JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jun 2010

Teacher Supply Panel: Discussion with INTO

Chairman

I welcome Ms Noreen Flynn, vice president, INTO, Ms Mary Lally, senior official, INTO, and Mr. Ken Foley, a school principal from Cork. They are here to discuss their concerns about the decision of the Government in budget 2010 to withdraw the supply panel scheme for primary schools from the start of the forthcoming school year. I am not going to go through the long-standing arrangement on parliamentary practices and witness compellability. Members are aware of parliamentary practice and I presume the witnesses were notified as to their legal requirements in terms of defamation and what they can say.

I ask Ms Flynn to speak for five minutes and members can then ask questions.

Ms Noreen Flynn

I thank the committee for allowing me to present the case for the retention of the supply panel scheme. I propose to provide a brief overview of the service, what it sets out to achieve and why it is imperative that it be retained. I will relate my comments to the document, Supply Panel Scheme. My colleague, Mr. Ken Foley, will then outline how the system works on the ground.

After many years of lobbying the scheme was first piloted in 1993 with the full support of the Government. In 1998 it was established on a permanent basis in 17 clusters, with 60 staff covering approximately 220 schools.

The main purpose of the scheme is to provide substitute cover for short-term sick leave and principal release days. It is imperative that the supply panel is retained because it is the only structured system for short-term sick leave. The supply panel ensures that schools have access to trained teachers who are registered with the Teaching Council and vetted by the Garda. The continuity and familiarity it provides for schools and pupils result in less disruption and fewer discipline issues. That familiarity is essential in special classes and, particularly, autistic units. Most of the supply panels are in areas of disadvantage, where substitute cover is renowned for being difficult if not impossible to secure under the ad hoc system.

The announcement in the budget to withdraw the supply panel comes in the context of the McCarthy report's recommendations for overall savings of €100 million per year in substitution. There was absolute disbelief in educational circles at this announcement because covering short-term sick leave and principal release days is a necessary service, not an added extra. Therefore, we do not accept there is a rational financial basis for withdrawing the scheme.

As section 4 of the Supply Panel Scheme document reveals, the Department is relying on data that were compiled in 2003 and published in the 2006 Talbot report. That report predates two salient legislative measures, namely, the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. These acts completely change the pay and pension structure of substitute teachers, in turn making the cost of substitution significantly different from the figures on which the report is based.

We believe the withdrawal of the scheme is premature. We acknowledge that the service, while working well, can be reviewed and reformed. The terms of operation as laid down in circular 50 of 1997 predates the widespread use of e-mail and mobile telephones and its rules do not allow the scheme to function at optimal capacity. We are seeking a period of one year in which to review the scheme and deal with these issues.

Fundamentally, we are asking how the State wants to deal with substitution. Do we put a value on the quality of substitute services or will it suffice to have an ad hoc sporadic service, whereby a principal might make ten telephone calls without finding a substitute? Substitute teachers would certainly not be available for the full day in such a situation.

When implemented, section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 will require registered teachers to be fully qualified and vetted before they can work in schools. Given that substitution cover is not an added benefit, withdrawing the supply panel will not produce significant savings because substitution costs will remain to be paid under the terms of current employment legislation.

We must also be mindful to put the protection and care of children at the centre of the debate. This may not be the cheapest model but it certainly is the most efficient. We ask that the scheme be retained so we can ensure cost neutrality by covering more schools and including principal release days. We already have an effective model for clustering with regard to release days and this can be replicated.

It is the norm in Europe to take a structured approach to supply panels. The Talbot report requires review, reform and national leadership. As the Government has provided none of these requirements, I ask the committee to consider the issues I have raised.

Deputy Brian Hayes

I have spoken about this matter publicly. I regret no Fianna Fáil committee member is present to hear Ms Flynn's presentation because the Government introduced this measure in last year's budget. It is an ignorant cut that makes no sense. I do not believe it will save money in either the short or long term. There was no understanding of the difference it makes, particularly in disadvantaged communities such as in my constituency, where the familiarity of a teacher is important to a school. This is even more important in DEIS areas which experience a high turnover of teachers.

How many of these schools have special classes and autistic spectrum disorder, ASD, units attached? The significance of supply panels is even greater in these instances.

Ms Flynn takes the view that we can maintain the supply panel on a cost-neutral basis. How did she arrive at that estimate given the sums the Government claims can be saved?

The committee should speak with one voice in supporting the INTO position as articulated by principals and teachers around the country. By doing so, we might help the Department of Education and Skills to focus more sharply on the issues to hand because there will be a huge impact for schools in these areas.

Chairman

I would welcome it if the Deputy were to table a proposal at the end of the meeting which can be supported on a cross-party basis.

Deputy Brian Hayes

I am minded to do so.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I suggest we take our questions together in the interest of brevity. The witnesses are very welcome and I apologise they had to wait to address us.

The budget 2010 document which the witnesses circulated to us cites the McCarthy report's estimate of the overall cost of substitution at €300 million and its recommendation that a saving of one third, or €100 million, could be achieved, with a further €50 million in management allowances. The McCarthy report is either accurate, give or take €1 million, or it is not. It appears the Department of Education and Skills has accepted Mr. McCarthy's calculation but Ms Flynn and her colleagues dispute the financial basis on which this educational decision is made. That seems to be the net point. When the Teaching Council legislation is brought into effect and section 30 is operational, we will not have the problem of unqualified teachers, whatever about their availability. I ask the witnesses in their response to address the figures in the McCarthy report. If these are erroneous, there will be no real saving but an awful lot of damage if we remove the supply panel.

Mr. Ken Foley

I will take 30 seconds or a minute to tell members how the system is run in our own school, because the Deputy referred to a special unit. We serve five schools, four DEIS band 1 schools and one DEIS band 2 school. There are 160 teachers and 1,550 pupils in the cluster. In our own school alone, 36% of pupils present with physical disabilities — including hearing and visual impairments — or severe emotional disturbance or are on the autistic spectrum. Coupled with this is the nature of DEIS schools, which means we have difficult classes. To answer the Deputy's question, in my own cluster we have two full classes of children with autism and a third opening this September.

Up to now what happened was that people would ring in sick at 8.50 a.m. and I would make phone calls in order to get someone in at 9.30 a.m. or 10 a.m., while trying to supervise a class in the meantime. If someone comes in it is fortunate, but no one will come in for the autism units. Because of the complexity of autism, if the Deputy is familiar with it, one needs to know the pupils. It is a non-runner. That is the beauty of the supply panel. It works in its simplicity. I am in at 7.30 a.m. and I take phone calls from my own staff and the surrounding schools. As soon as the supply teachers come in they are assigned their classes. Importantly, they are qualified and they know the pupils in the autism unit. They are aware of their needs and their routines and they can slot in.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

And the pupils know them.

Mr. Ken Foley

If we lost the supply panel, it would be gone. All we are asking, as Ms Flynn said, is to hold onto it for just one year while we modify and build on it. I cannot function without the supply panel. On a personal note, I regret agreeing to open a third autism unit this September if we will not be able to get cover. My biggest fight at the moment is with the COPE Foundation to access occupational therapy and speech and language therapy services for the children. It is the teachers in the unit who supply these services to the pupils. One cannot expect a sub to come in and do it.

Ms Mary Lally

On the financial issue, the Talbot report was commissioned by the Department back in 2001, when there was an entirely different system for paying substitute teachers. They were paid at a flat daily rate regardless of whether they had 30 years' or one day's experience. Ms Flynn referred to the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. Under these, one can no longer pay a person a flat rate but must pay him or her in accordance with his or her experience and qualifications. The basis of the financial aspects of the Talbot report has been completely overtaken by events. There are 183 school days in a primary school year. If one was to pay a teacher on the supply panel an annual salary — that is, pay him or her for 183 days' work — it would cost exactly the same amount for the two services. Those figures no longer stack up.

We reckon the supply panel costs around €3 million. The McCarthy report is concerned with a larger amount of money as it deals with both primary and second-level substitution. The proposal was aimed at removing some of the absences which would be covered by substitution. However, sick leave——

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Are the McCarthy figures accurate? This is the net point.

Ms Noreen Flynn

From the analysis we are doing on them, they do not appear to be, because they are based on something that no longer exists.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

The Talbot report calculations.

Ms Mary Lally

They are dealing with a lot more than the Talbot report, in fairness.

Deputy Brian Hayes

Is it not the case that every teacher who signs up to supervision represents part of that €300 million?

Ms Mary Lally

Absolutely, and there are savings to be made at second level in this respect. It is not just a question of dealing with the supply panel scheme. On the broader issue of substitution across all schools in the country, the McCarthy report may be accurate in that such statements could be made, but doing away with the supply panel will not achieve those savings.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I am not a specialist in this area, nor is Mr. McCarthy, so he would have been advised by the Department. Consequent to his report, a decision was made by educational civil servants who know the territory. He identified the broad cost of substitution; is that correct? The Department's response was to close down the supply panel. That is the net point. Either the Department accepts the accuracy of the figures from what it knows, or the supply panel was an easy target. What the witnesses are saying now is that because of the changes in legislation, the savings that Talbot suggested might be achieved will not be achieved.

Ms Noreen Flynn

Yes. We do not know why the scheme is being withdrawn. We have never been given an indication of the reason. It may be just a financial cut, but we clearly see, from an educational point of view and from the point of view of legislation, that this has not been thought through. I want to make reference to the report launched by the committee last week, which is a fine body of work. It talks about continuity and holistic support for children. We have just indicated to the committee the necessity of this. We have shown that it is the most vulnerable children who will be caught in the event of the panel being withdrawn. From that point of view, we ask the committee earnestly to consider what we are saying in this regard. This service is not an added extra; it must be provided.

Mr. Ken Foley

I appreciate members' questions on costings. As a school principal, what matters to me is the cost to the children. I cannot get a substitute to cover in the autism unit. How am I to do it? I had to open a third unit this September due to demand; ours is the only school on the north side of the city with such a unit. How can I get someone to cover? If members are in any way knowledgeable about autism they will know——

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

What happens if cover cannot be obtained for a day?

Mr. Ken Foley

That is a good question. It is unmanageable. There is no one to cover these children so they may have to be dispersed among the ordinary classes, which already contain children with special needs. It is a non-runner.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

It is a nightmare.

Mr. Ken Foley

It is an absolute nightmare. It will not work.

I appreciate all the questions about costing. Looking at the figures, I think we can improve the system and make it as cost-neutral as possible, but I cannot go in in September and be expected to make 20 or 30 phone calls to try to get even mainstream substitute teachers in DEIS areas, let alone cover for the autism unit.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

The delegation is very welcome.

Where are the supply clusters based? Are they based mainly in socio-economically disadvantaged areas?

Ms Mary Lally

That is correct.

Mr. Ken Foley

Yes, mainly.

Ms Mary Lally

And the special units.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Have the members of the delegation done their sums? I am returning to the question asked by Deputy Quinn. What is the cost of a substitution, if substitutes are available all the time when one needs them, versus the cost of the supply panel in those areas? Have they conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the educational value of this? I hear Mr. Foley is doing this. Has he made a special case for retention of the scheme in his school? With three autism units and being in a disadvantaged area, that school is in an extreme situation.

Ms Flynn mentioned the committee's report published last week on early school leaving. One of the big problems we are finding in the system is discontinuity — from one class to another and from primary to post-primary. Here, we will have another discontinuity. As a primary teacher I hated telephoning a principal late because I knew there was a chance that a substitute teacher would not be available. It is de-professionalising the entire education service. It is obviously a question of money because — let us be honest — if it was about educational value, this would not be happening. However, educational value is not being considered.

I am keen to know, with the 200 schools and the 17 clusters, if we remove the supply panel and then have to pay for substitutes, what is the saving, if any, to the Department? How can we persuade the Department of Education and Skills to consider educational value? What will Mr. Foley do as a principal? There are many more like him. Claddagh national school in Galway is in the same situation, as is Scoil Bhríde in Shantalla. These schools are in socio-economically disadvantaged areas and have autism units.

Mr. Ken Foley

I will answer the financial questions, but before that I must mention teacher productivity. There are teachers who are based in a school from 8.50 a.m. and paid a day's wages while a substitute may come in at 10.30 a.m. who also gets a full day's wages but whose day is almost halved. We want to improve on this. I do not know the detailed figures about which my colleagues spoke. We are perfectly willing to build on and expand this scheme, open it to more schools in our cluster, which has five at present, and to principal release days, force majeure leave days, etc. It will improve the costings whatever——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Even the demand for more schools to get into the cluster would do so.

Mr. Ken Foley

Exactly. There are only five. We are quite central in the geographical sense on the north side with four other schools literally in a semi-circle around us. We can expand it a little further.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Would the same number of teachers be used?

Mr. Ken Foley

Yes, we would be prepared to do that to increase productivity and ensure we are using the scheme to the maximum.

Ms Mary Lally

This could be a cost neutral scheme. The Department introduced it in 1993, expanded it in 1998 and it has been more or less left alone since then. It has not been sufficiently monitored and there have been no changes. It is very restrictive in that participating schools were the only ones that could draw from that supply scheme. An obvious benefit would be that if the scheme were expanded the number of absences covered by the teachers could be expanded. Those supply teachers would be in a school for 183 days of the school year, at exactly the same cost as a casual substitute. However, where would one source a casual substitute? They are not vetted and may not be qualified.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Has Ms Lally proposed to the Department that the scheme would be cost neutral?

Ms Mary Lally

We have.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

What did the Department say?

Ms Mary Lally

The Department indicated it needed to make a cut and this is the cut it has selected. It did not justify it as the best cut or——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Is it cutting without thinking?

Ms Mary Lally

That is what we believe.

Mr. Ken Foley

It makes sense to keep it in existence. One could exclude all factors, financial and every other, but a substitute has to be brought in so why not have substitutes in situ on campus at 8.50 a.m.? We can work towards this being cost neutral.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I have a final question for Mr. Foley. Are the children in the special autism units being put at risk without this supply panel being available?

Mr. Ken Foley

Absolutely. It is enough of a fight to get other services and if this goes they will be completely at risk. I can guarantee we will not get substitute cover for the autism unit next September.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

That is the point at which this should stand.

Mr. Ken Foley

Yes, I think so. I thank the Senator.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Children's lives, education and welfare are put at risk.

Mr. Ken Foley

Absolutely.

Ms Noreen Flynn

The Senator keeps raising the issue of savings. The only saving which is clearly evident in this scheme, as Mr. Foley said, is when a principal spends about two hours in the morning making telephone calls, ending up with no substitute for the day, and therefore no payment is required. That is a second rate service. Is that going to be Government policy from now? We indicated to the committee that it is not good enough for the children of Ireland, particularly those who are most vulnerable.

With regard to the educational value of this scheme, in a disadvantaged school where there is no continuity and familiarity, all kinds of discipline issues are bred within the school on any given day and this results in an overall diminishing of the education process in that school for the day. It is for those reasons that we put this forward. There is a way to do this. We are quite prepared to sit down, thrash through the detail and engage with it from the point of view of maximising the cost neutral effect. One of the main cost neutral effects of this is that we will provide a proper educational service for children every day and that will have its own benefits.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I welcome the delegation. I heard its presentation on my monitor. I had to leave briefly and I wish to alert Deputy Hayes to this fact. I have been present for more than two hours, as he realises.

Of all the cuts that have taken place in education this one was brought to my attention by principals in my area as being of real concern and I acknowledge that. Mr. Foley said that if the scheme could be left in place for a year he would be in a position to modify the arrangements. Will he explain that further?

I shall play devil's advocate to tease the matter out. This affects only 220 schools. How do all the other schools manage? There are many teachers in my family but I am not one so I would be interested to hear the practical application of the scheme explained. Why is it such an advantage to the delegates? I take the point about the autism units. That is an absolute given and the point was very well made. I support the delegates on that 100%. However, there are thousands of schools in the country. They all have issues in regard to sick leave which they manage. An explanation might help us understand the process.

Mr. Ken Foley

From speaking to my own colleagues, they do not manage it. They look at our system as a very good one. Ours was set up as a pilot and it was hoped to expand it so it is a shock that it has been taken from us for no reason. Other schools do not manage. They telephone around, trying to cover pupils for insurance purposes and classes are not being supervised. They do not manage and aim to have a supply panel such as ours.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Is it not the case that every principal has a list of teachers they would know to be available? I do not say this is ideal but am trying to tease out what are the advantages of this scheme vis-à-vis the ad hoc arrangements. Principals are aware that somebody is available and could telephone them quickly to try to get them in place.

Mr. Ken Foley

No, they are not available. One has a list but it changes weekly. A person may take up work in another school. One might make ten or 20 telephone calls to mobile numbers and one just gives up after a certain time. If one does get them, well and good, if they can be in the ordinary classroom by 10 a.m. or 10.30 am.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I accept that point.

Mr. Ken Foley

The Deputy asked about expansion. There are ways of improving and we are willing to do this. We could open the scheme to more schools, expand the cluster and include principal release days but we ask that it not be taken from us, which would be a step backward.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I wish to tease it out further. Sixty staff are covered on the supply panel. Are they being utilised at present and to what percentage? Mr. Foley indicated he could expand the cluster which suggests that the panel is not being used to the maximum at present and there is a potential for cost saving. To what percentage is the panel currently utilised?

Ms Mary Lally

The figures in the Talbot report from 2002 reflect 74% utilisation but that is completely out of date. Talbot also recommended that the system be reformed, monitored and reviewed but that never happened. The way in which a supply panel can be used is restrictive. The Department put in restrictions. The panel teachers cannot be used for certain absences and therefore one is precluded from maximising the use of the scheme at present. We want that to be opened up. There is a Department circular, 32/07, which details a range of absences that attract substitute cover. One can be precluded from serving in the supply panel. Mr. Foley cannot use the supply panel to cover certain absences. It is a nonsense if one has to go outside that.

Mr. Ken Foley

For example, there is force majeure leave.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Can the delegates provide examples of such absences?

Ms Mary Lally

There are, for example, force majeure leave or bereavement of a family member for which a teacher is entitled to five school days of substitute cover but one cannot use the supply panel for this and must go outside it even though the supply panel may be sitting there in one’s school

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Even though they are available.

Ms Mary Lally

One has to go outside and find another substitute. The system needs to be reformed. We agree and believe it could be maximised. It would be cost neutral if it was maximised and these restrictive practices were not imposed.

Ms Noreen Flynn

To answer the Deputy's question on how other schools manage, we do not. I am a deputy principal in a disadvantaged school in the south inner city. We do not manage. There are many days for which we do not get substitute cover and the same can be said for many of the suburbs of Dublin and other large towns. We are lucky. The schools that have a list are lucky. However, there is another issue. If somebody goes to a school where there are difficult challenges and the issue of non-familiarity breeds its own problems, that person may not come back the next day. That is what happens on the ground and is what we are trying to avoid. It is not a proper service for any child.

Chairman

I welcome Senator Ned O'Sullivan to the meeting. The protocol is that after every member has contributed he will be invited to contribute. I shall now take some follow-up questions. Deputy John O'Mahony indicated earlier that he did not want to contribute at this time. I am the last on the list and have some questions.

I shall try to be a devil's advocate. It was brought to my attention by a prior ministerial response that approximately 40% of the supply teacher's time is not used to fill vacant teaching positions. Do the delegates acknowledge there is 40% wastage at present?

Ms Mary Lally

Yes. Forty per cent seems a big figure.

Chairman

The departmental response was that it is approximately one third to 40%.

Ms Mary Lally

Mr. Foley might comment on his school. We acknowledge there are shortfalls and, as we said, the numbers could be used to cover absences. It is a nonsense to go outside the scheme and leave a supply teacher not covering an absence.

Chairman

From the devil's advocate point of view, in my own constituency I am concerned with all of the north Clondalkin supply panel. It is also the case that a considerable number of DEIS schools do not use the supply panel scheme. Why is that so?

Mr. Ken Foley

I will go back to the Chairman's first comment when he referred to the 40% figure. I cannot see that figure in my own set up, where they are used virtually 100% of the time. Due to the nature of the job, one will have more absenteeism, although not a vast amount more. It is incredibly taxing and tiring. Coupled with that, they are attending more in-service courses.

Chairman

Does Mr. Foley think that disadvantaged schools, which find it harder to get teachers, would use supply panels?

Mr. Ken Foley

No, I do not. Perhaps I missed the Chairman's point. Was it that DEIS schools would not be happy to use supply panels?

Chairman

It has been brought to my attention that some DEIS schools on the northside of Dublin, for example, do not use them.

Mr. Ken Foley

I cannot comment on that because my own cluster was using it 100%. I come in 90 minutes early to take phone calls, so they are used all the time. I cannot comment on the northside of Dublin, but perhaps the system can be examined and modified there.

Ms Mary Lally

The DEIS schools that have the supply panel are obliged to use it, so that does not make any sense to me. They are obliged to use the supply panel in the first instance and only when the supply panel people are not available can they go outside it. Therefore, I cannot see how that could happen.

Chairman

It would probably need a further follow up response. I am not in a position to question the schools myself, but it has been brought to my attention, and that of other Oireachtas Members, that this is the case. Deputy Brian Hayes was nodding his head, so does he have any further information?

Deputy Brian Hayes

No. I was perplexed by what the Chairman was saying.

Ms Mary Lally

That was happening when there was nobody available on the supply panel.

Chairman

I will take that point and we will try to get further information.

Mr. Ken Foley

It could be that a principal is frustrated having rung on numerous occasions seeking supply teachers, like the lists that were referred to, and they are not available. They may become weary of phoning.

Chairman

Maybe they are legally required to, but they are not doing it because they are so frustrated, and are going over the top. Given that the schools in question are not represented here, I cannot comment on it. I do want to tease the matter out further. It is my personal opinion that the €100 million target has been wrongly sought by the Department concerning the supply panel. I do not think the savings in terms of absenteeism and sick leave bear any real relevance to the supply panels.

I also want to welcome Deputy Shortall who can come in after Senator O'Sullivan. The delegates are open to reform of the system. My own personal view is that, should it continue, the supply panel should be a national one. Schools should be obliged to request teachers from that supply panel. If teachers on the supply panel refuse to attend a school, they will be struck off the panel and will be unable to find employment. That might sound like a radical suggestion but I take what Mr. Foley said about teachers getting new posts, and that it is a fluid supply panel. However, there could be a centralised list, or even a regionalised list, with people on the panel on a first come, first served, appointment or longevity basis. One could go through it and if someone is appointed to one school, the next available person has to go to the next available school that is requested. In that context, would Ms Lally consider it too restrictive, or fair comment, to say that teachers on such a national supply panel would have to go into a school or be struck off the panel?

Ms Mary Lally

I think we are talking about two separate things.

Chairman

How does one reform the system? Ms Lally said the system needs to be reformed. I saw some heads nodding on the suggestion of having a national panel. Would Ms Lally say that it should be expanded to all schools? If teachers on the supply panel are requested to attend a school, should they have to attend it?

Ms Mary Lally

Absolutely, if one had a nationwide supply panel. However, Mr. Foley was referring to casual teachers who are on a list but are not being paid. It would be different if they were being paid to be on a panel. That is the case in the supply panel area.

Mr. Ken Foley

One would need to keep the clusters familiar with their school, so that they are not going from cluster to cluster. That is the whole point of supply — that they know all the classes and there is familiarity, so that the routines are not broken.

Chairman

With respect, that is probably where the inefficiencies happen because the cluster areas may be too small. Therefore, there are people hanging around who are not officially targeted in certain parts of the country. If there was a broader region with a list of teachers — and it was kept small enough in the interim so that they are all pretty much being filled — it would create a situation where the Department was not expending any extra money and the savings are made in line with the McCarthy recommendations. Does Ms Flynn have a particular proposal or is she open to discussion with the Department?

Ms Noreen Flynn

We are absolutely open to discussion. We want this to work efficiently because we see the benefit. It is not that we are seeking an extra cost; we want to provide a system that is educationally valuable and that will maximise the use of these teachers on the panel. We are very open to that through the ways we have outlined, namely, by way of extending the regions and extending the remit of the people on that panel to use them to their best efficiency.

Ms Mary Lally

And to be cost neutral.

Chairman

That is fair enough. Speaking in her INTO capacity, would Ms Flynn say there would be an aversion, or a general agreement, that if a teacher is allocated to a school and refuses to do so, it would be right and fair to remove that teacher from a supply panel?

Ms Noreen Flynn

No more than any job, if someone goes on a supply panel they understand the terms involved. If an issue arose where there was some violent occurrence in the school, it would have to be investigated as in any normal procedure. In the normal run of the mill, however, where somebody signs up to do a job, that is the job. They are on a supply panel and they go to whatever school they are assigned to.

Mr. Ken Foley

They are very happy to do it. They are actually very disappointed that it was being taken away. That is what they have signed up to do and they love doing it.

Chairman

I understand, from what is coming from the INTO and the principals, that there is a willingness to compromise, a strong sense of reasonableness, and the interests of children are being put first.

Mr. Ken Foley

One has to take it, otherwise it will be gone.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for responding to my questions. I now call on Senator Ned O'Sullivan to put his questions.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan

I agree wholeheartedly with what the Chairman has just said. I welcome the delegation, including the president of the INTO. As a former INTO activist myself I am quite interested in this discussion. I was well briefed on it at the INTO conference in Salthill by one of the executive members, Feargal Brougham. I know that many principals around the country are very concerned. I feel there is a strong case to be made for reviewing the decision. I hope that may happen, particularly as the savings are pretty minuscule on the whole. To withdraw the whole system for that level of savings does not make the best sense to me. I was in touch with the Minister's office this week and I know that she is quite prepared to listen and talk also. Having heard the delegation, I feel there is room for compromise, as the Chairman said, if it can be proven that there is a cost neutral element in this, or if it can be adjusted or reduced in size. Perhaps we could suspend the abolition for one year to see how it would work by thrashing it out properly and getting something going. I would be happy to play my part in that. I would be happy to liaise in any way I can.

Chairman

Just before Deputy Shortall commences, I want to let her know that her letter to the committee was discussed in private session. On foot of that, the issue will be dealt with as a priority at the next available meeting.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Thank you, Chairman. That is very welcome. That is the issue of educational disadvantage and the erosion of services. Unfortunately, the proposals concerning the supply panel are in the same vein. As someone who represents a constituency with large areas of disadvantage, and educational disadvantage in particular, I am very concerned about recent cutbacks in local services. Gains that have been made in recent years are now being eroded. There is no doubt that this is a false economy because we will pay a very high price for these cuts in the future. Whatever about the cost of addressing educational disadvantage, the cost of ignoring it is far greater. I attended the meeting to lend my support to this campaign because I am very conscious of the value of the supply panel in Ballymun and Finglas in my constituency where, unfortunately, we have serious problems of educational disadvantage. I know the value of the panel. Teachers are known to the schools, they are in there every day and are available immediately if there is an absence. There is the advantage of their being familiar with the students and the staff and being vetted, which is a very real concern.

The only way that money can be saved in abolishing the supply panels is by not providing cover in classes where teachers are absent, and we must consider all that entails and its implications not only for that class but for other classes that will have extra students which will disrupt the school day. There are teachers that know the schools, can slot in very easily and are available. We know, from unfortunate experience, the difficulties that schools, especially those in disadvantaged areas, have in accessing substitutes. The delegates outlined that very well.

The only way money can be saved is by not having substitute cover or having unqualified substitute cover. Neither is a desirable situation for children, especially those in disadvantaged areas. The cover that is being used to justify this cut is the Talbot report. It was brought to my attention by schools in my constituency. I went to the trouble of getting a copy of the Talbot report and reading it. Far from recommending the abolition of the panel it actually does the reverse. When one reads it, one finds it is very positive about what the panel has achieved. It sets out a number of possible responses to the review of the pilot phase.

It absolutely rules out abolishing the panel because it points out that if that were to happen we would be one of a very small number of countries in Europe which would have no supply panel at all. It recommends reform of the panel, to some extent — the delegates accept there are some ways it can be improved — and then the extension of that to the whole country, which is what is required. Given the current financial constraints, there is definite room for a compromise. We know the panel has 74% usage, which is very high. Even within those figures, there may be room to examine what is happening in individual areas. In some rural areas there might a practice whereby local people are used rather than the panel.

In disadvantaged urban areas the panel is virtually fully used. We might examine that, in regard to where panels exist. As the delegation mentioned there is potential for extending the grounds on which cover can be provided. The third area in which we could get better value for money from the panels — I am not denying that they currently provide good value for money — is by extending the catchment area. There is a panel with five teachers in Ballymun serving ten schools and it is very well used. One could have a second tier to extend it further in order that if no cover is required in Ballymun it could be provided in Whitehall, Santry and surrounding areas.

The panel will be abolished during the summer. I urge the committee to take a very strong stance on this. It should at least ask the Minister to defer abolition of the panel this year, to open it up for further review and have discussions with the INTO and other interest groups with a view to perhaps getting better value for money out of it for future years. If the panel is to be abolished this year, as the delegation said, God knows when we will get it back. We simply cannot afford to do that. The education of too many children depends on this and I urge the Chairman to make the strongest possible representations to the Minister to retain the panel.

Chairman

I asked Deputy Hayes to put a proposal before the committee and for it to have as much cross-party consensus as possible. I will read the wording of the recommendation which I hope all members of the committee could forward to the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills. It states that:

This committee calls on the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills to reconsider the Government's decision to cease the supply panel from September 2010 and that the scheme, while being reviewed, should continue as an essential support to DEIS schools and schools with special classes in ASD units.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Brian Hayes

That is the proposal I made at the start. It will allow us all to ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills to examine this issue again in light of this discussion. The proceedings of the committee should be sent to the Department and Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills as soon as possible. This has been coming down the tracks since September, as Deputy Shortall said, and it is urgent. I am not very hopeful that they will do an about turn on this but we need to do our job. By everyone agreeing to the recommendation I proposed we would at least put pressure on the Department to examine this again.

Chairman

It will be in the minutes that the Deputy was requested to make the proposals. In line with protocols, a letter will be sent in my name as Chairman, on behalf of the committee, that the committee recommended this course of action to the Minister. I thank members for their support in this regard. Are there any final comments from any of the delegates?

Mr. Ken Foley

I cannot speak for the broader section of the INTO. I thank the committee for its support and would appreciate anything it can do about this issue. It probably sounds like a slight exaggeration but I genuinely will not function in September without people in situ ready to cover the classes.

Ms Noreen Flynn

It has national ramifications. It is a false economy for the very reasons Deputy Shortall raised. In the long term, it will cost more money because we all realise the importance of education at the early level. From that point of view, this is an essential issue.

Chairman

The matter has been discussed as fully as it can be. All members from all parties have expressed concerns about the implications of the withdrawal while also expressing agreement that value for money and greater efficiencies have to be sought. In that context, I thank the INTO delegates for coming before the committee and briefing us on a very informative issue. I am glad we were in a position to facilitate an early discussion of this issue in order that the Minister can still take action.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.58 p.m. and adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 1 July 2010.