Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Jul 2016

Vol. 919 No. 2

Education (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage [Private Members]

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

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an gCeann Comhairle as ucht an deis an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach sa Teach seo tráthnóna inniu. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sé déanach sa lá agus déanach sa téarma ach, ag an am céanna, táim fíorbhuíoch as an deis é a phlé ar aon nós.

I welcome the opportunity to bring this Bill before the House. This is the last item of business to be transacted in this Dáil session. It is right to say that in the context of the atmosphere around here recently, school is definitely out. This Bill is focused on schools and it is timely that I can refocus us on education before we formally declare that school is out for a while. The purpose of the Bill is to establish an ombudsman for education, provide an appeal mechanism for decisions of boards of education concerning the decisions of teachers and grievances against schools, provide for the investigation and reporting by the ombudsman for education of various matters pertaining to this Act, amend the Education Act 1998 and provide for related matters.

In terms of the current system, our schools are run by boards of management. The latter operate on a voluntary basis and they do a wonderful job. Many of the people involved give of their time in a voluntary capacity, which is very much appreciated by all stakeholders across the education sector, by society as a whole and by us as representatives of the people. I would not like the opportunity to pass without extending my appreciation to people for the contribution they have made to boards of management throughout the years. I thank them for their selfless sacrifice and time, all of which are given free, which is of enormous and immense value to the entire education system.

The difficulty I have come across - I am sure numerous of my colleagues will have encountered this issue in their roles as public representatives - is to whom people go when things go wrong. Thankfully, it is only a small fraction of our school boards that are not functioning properly. Currently, when parents have a legitimate grievance and they lodge that with the board of management, the board of management can refuse to even acknowledge it. I have come across many such cases where boards of management have refused to acknowledge a letter or correspondence, which can be very frustrating. When one gets a parking fine one can appeal it. In this day and age there are avenues to appeal everything in the interests of fairness, transparency, openness and accountability. Within the education sector, however, which is the sector to which we hand over our most precious asset - our children - each school day, there is no such mechanism.

There is a board of management that is responsible for what happens within that school on a given day. If something goes wrong and someone takes it up with the board of management - in some cases the principal effectively is the board of management and there is no functioning board - the principal will tell the board that there is nothing here and to move on and the board will go along with it. I am trying to highlight the fact that if someone wants to appeal that and go to a higher authority and have it assessed, there is nowhere to go. The Department takes a very "hands-off" approach to dealing with complaints from parents. I have been unable to get the number of complaints it has received over the years but I know the response it gives, namely, that the boards are constituted in such a way that they are autonomous and are not accountable to the Department. If someone goes to the patron or any of the other bodies involved in the education sector, they will tell them that it is a matter for the board of management. Effectively, when something goes wrong, it can be impenetrable and one cannot get through or beyond it or get someone to hold to account. This is why I want to see an education ombudsman established so that where we feel decisions taken that affect our children daily in schools are wrong and that our child has been aggrieved in some way, we have an avenue through which to voice that grievance to a competent, qualified and independent authority such as an education ombudsman.

The role and functions of the ombudsman will be debated through committees but I have outlined a number of them in the Bill. They include advising the Minister and the Government as may be appropriate; encouraging schools to develop policies, practices and procedures; collecting and disseminating information on matters relating to the education of children; promoting awareness among schools and members of the public regarding matters relating to the education of children; highlighting issues relating to the education of children; exchanging information and co-operating with the ombudsman for education in other states; and monitoring and reviewing generally the operation of legislation concerning matters relating to the education of children. In other words, if an ombudsman for education was in existence right now, this Bill would be sent to them for their views and they would outline what they feel. The education sector is a massive sector of enormous importance and we are always very good at paying lip service to Ireland as the isle of saints and scholars. In the region of €8 billion is spent on education yet we have no ombudsman with an overarching responsibility for it.

We spend about €2.1 billion on policing and we have a Garda ombudsman, a Garda inspectorate and a policing authority. We have lots of bodies holding that system to account and people with grievances can appeal to them but there is no such avenue within education. There is no competent person who is dedicated solely to education matters and who will make a judgment on issues like this. We have an ombudsman for pensions and an ombudsman for the Defence Forces but we do not have an ombudsman for education, which I find very strange. We have an unusual system of governance vis-à-vis boards of management. These boards are voluntary and independent and are separate from the Department, which is suitable on many fronts. The very same Department would be held accountable by this ombudsman, were it to be established. This is why I am putting this Bill forward.

The Ombudsman for Children is an obvious point for people to make complaints to if they have any complaints relating to the education sector. A total of 47% of complaints received by the Ombudsman for Children relate to education. He has received more than 4,000 of them over the past ten years. I have seen too many responses, have studied test cases and have been involved in cases where I have prompted parents to write to the Ombudsman for Children and solicited responses. In too many cases, the response is "I have no role or remit in this particular issue". To put it very basically, unless someone's child is slapped or their overall welfare is impacted, the Ombudsman for Children does not have any remit. My issue is educational welfare, which is separate from general welfare. If as a result of an administrative decision taken by the board of management, someone's child is in an overcrowded classroom of 43 or 44 junior and senior infants, contrary to the circular issued by the Department stipulating that the lower numbers should be kept in the lower classes and higher numbers should be kept in the higher classes, and the parent wants to appeal, the Ombudsman for Children will tell them that he has no role or function in respect of it because it is educational welfare we are talking about. That is what I am trying to get across here. We need somebody who will stand up for educational welfare. Where a grievance concerning the system or a decision that has negatively impacted the educational welfare of anyone's child exists, we should have a competent authority that would investigate that.

The ombudsman would have a much broader role. It is not just about grievances. I would stress the responsibility of the ombudsman for education in respect of theorising on the issues pertaining to education. There are many debates raging vis-à-vis special needs education, access to schools and third-level fees. There are numerous issues in the education sector that are very contentious and if we had a dedicated ombudsman for education who was completely immersed in the education sector and fully briefed and versed in the law and language of education, they would have a very significant contribution to make to the various debates. They would also be a huge asset to this House and individual Members of this House. If a parent came to a Deputy to tell them that their Johnny or Mary is being bullied in school and that they went to the teacher who did nothing about it, that Deputy would automatically have a point of contact straight away because there would be an ombudsman for education who would be familiar with and competent in that area and the Deputy could suggest to the parent that they write to the ombudsman.

This ombudsman would have a very strong role in our deliberations on legislation in terms of assisting, advising and suggesting. Section 28 of the Education Act 1998 has not been activated. There are numerous aspirations out there that are just not happening and an education ombudsman would play a particular role in lobbying and ensuring that the attention of this House is focused on solutions for these issues.

Another argument one could come across is that there is no education ombudsman in most of our European neighbours. Most European countries do not have an education system like our system. They do not have our history. Ireland was first with the smoking ban and marriage equality through a referendum. This is another area in which Ireland can lead the way as an island that is proud of our saints and scholars. I do not know how relevant the saints are anymore but I hope we are still relatively scholarly and put a value on our education system. I would like to see us be the first country in Europe to lead the way on this. I think there is an ombudsman for education in some US states and I know the Australian Parliament has been debating the establishment of an education ombudsman for some time. A member of the Australian Parliament has a similar obsession to mine in terms of trying to establish an education ombudsman. There are differing education models in various countries.

The issue of children with special educational needs is close to all our hearts. I taught in primary and secondary schools and was a principal of a primary school so I am a poacher turned gamekeeper or vice versa because I have seen it from both sides and have been on boards of management. As a principal, I have seen how the board can protect a principal when they need it and how the principal can use the board very efficiently to protect them from any outside criticism if they so wish. I have sat on numerous boards of management at second level because I was a member of the VEC and chaired many section 29 appeals so I have a certain knowledge in the education sphere and knowledge of things that are very difficult to get to the bottom of when they go wrong.

I am very anxious that we do not continue with the charade of pretending that the Ombudsman for Children is dealing with these complaints because he is not. He is concerned with the welfare of the child. If they are hungry, cold or injured, the Ombudsman for Children has a role. We have two separate Departments - the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and Department of Education and Skills. Why can we not have an ombudsman for education in the same way we have an Ombudsman for Children?

I referred to children with special needs. This is a huge area of concern. I have received support from parents of children with special needs since I first mooted this Bill back in 2015. I see the worry, concern, pressure and stress involved in trying to ensure they can get the necessary resources for their child and know the security they would feel from knowing that there was an education ombudsman out there who was on their side and who would make suggestions. I am not hung up on the compellability aspect of the ombudsman because I believe the Ombudsman's direction was only ignored once in 27 years. I am not hung up on compellability. I just think that if an ombudsman for education was there and told a school that it should do something, the school would have the wherewithal and decency to go along with it.

It is the comfort and security it would give to parents who have enough stresses in their lives. If their children have special learning needs, it really is an education ombudsman that is necessary and not the Ombudsman for Children. This is not a them-or-us situation; I am not passing any criticism on the children's Ombudsman. I published legislation in the previous Dáil to try to widen the remit of the Ombudsman for Children to deal specifically with education issues. That legislation was not accepted by the Government and the Department at the time so I went about trying to get this legislation together to have a separate ombudsman for education specifically to deal with the issues I have been highlighting for some time. That is it in a nutshell.

I would like to thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to bring this before the House and I look forward to the contributions of other Members in respect of it.

At its meeting earlier today, the Select Committee on Education and Skills pre-empted a decision of the Dáil on this Bill by provisionally scheduling some hearings on it. That is a sign of the broad support in the Dáil for this. I agree with Deputy Jim Daly. Parents who have had particularly bad experiences with the education system have contacted us urging us to support the Bill. Thankfully, they are in a minority but in those cases they found that their grievances or issues, particularly with bullying, were not satisfactorily dealt with by boards of management. At that point they discovered, as Deputy Jim Daly pointed out, that there was no avenue open to them and no ombudsman to approach.

Deputy Jim Daly is right to highlight the fact that section 28 of the Education Act 1998 has never really been implemented. That is a problem. The Bill tries to put flesh on the bones of section 28. It is effectively an appeals mechanism against boards of management. There are many issues that have to be dealt with in this context. We are dealing with a publicly funded education system and, as a result, people have a right to certain standards and fair procedures when they are dealing with publicly funded schools. It is a publicly funded system which, at board of management level, is run entirely by volunteers. That is the other side of the equation. Such a proposal will require resources for it to be implemented. Already we hear from schools about section 29 appeals under the Education Act. Those appeals take up a considerable amount of time and effort - and, in some cases, money - to defend. This Bill, as Deputy Jim Daly says, provides for appeals against decisions of boards of management. It provides a period of 28 days for making a complaint to the proposed ombudsman for education. It would give power to the latter to direct any person to take remedial action in respect of the appeal and to specify the time for doing so. Under the Bill, the proposed ombudsman would be given quite considerable powers over the actions of boards of management.

I mentioned the voluntary nature of boards of management. Some people who now sit on them may baulk at the prospect of this Bill but we have community national schools that are being run by education and training boards, ETBs. I wonder would that be a place to start this because those schools are fully and effectively run by the State by means of the ETB system. It might be the place to start if one were to begin with a pilot programme. I am not particularly suggesting that but the fact that they do not have the issues with voluntary boards of management means they should have procedures there because they are wholly funded by the State.

We in Fianna Fáil - certainly those of us who are members of the education and skills committee - look forward to the Committee Stage debate that will take place in September or October if the Bill passes Second Stage this evening. We expect that to happen. We will not be standing in the way of it happening. We support the Bill. We want to ensure that those who feel they have been badly treated by the education system have recourse. That is really key. It is notable that Deputy Jim Daly, who has considerable experience in primary schools and with the VEC and the ETB in Cork, has brought this Bill forward. One might feel that someone in his position might be defensive about this type of arrangement. I welcome his views on it and welcome that it is not being imposed from the outside but coming from someone with the Deputy's experience. We will facilitate the Bill and allow it to pass but there are detailed issues that need to be dealt with by the select committee. We look forward to dealing with them. We look forward to hearing from the Ombudsman for Children because the latter has expressed concerns. They are concerns to which we will listen but, ultimately, the Dáil and the Seanad make the decisions on these matters.

I will certainly be interested to hear the views of boards of management. Some of them might be invited to appear before the committee or to make written submissions. We look forward to that and to discovering what their experience has been. I am interested in talking to parents. Other Members might do the same, although perhaps privately because it might not be appropriate to hear, at a public forum, from parents who have had particularly bad experiences with the education system and their lack of a comeback after a board of management has made a decision. I would like to hear from them and I am sure other Members would too.

I would also like to hear the Minister's views on section 28 and whether he has any plans on it? It does not provide the same avenue; it certainly provides recourse but it has never actually been allowed to operate. The Minister's views on that would be most welcome. It might be a way to step forward alongside this Bill.

The Fianna Fáil Party thanks Deputy Jim Daly for bringing this forward and we look forward to the select committee's hearings in September or October.

Ní bheidh mé ag tógáil an deich nóiméad go léir. Sinn Féin is not opposed, in principle, to the establishment of an ombudsman for education. As a primary school principal for three years and somebody who spent 12 years in the sector between special education, mainstream education and as a principal, this is not the way forward to address the problem. There are a lot of gaps and there are many parts of the Education Act 1998 which have not been fulfilled, particularly in regard to special education. I hope that our admissions Bill will address the issue of access for children with special needs.

I will outline our position. We recognise that there are gaps within the education sector. We also recognise that this Bill is an attempt to address those gaps but we are not convinced that it will address those gaps. It is flawed legislation. The Bill provides that decisions of the ombudsman would be legally binding. I am not sure this has been thought through thoroughly. Making the decisions of an ombudsman legally binding would lead to the involvement of lawyers in these types of disputes. This would prove costly for parents and schools but, more importantly, our children would pay the price.

Let us just consider the impact of such legislation. Another legal layer would be added to our education system. It is a system that is already troubled and overloaded in many ways, with lots of issues to be addressed. The cost of accessing the ombudsman would reach into the thousands and it might take years to obtain a decision. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds would most likely find themselves unable to access the system due to legal fees. Empowering an ombudsman with the right to make legally binding decisions is not in keeping with the traditional spirit of an ombudsman role. The spirit of the ombudsman is to provide an alternative to court proceedings and work on the element of encouragement to resolve complaints. A decision of an ombudsman is often highly respected and valued by all sides of a dispute and can be a very effective way of resolving a complaint. Overall, our party would not be in favour of granting legally binding powers to an ombudsman in the absence of any clear evidence of the need for such powers and an assessment of the potential impact on children from special needs and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Another question arises on the purpose of an ombudsman for education. There are clear gaps for parents and children in respect of complaints procedures. I am very aware of those. One has to wonder if this Bill truly addresses these issues. I am informed that there is no such office for an ombudsman for education in European countries and this legislation puts forward quite a unique proposition. Some would argue that there are more effective mechanisms for dealing with complaints, such as implementing the relevant provisions of the Education Act and the Teaching Council Act. In a recent submission the Ombudsman for Children's office states that the Minister for Education and Skills has made a commitment to introduce procedures for schools to deal with complaints effectively but this has not happened. It seems bizarre that we are proposing the establishment of a separate office with legally binding powers instead of taking relatively simple measures to tackle these problems. No one can doubt that the Ombudsman for Children does an excellent job. The fact that 47% of complaints in that office relate to education is of concern.

However, the Ombudsman for Children has a wide remit and can investigate all aspects of a complaint, including those that cross over into a range of areas such as health, education and social welfare. This holistic approach serves to achieve the best possible outcome for the child and one would wonder if such an approach would be achievable by an ombudsman for education.

It could be argued that the best approach would be to widen the remit of the current Ombudsman for Children. Alternatively, is it possible to establish an ombudsman for education within the remit of the Ombudsman for Children in order to relieve some of the pressure on that office? If we are thinking about co-ordinating services, in many cases the services are completely disjointed. In terms of joined-up thinking and co-ordination, it might be a possible solution.

It is not clear whether third-level students or mature students would be catered for under this Bill, which is an oversight.

All in all, I believe this Bill is quite flawed. It does not provide the most effective solution to the problems identified and my party will not be supporting it.

At the outset, as this is the final speech I will be making in this session of the Dáil, I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the staff of his office for their kindness and efficiency in making my job as a TD so enjoyable in this first term. I would be grateful if the Ceann Comhairle could pass those sentiments on to them.

I am grateful to Deputy Jim Daly for bringing forward this Bill. It is a provocative Bill and some of the points that Deputy Carol Nolan made and some of the questions that she raised are extremely valid and need to be teased out at the next Stage. Rather than going over any of the ground that my colleague, my party's spokesperson on education, Deputy Thomas Byrne, raises, there are only a few other matters I would like to raise.

A question that was going through my mind as Deputy Jim Daly was talking about this was whether this was an ombudsman for schools or an ombudsman for education because most of the buttons he pressed were related to the performance management and some aspects of primary and post-primary schools. That is one question that would need to be addressed.

As the House will be aware, the existing Ombudsman's office covers some aspects of education and, as the previous speaker mentioned, the office of the Ombudsman for Children covers many of these aspects too. Therefore, there is much to tease out on it.

I note too there is a much more democratic voice in some of the evolving school models. Deputy Thomas Byrne mentioned the education and training boards, ETB, model which is a very democratic model. I served for two years on the board of the old vocational education committee, VEC, and was really impressed at the manner in which those boards were run, in which meetings were run and in which business was taken. As Deputy Jim Daly will be aware, the difference between those and the traditional board of management of a religious-run secondary school is that as a last resort parents have recourse to a public representative who is sitting on the board, at least, to bring those issues forward, but ultimately must take the final word of the chief executive also, which is a kind of weakness in the system.

Third-level colleges are already covered by one of the ombudsmen but to what degree, whether it is a comprehensive coverage or what are the issues, I am not quite sure.

Deputy Jim Daly correctly pointed out, as did Deputy Thomas Byrne, that we need to pay tribute to the boards of management because it is a completely voluntary service that parents and members of the community have provided for generations, and it is not Deputy Jim Daly's intention to override this. Parents give of their time and in many cases their expertise with absolutely no reward. That is becoming a more pressurised position for parents who volunteer for these boards. The last thing we want - it is a fear I have about this - is to discourage those who might otherwise be interested in giving such service to school boards. It might dissuade them from doing it on the basis of the legal requirements or the onerous nature of the position. In 99% of cases, school boards of management are effective. Historically, they have done a good job. However, there are exceptions and that is what Deputy Jim Daly is attempting to address in the Bill and I commend the Bill for that.

I have served on interview boards. Deputy Jim Daly made comments, not in the Chamber but in a preamble, about this. Whatever about the traditional school board model, I have served on interview boards of the former VEC and they were run efficiently. I have seen their appeals mechanism work and I have seen all the administrative machinery implemented in particular cases. I have been really impressed with that. I have come away from that in the full knowledge that everybody was served well, justly and fairly. Not everybody may have been happy with the responses or with the outcome, but at least they know the procedure was fair.

Deputy Jim Daly mentioned correctly - I suppose we all use search engines - that there is a precedent in Australia and some of the areas that they cover.

As public representatives we all have come across parents who have felt frustrated and aggrieved. One of the reasons I would be broadly supportive of this going to another Stage and being teased out line by line in committee is where parents feel aggrieved, frustrated and have no avenue of last resort to go to. Either the school or the patron is the last resort. Of course, this is one consequence of the State keeping education at arm's length for generations.

Deputy Carol Nolan raised the point, which I had noted too, that in all the work the Minister is doing on such issues as admissions policies there may be crossover here. Deputy Jim Daly mentioned in his overview that it would take it in. One issue I have come across quite often is the question of the local school's admissions policy or frustrated parents whose children did not gain admission and feel they are meeting a road block. Those are parents, not parents of children with special needs or anything like that. Often it could be a geographical issue. What kind of crossover here is there with what the Minister has planned? That is a big area for the Minister currently. It is a minefield. What role would the Minister envisage an Ombudsman having in that?

As for issues where someone has done something wrong in a school or where a parent perceives that the school has done something wrong or failed to do something it should have done, or where people feel a staff member or management through a decision acted unfairly, that absolutely needs to be addressed. I do not know whether Deputy Jim Daly envisages an ombudsman covering the kind of services a school offers. What role is there for an ombudsman if a parent chooses recourse because the school is not offering a particular facility, service, course or subject? Is that a role for the ombudsman? This could get bigger and bigger. That is what is going through my head. That is not a political point; it is merely a reasonable point I am making to Deputy Jim Daly. Some of the grounds of complaints in different jurisdictions relate to whether a decision taken was unreasonable or unjust and whether it was contrary to law.

What we do not want is considerable crossover and confusion. In my view, it would be a kind of one-stop-shop that deals with issues that merely are not being addressed currently. What one does not want is an ombudsman dealing with thousands of petty grievances. While the Ombudsman for Children may say that thousands of its complaints relate to education or children in education, we have no idea of the substance of those complaints.

I agree with Deputy Jim Daly about the existing ombudsmen in a variety of fields. As Deputy Carol Nolan said, it might be worth looking at whether any of the existing ombudsmen can take on some of these functions, whether those functions can be shared or whether an ombudsman for education would absorb some of the educational functions of the existing ombudsmen. I do not know whether Deputy Jim Daly has considered that.

I have some questions to conclude. There is very definitely a need for an appeals mechanism, as has been correctly identified by the Deputy. This is his legislative attempt to overcome that. It is a very valuable service and people will welcome it. There is the issue of how we go from here. Is this meant to serve teachers as well or is it just aimed at parents? There are teachers who have found themselves over the years in particular circumstances in schools and who may have felt frustrated or aggrieved. Their unions or associations may have taken the case and they may have still felt frustrated.

These are some of the questions. Is it just about the rights of parents and children or will teachers come into this as well? If it is the latter, the autumn will be interesting as the Deputy will certainly have attracted the attention of teachers, management and administrative structures, as well as trade unions, teacher organisations and diocesan authorities throughout the country. I am sure they will be sitting up. The Department will have a strong view because for years it has been able to deflect queries and complaints back to the patron or the boards of management, meaning it has been a very frustrating experience for parents.

I am delighted Deputy Jim Daly has raised the issue and there are many questions for him to consider over the recess. Like my colleague, I look forward to seeing this on Committee Stage. I thank him for bringing it forward.

I congratulate and thank Deputy Jim Daly for bringing the Bill forward, as I know the issue is something he has persisted with over a long period, drawing on his own experience. I will support the Bill, although that is not to say it is perfect in all respects. It needs the sort of discussion that Deputy Thomas Byrne and others spoke about.

At the centre of our programme for Government we are trying to make life a bit easier for people in every walk of life and particularly the education system. There is no doubt that citizens have higher expectations than they had before and we in the political and public service system must move to respond to those expectations. One of those is that where there are legitimate grievances, they get an outlet and there is a port of call where the grievances may be aired and dealt with. It is a very important principle that Deputy Daly's Bill enshrines.

In response to some of the points from Deputies Byrne, Nolan and Lahart, we do not want to pretend we can shift to an ombudsman the proper role of schools and boards. We are very keen that we move to have a proper parents' charter, where the expectation of parents from the education system is clearly set out, meaning that in 99% of cases, grievances will be managed within a school on the good principle of subsidiarity and dealing with a case at a proper level. As Deputy Daly noted, I am aware that such a system will only work and be robust if at the end of the day there is recourse to appeal to some other higher authority where an issue may be teased out. Like Deputy Lahart, I recognise the voluntary nature of boards, although they play a very important role in our most valuable asset, as Deputy Daly noted. It is important that their commitment is underpinned by the sort of professionalism that accountability offers. That is important in this Bill.

Deputy Nolan argued that we should - and we will - seek in parallel with Deputy Daly's Bill to furnish the proper procedures in section 28 that have been dormant, as noted by Deputy Byrne. We will bring forward a parents' charter in a legislative head that will go to the committee at the same time as it will consider the ombudsman issue. We will see what principles we expect a school to operate with respect to a parents' charter. The principles will include elements of information, respect, dealing with grievances and so on. Guidelines will be provided by the Minister for Education and Skills and there will be powers for the Minister in cases where a charter has not been put in place. In reference to what Deputy Daly is providing, there will be recourse, where the charter is not respected, and one will be able to go to an ombudsman. It is an important principle we should seek to enshrine that is complementary to Deputy Daly's Bill. As Deputy Byrne noted, a sort of vacuum was left in that the provision was dormant and was never properly dealt with. I intend to go to Government as soon as we return and be in a position when the committee considers this to furnish it with the heads for a provision dealing with the matter.

Deputy Nolan is right that we must look again at the notion of making this legally binding, taking in compellability. Deputy Daly acknowledged that in his contribution. The power of an ombudsman over the years has come from an authority rather than a directive power or recourse to the District Court to enforce a power. That would be a very significant change of direction from what we conceive as an ombudsman, so we need to consider such a provision very closely on Committee Stage. One of the powers of an ombudsman service is they are independently appointed, with a constitutional independence. Their accountability is not to a Minister but to the Dáil. It is a very important element of what an ombudsman is, giving a strength that no agency under the control of the Minister would have. It is a valuable and powerful authority. As Deputy Daly acknowledged, only in one case has a body failed to acknowledge and respond to an ombudsman.

There is an issue that has been correctly raised as to whether there should be a Children's Ombudsman and an ombudsman for education, or whether they should be separate institutions. It is something we will have to examine. I have come from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, where we set up a Workplace Relations Commission. Adjudicators there hear cases, sometimes under the equality pillar of the legislation and sometimes under the employment rights pillar. They are different but there are no problems. The same service of adjudication may occur in each section. There is potential to establish an education ombudsman but have it administered by the same personage as the children's Ombudsman. There can be a separate provision.

Deputy Daly is accurate in saying that in a considerable number of cases that go to the children's Ombudsman coming from the education sphere, there are three barriers of proving adverse effect, showing inappropriate administration and the issue being solely related to administrative purposes. They can prevent some cases being heard. If we can furnish on Committee Stage a route to an ombudsman that is not hampered in such a way, we could see the cases that concern Deputy Daly reaching a satisfactory resolution with this legislation. This does not deal with third-level education and it does not purport to do so. Section 28 concerns schools and third-level issues are not addressed in the Bill. I do not propose that we seek to address them on Committee Stage as they raise a different set of legislative principles. We are dealing with the Education Act 1998. Deputy Micheál Martin steered it through and I was on the Opposition benches at the time, so I remember it well.

I am conscious of the time. It is important to consider the scope of the Bill and Deputy Lahart asked if it will deal with teachers.

The ordinary Ombudsman does not deal with public servants and the many grievances they might have with their employer. It is not intended to be that sort of provision and I do not think we are seeking to break into ground of that nature.

It is also important to note, as Deputy Jim Daly has made clear, that this is about ensuring that schools and boards deal with complaints in a proper way. It does not mean that the ombudsman tries the substance of the complaint. However, he or she must seek assurance that the complaint has been dealt with in a proper way and in accordance with the circulars, directions or policy framework of the day. It is not for the ombudsman to reinvent a policy framework but to ensure that parents or their children are properly heard in respect of their complaints. It is important to understand the limitations. This is not moving into the territory of directing a Minister to provide more resources in X or Y areas; that is not the remit of an ombudsman. It is important that we understand that difference.

This is valuable legislation. Deputy Jim Daly has established clearly that there is a large body of complaints in this area, with some 47% of the cases going to the Ombudsman for Children relating to education, and there is a level of dissatisfaction with how such complaints can be dealt with currently.

We have scope in this Bill to complement the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill, which will be dealing with a particular part of what parents can expect from a school but not the whole. That is what Deputy Daly is trying to broaden. The admissions policy will have directive power in respect of certain elements of admissions and we will debate that on Committee Stage in due course.

I am pleased to support the Bill. I hope Deputy Carol Nolan, who has raised legitimate concerns, will see that we can deal with some of the weaknesses about which she is rightly concerned on Committee Stage. Deputy Daly has acknowledged that the Bill may need modification. I hope that together we can create legislation that will be effective and helpful and that will improve the capacity of parents and children to get the best from the education system while providing the highly professional and committed people within our education system with the knowledge that there is the underpinning, accountability and assurance that access to an ombudsman will give our education services.

I thank all the Deputies who have contributed constructively to the debate. It was a very interesting - Deputy John Lahart used the word "provocative" - debate and it certainly is so on a number of levels. These issues are not the easiest to deal with. We all probably agree what are the problems but we need to identify how we can solve them and put forward a solution.

This Bill was before the last Oireachtas education committee. We had good debate on it and there was cross-party support on that occasion for the concept of an ombudsman for education. Notwithstanding that, Deputy Carol Nolan has rightly identified some issues and I referred to some of them myself in my initial contribution. While it is provided for in the Bill, there is an issue with the compellability aspect and the involvement of the courts. I absolutely accept that to be so and look forward to dealing with it on Committee Stage. I would be happy to delete the compellability element, which is not necessary. I take on board Deputy Nolan's concern in that regard.

Perhaps I am referring to these matters in mixed order, but Deputy Lahart asked if this was meant to serve teachers as well. Ideally, it would. This is about procedures. I would not see the ombudsman being judge and jury in all complaints. For example, if I were to say Ms McCarthy is not a good teacher and not teaching my son John well enough, is the ombudsman to come in and review her teaching standards and make judgment? Absolutely not. Does the ombudsman examine how my complaint was dealt with if I went to the principal and said Ms McCarthy is not teaching my son well? The principal should tell me that I am to refer my complaint to the Teaching Council under the current legislation. Perhaps the principal just tells me that Ms McCarthy is a great teacher and to go away and not be annoying him. The ombudsman would examine the procedures followed as opposed to dealing with the substantive complaint.

Could the teacher avail of the service? I see no reason why not. This is not a case of teachers versus students. A teacher could be a victim of bullying in the school and go to the board of management, say he or she is being bullied, only for the board of management to do nothing about it. I see no reason teachers could not have the procedures that were followed examined, but the ombudsman would not get involved in the substantive issue. I hope that brings clarity to the Deputy's question.

We can get lost in the terminology used. We float things like "section 28" and "Part 5", but parents who are struggling daily with the pressures of life do not have time to understand the admissions Bill and what it does or anything like that. This is why I consider an education ombudsman an attractive proposition. It would be a one-stop shop for parents. They would get competent and efficient advice steeped in the education aspect of the law. The education sphere is huge, which is why I believe there should be an ombudsman dealing solely with the area. How many children are attending school on any one day in Ireland? They all have parents and grandparents. The education sector has a huge impact on and reach in society and it is high time we acknowledged that fact.

I endorse what was said about boards of management being voluntary and the good work they do. There was a question about where the role of the ombudsman would end. I have addressed that already. The role deals with procedures - that is the beginning, middle and end of it - and not the substantive element of complaints.

Is there crossover with the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill and the charter? The charter is an aspiration. We all aspire to parents having a say in their children's education. The admissions Bill sets out how things should be done. In the event that someone has a grievance with how it is done, that is where the ombudsman would come in. The ombudsman would be an enforcer that provides oversight. It would provide oversight - it would not be an enforcer - of all these aspirations laid down in various charters. Circulars, for example, are often issued by the Department. They are just advisory. If a principal chooses to ignore a circular, one can go to the board of management, but it can say, "Sorry, there is nothing here. Move on." If the person goes to the Department, it will say it has no role in the matter, that it cannot get involved and that it is a matter for the board of management. I want an ombudsman that can ensure circulars are being adhered to.

Would it discourage volunteerism? That is a worry, but many would be happier to go on a board knowing it is not steeped in what can be a clandestine arrangement, that is, that it is being kept in-house. I do not think people would have an issue with accountability, openness and transparency. Many parents would love to be more involved in the education of their children and much happier to give time on boards but do not get the chance. A parent complained to me recently that he has never been notified of the election of parents to the board of management. The principal tells someone to go on and stay on it. This is perhaps a one-off, isolated case. I am not suggesting it is widespread, but it is an issue. Many parents would love to be contributing what skills and time they have to the better education of their children and a more robust board of management would be more attractive to them. I hope this Bill would not discourage people from volunteering to be on the boards.

An interesting point was made about education and training boards, ETBs, formerly vocational education committees. I would hope someone from Education and Training Boards Ireland, ETBI, would make a presentation to the committee. The ETBs have a much more robust appeals system and are much more transparent. Deputy Lahart made a good point about public representatives being on their boards. I was on the Cork county VEC board for long enough and learned much. They have a system I would aspire to see being transposed into other systems. I would look forward to a delegation from ETBI attending our committee and giving us some of their knowledge of operating boards and dealing with complaints and grievances, etc. I agree with the concept of having a more democratic model of governance.

Deputy Nolan raised the legally-binding aspect. I have addressed it already. It is not my intention that this would ever be legally binding. As I stated initially, and the Minister referred to it as well, the Ombudsman has said that his advice has only once been ignored. I am happy to have the provision removed on Committee Stage. I certainly do not want to be entering into the legal domain. I saw in The Irish Times today that the Ombudsman for Children commented that he would see this as leading to increased legal fees and so on. I would not accept such a situation and will remove the provision from the Bill if there was any issue in that regard.

Deputy Nolan stated there was no such office in Europe. We have a different model of education in this country and a historical model of governance. Why should Ireland not be a first? That it is not happening somewhere else in Europe is all the more reason for us to be leaders as opposed to followers in the area. Deputy Nolan also spoke about widening the remit of the Ombudsman for Children. I addressed that in my initial contribution. My first port of call in the last Dáil was to widen the remit of the Ombudsman for Children and I published legislation to that effect but it was not accepted by the Ombudsman for Children or the Government at the time.

I do not know where that Bill went. I guess it went to wherever these Bills go to die. That was my starting point but I do not think that is the solution any more. We have to look at an educationally-driven ombudsman. We spent €2.1 billion on special needs education and €2.1 billion on policing, the latter for oversight in the form of the Garda Inspectorate and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, but we do not have the same oversight for our education sector on which we have spent a total of €8 billion. I would not envisage that third level would be part of this but an ombudsman for schools would be fair. It is more than that, and I spoke earlier about the wider issues in education.

It has been a very useful debate and I have listened and learned. I thank all Members for their contributions. We will have a big job of work in the committee to tease out the finer detail. We will have hearings first and then go onto Committee Stage, line by line. I hope the hearings will start in the first week of October. The education committee met today and decided we would bring in various people, including the Ombudsman for Children and anybody else who has issues to be addressed. This is a partnership approach. Everybody in the committee was in agreement and that is the way I hope we can continue.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share