Education (Amendment) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Education (Amendment) Bill 2010 before the House. The Bill provides for the involvement for the first time of vocational education committees in the provision of primary education as well as a number of other education related matters. This legislation is one of several measures currently being progressed by my Department to cater for the changing requirements of education provision. These include new arrangements for the recognition of primary schools and assisting the Catholic Church in its deliberations on the possible divesting of patronage of some of its schools. The provisions of the Bill will allow VECs to be part of that changing landscape and to extend the important contribution they already make to education at second level to the primary sector.

At present the role of the State in the establishment of primary schools is confined to facilitating the initiative of patrons in this area. This contrasts with the role of the State at second level, where it has been actively involved for many years in the establishment of schools. It is both appropriate and important that the State, through local VECs, should be in a position to participate in primary education provision in order to provide an alternative patronage model at this level.

Last May we had a useful discussion in this House on the subject of diversification of primary school provision. There was general acknowledgement of the significant role played by VECs at second level and I am pleased this legislation will extend their functions to the primary sector.

A situation can also arise of a primary school being required but no patron being willing or available to establish one. The current system cannot require that a patron establish a school and it is therefore possible that, despite a demand for a school in a particular location, there is no mechanism for its establishment. The State cannot stand aside from its obligation in this regard and this is dealt with by the provisions of the Bill.

In order to meet the challenges posed by the changing shape of Irish society and the needs of its emerging communities for greater diversity, the former Minister for Education and Science, with the approval of the Government, undertook to explore the possibility of developing a new model of patronage for primary schools. This involved a consultation process with all the relevant education partners, including the main patron bodies, management bodies and union interests. From that process the view emerged that maintaining the status quo would not address the new demands being placed upon the education system. It also revealed a widespread general welcome for the initiative itself and for the main principles of the approach being adopted.

The Government agreed that the new model of primary school patronage would be a new State model of community national schools under the patronage of vocational education committees. It will have the capacity to cater for the wishes of parents for denominational, multidenominational and non-denominational education within the framework of a single patron model and a single board of management structure. The emphasis in the community national school model will be on inclusiveness and respect for the diversity of cultures in our society and one of the central purposes of the new model will be to cater for this diversity within a single school setting rather than in more than one school. Community national schools will welcome and respect all faiths and none and will proceed on the basis of clearly stated principles in respect of the availability of religious education during the school day, in conformity with the wishes of parents. This commitment is an important distinguishing feature of the model. A multi-belief programme will include provision for faith specific teaching for children of the main faiths represented in the schools, in accordance with the wishes of parents and subject to the availability of the necessary resources. The schools will also seek to cater for parents who do not wish their children to receive religious education in any particular faith. It is not the intention that the new model of patronage will replace existing models but that it will be a complementary alternative where the specific local circumstances warrant this new approach.

The new patronage model is currently being piloted in five locations in counties Dublin, Meath and Kildare. These community national schools are committed to a high standard of education and each child is helped to reach his or her personal potential. They operate in a spirit of partnership between patrons, teachers, students, parents and the wider community served by the school. I am happy to say that the experience to date indicates that the pilot schools are successfully addressing the changing demands and expectations of the society in which we now live, notably, the demand for diversity. They are meeting the ensuing challenges with real determination, co-operation and enthusiasm. Most important, the feedback from pupils, parents, teachers and school management, who are the key stakeholders in this project, is overwhelmingly positive.

Moving on to the details of the draft legislation, sections 1 to 3 of the Bill are the standard provisions for the Short Title, collective citations, construction and commencement, interpretation and expenses. Specifically in regard to the community national school model, the Bill provides for a new additional model of patronage for primary schools; amends and extends the functions of VECs to facilitate them in acting as patron or joint patron in the primary school system; and amends the Education Act 1998 to provide that a board of management of a community national school will operate in the same way as boards of management in primary schools generally rather than under the governance model used in post-primary VEC schools.

Section 4 provides for a VEC to establish or maintain a primary school, either on its own initiative with the consent of the Minister or on the direction of the Minister. A VEC may also on its own initiative seek the consent of the Minister to become patron or joint patron of an existing primary school or become patron, or joint patron, of an existing primary school on the direction of the Minister. In considering whether to grant consent in any of these circumstances to the establishment of a school in a particular area, the Minister must be satisfied that the following requirements set down in section 10(2) of the Education Act 1998, as amended by this legislation, are met — that the needs of existing and likely future pupil numbers could not reasonably be met by the existing schools in the area and that it is desirable to establish a new school that can meet their needs; provision of the prescribed curriculum, co-operation with the inspectorate; compliance with health, safety and building standards; conformity with relevant ministerial regulations and with any other terms and conditions as may reasonably be attached to recognition of a school by the Minister; and the efficient and effective use of resources.

Section 5 amends section 14(2) of the Education Act 1998 to remove the exemption for boards of management of community national schools established or maintained by VECs from the requirement to be constituted as a body corporate. This is to enable the boards of management of community national schools to operate in the same way as boards of management in primary schools generally. The board of management of a school established under this legislation will not be a sub-committee of a VEC, as is the case for post-primary VEC schools, but will instead be set up following the same procedures as apply to boards of management in other recognised primary schools. This means, for instance, that teaching and non-teaching staff will be employed by the board of management in the same way as other primary schools and the board will receive capitation and other funding directly from the Department in the same way as primary schools generally.

As patron, the VEC will provide the chair and one other member of the board of management and this will correspond with the position regarding two patron nominees to a board of management applying in primary schools generally. The nomination of VEC representatives to a board of management will be an executive function. However, the executive would not be precluded from nominating a VEC member or members to this role.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 provide for some necessary or consequential amendments to the Education Act 1998 arising from the provisions in sections 4 and 5.

As I have mentioned, the drafting of legislation to permit VEC patronage at primary level has also been availed of to deal with a number of other pressing education-related issues where primary legislation is necessary. These are dealt with in sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill, as follows.

Section 9 of the Bill, the result of an amendment to section 2 of the Education Act 1998, provides for the amendment of the definition of "support services" in the Education Act 1998 to clarify the position on the delivery of speech therapy services and other health and personal services to students of school-going age.

The Education Act 1998 lists the planning and co-ordination of support services, including speech therapy services, as a function of the Minister for Education and Skills. While there is agreement at policy level that the HSE will continue to provide such services, the proposed amendments of the Education Act 1998 are necessary to clarify the position in regard to the delivery of speech therapy services to students of school-going age. The legislative framework will be regularised in accordance with the de facto position, which is that the provision of speech therapy services is a matter for the HSE. This position is already acknowledged by the Oireachtas through the provision of voted moneys to the HSE to deliver such services.

The proposed provisions will not impact on the availability through the HSE of speech therapy services for children with special educational needs. My Department's commitment to support the co-ordinated delivery of services to families of children with special educational needs is not diminished. The Department will continue to work with partners in the health and disability sectors through the vehicle of the cross-sectoral team, as established under the auspices of the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for disability and mental health, and the national disability strategy stakeholder monitoring group. This provision gives rise to a consequential technical amendment to repeal section 7(5) and (6) of the 1998 Act, as inserted by section 40 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. This is provided for in section 10 of the Bill.

Section 11 of the Bill supports the Government decision on rationalisation of agencies in the 2008 budget. It provides for the abolition of the Educational Disadvantage Committee, a formal statutory committee which has not been in existence since 2005. The committee was established under section 32 of the Education Act 1998 in order to advise the Minister on policies and strategies to be adopted to identify and correct educational disadvantage. Its final report, Moving Beyond Educational Disadvantage, was published in December 2005. That report, along with the previous work of the committee, was a valuable input to the development of DEIS.

Section 11 repeals section 32 of the Education Act 1998 and in a consequential technical amendment, the definition of "educational disadvantage" contained in section 32(9) of the 1998 Act has been moved to section 2 of that Act by section 9 of this Bill.

Section 12 of the Bill provides for the amendment of section 30 of the Teaching Council Act to allow for the employment, in certain exceptional and limited circumstances, of persons who are not registered teachers under the Act. To safeguard the standards and quality of education in schools, it is our policy that all teachers should be fully qualified and registered by the Teaching Council. To date, some 68,000 teachers have been registered by the council. In primary and post-primary schools, the number of unregistered teachers, in full-time and annual contract posts, is decreasing steadily and has reached an all-time low, as schools are implementing that policy as set out in Circular 40/2010 and previous circulars.

In this context, section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001, which has not yet been commenced, provides that only registered teachers can be remunerated out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. While it is still my aim that all teachers in schools be registered with the council, and, therefore, fully qualified, it is apparent that to commence section 30 as it stands would have a serious negative impact for a small number of schools where, in specific circumstances, unqualified personnel are required in the short term.

The proposed amendment to the Act is necessary to allow the Minister for Education and Skills regulate in a measured way the use of unregistered personnel in exceptional and limited circumstances where the use of unregistered teachers may be necessary. To date, the use of unqualified personnel has been unregulated. The overarching aim of protecting the standards of education for students remains and the impact of this amendment is to strike a balance between the rights of students to be taught by registered teachers and the need for individual schools to deal with short-term difficulties.

The move to mandatory registration of teachers will be an important factor in progressively ensuring a fully qualified and registered teaching cohort. However, the reality facing schools is that it is not always possible to engage a registered teacher, particularly at short notice. This may be because of geographical reasons or the lack of availability of teachers of particular subjects at a given time. This reality exists despite the maintenance of a high level of output of graduates and it is important that provision be made for the exceptional and limited circumstances where the use of unregistered teachers may be necessary.

I hope Deputies will agree that at a time of increasing diversity of demand and in challenging economic conditions, this is an important Bill. I look forward to hearing the views of Deputies today and to further debate as the Bill progresses through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

Tá Fine Gael i bhfábhar an Bhille seo go ginearálta. Molaimid cuid de na moltaí atá ann, ach feicimid lochtanna móra le cuid mhaith eile. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbeidh díospóireacht againn, ní hamháin sa Dáil ach sa choiste. Molaimid freisin, ach go háirithe, go scríobhfadh an tAire chuig tuismitheoir gach dalta chun díospóireacht a chothú sa tír faoin treo ina bhfuil an t-oideachas ag dul sa tír, go mór mhór an bunoideachas. Ba mhaith an rud freisin tuairimí tuismitheoirí a chur in iúl don Aire agus don Roinn i dtreo agus go mbeidh fios cinnte againn an treo a theastaíonn ó thuismitheoirí. Is locht mór ar an mBille é nach bhfuil an díospóireacht sin ar siúl agus nach bhfuil an tAire sásta go mbeidh díospóireacht ar phatrúnacht scoileanna go ginearálta. Ba chóir go mbeadh an díospóireacht sin oscailte agus go mbeadh cead cainte ag gach éinne sa díospóireacht.

Our country is at a crossroads. There are many points in the Bill that I laud and support, particularly with regard to the new role for vocational education committees. However, let me deal with some of the problems I have with the Bill, particularly in light of the last part of the Minister's address. I want to make it very clear that my party will be against some of the provisions in the Bill because they are discriminatory, particularly against teachers who are fully qualified and registered.

I get the impression from the last part of the Minister's speech, which I am addressing first, that there is inadequate preparation in the Bill for the fact that tens of thousands of qualified graduates who are registered with the Teaching Council cannot obtain positions at present. I and many of my colleagues, including Deputy Quinn and, I am sure, the Minister, receive representations from fully qualified and registered teachers who cannot obtain employment in schools.

The Minister is establishing in this legislation the right to have clearly unqualified personnel paid to teach in schools. That is the most controversial aspect of the Bill. It relates to the Minister's decision to allow unqualified personnel to continue teaching in classrooms at a time when we are exporting our graduates daily and when we have the highest level of unemployment in the history of the State. It is not acceptable that the Minister and her Department are failing to deal with this issue. Last year, there were over 300 unqualified personnel acting as teachers in classrooms. The Department of Education and Skills makes the point that the number has dropped but there are still over 100,000 paydays claimed by unqualified personnel in schools right across the country. This represents 100,000 days during which children lose access to qualified teachers. That is not good enough.

Qualified teachers are paying €90 per year to register with the Teaching Council, a body put in place to promote teaching as a profession. Is it not surprising that many teachers now resent having to pay the annual fee for recognition as a teacher when people with no qualifications at all can pick up work in schools? This is undermining the teaching profession and it undermines Government policy at a time when the Minister is making legal provision to pay people who are not qualified to work in this area. I cannot and do not accept that a school principal cannot find a qualified person to work, even at short notice, in a school. I understand the Irish Primary Principals' Network operates a texting service to people listed on its database as interested in taking up a temporary or short term teaching post. Those interested then communicate directly with the schools concerned, supplying their qualifications and Teaching Council registration number. The Minister should insist on this being the state of affairs here. Many students, having qualified as a teacher at their parents' expense, are often unable to get a job because people who are not qualified to do the job have been taken on. This sends out the message that this issue has not been addressed. Surely, given modern technology — I do not wish to over-labour this point — we should be able to put in place a database which can be accessed each morning by principals seeking a substitute teacher from the following day. They could then make their calls and get on with school business. This is the simplest way of addressing this issue. To continue to recognise, as is being done in this legislation, the employment of unqualified personnel is unacceptable.

Another issue of concern is that a person wishing to check on the Teaching Council website if his or her teacher is qualified can only do this if he or she knows the Teaching Council registration number. I believe that anybody should be able to check on the Teaching Council website, without having to know the teacher's registration number, whether he or she is qualified. This, again, is a matter of using technology to provide people with the information they require such as whether a teacher is qualified or if he or she is being taught in the classroom by an unqualified person. This could be easily organised. Also, how does one ensure a teacher who has been struck off the Teaching Council register for whatever reason — I am not suggesting this is happening — is not as an unqualified teacher taken on by a school. While I am not implying that is the Minister's intention, I believe this could happen.

The Minister in the latter part of her speech referred to speech and language services, an issue of concern. Like other Members of the Oireachtas, I, too, constantly receive complaints — properly so — from parents of children who cannot access adequate speech and language services. This issue has been largely overlooked in the commentary so far on this Bill. It is worrying that we are handing over to the Health Service Executive responsibility for speech and language services. This appears to be another case of the Department moving away from adequate provision of supports for children with special needs. Special classes have been abolished and special needs assistants, language supports and resource teachers have been withdrawn. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 has been deferred and responsibility for a hugely important service is to be given to the most unaccountable and inefficient agency in the State. What are the facts in this regard?

The current system of provision for speech and language services is hopelessly inadequate, with the most recent figures published by the HSE in April 2010 suggesting that 23,646 children and teenagers are on waiting lists nationally for speech therapy assessment or treatment needs. The Minister has suggested that taking responsibility for speech and language services from the Department of Education and Skills and making it the responsibility of the HSE will improve co-ordination and delivery of services to children on these waiting lists. I ask that the Minister respond on Committee Stage to these fundamental and critically important issues. Tens of thousands of young people need these services now but are not getting them. The Minister is not providing a solution to this basic disability from which these children and teenagers suffer and which can be remediated. If they get the services they are entitled to, they will be able to communicate in a proper manner. It is unacceptable that the Government has washed its hands of this issue in this legislation. They are the critical points I wished to put on the record of the House at the outset.

We support the main provisions of the Bill. Ireland is in many ways at a crossroads owing to changes in our demographics. There have been significant changes in our population during the past number of years. I take this opportunity thank my researcher, Ms Áine Kilroy, and the Oireachtas Library which produced an excellent and worthwhile document——

Deputy Mary Coughlan

It is more than I can get.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

——on this Bill and in relation to which it held a question and answer session which, unfortunately, I could not attend. The Oireachtas is providing us with excellent services. Much of what I am saying comes from that service although I do not state it as the author of everything I say here.

In 2002, approximately 221,000, or 5.7%, of our population were non-Irish, namely, people born outside the State. In 2007, this had grown to more than 417,000 so that one in every ten people in our population was not born in Ireland. In 2006, some 3.4% of our population were of mixed background, namely, black or black-Irish or Asian or Asian-Irish. Our population is diversifying. An analysis of the change in religious diversity shows that while 92% of Irish people declared themselves, in terms of religion, to be Roman Catholic, 51% of non-Irish people were also Roman Catholic, suggesting a real need for change. Some 2.8% of Irish people and 16.3% of non-Irish people stated they were of no religion. There has been significant changes in our population and thus many schools in different areas have needs which must be met in terms of how students are taught and what type of school they attend, be it denominational, multi-denominational, non-denominational and so on. I acknowledge that this legislation is being introduced in an effort to meet the changing needs of Ireland. I commend and support the new role proposed for the vocational education committees, VECs, which themselves are changing and in respect of which further changes are required. I believe there are other services which can and should be provided by the VECs.

The Roman Catholic Church, in the person of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, has acknowledged that it cannot continue to run 92% of schools when some 87% of the population are Roman Catholics. There is a need for change and consultation. A criticism we have of this Bill is the lack of open debate regarding patronage of our schools. So far, discussions between the Department and, in particular, the Catholic Church, have been private. We would like that debate to be opened out into the public domain. One way of doing so is through the Oireachtas, in particular the Joint Committee on Education and Skills which could, prior to the taking of Committee Stage of this Bill invite in parents, representatives of the different churches and none and other interested parties to tease out where we want to go in terms of patronage. While I acknowledge and support the changes being made, I do not believe there has been sufficient or adequate proper public debate on all of these issues. There must be new choices for parents and students and discussions in regard to where the new schools of which the Minister spoke will be located. It appears from the facts we have received that the new schools are likely, initially at least, to become VEC primary schools in city and urban areas as these are the areas wherein there has been significant growth. That is also where a greater mix exists.

The relevant research shows that, in the context of diversity, something of the order of 40% of schools do not have any new intake. The position in schools in Dublin 15, where there have been significant changes, is different. These schools have been obliged to take in children of different nationalities who speak various languages. Many of these children do not have English as a first language. These are multicultural schools and they are obliged to deal with people of all religions and none.

In the context of the change that is going to come, using the VECs is a very good idea. I welcome the fact that the Bill bestows on the latter the power to establish and run primary schools should they so wish. The VECs may also take over the running of new schools. I presume this will occur in circumstances where the voluntary relinquishment of the patronage of a primary occurs. It will be at this point that the Minister's power to issue a direction will come into play. We must recognise that change is taking place. The Bill moves forward the agenda for such change.

As part of the Bills digest pack relating to this Bill, the Oireachtas Library and Research Service has included statistics relating to a survey carried out by the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference. In that survey, people were asked to identify the type of school, out of the various models on offer, they would choose for their children. Some 48% indicated they would send their children to schools managed by religious denominations, 37% stated they would prefer schools in which common religious frameworks apply, 10% indicated they would choose schools not under the management of religious denominations and 5% stated they would seek schools with altogether different structures in place. In the context of a public debate on patronage choices, it would be better if the Tánaiste rather than schools wrote to parents and sought their views. Such action would inform the debate and would help to facilitate both the change and choice people are seeking.

In many instances, VEC-run schools were viewed as being "second best" in the past. Both I and my father worked in such schools and I am, therefore, well versed in their operation. There was a time when these schools were known colloquially as "techs". Students left such schools when they had sat the equivalent of the junior certificate and obtained their trade certificates. They then sought work in their chosen trades or whatever. It was only in later years that these techs developed into fully-fledged and excellent schools which competed on a level playing field with other schools.

It is important that the new VEC primary schools envisaged under the Bill should not all be established in areas where large immigrant populations exist or where certain economic indicators apply. They should not merely become schools for ethnic minorities or for those who live in areas of high unemployment. There should be no cherry-picking in respect of primary schools. I am sure that neither the Tánaiste nor her Department want this to happen. However, we must ensure that it does not come to pass.

A broader vision is required in respect of the choice that exists in the context of VEC primary schools. As the Tánaiste is aware, there is not merely one type of VEC school. One of the issues that arises is that in the event of a new national school being established, the VEC could share the patronage with a denomination. In addition, schools could be multi-denominational and so on. There are many permutations and combinations which can and will arise. I reiterate the point made by some commentators that these schools should not become places of education which do not enjoy universal support among all the parents in the areas in which they will be located.

My family has always supported the principle that one's children should attend the nearest national school. I hope that this will happen. However, I accept that this contradicts everything I have just said with regard to diversity. My personal preference for these schools would be that they should be multi-denominational but I accept that other people have different preferences. VEC schools must operate on a level playing field with all other schools. In other words, they must access to the same resources, they must be as professionally run and the same rules relating to pupil intake must apply to them.

There must be a broader role for VECs. Among the major criticisms levelled at VECs is that they are inefficient, overly bureaucratic and too costly. There are many different views in respect of VECs. Having served on one for over 25 years, I agree with some of the criticisms that are made.

There is a need for a new departure in the area of education. Under this, a new type of VEC or the system that exists could offer support on a voluntary basis. In other words, denominational-non-VEC schools could consider or opt for the provision of HR support. One of the major issues that arises for small primary schools in the context of HR problems is where to find assistance. I am aware that Monaghan VEC supplies IT services to primary schools in its area. Issues arise in the context of building maintenance, financial expertise, etc., and VECs could provide support services in respect of these. This would be a good development because the management in schools would not be obliged to be concerned with regard to issues such as those to which I refer. If the model I have outlined comes into play, it could give rise to significant additional benefits and bring about the development of new synergies and ideas that would facilitate the change that is required.

I have a number of real criticisms in respect of the Bill and I intend to be vocal about them. I am aware that the teacher unions and those who are unemployed will be equally vocal. Having registered and qualified, the latter are going to want to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with everyone else.

There have been many success stories in the context of broadening diversity at primary level in recent years. This has been achieved through the gaelscoileanna and the Educate Together movement. VEC schools will have a role to play in this regard in the future. However, there is no timeline, no plan, no engagement with parents and no real commitment to bring about change in the process put in place by the Tánaiste. It is difficult to understand the Department and the Tánaiste are taking in the context of catering for increased diversity. Is there a masterplan which has been hidden from public view or is a piecemeal approach — as evidenced by this Bill — being taken?

If the Tánaiste and her Department are keen to confront the issue of the direction we are taking, why can they not take on the views of all stakeholders and engage in an open and public debate. In light of the increase in the school-going population that is expected to occur in the coming years and the changing nature of modern Ireland, there is surely a need to engage in a discussion on the direction we are taking and on how we want our schools to be run. This matter is far too important to be ignored.

My predecessor as education and skills spokesperson, Deputy Brian Hayes, and the Fine Gael Party have long been calling for a national forum on education to bring this matter into the public eye in order to give all stakeholders, particularly parents, an opportunity to indicate what they are seeking and who they want to run their children's schools. Such a forum must be established. Before this happens, however, the Tánaiste should write to every parent who has or will soon have a school-going child and ask them what they want. This is a complex issue but the debate in respect of it is extremely valuable in nature. The debate to which I refer is really focused on our country and the direction it is taking in light of the changes that have occurred.

I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on the Bill. I do not believe it will be confrontational in political terms.

Deputy Mary Coughlan

That will come later.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

However, we must test all the arguments and listen to the points of view put forward on all sides. When the debate to which I refer is completed, there must be a better education system which incorporates greater choice. In addition, parents rather than any one single individual must be in control of that system. In order to ensure that this goal is achieved, our main emphasis must be on consultation and on listening to the views of all interested parties to the greatest degree possible.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I thank the Tánaiste and her Department for bringing forward this legislation. I say that, despite the fact that the gestation period relating to it was extraordinarily long. I read the Tánaiste's speech with interest. She might in her reply indicate what section of the Bill specifically facilitates or assists the Catholic Church in its deliberations on the possibility of divesting of patronage in some of its schools. If there is such an explicit reference I welcome it because there is an intention and desire for that. The reference was in the first paragraph of the Minister's speech. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the largest patron in terms of numbers of schools in the country, has expressed an opinion that he would be much happier with 50% of the schools for Catholic education rather than the 92% he currently possesses.

The Minister refers to a new model of patronage which this Bill proposes, with the new model of patronage being the kind of idea which informed the debate articulated by many people, including the former secretary general of the INTO, who wanted a community school. In this context we are talking about new schools but in the communities which are fairly homogeneous, these are 75% of schools across the country catering for 25% of the population.

With all due respect, I point out that this is not the pressure point of this debate, rather it is about the quality and delivery of education. Issues such industrial relations and three-teacher schools are for another place and another day. With regard to accommodating a new patron, as distinct from a new patronage model, the Minister is bringing forward the VEC idea based on the initiative taken by one of her predecessors in 2007 in a panic. She is requesting that the VECs manage schools under the temporary patronage of the Minister until such time that the legislation is enacted.

The tone of the Dáil debate from the many contributions in May is that politicians are familiar with the VEC structure and like the way it functions. Deputy O'Dowd has mentioned it today. Politicians may believe that the VEC will be a very suitable and comfortable patron of schools. I suggest to the Minister and my two Fine Gael colleagues in the House that this is because politicians, as county councillors, have a unique experience of the VEC system which they do not have of the primary school system in its current form of patronage or of the free voluntary sector schools.

The thrust of this legislation is to remove that element of democratic accountability and control that is implicit in being a member of a VEC as an elected or appointed member. Section 4 adds to section 10(2) of the relevant Act an additional definition relating to the school in question. Notwithstanding what is done in section 5, although the VEC school will remain as such, for all intents and purposes it will be an autonomous corporate body independent of anything else in the VEC system. All the relationships between such a VEC school and other secondary schools in Drogheda or Dundalk, for example, and all the access to the CEO of the VEC or members of the board of that school — a sub-committee of the VEC — will be swept away.

This is not the typical user-friendly secular or modern VEC-type school accessible to elected representatives or people who feel they can come to a councillor or Deputy who stood for election and was on the VEC. Being on the VEC, such representatives may feel that there is accountability, and having exhausted internal queries with the principal of a school — a primary school — that person may feel that he or she can outline concerns to the VEC member. That was the way it was sold and it was suggested to everybody in this House that it would be a new model of patronage that is democratically accountable.

That is not true We are merely adding to the existing number of patrons under the current 1998 legislation for primary schools. It is an eighth patron with no more or fewer powers than existing patrons. That VEC patron will have no experience of primary education and one would question the capability of the VEC patron to deliver formal primary education. I am not talking about the vast array of work that VECs do in adult education, literacy and a host of other areas but one could question whether the VECs, as they are currently constituted, have the ability to embark on a new world of exploration in the area of primary education.

My two teacher colleagues, on the benches beside me, know that primary teachers get a specific education by means of a three-year degree. It is a holistic education across the complete learning process of a young child, as distinct from a secondary school teacher who, for example, does an arts degree and subsequently a higher diploma. If the candidate did honours maths in the leaving certificate and French and German in a university course, they could end up teaching maths in our secondary school system. That happens. This is not any new model of patronage but an addition to the existing array of patrons. The VECs are being asked to do this, as they were asked to by the Minister's predecessor. There are now five VEC schools working and this will now be the legislative process.

There are a couple of questions that should be considered, although we will deal with the Bill in greater detail on Committee Stage. What will be the ethos of the patron if it is to be the VEC? We know the ethos of the Church of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish and Muslim communities, as well as the gaelscoileanna movement. Who will determine the ethos within the VEC? Will it be the elected board members or the CEO? We know how powerful those CEOs are.

What will be the mechanism for appointing the two patron members of the VEC? There are eight members on a typical board of management, with two nominated by the patron. How are they to be selected? The parents of the school in question, if they participate in the ballot, will elect the two parent representatives. Teachers will elect two, one of whom must be the principal of the school. After this the six people will decide, through a mechanism that can vary from place to place, who the community representatives will be.

There is also the issue of the patron's nomination of the chairperson. What sanction, role, democratic input or scrutiny will the elected members of the VEC have for that process? This is not set out in the Bill. Will it be done by the usual Kremlin or Vatican-like system of communication utilised by the Department of Education and Skills, which is the method of circulars? Will we debate a circular, can it be amended and will there be any input from this House? This is not a new model of patronage but an extension of the old system. This is a relatively short Bill but it has deep and long implications.

Deputy O'Dowd indicated in his comments that the thrust for this type of school comes from the changing nature of Irish society. We are no longer the homogeneous, inward-looking, church-ridden island off an island off the coast of the rest of Europe that John McGahern and so many others characterised in literature. The same John McGahern, because he spoke the truth of his time, was sacked as a primary school teacher at the behest of the then archbishop of Dublin. Fortunately, he taught enough good young people like Declan Kiberd and others to leave us with a legacy of excellence which continues to hold the light up against that dark period in our history.

The Catholic Church, through Bishop Leo O'Reilly — a very nice and reasonable man — has set out a clear attitude to the teaching of religion in primary schools. He has articulated a view, which he is entitled to, in a publication and couple of articles for newspapers, that the church does not believe in non-denominational education. It wants multi-denominational education in schools.

It accepts one should have a religious curriculum taught in which the history and the diversity of the world's religions, including those without a belief system in a superior being, Humanism as well as Hinduism and Confucianism. Considering we will be doing so much business with China in the future, we had better learn about Confucianism. Schools, the Roman Catholic Church feels, should separate religious education from religious instruction while every child should have an understanding of the world's religions and should be free to decide — or their parents on their behalf — what religious path they want to follow and have the instruction to ensure they adhere to the path chosen. This liberty for parents and their children is perfectly reasonable and one I support.

For educationalists, the issue arises as to whether faith formation — religious instruction — should take place inside or outside school hours. The Educate Together model, like the ones adopted in many other countries, opts for the latter option, outside of school hours. A general education is provided during school time while a period after school is given in which the school authorities provide every facility for those parents who want their children prepared for, say, first communion and confirmation. Many Catholic children attending Church of Ireland schools are also provided with this time. The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has stated he wants those parents, who may seldom go to church, to become involved in the faith formation of their children for communion and confirmation and not delegate it to the teachers.

The agreement made with the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and the representatives of the church gave a commitment that the form of religious instruction, which will be an integral part of the primary school system, will be faith formation inside school hours. Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills confirm if this method of teaching religion will be extended to schools under VEC patronage after this legislation is enacted? If it will be the case, will she explain how a class of 30 children will be divided up for the four-week faith formation in, say, confirmation? Has she explored the implications, costs and logistics of this? What happens to the other children of different denominations or of none?

There has already been extensive correspondence between the chief executive officer of the County Dublin VEC and others involved in education seeking clarification on some of these questions. I know the Department spends its time doing little else but thinking about these fundamental issues. The questions, however, remain unanswered.

Serious difficulties emerge with this. Citizens in this republic have a right to choose the education they want for their children, irrespective of whether their birth certificate states they are Roman Catholic, Jewish or Protestant. While Roman Catholics make up a large part of the population according to census statistics, these figures are not often reflected in choice of education or religious instruction. Some Roman Catholic parents do wish to have their children educated in a multidenominational context to ensure they have an understanding of other people's beliefs.

Coming from County Donegal, the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills would know better than some of us from the south that a lack of understanding of other people's religions has been a source of suspicion, antagonism and, as we saw in the past, violence in this country. Many argue that much of the conflict in the modern world is driven by religious intolerance informed by ignorance. The only way to ameliorate this is through knowing a little bit more about each other's beliefs and practices. Sadly, in this country most of us have little of such knowledge. One would think that educating a child in others' beliefs and practices is best when the child is four years of age or more and has no prejudices or antagonisms.

While 48% of parents would like a denominational education for their children, over one third of those polled would like a multidenominational education. Is this provided for in or outside school hours? How will the logistics for its provision be worked out? More important in these days of cost consciousness, has anyone calculated the cost implications of this in the coming decades?

Article 44 of the Constitution states:

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Article 42 provides for primary education and insists parents send their children to school. In cases where a parent opts to educate a child at home, the Constitution provides that the parent must demonstrate he or she is meeting certain obligations. It is as much a protection of the child, as it is the right of the parent. Schools, be they under the patronage of the local Roman Catholic bishop, Church of Ireland community or Educate Together, are denominational non-State organisations that, as established by the Stanley Letter of 1831, have been asked to provide primary education while in return the State provides the moneys for such provision. This system of education, which we inherited, has, by and large, served us very well. The VECs, however, are not a linguistic or cultural movement such as An Foras Pátrúnachta. Neither are they multidenominational such as Educate Together. The VECs are a State organ. Can a State organ adhere to the constitutional provisions I earlier set out while employing teachers to teach religion? Has this been assessed? I hope it is not a contradictory or conflicting matter because I am looking for a formula which will accommodate everyone. There are some concerns in this regard.

I will read from the conclusion of a paper, Freedom of Religion in the Irish Primary School System: a Failure to Protect Human Rights?, the author of which is Dr. Alison Mawhinney from Queen's University. The concluding remarks are worth listening to:

The analysis presented in this paper suggests that the Irish domestic legal order does not provide protection against involuntary religious indoctrination conveyed through the practice of a doctrinal integrated curriculum in primary schools. The conscience clauses found in the Constitution and the Education Act 1988 cannot operate to protect freedom of religion in a situation where a child is exposed to doctrinal teaching throughout the school day. These provisions are designed for a school system which is non-denominational and where religious instruction is only given during specific timetabled hours. By the standards set by international human rights bodies, the operation of a doctrinal integrated curriculum in an education system dominated by religious schools — where realistic alternatives are non-existent — raises serious concerns under both the Convention [the European Convention on Human Rights] and the UN treaties and should, if brought to the notice of the supervisory bodies, cause Ireland to be declared in breach of its international obligations.

This is not fanciful because we have been cited and the Irish Human Rights Commission has responded to those suggestions and attempted to make submissions on them, something of which the Minister is no doubt aware. I will complete the quotation, which has a conclusion I share:

The difficulty the [Irish] state has in taking appropriate measures to comply with international standards stems from the fact that it has chosen to deliver primary education almost entirely through the medium of religious non-state actors. In the absence of realistic alternatives to religious schools, the only alternative form of acceptable state-funded denominational schooling would be one where religious instruction is taught for a specific period of the day from which it is practically possible to opt out and where teachers refrain from any attempt at indoctrination. However, this arrangement produces a tension between the rights of a child not to be exposed to unwanted doctrinal instruction and the rights of those parents who wish to see their children receive a full denominational education through the practice of an integrated curriculum.

We have a problem. Enough reputational damage has been done to this country. As the Minister's Department is no doubt aware, cases are going through the courts. Facts are facts and this Republic has signed up willingly and knowingly to conventions and obligations. Have the implications of our international commitments been fully thought through and has the Attorney General been consulted on the constitutionality of this Bill?

My view, as a non-lawyer but someone who has some parliamentary experience, is that the Bill, as presented to any Attorney General, would of course be deemed constitutional because it does not contain any specification about the ethos of a VEC. There is no indication as to what the ethos should be and there is no reference at all to faith formation inside school hours which is the current practice of the model VEC primary schools.

We could find ourselves in a very messy situation in which I would hate to see this country mired. The Minister has access to the records and the people who worked with the previous Minister when the concession was made by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, to adopt what the Catholic Church and Bishop Leo O'Reilly wanted, namely, faith formation inside school hours. That issue may need to be revisited.

Educate Together, which is the only group in this Republic with any experience of this thorny issue, would be the first to say that it took a long time to get it right, there was a lot of internal debate and dispute within it and it has now finally arrived at a model which so far seems to work. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom or experience but it is something that needs to be examined seriously — I say that in a constructive way.

I would like to ask why the VECs are now being targeted and about their value for money. Does the Department know the additional unit administrative cost for a secondary school pupil in a VEC, as distinct from a secondary school pupil in a free voluntary school? Does it know the additional administrative cost for a primary school pupil in a VEC? I refer only to the administrative costs and not capitation grants and teachers' salaries, all of which are common.

Will the two nominated board members, who will be nominated by the patrons of the boards of management of the primary schools, get expenses for attending meetings, as they currently do?

Deputy Mary Coughlan

They will not.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

They will not. Where does it state that in the Bill? How do I know that is the case?

Deputy Mary Coughlan

It is not a subcommittee of the VEC

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I know, but is it specifically stated in the Bill that this is debarred and that CEOs cannot pay expenses? That is the culture of VECs, as Deputy Burke would confirm. Some of them will today be doing the calculations as to what it means to be a member of the VEC for Waterford, Carlow and Kilkenny.

Deputy Mary Coughlan

I have not brought the Bill to the floor of the House yet. We will discuss that later.

I would have thought that at this point in time, now that the Minister has told 33 VECs that four of them, including one in Donegal and two in Cork County and city, will remain untouched but the other 29 will have to find room in the bed where there is only space for 12 VECs. I have no problem in principle with rationalisation; most of us would agree that is something that needs to be done. The record of Fianna Fáil in the amalgamation is of regional bodies is not great. I am loathe to mention the dreaded word "HSE" but the focus of attention——

Deputy Mary Coughlan

There may be more disgruntled Labour Party members than Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil members in due course.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I am disgruntled at the possibility that the State could be hauled before international courts for a breach of human rights, that the VECs as State bodies would be in breach of our Constitution and that people who have no experience whatsoever of running primary schools will now be asked to take on new responsibilities when the entire organisation from which they work will be in freefall turmoil with overruns of one kind or another if the Government's track record in the HSE is to be replicated with the amalgamations which are to take place.

I will revert to the Minister on the Teaching Council at the relevant Stage. In her reply she might answer a query which was put to me, namely, that part of the Minister and Teaching Council's difficulty is that a number of special schools, including ABA schools, have teachers who are not recognised as teachers by the Teaching Council. In order to enforce the thrust of the Teaching Council legislation, which I support, specific definitions of "teachers" in certain areas will have to be accommodated in order that they can be registered without an open-ended extension of that provision coming into force.

I agree in principle with what Deputy O'Dowd said. There must be a better way of harnessing the resources of recently qualified teachers. There must be some way of saying to somebody who is retired and may have been the preferred and favourite principal of the newly appointed principal that he or she cannot step in at short notice to provide standby provision for teaching. It is something that is causing great offence to young teachers who cannot get the hours they need in order to get through their parole period.

They could be substitute teachers. It could be done for extended periods of illness, for people who take a leave of absence or women who, in a highly feminised profession, take maternity leave. It can be planned in those areas. If somebody calls a school at 8.50 a.m. to say he she cannot teach, that is different and there needs to be a panel of the standby teachers. However, for long extended substitute periods I would like the Minister to outline on Committee Stage what kind of safeguards she will introduce.

This legislation has been slow in coming but its arrival is still welcome. However, it does not answer the big questions to which I want to hear answers and perhaps the Minister will be able to do this. Will there be regulations to give effect to this legislation or will it be by circular? If it is by circular we are back to the same old game again. This is not a new patronage model; it is the eighth patron body being attached to the existing system. This is not democratically accountable in the manner in which so many of our colleagues spoke about in the Chamber in May. This could, if it continues in its current form, cause great constitutional difficulties for the country. Most importantly of all, it could thwart the aspirations of that increasing number of parents who want a choice, within reason and cost, for the education of their children.

We can get there but the Minister will have to face some demons in her Department and elsewhere who have been used to dominating the debate on education in this country. I think she has the courage and strength to do so and I welcome the bringing forward of this legislation. We will not oppose the Bill on Second Stage by calling a vote, but we will bring forward substantial and well thought out amendments.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I welcome the introduction of the Bill and the opportunity to contribute to what has been so far a very important and interesting debate on the matters contained in it, and on some matters outside of the purview of the Bill itself. I have engaged with the Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Coughlan, as the Minister for Education and Skills on parliamentary questions and Adjournment matters but this is my first occasion to engage with her on a legislative matter. I welcome her to the Department and I think she will make a great go of it. I also think, at the risk of being deemed sexist, that it is a Department which suits a woman. I do not care what the Deputies all say; I believe it.

Deputy Ulick Burke

We did not say anything yet.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I do not think Deputy O'Rourke ever cares.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

In this House there have been very prominent and feisty women in all parties, including the three parties represented here at this moment, and the Minister well fits that CV. I wish her good luck in the Department and I have no doubt whatsoever that she will soon rumble the various subterranean plots which abound in Marlborough Street and which are bound to trip up a Minister at the very least opportunity. It is a Department with a long-standing reputation for that and from what I note it has not deviated from it.

Deputy Ulick Burke

Hear ye, hear ye.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

That is not to decry any particular civil servant in it, but it has a propensity for planning and tripping a Minister and meanwhile getting its chosen deep-seated and deep rooted point of view across. An unwitting Minister may and could stumble on many occasions. Anyway, the Minister is welcome there and I have no doubt that she will make her mark, as have the other women who have occupied that position.

I want to make my first point, which is on the new model of running a primary school. When all of this came out, which was as far as I remember in February 2007, it was born out of a frantic realisation about the numbers and wondering where would we put all the children that were appearing, how would they be governed and what was the board of management ethos. At the time, I read all about it because I have retained a huge interest in education. Immediately, my suspicious mind jumped to wondering why the churches had such a huge interest in pushing it through. I found it quite amazing. Deputy Quinn has given many learned speeches and observations on the need for the church to remove itself from the running of primary schools.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Not all of them; some of them.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

All right.

I was a bit astounded at the alacrity with which this new model, the VEC community primary school, was being embraced, bearing in mind that we have had for a number of years — since the early 1980s with the Dalkey multi-denominational school — a very successful primary school model called Educate Together, which now numbers 57 primary schools. This is quite a huge number and they have made their way and, I am sure, have had huge debate about how they will position the teaching of religion. They have done so very well and against a background of pupils from all faiths and none. Wherever Educate Together has been established it has been applauded and followed and it is increasing enrolment numbers everywhere.

When the Minister spoke on the Bill this morning I would have thought a couple of sentences included in her speech would have pointed to the record of Educate Together in primary education and what it has done, and would have suggested looking at it. However, there was no such mention. It was as if it was being erased from the scene. That is not so. Educate Together is here and it is here to stay. I have kept up my contacts with Educate Together, with its very active CEO and with the directorate which runs its primary schools and I know it is in the running for very large post-primary schools in Gorey and Lucan, and I am sure in other places also.

I was quite amazed that there was no reference to the very successful and satisfactory model adopted by Educate Together. I would be glad if the Minister, when she sums up on Second Stage, refers to why Educate Together was obliterated from the spoken scene here today and way she did not make reference in any way — either in applause or disdain — to the very fine record of Educate Together. I am quite surprised that even if it had not been included she did not think herself to include it in the speech. Be that as it may, I want to put it on the record that I inaugurated and initiated several new primary Educate Together schools in a time of huge austerity, quite similar to what the Minister faces now, and my record in the Department of Education and Skills will show it. They have continued to operate to great advantage to their pupils and parents.

Deputy Quinn spoke about a lack of democratic accountability because the VEC community primary school will be removed from the remit of the VEC committee. I would not have any disagreement with this because there could be too much involvement of a committee in the running of primary school. The Educate Together model has huge parental involvement. Not only are they in the school, but they also run the financial remit and the curriculum. They are very heavily involved. I do not know whether the schools established by the Minister and three more to open will have that same type of democratic parental involvement, which is the hallmark of the earlier type of school of which I spoke.

I have nothing against the VECs; they were a very fine start up when we had no education in this country and they do fantastic work. I smiled when the Minister unveiled the amalgamation at our parliamentary party meeting last night. I could tell on the floor of the House the story I told the Minister some time ago: in my time there was no bord snip nua, only Mr. Haughey who was then, in administrative terms, an bord snip nua. I was told to reduce the number of VECs and I came up a plan not as ambitious as that of the Minister. I guess there is a Machiavellian element in what the Minister has proposed. She will tell an bord snip nua that she did better than it told her and that she is a very good girl to be patted on the back. Fair dues to her she came up with a very low number, much lower than I had anticipated all those years ago. I got my files together, the legislation was being prepared and everybody was saying well done and that it was a marvellous idea. Then, in 1989, there were local and European elections. They all importuned Mr. Haughey, who telephoned me one day to tell me to go slow on my proposal to amalgamate the VECs.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Oct 2010