Ar an gcéad dul síos, ar sheachtain na Féile Pádraig tá áthas orainn a bheith anseo agus tá muid an-bhuíoch daoibh as ucht an cuireadh a thug sibh dúinn a bheith anseo in bhur measc inniu. Feictear dúinn gur Bille fíor-thábhachtach é ar fad an Bille nua seo atá os comhair na Dála. Is dream muid go bhfuil ár saol tugtha againn don oideachas agus is mór an ónóir dúinn é a bheith anseo ag plé an Bhille seo inniu.
The Preamble to the Education Act 1998 makes clear that the whole school system is conducted in a spirit of partnership. However, we have concerns that the Education (Amendment) Bill may inadvertently undermine important dimensions of this partnership approach. It is on this key issue that we wish to made our presentation to Deputies and Senators today. Section 8 of the 1998 Act defines the patron of a school. In the Education (Amendment) Bill there is reference to "bodies representative of patrons". No such bodies currently exist and no definition of such is provided. It is, therefore, unclear then what is intended by this term. We submit that the Bill should continue to speak of "patrons" rather than "bodies representative of patrons".
There is need for agreement between the partners with regard to redeployment. A significant change in the Education (Amendment) Bill vis-à-vis the 1998 Act is found in section 6 - 24(5)(a). The proposed text states:
A teacher or other member of staff of a recognised school who is, or who is to be, remunerated out of monies provided by the Oireachtas may be redeployed to another recognised school in accordance with redeployment procedures determined from time to time by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform following consultation with bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations and with recognised trade unions and staff associations representing teachers or other staff as appropriate.
This section places the redeployment scheme on a statutory basis and does not demand that there be agreement with patrons on redeployment arrangements. This is unsatisfactory, given that a partnership approach has worked very well for many years, as has been acknowledged by the Department. Why then should a successful system be changed? We, as Catholic patrons, have concerns about the redeployment scheme.
Ongoing agreement is necessary for the scheme to properly fulfil its goals while maintaining a balance between all the interested parties.
Our first concern is the implications for the entire panel structure of the changes in redeployment demanded by the Department. The panel system evolved as an agreement between patrons and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation and with the agreement of the Department of Education and Skills. Given current fiscal constraints, the Department is insisting on changes to redeployment arrangements. This raises issues about the overall structure of the panel system. While the system protects teachers' rights, it is arguable that insufficient attention is being paid to the rights of pupils and parents, and particularly to boards of management. In a time of fiscal rectitude these rights must be kept in balance.
Our second concern is the implications for boards of management as employers. There are important issues relating to open recruitment and the imposition of a particular employee on a school.
Third, a teacher applying to be placed on a panel of a different type of patronage can only be accepted by agreement of the patron of the panel receiving the person. Such a teacher, when accepted into a diocesan panel, will be required to respect the characteristic spirit of the school and adhere to what is required of any teacher in a Catholic school, specifically to the requirements of the board of management in relation to its obligation to uphold the characteristic spirit of the school.
Fourth, the patron and the board of management are legally responsible to uphold the characteristic spirit or ethos of the school. There are legitimate concerns that large scale redeployment of teachers could undermine the characteristic spirit of a school. In this context, the deed of variation is a crucially important legal instrument with regard to the same characteristic spirit or ethos of a school.
Under the 1998 Act, procedures had to be agreed with the Minister and the education partners. However, the new Bill stipulates that the procedures can be established following consultation rather than agreement. Section 6 of the Education (Amendment) Bill 2012 amends section 24(11) of the 1998 Act and states:
The board of a recognised school may, in accordance with procedures determined from time to time by the Minister following consultation with bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations and with recognised trade unions and staff associations representing teachers or other staff as appropriate, appoint, suspend or dismiss any or all of the Principal, teachers and other staff of a school, who are remunerated or to be remunerated out of monies provided by the Oireachtas.
Section 24(3) of the Education Act 1998 states:
A board shall appoint teachers and other staff who are to be paid from monies provided by the Oireachtas and may suspend or dismiss such teachers or staff in accordance with procedures agreed from time to time between the Minister, the patron, recognised school management organisations and any recognised trade unions and staff associations representing teachers or other staff as appropriate.
We submit that the Bill should be amended so as to reflect the requirements for agreement between the education partners, as found in this section of the Act.
Finally, we draw these issues to the attention of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education because of our concern that the Education (Amendment) Bill 2012, as proposed, might inadvertently undermine the checks and balances that underpin our education system. The education partners have a long and fruitful tradition of working together to solve problems as they arise. We would wish for this to continue. Our considered view is that the provisions of the Bill rebalance the relationships of the education partners too strongly in favour of the Minister and the Department. This has important consequences for patrons, boards of management and the parents and children they serve.
We thank the committee most sincerely for listening to us today and we welcome any questions members may have.