. A committee will also be obliged to consider what a school has done for a child, how this impacted on the other students and the rest of the school and how both of these fit into the overall context of the policies of the school.

Senator Ulick Burke referred to procedural issues. Such issues are, in fact, legislative requirements. Under the Education Act, schools are obliged to have policies on behaviour, bullying, health and safety and equality. Such policies are important in the context of the running of schools and they provide great security not just to teachers and principals but also to students and their parents.

It is critically important that even before children are enrolled in schools, they and their parents should be aware of the exact nature of both the procedures that will be employed if the rules are broken and the code of sanction. Students will, therefore, before they even enter their schools, be fully aware of what is likely to happen if there is a breach of the rules. This will provide great protection for schools.

If schools have in place proper policies and follow the correct procedures, they will be on to a winner. There is not, therefore, a need — as is the case in the Senator's amendment — to favour them. Equally, they must ensure that if they go to the extreme of expelling a student, they must follow the legal requirements set out regarding the relevant procedures to be used. A timescale is set down and schools must provide students and their families with notice of expulsion sufficiently far in advance to allow them to made alternative arrangements.

Let us consider the example to which Senator Ulick Burke referred, namely, the fact that the case of a student being expelled today would not be finally decided upon until next Christmas. He is completely wrong in that regard. If an incident happens today in a school and the authorities there decide to expel the student, 20 days notice must be given and the National Educational Welfare Board must be notified. That enables the board to work with the family and the student to find an alternative placement, if such is required, or at least to support the student. The student can remain in the school for that period. However, if the school is of the view that the student remaining would be a danger or would put at risk or affect the health and safety of other students within the school, the school can suspend that student for that time. There is no question of putting anybody at risk during that period.

The appeal, should the person take one to the Department of Education and Science, must be heard within 30 days. Even if the extension of time were given, which it would not be at this time of the year and only if it were to interfere with the likes of summer holidays, to ensure that sufficient allowance would be made for schools and parents to provide information, the appeal would be determined within a period of 30 days according to the legislation. Then there would be the hearing of the appeal and notification of it. Were an incident to occur today, there would be 20 days to allow the student, parents and the National Educational Welfare Board to act on it, and then 30 days until the appeal would be heard. Even if one allows for a week or two for the appeal to be heard, all that would be well sorted by the end of May. Meanwhile, the National Educational Welfare Board would work with the child.