Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 10 to 14, inclusive, 17 to 22, inclusive, and 37 are technical amendments. They are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Committee Stage
There are a considerable number of amendments from the Government here but many are technical. That applies to this grouping too. These are minor wording amendments to ensure consistency of language in referring to sections of the Bill following its enactment. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 10 to 14, inclusive, 17 to 22, inclusive, and 37 replace references in the Bill to the Act as the “Teaching Council (Amendment) Act 2015”, with “Act of 2015”. Amendment No. 20 is also concerned with ensuring consistency of language in the Bill. References to “(amended by section 11(e) of the Teaching Council(Amendment) Act 2015)” will be replaced with “(amended by section 11(e))” for consistency with similar references.
Amendments Nos. 3, 40 and 44 to 48, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Amendment No. 40 provides for the holding of an inquiry under section 43 by a panel of the disciplinary committee where the investigating committee has determined that there is a prima facie case to answer, following a complaint to the council regarding a registered teacher.
This is a redraft of section 43 in order to make clear the steps and processes involved in an inquiry and the responsibilities of the disciplinary committee and panels. The various avenues for conducting or completing inquiries are also set out.
To summarise the process, the disciplinary committee will write to the teacher informing him or her of the nature of the complaint, including evidence supporting the complaint, and an opportunity for the teacher to request that the matter be investigated by examination of documents. If a hearing is to be held, the teacher will be informed that he or she, or the teacher’s representative, may be present to defend the teacher at the hearing and that the teacher may request that some or all of the hearing is to be held in private. The inquiry will be carried out by a panel of the disciplinary committee, consisting of three to five persons, the majority of whom will be registered teachers. At the request of the teacher, the panel may agree to hold the inquiry by consideration of documents and written submissions only, that is in place of a hearing.
Having considered the complaint, the panel may request the teacher to do one or more of the following, and before a hearing has taken place: undertake not to repeat the conduct; undertake to attend a specified professional development course, or such other course as the panel considers appropriate; undertake to comply with such requirements as may be specified for the purposes of improving his or her competence and performance; consent to seek the assistance of such services relating to health and welfare as may be specified; and consent to being censured. Where a registered teacher gives the type of undertaking I have just outlined, the inquiry will be completed. However, where a registered teacher does not give an undertaking in regard to these matters, the inquiry will continue as if the request had not been made by the panel.
A hearing, if required, will be held in public by default unless the teacher or a witness, about whom personal matters may be disclosed at the inquiry, requests that all or part of the hearing is held in private and the panel is satisfied that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to do so. At the hearing the director, or any other person with leave of the panel, will present evidence in support of the complaint. Witnesses will give testimony on oath, and there will be the right to cross-examine witnesses and call evidence. The panel will be able to receive evidence given orally, by affidavit, or other means for example, video link.
The panel will have the powers, rights and privileges vested in the High Court in respect of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and in respect of their examination on oath or otherwise, and can compel the production of documents. A witness will have the same immunities and privileges as if he or she were a witness before the High Court. For the purposes of the inquiry, a panel may, in accordance with the provisions of a new section 43A, consider information in a vetting disclosure and any submissions made in relation to that disclosure. I will outline the provisions of 43A when dealing with amendment No. 41.
On completion of an inquiry, the panel may make no finding and dismiss the complaint. Otherwise, the panel will produce a report setting out the nature of the complaint, the evidence considered, the measures where a teacher has given an undertaking, where appropriate, and the panel’s findings. In addition, where the complaint relates to the conviction of the teacher of an offence triable by indictment, the panel must report whether the findings affect the teacher’s fitness to teach. The panel will also report any other matter it considers appropriate.
Under the Bill the Teaching Council itself may make a complaint under section 42 of the Act where it has received a vetting disclosure giving a bona fide concern that the teacher may harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm, attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, or incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person. In such circumstances, where the panel is satisfied that there is a risk, the panel in its report will specify the nature of the information disclosed in the vetting disclosure, the evidence, the panel’s assessment of the risk, and its conclusion in respect of that risk. Where it is not satisfied there is a risk the panel may dismiss the complaint. Where a complaint is dismissed, the complainant, the teacher concerned, such other persons as the teacher may request, and the teacher’s employer will be informed. At the request of the teacher, the panel will publish a notice to that effect.
This amendment involves the deletion of the current section 17, which also provided for amendments to the provisions for an inquiry. However, amendment No. 40 is more comprehensive than section 17. Amendment No. 44 amends section 44 of the Act and provides that it is the panel rather than the full disciplinary committee, which, having completed its report, determines what measures, if any, are to be taken to sanction a teacher. The original Bill provided for the full disciplinary committee to have this function. The amendment ensures consistency between sections 43 and 44.
This approach is being taken on foot of legal advice received by my Department. Amendment No. 3 is a technical amendment consequent on Amendment No. 40, which replaces section 43. Amendments Nos. 45 to 48, inclusive, replace the term "disciplinary committee" with "panel". The purpose of these amendments is to ensure consistency of language in section 44 of the principal Act, as amended, which provides that the panel rather than the disciplinary committee shall determine what measures, if any, to take to sanction a teacher following the panel's report.
This is a technical amendment to update the reference to the EU directive on mutual recognition of qualifications. Section 7(2)(n) provides that one of the functions of the Teaching Council is to act as a designated authority within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) of the European Communities (General System for the Recognition of Higher Education Diplomas) Regulations 1991, SI 1 of 1991, for the recognition of qualifications under Council Directive No. 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988. The amendment updates the reference to the EU directive to Directive 2005/36/EC which replaced the directive referred to in the 2001 Act. The first Part of the amendment, which enables the council to obtain or receive vetting disclosures, is already in the Bill.
This is a technical amendment to update the name of Marino Institute of Education in the Act. For the information of the House, the Bill as originally published included in subparagraph (iv) the phrase "National University of Ireland, Maynooth".
Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 50 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. 6 enables the disciplinary committee, for the purpose of carrying out a fitness to teach inquiry, to sit in divisions of itself, with each division to be referred to as a panel. The 2001 Act already provides that panels would conduct inquiries on behalf of the committee, and the revised wording strengthens references in the Act to the role of the panels. Section 28 of the principal Act provides for membership of the disciplinary committee and removes the provisions that the director will be secretary to the disciplinary committee and that the chairperson of the Teaching Council will be a member and chairperson of the disciplinary committee. These changes are proposed on foot of legal advice received by the Department pertaining to separation of duties in terms of governance roles and the conduct of disciplinary inquiries. The legal advice indicates it is more appropriate that the chair of the council would not be a member of the disciplinary committee.
Amendment No. 8 proposes that the council shall select eight rather than seven members who are registered teachers elected to the council or nominated by trade unions to make up the disciplinary committee. The number is being increased to make up for the removal of the chairperson.
Amendment No. 50 amends section 44(2)(a) of the Bill, as amended in the Dáil, and provides that the disciplinary committee rather than the director shall advise relevant parties of the decision of a disciplinary panel following an inquiry. This is consistent with the removal of the requirement for the director to act as secretary to the committee.
A further technical amendment to section 44 is required to provide for the status of the decision of the High Court regarding an appeal. I will propose such an amendment on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 7, 29, 32, 33, 35, 38 and 39 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendments Nos. 7, 29, 32, 33, 35, 38 and 39 propose to remove references to the director as secretary to the investigating committee. There is no legal need for the director to act as secretary to the investigating committee and removing this requirement will afford the Teaching Council more flexibility in the operation of the fitness to teach processes, including in the allocation of staff to support the work of the investigating committee. This also frees up the director to be the presenting officer for cases, which is a more appropriate role.
Section 29 of the principal Act provides for the establishment and maintenance of the register of teachers. The purpose of this amendment is to update section 29 in regard to entering on the register details of each person who is registered or is entitled to be registered, as opposed to only each person entitled to be registered, to make clear that the provision relates to teachers who are applying for renewal of registration as well as initial registration. It also makes consistent the reference in the Act to whether the registration is subject to conditions under various sections, such as conditions that may be applied at the initial registration stage. The amendment provides that where the council prescribes the information to be included in the register, such information shall, in addition to the information set out in the Bill and the Act, include the name and address of the employer if known to the council, the findings of any disciplinary proceedings under Part 5, including any measures confirmed by a panel under section 44(1)(a), and the period for which such information shall remain on the register. These updates are important to ensure the register provides comprehensive information on a teacher's registration status.
I wish to speak about the removal of regulation No. 3 on the status of Montessori teachers, which issued in 2009. The Teaching Council has been conducting a review of this matter, which Senator Healy Eames raised yesterday. Why is the regulation no longer considered acceptable? I have BA and MA qualifications but I am most proud of my qualification in Montessori education because it gave me such useful skills in child-centred developmental education. The primary school sector followed the work of Dr. Maria Montessori by introducing child-centred education. I hope the regulation will not be removed. It was put in place to take account of Montessori teachers. I want to hear a good reason for excluding them from the register. Students take a four-year degree course to qualify as Montessori teachers. This qualification was not even available when the regulation was put in place. The council has acknowledged that no phase of teacher education would be sufficient to address all the needs of pupils but not all types of training are equal. One cannot say that a degree in one subject is more valuable than another. The child is paramount to education, and the child always comes first in Montessori education. I ask the Minister's views on the regulation, which I think is required.
Regulation No. 3 covered special schools.
It also covered Montessori teaching.
I understand it applied to Montessori teachers in special schools rather than specifically in regular schools.
The Teaching Council has recommended that it be removed.
That is specifically in regard to special schools rather than regular schools. The Teaching Council has expressed the view that all teachers should have the relevant teaching qualification. I understand the Senator's concerns, however. The intention is that the legislation will be reviewed regularly. I acknowledge that Montessori teaching requires a qualification but the council's view is that registration should be in accordance with qualifications for primary and post-primary schools. The issue is not specifically mentioned in the legislation because it is set out in regulation rather than primary legislation.
It will be part of the Bill.
Regulations are not set out in the Bill itself.
Regulations are not in the Bill but they will be laid before the House and the council recommended that regulation No. 3 be withdrawn.
It was made by regulation in 2006 and 2009 but, if withdrawn, it will no longer be a regulation. I recommend that it should not be withdrawn. The Minister will make the decision as to whether to withdraw it. I am tabling it in the context of the Teaching Council regulation because it was the Teaching Council that recommended it.
I wish to elaborate on that. I agree wholeheartedly with the Teaching Council's view that teachers are fully qualified particularly in the area of special education. I have seen people come straight out of college and into a special education class, sometimes with no experience. This happens in mainstream as well. I have called for a long time for strict modules on working on special education which should be brought into special education classes and schools. It has nothing to do with Montessori.
They have modules and that is what is needed in this area.
Exactly. In my humble opinion, a person coming out of college with a BA should have that additional qualification and expertise in special needs education to teach people with special needs because that is a whole different ballgame.
One question around this area is whether there should be different qualifications if one is teaching in a special school as opposed to a mainstream primary school. The issue of having different rules is the question the Teaching Council was concerned about, that we should, in some way, say there is a different standard in terms of qualification. The issue of Montessori is one on which I would like to engage again with the Teaching Council. I have personal experience in this area as does the Senator. In the whole area of early childhood education, Montessori is considered to be a highly valued qualification. The question is, and it is one on which there are differing opinions, whether in terms of the primary school and the post-primary school, which come under the remit of the Department of Education and Skills, one should have different qualifications for special schools as opposed to mainstream schools. The Teaching Council has taken a view that it does not want to say that certain things are acceptable in one type of school and not in another but it is an issue that needs further consideration.
Perhaps they should all be in Montessori.
That is the current situation. It is a regulation issue rather than being central to the Bill.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 6, line 11, to delete "Teaching Council (Amendment) Act 2015" and substitute "Act of 2015".
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 15 amends subsection (4) of section 33 of the 2001 Act, as amended by this Bill. The amendment is necessary in order to correct a cross reference in that subsection to subsection (4A) of the same section. Section 33 deals with renewal of registration and subsection (4A) of section 33, as amended by this Bill, is concerned with the council notifying a teacher of its intention to seek a vetting disclosure for the purpose of renewal of registration and was amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil. As a result of that amendment, the cross reference to (4A) in subsection (4) required correcting. In making this correction, subsection (4) along with the relevant provision within (4A) has been reworded to make clearer in the Bill that an application for renewal of registration may be made prior to the expiry of that person's registration subject to the person having complied, within the required timeframe for same, with any requirement for vetting that has arisen for the purposes of renewal of his or her registration.
Government amendment No. 16 amends subsection (4A) in line with the changed wording in subsection (4). These amendments do not alter the effect of the existing provisions but simply make clearer the requirement to comply with vetting where it arises. It is not intended that all teachers will be vetted on each annual renewal of registration. This amendment makes clear that when a vetting requirement arises in respect of a person's renewal of registration, that teacher must comply with that requirement within the timeframe specified by the council.
I inform the House that I intend, subject to legal advice, to make further amendments to section 33 of the 2001 Act on Report Stage. These will involve providing for the following: where the Teaching Council receives a vetting disclosure for the purposes of the renewal of a teacher's registration and the information in that disclosure gives rise to a bona fide child or vulnerable person protection concern, the Teaching Council may, after giving that teacher an opportunity to make representations in relation to same, provide that teacher's employer with a copy of the vetting disclosure concerned; and the council may refuse to renew a teacher's registration at his or her next annual renewal where that teacher has not consented to a vetting disclosure being obtained under the Bill's fitness to teach provisions and the council is not satisfied that there are valid and bona fide reasons for the teacher's refusal to consent to such a vetting request. This provision will be subject to the council giving the teacher concerned an opportunity to make representations to it in this regard and the council having considered any such representation received.
I also intend to amend section 33 of the 2001 Act further to provide that in exceptional circumstances where, notwithstanding that a registered teacher has co-operated with a vetting requirement in the context of the annual renewal of his or her registration, a vetting disclosure has not been received from the bureau prior to the expiry of the teacher's registration, or it has been received but there has been insufficient time for the council to obtain and consider any submissions required in respect of that disclosure, the council may extend the person's registration for a limited time. The timeline for such an extension will be subject to the council making a decision in respect of that person's registration within 21 days after the receipt of the disclosure concerned or where the disclosure contains information of relevance to that person's registration, the council having invited submissions from the person within 21 days of receipt of that disclosure and making a decision in respect of that person's registration within 21 days of receipt of such submissions.
Further, I intend to amend section 33, to state explicitly that a teacher who appeals to the High Court the decision of the Teaching Council not to renew his or her registration will remain on the register during the period of appeal, other than where the Teaching Council considers it is in the public interest otherwise and where the council has consequently made an application to the High Court for an order to suspend the teacher from the register under section 47.
I also intend to amend section 33 such that, following a High Court decision on an appeal, a teacher or the Teaching Council can make a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on a specified question of law. This is to provide for extra time where there is a High Court case or time is needed for the person to get on to the register. That will be dealt with on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 15, line 21, after "constitutes" to insert "serious".
This amendment was discussed at length in the other House. This provision is needed to ensure that only serious cases go to hearings. This principle was upheld in the Corbally judgment in the Supreme Court. The amendment seeks to insert only the word "serious" into the provision. If we err on the side of caution what is the problem with inserting this word? I want to ensure that only serious cases go to hearings. Given that many teachers would be vulnerable to frivolous and vexatious complaints there is a need to tighten the provision to ensure that only serious cases go before the courts.
As Senator Reilly has said, this was discussed in the Dáil and it was also considered fully during the drafting of the legislation. Legal advice was obtained to assist in the Bill's preparation with regard to this specific issue. Arising from this consideration and our consultation with the Attorney General's office, I believe it is neither necessary nor appropriate to include the word "serious" as proposed in the amendment. The current wording is in line with similar provisions in other regulatory legislation.
There are several stages to the fitness to teach process, which will provide protection against less serious matters proceeding to an inquiry. This was a point we considered in some detail in earlier stages of the debate in light of the Corbally case, referred to by Senator Reilly. To get to the point of a hearing, there will be several examinations of the complaint. If the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith or an abuse of process, the director may refuse it. Subsequently, the investigating committee screens on the basis of a number of criteria and must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case to warrant further action before referring the complaint to the disciplinary committee. The complaint will not get to the point of a hearing until various thresholds are met. Any complaint that gets to the point of a hearing will be a serious complaint. It will fall to the council, as the self-regulator of the profession, to determine which cases proceed and how they are managed. However, in doing so, the council has the benefit of established case law and the experience of other professional regulators which make clear that there must be a level of seriousness in any conduct or performance issue before a decision can be made to proceed to an inquiry and before consequential sanctions can be made against the teacher.
The Teaching Council will operate its powers under the Act in a manner that fully protects the rights of persons involved in a Part 5 process and in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court judgment in the Corbally case as well as other relevant case law and the council's legal advice. The Bill provides for appeal to the High Court on foot of decisions made following a fitness to teach inquiry, which is another important protection for teachers.
I am satisfied, therefore, that the wording as set out in the Bill is appropriate. As I said, we have consulted the Office of the Attorney General on the matter and have taken into consideration corresponding provisions in existing regulatory legislation. We have considered the union's concerns in this area. On top of what I have outlined in respect of the various processes before the process gets to a hearing, the council will be required to review the operation of the fitness to teach provisions after three years.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for non-compliance with an undertaking given by a registered teacher following an inquiry by the disciplinary committee under section 43 as an additional reason for complaint under section 42, the section dealing with an inquiry by the investigating committee. If a teacher has agreed to measures as part of an inquiry, it makes sense that non-compliance with the measures can be followed up. This is the same structure that applies for other regulators. Section 42(1)(g), dealing with conviction for an offence, is already in the Bill.
On Report Stage I intend to amend the fitness to teach provisions in Part 5 of the 2001 Act, subject to legal advices, to provide that failure to consent to vetting where a vetting disclosure is sought in accordance with the Bill's fitness to teach provisions may also constitute grounds for complaint under the Bill's fitness to teach provisions.
Amendments Nos. 25, 28, 31 and 36 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Section 16 amends section 42 of the 2001 Act. That section sets out the grounds on which complaints about registered teachers may be made and the role and processes to be followed by the director and the investigating committee in respect of such complaints.
Section 42(1D), as amended by the Bill, provides that the council may make a complaint to the investigating committee where a vetting disclosure, obtained in its conduit role for school employers, gives rise to a bona fide child protection concern.
Amendment No. 25 inserts a new subsection (1E) into section 42 and makes clear the council may also make a complaint to the investigating committee under the existing provisions of section 42(1)(g), where a disclosure obtained in its conduit role contains information relating to a criminal conviction. Under the Bill as it stands, section 42(1)(g) provides that a complaint may be made in respect of a registered teacher on the grounds “that he or she has been convicted in the State of an offence triable on indictment or convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions that, if done or made in the State, would constitute an offence triable on indictment”. Amendment No. 25 makes clear that such a complaint may be made by the council where a vetting disclosure obtained in its conduit role for school employers contains information about a conviction of this nature.
Amendments Nos. 28, 31 and 36 are linked to amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 28 makes clear that where the council, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Bill, makes a complaint in respect of information contained in a vetting disclosure that it has obtained in its conduit role, it shall provide the director with a copy of the vetting disclosure concerned and shall indicate the information within that disclosure which grounds the complaint.
Amendment No. 31 makes clear that the director may, in the case of such complaints and for the purpose of considering whether to refuse or to refer such a complaint to the investigating committee, consider the information in the disclosure in so far as it relates to the complaint in question.
Amendment No. 36 replaces section 33(7), as amended by the Bill, with revised wording to incorporate additional provisions that set out more comprehensively the requirements on the investigating committee when dealing with the aforementioned complaints. This new subsection (7) has been amended to provide that, in addition to providing the teacher concerned with a copy of the complaint and other information and documentation accompanying the complaint, the investigating committee shall provide a copy of the vetting disclosure to the teacher concerned where the complaint has been made by the council in respect of information in that disclosure, and for the teacher to be invited to make submissions in respect of that vetting disclosure. This amendment also makes clear that the investigating committee may consider the information in a disclosure in so far as that information relates to the complaint made by the council and may consider any submissions made by the teacher relating to that disclosure.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are technical and serve to revise numbering following inclusion of amendment No. 25.
This is a technical amendment. The purpose of this provision is to include the word “and” linking to subsection (iii) in amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 34 is a technical amendment required on foot of amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil to take account of changes in terminology. In this regard, the Bill refers to a “complaint” under section 42, whereas the 2001 Act referred to an “application” or “appeal”. It also deletes the provision at section 42(5)(b)(iii) to the effect that the investigating committee shall refuse to consider a complaint where there is insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. The purpose of this change is to guard against the danger that a complaint must be refused, even if of a serious nature, where there is little evidence available or where it is not straightforward to determine if the evidence is sufficient. It would not be desirable for a situation to develop where there is a danger that a complaints is forced to be abandoned too early in the process and before an informed decision can be made on whether it merits an inquiry.
This is largely a technical amendment to transfer the provisions in subsections (1) to (6), inclusive, from Schedule 3 to the 2001 Act, as amended by this Bill, into a new section 43A. This new section 43A sets outs separately the relevant provisions of the Bill relating to the use and assessment of vetting disclosure by a panel undertaking an inquiry under section 43.
In addition to the provisions which were previously in Schedule 3, additional provisions in subsections 7 and 8 of this new section makes clear that a panel may also consider information in a vetting disclosure where the council has made a complaint, under the relevant provisions of section 42, in respect of that information, and that the panel can consider information in that disclosure only in so far as it grounds that complaint and relates to the conduct which is the subject of the complaint. It also allows the panel to consider any submissions that the teacher may have made in respect of that vetting disclosure.
This amendment provides that a person commits an offence in the course of an inquiry when he or she fails to attend, having been summoned, refuses to take an oath, refuses to produce any document in his or her power or control lawfully required by the panel or refuses to answer a question. In addition, it is an offence if a person does anything which, if the panel were a court of law, would be contempt of court.
The amendment provides that a person who commits an offence will be liable on summary conviction to a class C fine. These matters were already included as offences in the 2001 Act but references need to be updated to reflect that it is the panel which is conducting the inquiry and making decisions. The inclusion of "a class C fine" in place of a fine of "£1,905" updates this provision in accordance with the more current legislative approach.
What exactly is the oath that is referenced in this amendment? Concerns have been raised with me about whether it will be a religious oath or one that would be broad and would cater for those of religious faith and none. What type of oath will teachers be required to take?
I do not have the wording of the oath available. I will come back to the Senator on Report Stage with that information, if that is acceptable.
This amendment provides that where a complaint is withdrawn by the complainant while it is being considered by the investigating committee or where is has progressed to a panel inquiry, the committee or the panel may, with the agreement of the council, decide either that no further action is to be taken or proceed as if the complaint had not been withdrawn. This is to prevent a situation where the investigating committee or a disciplinary panel are obliged to proceed with a complaint even if it has been withdrawn and the committee or panel sees no reason to proceed. Of course, the committee or panel may also decide to proceed if that is deemed appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 49 and 52 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I have already outlined amendment No. 40, which provides, inter alia, that a panel may request a teacher to give certain undertakings or consent to certain measures. Amendment No. 49 is necessary to provide that, in such circumstances, the panel will make a decision to confirm those measures. Amendment No. 52 ensures that such decisions, which are arrived at on foot of a voluntary agreement by the teacher, are not subject to an application by the Teaching Council to the High Court for confirmation of the decision.
This is an additional amendment to section 44, subsection 3, of the principal Act which deals with the removal, suspension or retention of a teacher on the register following an inquiry. The amendment provides that measures entered into by a teacher voluntarily are not appealable to the High Court. The amendment deletes the words "of the Disciplinary Committee" from the phrase "vary the decision of the Disciplinary Committee". It is considered that these words are unnecessary in the context of the purpose of this section.
The amendment inserts a new section into the Act and provides that, where it comes to the Teaching Council's attention that a decision to sanction a registered teacher has been made in another state, the Teaching Council will, as soon as practicable, inform the Minister and the teacher's employer, where relevant. The amendment further provides for the Teaching Council, where it has reached a decision to sanction a teacher, to inform the appropriate body in another jurisdiction of that decision, where it has reason to believe the teacher is registered in that jurisdiction and that the body may not be aware of the decision.
This amendment inserts a new section into the Act and provides that the council may publish certain information concerning a decision made following an inquiry or a decision made in another jurisdiction. The amendment also provides that the council may also publish the inquiry panel's report, its findings, its decision or the transcript of the inquiry. Information identifying a party to the inquiry may be redacted.
I would also like to inform the House that I intend, on Report Stage, subject to legal advices and to compatibility with the provisions of the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012, to amend section 46B to provide that reports, findings or transcripts, as appropriate, or parts thereof, in respect of complaints made by the council itself on foot of information in a vetting disclosure obtained in the council's conduit role for employers, may be published.
This amendment replaces the current section 60 of the principal Act and concerns the non-admissibility of a statement or admission made by a person to a panel in regard to a complaint in other proceedings. It does not apply, however, where a person commits an offence in respect of a panel inquiry. The proposed amendment follows the form of non-admissibility provisions in more recent legislation than the original Teaching Council Act.
This amendment concerns the appointment of a panel to conduct an inquiry under section 43 of the Act. The amendment proposes the replacement of Schedule 3 to the principal Act. Much of the detail of Schedule 3 to the principal Act is now dealt with in the proposed amendment to section 43. Accordingly, this is essentially a structural amendment, and all of its provisions already exist in the principal Act.
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 21 of the Bill, which included the provisions for the panel which are now included in the proposed amendment to section 43.
Amendment No. 57 is out of order.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 27, between lines 2 and 23, to insert the following:
“Review of operation of Act
24. The Minister shall—
(a) not later than 2 years after this section comes into operation, commence a review of the operation of this Act, and
(b) not later than 12 months after its commencement, make a report to each House of the Oireachtas of the findings made on the review and of the conclusions drawn from the findings.".
This amendment provides that there will be a facility to review the operation of the Act after two years and, then, that a report be made to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the findings of the review. This is an important amendment. It is good practice to review legislation, particularly new legislation which gives new powers in regard to personal information and where many practices are being changed. It is a good idea that we would review the legislation to ensure it is fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed and to make sure we are doing things right.
This amendment was also considered in the Dáil and I have referred to having a review of Part 5 after three years following discussions with the teaching unions. What we are doing by way of this Bill is amending the original legislation upon which the council is based. The main purposes of the Bill under consideration are to underpin the Teaching Council's statutory functions in regard to Garda vetting of teachers, to strengthen and clarify the council's teaching arrangements and to make consequential amendments. There is a comprehensive suite of provisions for ongoing oversight of the implementation of the Teaching Council Act and operations of the Teaching Council. The Teaching Council also publishes an annual report which is laid before the Houses each year.
As I said, I am aware of the concerns and fears of teachers regarding aspects of the operation of the fitness to teach provisions of Part 5. My officials have had a number of very helpful meetings with the teacher unions in this regard. It is true to say that similar concerns relating to various legal rights - for example, privacy, reputation, fairness and rights of appeal - are shared across all professions.
We are fortunate we have available to us a substantial body of knowledge and good practice in the way other regulated professions have approached these issues both here and in similar jurisdictions. Recent court judgments too indicate clear boundaries within which regulatory bodies such as the Teaching Council operate. On the basis of the advice available to my Department, it is clear that only serious professional matters can be considered under the fitness to teach provisions. However, all legislation needs to be kept under review in case something is not working in accordance with the intention during its passage. I with my officials have given some consideration to the point that a timeframe might be put in place in respect of a review of the Act, with a view to addressing any issues that might arise in terms of implementation of the Act that possibly could be addressed at an earlier stage. Accordingly I will be asking the council to review the operation of Part 5, three years following its commencements and to submit advice to my Department on any policy issue arising that might require further legislative attention.
I suppose that goes some way to addressing the concerns of Senator Reilly.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No. Based on what the Minister has said, I will not press it.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 tomorrow morning.