I welcome the Minister to the House for Committee Stage of the Education (Welfare) (Amendment) Bill 2017.
Education (Welfare) (Amendment) Bill 2017: Committee Stage
SECTION 1
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I want to inform the committee that I intend to table an amendment in respect of section 1 on Report Stage which will correct an error in the drafting of the section. The Minister referred to in this section of the Bill is the Minister for Education and Skills when, in fact, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has responsibility for the functions of the educational welfare service. As the committee knows, these powers transferred to my Department on the commencement of the Child and Family Agency Act 2013.
I will of course continue to work closely with my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, in respect of all matters relating to Tusla's educational welfare service in order to ensure that every child in the State is provided with a high quality education to allow each and every one of them to meet their potential. I know full well that is also the intention of my colleagues, including Senator Ó Ríordáin, who is sponsoring the Bill. I appreciate that very much.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Again, I want to inform the committee that I intend to table an amendment or, perhaps, a number of amendments on Report Stage in order to address issues that may emerge with regard to changing the definition of a child and the impact this may have on the operation of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. The change to the definition of a child for the entirety of the Act will have implications which are currently difficult to anticipate. For instance, bringing all children enrolled in a recognised school within the scope of the Act could impact on the decision of parents as to whether they should enrol their children in school before reaching the compulsory schooling age of six. It is important to note that the compulsory schooling age would not change on the basis of this Bill.
Another potential impact would be to bring more children and parents under the scope of section 25 of the Act. Under this section the parent of a child who is neglecting to cause his or her child to attend a recognised school can be served with a school attendance notice and face subsequent prosecution should the parent contravene the requirements of the notice. The penalties for parents who face such a prosecution are a potential fine and imprisonment of up to one month. In this regard the proposed Bill could lead to a situation whereby a parent of a four or five year old child faces prosecution in respect of the non-attendance of a child who has not yet reached the compulsory school-going age. There is potential for a legal challenge to the legislation on that basis given this ambiguity. The officials in my Department are currently carrying out a section by section analysis of the Act in an attempt to identify some of these potential unintended consequences.
I commend Senator Ó Ríordáin, who sponsored the Bill, for bringing it forward. I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome her comments on the Bill. We are all cognisant of her comments on the need to be mindful of unforeseen consequences. Clearly it is not our intention to dissuade parents from sending their children to school before the age of six. Both Senator Ó Ríordáin and myself look forward to working with the Minister and her officials to ensure that the Bill can be strengthened and improved upon in such a way that it meets our good intentions in bringing it forward without having the more negative consequences about which the Minister has spoken. We will be very happy to work with her and to bring the Bill forward to Report Stage with the sort of amendments the Minister has described.
I concur with my colleague and I also welcome the Minister to the House. I appreciate the work that she and her officials have done in this regard. I completely agree with her. What she has outlined is not the intention of our Bill in any way. The intention is to bring parents under the compassionate arm of the State rather than having them end up in a courtroom. I appreciate the difficulty the Minister's drafters will have in differentiating between a child not enrolled in a school and one who is. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that Tusla and the agencies of the State can deal compassionately with all children within the primary school enrolment system, particularly four and five year olds, and that they can be interacted with, encouraged and empowered. Nobody wants to see the parents of any child in a courtroom situation. It is a failure on everybody's part if it comes to that.
We want to have that compassionate engagement and interaction from the agencies of the State for four and five year olds enrolled in school in order to correct poor patterns of behaviour at the earliest stage so that they do not compound and embed themselves into a much bigger problem later on. I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister's drafters will have. We will support her at every step along the way. Perhaps in time a more comprehensive Act may be needed to deal with this whole range of issues over a period of time. From the Labour Party's perspective, we are absolutely determined to work with the Minister on this.
I thank the Senators so much. It is really helpful to hear both of them speaking about the intention behind the Bill and the way in which it impacts on or influences this particular section.
As the Senators would both be aware, the issue about which we are speaking would have been one of the more challenging ones dealt with in the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 which established the National Educational Welfare Board before that body was absorbed into Tusla. These issues are extremely challenging and need to be dealt with sensitively and always with the intention of supporting parents in sending their children to school.
If we were to take a look at some of the debates on the original Act in respect of this issue, some of these conversations would have taken place then as well. It is important for me as Minister to name those issues because of the possibility that they may result in a need for amendments on Report Stage.
Although it is wonderful to be here on Committee Stage, we need time to reflect further on a couple of these things. I will be speaking on one or two more sections to indicate some issues which we want some time to examine. I totally accept and appreciate what the Senators are saying. My officials and I are very pleased that they will be willing to work with us in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage that will remove the citation at section 6(3)of the Bill. The Bill does not propose any amendment to the Education Acts 1878 to 2007 and as such this section of the Bill is not required.
Question put and agreed to.
TITLE
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to correct an error in the Long Title. The Long Title of the Bill refers to the National Educational Welfare Board. This amendment will update the Long Title to reflect the current position, namely, that the board is no longer in existence and that its functions were transferred to Tusla educational welfare services. As Members know, in order to fulfil its role Tusla educational welfare services is responsible for the provision of education welfare officers who engage with schools in identifying and dealing with issues of non-attendance of particular students and in general terms to implement the provisions of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. It is simply a reflection of the history of the change.
I appreciate the Acting Chairman's indulgence. I thank the Minister and I reiterate that I hope nobody thinks that the intention of this Bill is stick rather than carrot. There are principals like myself in my former occupation who had the situation where they could only deal with the agents of the State, the National Educational Welfare Board as it was then and Tusla now, if a child was over six years of age. If there is a child in the school with very poor attendance patterns, for whatever reason, there was not the opportunity to refer that child because the legislation provided for children between the ages of six and 16. The intention of this Bill is not to hurt families. It is not to try and create difficulty between the school and a family. It is intended that a school can work with a family to address these poor behaviour patterns and that they can be empowered to do so by legislation. That is the ethos behind the Bill.
I am delighted the Minister has accepted the Bill, is taking it on board that we have reached Committee Stage and can progress it. I mention a child who is enrolled and who is dependent on adults advocating for him or her. When one is 16 or 17 years of age, and in the education system, one is in a position to advocate for oneself and it is a different conversation, but when a child is four or five years of age, he or she needs adults to back him or her. Children need their parents, family and whole school community to back them. I am delighted that people in this House are backing those children and the Minister is too. I appreciate the Minister's support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 8 May 2018.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.14 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 May 2018.