Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Jan 2012

Vol. 212 No. 13

Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on the Second Stage of the Education (Amendment) Bill 2012. Before I turn to a detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill, I will explain its background. As Senators may be aware, a previous edition of this Bill, the Education (Amendment) Bill 2010 was brought before the Dáil in October 2010 by my predecessor, Mary Coughlan. That Bill never passed Committee Stage and so never received attention from the 23rd Seanad. Upon becoming Minister for Education and Skills last March, I asked my Department to set about resurrecting that legislation with some changes. The Bill before the House thus carries on the most of the technical, housekeeping parts of the 2010 Bill, but also reflects the changed priorities of the current Government for our education system.

Perhaps the biggest change to the Bill before the House is that it no longer provides for the involvement of vocational education committees in the provision of primary education. As an Opposition Deputy in 2010, I was of the view that the manner in which the Department of Education and Skills introduced a new pilot form of community national school at primary level, while welcome, should only have been done following consideration of the matter by a forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary school sector.

One of my first acts as Minister for Education and Skills was to establish that forum and I expect that its final report and recommendations will be published shortly. However, the House may be aware that the advisory group to the forum on patronage presented its initial reflections last November and indicated that it is broadly supportive of the continuation of the community national school model. As a result, I believe it will be necessary to provide this patronage model with a statutory footing in the near future.

Separately, I have also commenced a major reform of the vocational education committees. My intention is to reduce the number of VEC committees from 33 to 16 and to reform them into what they actually are — local education and training boards. This reform will require separate legislation and provides an opportunity for the Oireachtas to pass one consolidated Bill dealing with every aspect of VEC education to replace nine VEC Bills and a host of statutory instruments. That will be a more appropriate place in which to put, on a statutory footing, the arrangements for the establishment and running of primary schools by the successors to VECs. It is the Government's intention to make progress in this regard before the end of the year.

The Education Amendment Bill 2012 provides for the amendment of the Education Act 1998 and the amendment of the Teaching Council Act 2001 in a number of education matters. These include: clarification on the delivery of speech therapy services to students; the abolition of the educational disadvantage committee; revised procedures for the appointment, suspension, dismissal and remuneration of teachers and other staff; arrangements for the employment, in certain exceptional and limited circumstances, of persons who are not registered teachers under the Teaching Council Act 2001; and provision for the Teaching Council to make regulations to apply certain conditions to the renewal of registration of teachers.

The Bill also provides for the repeal of the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Act 1997 and the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund (Amendment) Act 1998. These are all matters that require to be dealt with in primary legislation and I am pleased to be able to begin that process today.

Sections 1 to 3 of the Bill contain the standard provisions for the Short Title and collective citations, interpretation and expenses. Section 4 provides for three amendments to definitions contained in section 2(1) of the Education Act 1998. The definition of "educational disadvantage" is amended in section 4(a) as a result of the repeal of section 32 of the Education Act 1998 which is provided for in section 7 of the Bill. This section also provides for the substitution of the definition of “principal” to take account of the changes to appointment procedures proposed within this Bill. Section 4 also provides for the amendment of the definition of “support services” in section 7 of the Education Act 1998 in order to clarify the position on delivery of speech therapy services and other health and personal services to students of schoolgoing age. The Education Act 1998 lists the planning and co-ordination of support services, including speech therapy services, as a function of the Minister for Education and Science. While there is agreement at policy level that the HSE will continue to provide such services, the proposed amendments of the Education Act 1998 are necessary to clarify the position of the delivery of speech therapy services to students of schoolgoing age. The legislative framework will be regularised in accordance with the de facto position, which is that the provision of speech therapy services is a matter for the HSE. This position is already acknowledged by the Oireachtas through the provision of voted moneys to the HSE to deliver such services. The HSE provides health supports, including speech and language therapy and occupational therapy, for children. In some instances such therapy services are delivered in schools and the proposed amendment will not change the existing position. The proposed provisions will not impact on the availability of speech therapy services for children with special educational needs through the HSE.

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

Section 6 provides for a revised text of sections 23 and 24 of the Education Act 1998 which provided for the appointment, suspension, dismissal and payment of teachers, including principal teachers and other staff, in accordance with procedures put in place by the Minister following agreement with the education partners. By requiring agreement as distinct from consultation in respect of appointment, suspension and dismissal matters affecting teachers the existing legislation creates a significant obstacle to change. The Department's well established approach of consulting and, wherever possible, securing agreement with stakeholders for change will continue to be used and existing mechanisms will not be displaced. However, there are existing agreements on the suspension and dismissal of teachers that will continue to apply. It is necessary to retain a power to be used as an emergency measure where, despite our best efforts, agreement cannot be reached to ensure that change can be effected in the public interest. This is provided for by the new section 24(3).

The new section 24(5) of the Education Act provides for the redeployment of teachers and other school staff in accordance with redeployment procedures determined by the Minister of the day with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform following consultation with stakeholders. A person redeployed under these procedures will become an employee of the board of management or VEC to which he or she has been redeployed. While having fully efficient and effective teacher redeployment arrangements has always been an objective of the Department, it has assumed a critical dimension in the context of the EU-IMF framework. This is because of the ceiling on numbers under the employment control framework, ECF, and the imperative of staying within that limit. We also have obligations under the Croke Park agreement on redeployment. As with disciplinary matters, my policy is to reach agreement on redeployment matters. The power to determine should be an instrument of last resort. Ultimately, however, I need a measure that enables me to ensure that redeployment is not delayed or prevented in general or individual cases. The new provisions can make a positive contribution to ensuring that agreements can be reached with managers and patrons.

This section also makes provision for the employment, in certain exceptional and limited circumstances, of persons who are not registered teachers under the Teaching Council Act 2001. Since the economic crisis began employment for teachers has become increasingly difficult because of recruitment embargoes and changes to pupil-teacher ratios. This is especially the case for young teachers who have just graduated from teacher training colleges and who cannot secure full-time work. Last Easter, I spoke at the INTO annual conference in Sligo and I noted the concerns of many young teachers who took the view that retired or unqualified teachers were being recruited ahead of them. There is a widespread belief that this makes it harder for teachers, especially young teachers, to gain the necessary experience and that it contributes to high unemployment rates among newly qualified teachers.

Unlike the last Government, I listened to these concerns and reflected on them carefully. Last May, I announced new rules to ensure schools employ only appropriately qualified and registered teachers. For the first time, the Department has set out tight restrictions on the singularly limited circumstances in which it may be necessary to engage an unregistered person where otherwise a school would have to close or send pupils home. The new restrictions strike a balance between the interests of students, giving newly qualified unemployed teachers employment opportunities and meeting the short-term staffing needs of individual schools. The changes I have made will ensure that this happens and that there will be transparency for the school management and the Department to verify it. In this context, section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001, which has not yet been commenced, provides that only registered teachers can be remunerated out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Rather than amending section 30 of the Teaching Council Act which provides for the requirement for publicly paid teachers to be registered, this provision has been included in section 24 of the Education Act 1998 instead.

Section 24 of the 1998 Act deals with employment matters relating to teachers and is accordingly a more appropriate locus for this provision. While it remains my aim that all teachers in schools be registered with the council and therefore fully qualified, it is apparent that to commence section 30 as it stands would have a serious negative impact for a small number of schools in which, in specific circumstances, unqualified personnel are required in the short term. I doubt that anyone wishes to bring about a situation where legislation is overly cumbersome and forces schools to close unnecessarily. This situation may arise where, for example, a teacher falls ill in a small rural school and no registered teacher is available at short notice. In such a case provision must be made for the payment of the person acting in lieu of a teacher for a restricted period to prevent closure at little or no notice with the associated disruption for pupils and parents, especially since in many cases both parents are working outside the home. I emphasise that a balance must be struck between the interests of students, giving newly qualified unemployed teachers employment opportunities and meeting the short-term staffing needs of individual schools. The circular published last May and the changes contained in the Bill achieve this aim.

To date the use of unqualified personnel has been unregulated. The proposed amendment to the Education Act 1998 is necessary to allow the Minister for Education and Skills to regulate for the first time and in a measured way the use of unregistered personnel in exceptional and limited circumstances. The overarching aim of protecting the standards of education for students remains and the impact of this amendment is to strike a balance between the rights of students to be taught by registered teachers and the need for individual schools to deal with short-term difficulties.

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

Section 7 provides for the repeal of section 32 of the Education Act 1998 and thereby abolishes the educational disadvantage committee. That committee concluded its work in 2005 and is no longer required since the establishment of DEIS. The abolition of the committee was included in the budget of 2009 as a measure for the rationalisation of agencies. The absence of the EDC has not adversely impacted upon the Department's commitment to ongoing consultation on educational disadvantage and the wider social inclusion agenda. The implementation and evaluation of DEIS has been continuously supported by ongoing consultation with education partners and stakeholders. I should emphasise that educational disadvantage remains a priority for both the Government and the Department and we will continue to provide a structured and targeted approach to dealing with educational disadvantage.

Section 8 provides for a procedural amendment of section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 to cross reference the amendment of section 24 of the Education Act 1998 as provided for in section 6 of the Bill and as outlined earlier. Section 30 of the 2001 Act has not yet been commenced.

Section 9 provides for the amendment of section 33 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 to allow the Teaching Council to apply some level of conditionality on renewal of registration by teachers. This is an important development. As it stands, section 33 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 requires only that a registered teacher pay the requisite annual fee in order to maintain registration status. However, it is desirable to make provision for certain conditions to be fulfilled by registered teachers in order to renew their annual registration. The amendment to section 33 will allow the Teaching Council to make regulations to impose such conditions. Apart from conditions such as the form and manner in which an application for renewal is made and the documentary and other evidence required to be submitted with the application, the council may apply conditions such as the completion of programmes of continuing education and training and evidence of character, such as Garda clearance and teaching experience.

This amendment therefore provides for progression to a more robustly regulated profession and the furtherance of the objective of maintaining and improving teaching standards. As many Members of the Houses will be aware, such qualitative conditions are already the norm in other professions, and there is no reason the teaching profession should be any different. This amendment is an enabling one and before the council can make any such regulations, my consent, as Minister for Education and Skills, will be required. Should the Council propose regulations, they would be considered by my Department in light of their potential benefit to the education system, the burden that would be placed on individual teachers and resource implications.

Section 10 provides for the amendment of section 38 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 in order to clarify a function of the Teaching Council with regard to programmes of teacher education and training provided by institutions of higher education and training. Currently, section 38(a) states that “the Council shall, from time to time, (a) review and accredit programmes of teacher education and training”. This may be interpreted as requiring the council to accredit all of the programmes which it reviews. For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill contains a provision to allow the council to accredit programmes where it is appropriate to do so. The council reviews new programmes which are presented to it for first accreditation as well as existing programmes. A number of reviews of existing programmes have taken place.In all cases, the council has produced detailed reports, which include a number of recommendations aimed at improving the programmes of study in question. These have been accepted and are being acted upon by the providers in question. However, should the council determine that either a new programme or an existing one is not up to the high standard that is required of an initial teacher education programme, I want there to be no doubt that the council has the authority not to provide accreditation for that programme if that is the right thing to do.

Section 11 provides for the repeal of the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Act 1997 and the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund (Amendment) Act 1998 as the fund has now been fully spent and the provisions of the Acts are no longer required. The Acts are being repealed in order to end the requirement for the production of annual reports and accounts for a fund which is now defunct. The Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Act 1997 made financial resources available for the provision of education and vocational training in the fields of science and technology through a scientific and technological education investment fund. The fund was disbursed by the Department of Education and Skills over the years 1998 to 2010.

I look forward to listening to the views of Senators and further debate as the Bill progresses through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I commend the Bill to the House.

Senator Averil Power

I appreciate that much of the Bill before us is based on the Education (Amendment) Bill 2010. Certain aspects of the Bill are necessary and are welcome, particularly the areas relating to conditions for registration, reregistration, for giving the Teaching Council the powers it needs to ensure that pre-service is up to scratch and for addressing the deficit of which we are all aware and which we have discussed in the House on many occasions. The Bill will also embed a culture of continual improvement and ensure that people will take up all the opportunities available to keep their skills up to date and embrace new technologies throughout their careers. Other areas of the Bill make largely technical amendments, for example, the change in respect of the educational disadvantage committee.

I have concerns about some provisions of the Bill, although some of these may just require further clarification. The Bill was only published last week and we are discussing it today. It is good to get the opportunity to get more clarity on the issues and concerns both I and some of the education partners have. I hope the Minister can tell me there is no basis for our concerns and that they only arise due to lack of consultation.

On the provision related to unqualified teachers, I was disappointed to see this included. I appreciate there was a problem in the past, particularly in recent years, when extra resources were being put into schools and, due to the large numbers of permanent teachers being appointed, difficulties arose with acquiring trained substitutes. However, I am not convinced this is still an issue. If ever there was a time to implement section 30 of the Education Act, this is it. The Minister said that this applies to exceptional cases, like small schools here and there. I hope that when a teacher in one of those schools rings in at short notice, the children will be dispersed among the other classes in the school and that this will happen for a one or two-day absence. The children would be better off in that case than having somebody who is not a trained teacher come in to them. That time could then be used to find a qualified teacher. I have no doubt a qualified teacher could be found since we have so many young, trained primary teachers looking for employment. If a teacher does not turn up on Monday morning, I am sure a qualified teacher could be found for Tuesday, even if that person had to drive 50 or 60 miles to get there. I hope the Minister reviews this aspect of the Bill and fulfils his recent commitment to bring in section 30 unamended. I urge him to rethink this provision as it is not necessary in the current environment. It is regrettable in the current context that he is providing statutory recognition, for the first time, to unqualified personnel.

If there is an area where restrictions are needed, it relates to the use of retired teachers. I would rather see a retired teacher in the classroom than someone who is unqualified. However, there has been far too much recourse to rehiring retired teachers rather than hiring young teachers who are unemployed. Retired teachers have their pensions. The data in this regard are not clear, but there is significant anecdotal evidence that suggests schools are bringing back teachers who used to work in them years previously or who are friends of a teacher in the school, rather than making an extra effort and making the telephone calls to new teachers to give them a chance. We are considering tabling an amendment on Committee Stage to address that issue. I appreciate there is a circular on the issue, but if a provision is required in terms of restriction, I suggest that it should be to restrict the use of retired teachers and ensure every step is taken to give the job opportunity to someone who needs it.

On the issue of redeployment, I appreciate we need a system that works. However, I am concerned about what is meant by consultation. Management bodies have been in contact with me and other members in the past few days about what is meant by consultation, exasperated by the fact that the Bill landed on people's desks last week. They are concerned as they have not had an opportunity to think it through. When Second Stage concludes today I hope there will be a pause before Committee Stage in order that there is time for consultation. I suggest the partners be invited to appear before the joint committee on education in order that members from all sides can hear where they are coming from, tease it through and hear where the Minister is coming from and what is intended. I ask the Minister for an assurance that there will be a proper consultation process. As he rightly said, partnership is one of the key aspects of the education system and the system works better when we listen to each other in respect of the experience on the ground.

There is concern among some of the education partners about the change to support services and special needs. The Minister has clarified that was because it had fallen between two stools. The HSE has often used it as an excuse not to step up to the mark. When something is deleted, particularly in such a sensitive area, people need to be reassured that the HSE will step up to the mark and that will not mean even less accountability for the service.

Another issue raised at the meeting with the management bodies is whether the changes in respect of the redeployment scheme, and with the Department effectively designating rather than approving at a distance from the board of management, gives the Department a legal liability in future cases. I am not sure if that is an issue but I am raising it as something that may need to the thought through because there is a long established principle that the teacher is employed by the board of management. The question is whether a court will change that by saying one has to take this individual as opposed to the board of management having its say. I said I would raise the issue with the Minister today.

We have concerns about some aspects of the Bill. With more information and consultation these can be addressed. Fianna Fáil will not oppose the Bill on Second Stage but will table amendments on Committee Stage. I ask the Minister to rethink the aspect of unqualified teachers.

Senator Jim D’Arcy

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire chuig an Seanad arís. I thank the Minister for outlining the provisions in this complex Bill. I agree with much of what Senator Power has said in respect of what may be teased out in the debate on later Stages. In that context I shall refer to three or four issues, the first of which appears to be the imbedding of unqualified teachers into the system.

As a school principal for many years I know it is hard to get a qualified teacher on the spur of the moment. With the intention of being helpful, the Bill appears to imbed unqualified teachers in the system. Like Senator Power, I would prefer to have a retired teacher than an unqualified teacher within the school. However, there are pragmatic issues in regard to the employment of unqualified teachers and we have to find the balance.

On the issue of support services the amendment of the definition, in order to clarify the position in respect of the delivery of speech therapy services and other health and personal services, is of vital importance. The provisions will not impact on the availability of speech therapy services for children with special educational needs through the HSE. However, much work remains to be done to ensure the provision of services, such as speech and language and occupational vocational and behavioural therapy, are made available to children in a timely manner. I am concerned that nobody will be compelled to offer support services which the Department of Education and Skills declines to offer. Children with serious medical needs and none in schools could be left without assistance. While I applaud the excellent work carried out by the cross-sectoral team I suggest it may be time to investigate the viability of establishing a central co-ordinating agency for the provision of specialist services to school children, the objective being to have a centre of excellence in each region.

On the issue of teacher redeployment, there can be problems where the panel may not be cleared in a timely fashion, leading to a flurry of appointments after 1 September in some cases. That is an ongoing problem. To counterbalance that, boards of management consider they are losing the power to employ — as the Minister said — in emergency circumstances. Could these emergency circumstances be used not by the Minister or his Department but in the future by a not so discerning person to override boards of management and management authorities for the flimsiest of reasons and take on the role of effective employment appointment, thus diminishing the powers and responsibilities of boards of management? We have to strengthen the boards of management and get them to use their powers. That would improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools, which should be the ultimate aim in legislation. Some consider they are losing power and control. Specifically, in what circumstances would the emergency powers be used by the Department of Education and Skills to appoint staff to schools?

I wish to refer to the appointment of unqualified teachers in schools. This is a personal bugbear of mine — when provision was made in primary schools that teaching principals, in order to undertake administrative duties, would get 18 days off for four teacher schools or less and 22 days off in six teacher schools. That led to the appointment of many unqualified teachers and took the teacher out of the classroom for 22 days. This had a pernicious effect on the teaching and learning of pupils in the classroom and needs to be better regulated. Sometimes principals take the class that is moving into secondary schools. Would the Minister like his son or daughter to be without his or her class teacher for 22 days of the year? Teaching principals need time for administrative tasks. I estimate it costs at least €6,000 per annum to provide substitute teachers for a principal teacher. Surely there is a better approach to this issue.

I welcome the Bill and the Minister's zeal in seeking to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools. I have concerns, however, about a couple of issues which could eventually develop into the thin edge of the wedge for boards of management and schools.

Senator Mary Moran

I, too, welcome the Minister to the Seanad. As stated, the Education (Amendment) Bill was presented to the Dáil by the previous Government but did not receive a hearing in the previous Seanad.

On the housekeeping aspects of the Bill, I welcome the provision to abolish two quangos, the Educational Disadvantage Committee, which concluded its work in 2005, and the Scientific and Technological Education Investment Fund, which was established in 1997 and had expended its funds by 2010. While much valuable and worthwhile work was done by both quangos, their work has been completed and it makes sense to abolish them. The role of the Educational Disadvantage Committee has been assumed by DEIS, which will ensure the issue of educational disadvantage remains a Government priority.

As with Senator D'Arcy, I am a former teacher. When the Teaching Council introduced a requirement to register several years ago I received a letter asking me to list all my qualifications, including the results of every single examination I had taken while at university. While I fully respected and supported this requirement, many teachers asked the reason the council was seeking information on teachers' qualifications and requiring them to undergo Garda vetting when we had been teaching for more than 20 years in some cases.

I paid an annual subscription of €90 to the Teaching Council until May 2011. At one point, when I telephoned the council and asked what I was getting for the fee I was told I had to pay it to get a job. I indicated that as I already had a job I wanted some value for the €90 subscription. I welcome the changes proposed in this regard because teaching, like other professions, needs a statutory professional body. I look forward to the Teaching Council being given further powers as this will enable it to achieve much more.

Despite the circular issued by the Minister in May 2010 requiring schools to employ only appropriately qualified and registered teachers ahead of retired and unqualified teachers, many schools continue to employ retired teachers, including retired principals and deputy principals, to the detriment of newly qualified teachers. This issue must be addressed. I know of fantastic students of mine who have qualified and would make great teachers but cannot get a job. As Senator Power noted, friends of other teachers have been employed in some cases. Newly qualified teachers face a catch-22 scenario in that they cannot secure full-time employment without experience and they cannot gain experience until they secure a job. Having invested so much in our young people to give them a good education, we do not want them to emigrate. We must ensure we keep them here. For this reason, I welcome the changes the Minister proposes in this regard.

I will focus briefly on the section which deals with empowering the Teaching Council as a regulator. Currently, a teacher must merely pay a membership fee on an annual basis to be included in the register of teachers. I welcome the provision which enables the Teaching Council to request proof of continuous professional development for registration. This measure will bring the council into line with other professional regulators. It is a vital initiative because teachers need to keep in touch with their skills. Computers, which have become a prerequisite in teaching, did not feature in the classroom 30 years ago. Some teachers have not mastered the necessary skills. We must keep in touch with our young people.

As matters stand, a teacher could qualify with a higher diploma in education at the age of 22 years and teach a subject for the next 40 years without undertaking to participate in continuous professional development. In this fast-changing society in which technology and methodologies are progressing every year, attendance at in-service and professional courses should be mandatary if our standards of education are to keep pace with those of other European countries. I spoke previously about Ireland's track record among the OECD countries, which is not something to boast about. Studies of the education systems of other countries, for example, Finland, have shown that continuous professional development is at the heart of progressive education. While school principals are generally highly supportive of career development initiatives, they do not have the authority to insist a teacher attend a course. If a teacher decides not to attend an in-service course, a principal cannot take any action. To give an example, a recent in-service course in Gaeilge for second level teachers provided by An tSeirbhís Tacaíochta Dara Leibhéal don Ghaeilge, about which I spoke last week, had an attendance rate of 73%. The course, which relates to the new leaving certificate course, will increase the value of the oral examination to 40%. Why did the other 27% of teachers not attend and what knock-on effect will their failure to attend have on students taking the leaving certificate examination?

Unfortunately, evidence shows that some teachers never avail of the career development offered to them and there is no onus on them to do so at present. I welcome the proposed changes in the legislation in this respect. Making evidence of continuous professional development a requirement of registration with the Teaching Council is a positive step in improving standards of education and learning and thus improving the education of our young people.

I also welcome the plan to enable the Teaching Council to examine the accreditation for teacher education programmes. I hope that in the minority of cases, if there are any, where high standards are not being met the Teaching Council will have the power to refuse accreditation We must ensure that teachers who enter the teaching profession have been educated to the highest possible standards. I welcome the Minister's assurance that the Teaching Council will have the authority to review all teacher education programmes and ensure our student teachers are receiving the best possible preparation for their professional careers.

On the redeployment of teachers where they become surplus to the requirements of a school, I welcome the reform providing that consultation rather than agreement will have to take place with the Department of Education and Skills and the stakeholder. This will expedite the process of redeployment and ensure resources are used to the best possible advantage with due regard given the employment council framework and the Croke Park agreement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I welcome the Minister. I have great appreciation for his talents and ability but I have significant concerns about this legislation and advise him to gird himself because I foresee a long Committee Stage, assuming it is allowed by the Government and there is no guillotine.

I draw the Minister's attention to a booklet called, A Brief Guide To How Your Parliament Works. One of the advantages of having guests in Leinster House is that they sometimes draw our attention to things we should have perhaps seen ourselves. On the legislative process, there is a question on page 17 of the booklet that asks if there is any consultation with the public, to which the answer is:

Before a Bill is introduced, there will be consultation meetings and discussions with the Government Departments and groups likely to be affected by the Bill. Sometimes the Government will publish a Green Paper. This is a discussion document which sets out the Government's ideas and invites comment.

The Minister presented this Bill today as, in effect, a rehash of a Bill previously introduced but as he acknowledged, there are very significant changes in this one. This is, effectively, new legislation. The first thing one should observe here is that there has not been consultation with the various groups and education partners on it and I wonder why that is the case. My fear, to put it at its kindest, is that the Bill tends in a particular statist direction and has the potential to be applied in quite an ideological way.

The core issue in regard to redeployment is the departure from a notion of agreement towards a mere idea of consultation. This is what is proposed to be done. The Minister presented that in terms of expediting decisions, good administration and so on. However, the fact is that when we talk about education, we are talking about a very peculiar and particular type of service to people which has an important constitutional dimension. It is not like other services, such as the provision of water, policing and the like. The provision of education in Ireland is founded on the primacy of parents, in particular. The spirit of the education legislation to date has been that education is a matter on which important decisions are taken in partnership with patrons, trustees, management, unions and so on. That is a vitally important principle. Throughout this legislation, I see a departure from that principle and nowhere is it more obvious than on the issue of redeployment.

The Minister is well aware of, and there has been much discussion about, section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 which protects the rights of religious run institutions to take necessary employment decisions in order to protect their ethos. I am informed that section was required in that legislation lest it be unconstitutional. The Minister can take his own advice on that. By giving himself the powers he does on the issue of redeployment and by effectively proposing the ability of the Department to impose certain employment decisions on school managers in this way, he undermines the whole spirit of what section 37 proposes to guarantee. In the case of a Catholic school, there could be a person who is not suitable from the point of view of a Catholic school's employment. The person could have radical views on abortion or whatever. It might not be of concern to some other school employer but under this, it seems quite possible that a different view could hold sway.

It is not just a question of Catholic concerns. Church of Ireland schools rightly seek to employ and deploy within their panel. It seems that is undermined. Too often in our society such concerns are characterised as sectarian when, in fact, they are concerns for legitimate diversity in the provisions of education, according to the will of parents, faith communities and so on.

It is not just a question of concern to faith communities. For example, special schools could find themselves in a situation where somebody from a mainstream school is foisted on them, despite that person not being the most eligible or most suitable for that position. The Minister might say that would never happen and that the Department would always consult very carefully but last year there was a situation where the visiting teachers for Travellers, some of whom might not have had much, or any, experience of teaching in a school room, were effectively visited on certain special schools.

As nice as the word "consultation" sounds, it is not a patch on the word "agreement" because agreement requires that the State pull in its horns and respect the fact there are other bodies which deserve to have a strong input into the making of certain decisions. "Consultation" in that context is a very weak word. I stress again the peculiar constitutional context in which we are operating.

I note there is nothing in the legislation which provides for any consultation procedure. No definition of "redeployment" is offered. I cannot but conclude that this is, in effect, a grab for power for the Minister, his Department and his successors in a way which I do not believe is conducive to a genuine spirit of partnership in the making of important decisions about education. Other concerns have been expressed. In the new primacy of mere consultation over agreement, we see that the same applies in this Bill to decisions on suspension and dismissal.

I also have concerns on the particular needs of persons with disability. The operation of section 40 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 will change if this legislation goes through and the Minister will not have the function of requesting the assistance of relevant health authority in respect of planning, provision and co-ordination of support services. The Minister made the point that the HSE has the responsibility for providing services but the trouble is that if the HSE does not adequately provide, or does not provide these various special support services, including speech and language therapy, occupational therapy or whatever, adequately, is the duty on the Minister to ensure such services are provided weakened by what is in the legislation? I would welcome the Minister's answer to that question.

I am concerned about the amendment of the definition of "educational disadvantage" in the legislation. Section 4 amends section 32 of the Education Act 1998 which states that educational disadvantage means "the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools". Is there an issue here concerning children who are outside the school system? I could go on but I have said enough to indicate there are major concerns with this legislation. I propose to revisit these and other issues on Committee Stage, if I can.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I welcome the Minister and his officials. This is a fairly significant Bill. As I see it, it amends the Education Act 1988. It is not a small matter at all. The previous Minister, Mary Coughlan, introduced a Bill in 2010 but she did not bring it to the Seanad so this is our first chance to give it a good reading. I am really only in the process of fully understanding the whole thing but I will raise approximately five points with the Minister.

Some key areas are built into this Bill. Senator Mullen raised the issue of section 24(3). Under the section, boards of management will be consulted and it will no longer be necessary to reach agreement with them on the appointment and dismissal of teachers. This provision has created serious concerns. While I have no doubt the measure is intended in the best spirit and I accept the Minister may wish to acquire certain emergency powers, for example, in the case of a person who is blocking a panel and preventing a school from recruiting a teacher, the concern among the partners is that the Bill places the redeployment panel on a statutory footing and embeds it in legislation. The redeployment panel is already in place under the Croke Park agreement and, as such, teachers are protected. The fear, however, is that pupils are being overlooked. I ask the Minister to respond to allow me to tease out this issue.

Under section 15 of the Education Act, it is the responsibility of boards of management to deliver an appropriate education for each child. Members of boards believe that if the Minister chooses to impose teachers on their schools, rather than seeking agreement, as is the current position, the solution may not provide the right fit for the children of their school. I ask the Minister to clarify whether, in extreme circumstances, he will be able to decide which teacher is allocated to which school. Heretofore, such decisions were taken by agreement, which was a better arrangement. Why is this measure being introduced?

The primary concern among boards of management is that they are the employer whereas the Department of Education and Skills is the paymaster. This has always been a problem and in this case while the rights of boards of management as an employer are being diminished, their responsibilities remain intact. They fear their hands are being tied and cases may be taken to the High Court with the taxpayer footing the bill. I am keen to discover if this is the case. On a point of law, where would the ultimate responsibility reside if an appropriate education was not being delivered to the pupils of a school? As Senator Mullen noted, when a visiting teacher had to be redeployed last year the Department wrote to a school stating that it must employ a certain teacher. While I can accept this practice to some extent on the basis that visiting teachers are employed by the Department rather than specific schools, boards of management fear that this approach could become more widespread.

On unqualified teachers, given the battles we have all fought, it would be disingenuous and hypocritical of me to claim I could stand over any unqualified teacher entering the classroom. The Minister has said much the same thing. I ask the Minister to consider introducing an amendment on Committee Stage to implement a proposal I received from a school that he establish a unique panel to be used in exceptional circumstances where teachers cannot be found for schools in remote locations. The panel would then be deferred to provide an appropriate teacher, for example, in the case of a second level school which cannot find a teacher for a class. I was informed of a case where an honours engineering graduate was found for such a class. It would be possible to find high quality teachers if one had a panel with individuals on call. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal.

I am concerned about services for children with special needs. We are not sure who has ultimate responsibility in this area because the Health Service Executive has provided a highly inconsistent service across the country. The Minister indicated that speech therapy is not the responsibility of the HSE. Will he work with the executive to ensure speech therapy services are provided in schools or on the basis of clusters? Children are losing a significant amount of contact time because they are often required to leave school to avail of speech therapy? I had to deliver a child to the health board for speech therapy in the past, with the result that the child spent half a day outside the school.

The Minister indicated that DEIS and educational disadvantage remain a departmental priority. I am not convinced that is the case given the decision to confine the review of DEIS schools to urban areas only. As I informed the Minister this morning, unemployment in areas of Connemara stands at 80%. In some cases, children in DEIS schools have been able to get parents who cannot read excited about reading and scores are improving. DEIS has been wonderful. I ask the Minister to review his policy to find out what is working well.

I am pleased it has been decided to accredit teacher education programmes where it is appropriate to do so. It is good to review existing programmes. I also welcome the provision to increase the bachelor of education degree from three to four years. When will this take effect and when will the higher diploma in education be extended from 18 months to two years?

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I welcome the Minister who has taken an interest in education throughout his political career. I note the number of vocational education committees is to be reduced from 33 to 16 and commend the Minister for going further than the recommendation by an bord snip that it be reduced to 22.

One of the challenges facing Irish education is to reduce bureaucracy and spend resources in the classroom. I note an bord snip noted that if one divides the number of pupils by the number of teachers at primary level, the average class size would be 16 and if all adults on the payroll are included — I presume this refers to special needs assistants — the average class size would be 12. One regularly hears complaints from people outside the Houses and elsewhere about classes of 40 children. How is this possible if the ratio of pupils to teachers in primary schools is sufficient to produce an average class size of 16?

Senator Jim D'Arcy cited an example of teachers being out of the classroom for 22 days in a school year. I suspect the bureaucratisation of Irish education has resulted in teachers being promoted out of the job for which they trained and want to do and into another where they earn more money by sitting in an office. Speaking as a person who is involved in education, this approach must be questioned. The part of our work for which we were trained and which gives us the most satisfaction is being with students and pupils. Sometimes the Department must take responsibility for excessive bureaucratisation. We should try to reduce paperwork and bureaucracy.

I was somewhat taken aback when career guidance teachers protested about measures the Minister has taken that will result in them returning to the classroom. It was as if returning to the classroom was a form of torture, rather than the most important aspect of a teacher's career.

I question the need for the Higher Education Authority given that we have only seven universities. Could we not write seven cheques and deploy all available resources to provide education? We must use the recession to emphasise what takes place in the classroom rather than in boardrooms or bureaucracies.

I support any measure that will tackle the use of unqualified teachers in the classroom. The particular aspect of the lack of qualifications the Minister and Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, have tried to tackle is the lack of qualification in mathematics. I deplore the failure of a large number of schools to reply to a departmental questionnaire which asked whether their mathematics teachers were qualified to teach the subject. This appears to be a simple and straightforward question which should have been answered given that the Minister is the paymaster of schools. Some estimates from the Royal Irish Academy indicate that 80% of mathematics teaching at second level is done by people who do not have a qualification in the subject. As a member of a university board, I have tried to interest people in bringing together mathematics departments and departments teaching the higher diploma in education to try to tackle this problem. The solution of providing bonus points placed the onus on the student and did nothing to address the 80% of students who are being taught mathematics by an unqualified teacher. It gave a bonus to those who could afford grinds or were fortunate enough to attend a school with a qualified mathematics teacher.

The Royal Irish Academy has also noted a problem in respect of languages. Far too many language departments have been shut down in our universities in the surge towards being world leaders in science, technology and innovation. Speaking to people in foreign languages could do us more good. Addressing both the mathematics and foreign languages problem would not cost much money because both are low cost subjects compared with some of the other areas into which we have ventured. I will discuss these issues in greater detail on Committee Stage.

A series of reports which addressed the issue of education, including the Hunt report and various reports on the knowledge and innovation economy, were drawn up by groups which did not include a single person who worked in the classroom. It is strange that those who do the work have been deemed by the bureaucrat class to be not worth talking to while everyone outside the education system is deemed to be an expert.

I welcome the Minister's long-term interest in education and look forward to further debate. We must address the deployment of teachers and the issue of unqualified teachers. Some of the gloss, as the Minister noted, has gone off Irish education. We persuaded ourselves that we had one of the most advanced systems in the world. Part of this recession is realising there is an awful lot of work to do. I will support the Minister in any reforms in that regard.

Senator Aideen Hayden

I welcome the Minister. This Bill is about many things but it is also about enhancing service delivery and achieving cost savings. I recognise that some of the measures contained in it represent a significant departure from previous practice in that they require the Minister to put in place procedures to govern the appointment and dismissal of teachers after consultation rather than agreement with the various stakeholders, including the teacher unions. I accept this change is necessary to give effect to the Croke Park agreement. However, it is important to acknowledge that the power contained in this Bill is for the introduction of procedures. In setting out these procedures, I am sure the Minister will be guided by the wide body of legislation around employment law and current best practice in the area.

I note that during the debate on this topic in 2010, the Minister, in looking at the transfer of some of these powers to the VECs in terms of their part in primary school formation and takeovers, noticed that there was some transparency in regard to matters of ethos, so I am sure he will be concerned that ethos would be respected in any of the measures he is putting in place.

I welcome the measure introduced in this legislation to give statutory backing to the redeployment of teachers. Recent evidence from the CSO suggests that the population is on an upward trajectory and we need to have robust procedures in place to enable us to make the most of our educational resources. Over the past decade, because of the pressures in regard to the cost of housing, in particular, we have seen a very significant transfer of families from inner urban areas to outer suburban areas. That has placed enormous stress on the education system because of the lack of facilities in these outer suburban areas. We have two choices here. We can take the children from outer suburban areas and bring them into inner urban areas where teachers are deployed or we can take teachers from inner urban areas and redeploy them in outer suburban areas. What we require, however, is flexibility within the system.

We must also ensure teachers are available in the most disadvantaged areas and to the most vulnerable children. In 2005, an OECD study noted that there were concerns in most countries, including Ireland, about the inequitable distribution of teachers and, in particular, that students in disadvantaged areas did not have the quality of teaching they required. Our most disadvantaged children require our most serious commitment. In that respect, we must have the capacity to redeploy our resources to where they are most needed.

I refer to the provisions of the Bill. Section 7 relates to the employment of unregistered teachers. I agree this measure is of concern. However, given his previous statements on this matter, we must accept the Minister has given full consideration to it. If he regards it as a requirement that this facility be available and that employment of unregistered teachers is necessary in certain conditions, I accept his view. However, when it comes to prescribing the circumstances where an unregistered teacher may be employed, it must not be in a situation which could undermine the quality of teaching.

Given the number of unemployed qualified teachers, which has been mentioned by many colleagues, it would be very useful if the Minister could put in place a database of these unemployed qualified teachers and that such a database would be made available to every school in the country and to any principal who finds himself or herself in need of a short-term teacher. Given the concerns the Minister raised, I also suggest there is a need for a bias in giving teaching experience to young qualified teachers. Therefore, I suggest that database be set up with a view to giving young qualified teachers such an opportunity.

I welcome the provisions relating to continuing professional development education. As somebody who comes from the legal profession, I am familiar with the variable quality, to say the least, and the severe cost it can sometimes impose on professionals. Will the Minister ensure continuing professional development in the teaching profession is designed as a beacon of light to other professions?

I welcome the Minister's update on the forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary school sector. I notice that the initial reflections are supportive of the community national school model. I note the Minister raised concerns in 2010 about the potential democratic deficit of having the VECs take on the role of establishing and running community primary schools. Therefore, I ask him to ensure he takes into account the broadest possible democratic principles in terms of any recommendations from this forum.

Senator Kathryn Reilly

I welcome the Minister. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this Bill given that it is a very tough time for education in Ireland. I would like to make a few points on the legislation. In regard to more power being given to the Minister to decide on appointments and redeployments in the name of legal certainty and efficiency, my concern is around the nature of the new powers, which Senator Mullen mentioned earlier. Does this change in the Bill confer the Minister with discretionary powers to redeploy or dismiss teaching staff without adherence to the necessary safeguards in place to protect an individual's employment rights? As was mentioned earlier, it seems to weaken the roles of schools and other parties at the expense of the Minister. People have asked me what is the justification for this. Is there evidence that it will be more efficient or will it lead to disgruntled partners in the process?

Like Senator Mullen, I have queries about schools with varying ethos. What recourse will there be to veto the appointment of teachers who they believe to do not suit their ethos? In regard to gaelscoileanna, how will this affect the quality of Irish language teachers? Will that be guaranteed in those schools?

In regard to the renewal of the registration and the conditionality, it seems to be a positive step but I would like guarantees that there will not be any delays because of the new procedures involved. The recent experience of a constituent of mine of delays in registering which, in turn, meant delays in taking up a job she had been offered are a cause of concern for me in respect of this section as is the introduction of conditionality. The last thing we want is for young qualified teachers to be forced into a situation in which they cannot take up a job because their renewal is pending.

The Minister mentioned that the council may apply conditions such as continuing education and training, evidence of character and teaching experience. What steps will be taken to ensure the annual registration process is not too onerous on young unemployed teachers? For example, a young trained teacher might not get employment for a year or two years after his or her college training and might need to stay in other employment to keep afloat. How would he or she meet potential conditions such as continuing education and training or teaching experience if he or she has not been in a job since leaving college and perhaps a year or two years later is renewing his or her registration? Have the teacher unions been consulted on that part of the Bill?

What are the views of the teacher unions in regard to the employment of unregistered teachers? Many speakers spoke about unregistered teachers. Given that there are so many qualified teachers, how can there be cases of unregistered teachers? I would support substitute panels of people who are on-call or the type of substitute panel which Senator Healy Eames mentioned. If there are exceptional cases, could we not have plans B, C and D ready for that?

In regard to the abolition of the educational disadvantage committee, it made its final report in 2005 and has not convened since. In light of the abolition of that committee and given that the Combat Poverty Agency, which had a specific interest in educational disadvantage is no longer in existence, what procedures are in place to identify and monitor the needs of students who are educationally disadvantaged given that research confirms that it is widespread and that approximately 60% of disadvantaged students do not attend DEIS schools? What measures are in place for data collection on educational advantage, policy formation and stakeholder partnerships?

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

Tá lúcháir orm go bhfuil deis agam labhairt faoin mBille seo atá os comhair an tSeanaid inniu don Dara Léamh. Bille tábhachtach éó thaobh cúrsaí oideachais de, go háirithe i dtaca le múinteoirí, an fhoirm teagaisc agus an ról atá ag múinteoirí agus na deiseanna a bheidh ag múinteoirí post a fháil amach anseo. Tá cuid mhór cainte agus plé faoi láthair faoi seo.

As the Minister will be aware, there is currently much discussion in the educational sector about the many experienced and committed professional teachers who will be leaving the system in the coming weeks. It is important to ensure that those posts are replaced. In my own constituency, three out of four teachers in a school in the heart of a Gaeltacht area are taking the redundancy package at the end of February. Three teachers will be on panels to replace those fluent native Irish speakers. Because of the way the panel is structured, the principal must accept the person who is placed highest on the panel even though the individual may not have fluency in Irish and may not be able to perform their duties through the medium of Irish. Up to the end of June therefore that Gaeltacht school will face those difficulties. I ask the Minister to examine that situation.

As I mentioned on the Adjournment last week, retention figures for small schools and the staffing schedules involved are matters of concern in the education sector. As changes have been made to schools with 86 pupils or less, alarm bells are ringing in all such schools. We have 3,200 primary schools, some 47% of which have five teachers or less. All the international expertise shows that pupils in smaller schools gain educational advantage over those in larger establishments. As a public representative from rural Ireland, I would argue strongly that the cost savings to be achieved by closing or amalgamating schools — or by reducing teacher numbers — cannot be justified simply on the basis of efficiencies. While the McCarthy report may have recommended that the amalgamations would save €25 million, the Minister should forget about that. He should make a calculated decision to protect small schools in order that those children can continue to receive primary education in their own areas. As hundreds of millions of euro have been spent on upgrading small schools in recent years, it would be to the detriment of rural areas if such schools were forced to amalgamate now.

Following last week's Adjournment debate, I got a reply which said that no school will be closed by the Minister. In effect, however, the conditions being imposed on small schools will be so stringent, with the loss of teachers and resource teaching hours, that they will be forced to amalgamate. That is happening in the North of Ireland, which is worse than what the Minister is proposing. Any school with fewer than 105 pupils in the North of Ireland is facing the possibility of extinction. I know that because I have a number of relations teaching in schools in the North of Ireland. In fact, I have a cousin, to whom I spoke yesterday, who is principal of a school in the North of Ireland where they are very concerned by the cuts.

I appeal to the Minister to protect smaller schools here. I have received communications from teachers and teacher unions concerning the Bill before us. My colleague Senator Averil Power, who is the Fianna Fáil education spokesperson, has made these points also. I note that there will be consultation on the redeployment and dismissal of teachers, and that the Minister will be given greater power in this respect. However, that is a cause of great concern, particularly to younger teachers. If the Minister's policy proposal concerning schools with 86 pupils or less is to be implemented, younger teachers will inevitably be put onto panels. I hope the Minister will reverse that policy change but if not we will see many younger teachers being forced onto panels. If the Croke Park agreement is amended or torn up, their future will be in limbo.

I have spoken to many younger teachers who are concerned about section 6 of the Bill. I ask the Minister to take those concerns into consideration. We will have an opportunity to table amendments on Committee Stage, on which Senator Averil Power is working. Section 6 is one of the most worrying parts of the legislation.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify why the education disadvantage committee, which has been in existence since 2005, is being abolished. I know that time is limited and I thank my county colleague, Senator Harte, for being lenient with me. I am sure we will have more time to debate the Bill in greater detail on Committee Stage. Education is at a crossroads and that is particularly the case for small, rural schools. We must protect the teachers who work in them.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jimmy Harte)

The Chair has no county, but I appreciate the Senator's contribution.

Senator David Norris

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, to the House. He is an unusually good choice for this portfolio and I know he will do well in it. There have been some difficulties concerning free third level fees and I know that a former Labour Party Minister introduced them. However, I always thought that was an ugly, oxymoronic phrase; either education is free or one pays fees. It is as simple as that. I knew it was inevitable that fees would be paid in universities. My view was that the battle should be between the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Finance, in order that the level of means-testing would be set at a point where people who were disadvantaged and had talent to go university should be able to do so. I did not receive much positive comment back from my constituency on that matter but I told the truth. I always try to tell the truth.

I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his speech, but I was attending the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which was dealing with the important subject of Haiti. In Haiti, some 4,000 schools were destroyed by the earthquake in 2010. In addition, half the population under 18 have not even received a primary education. Compared to that, we are in an extraordinarily good position here. We have a fine tradition of schools, no matter what the material resources were. We can be justly proud of our educational system, although it goes through changes which can be painful. The schools were established by the British imperial authorities in the early 19th century and have gone through a series of — to a certain degree — sectarian managerial and patronage control. I welcome the Minister's honesty and courage in addressing this issue.

I also pay tribute to Archbishop Martin who has shown himself to be practical, realistic and flexible in this area. My own church, the Church of Ireland, has shown similar resistance to what it sees as secularisation. As a believing Christian, I think it is largely the responsibility of parents to provide the ethos, while schools provide background facts about religious history, the literary impact and all these kind of things. It is the responsibility primarily of parents. I was slightly taken aback to hear an attempted defence by Senator Mullen of the sections in the equality legislation that fail to protect certain sections of society. That was also done by a Labour Party Minister, Mervyn Taylor, but it was a practical inevitability at the time. It was regrettable and Joe O'Toole and I argued against it. I would not wish to do Senator Mullen an injustice and think I am correcting him when he said that the ethos should be respected and that certain teachers were not suitable because of their strong views on issues such as abortion. One must be very careful there because it is perfectly possible for a teacher to have strong views on any subject, ranging from Palestine, Israel, abortion, homosexuality and pornography, but not necessarily inflict them on students. If they retain these as their private views, there is no justification for dismissing them. I hope the Government will address that and those sections of equality legislation need to be addressed in order to assuage the genuine fears of teachers, including gay teachers. I was astonished to hear my esteemed colleague from Sinn Féin, Senator Reilly, support Senator Mullen. I recommend her to look at the Eileen Flynn case and the elements involved. It was a question of her lifestyle, which was apparently outside the social norms, and also the republican connections that were cited. I wonder if Sinn Féin would be happy with the idea that people could be kicked out of a job because they were "Shinners". I hope that view will be examined again.

This was also regarded as a grab for power but the Minister for Education and Skills should have certain powers. He devolves that power under section 6 that was impugned by some of my colleagues. The section seems a valuable and appropriate contribution to the development of education, giving responsibility to principals. It also sets out an educational ethos, not a sectarian ethos, for the educational advancement of young people.

The Minister referred to speech therapy, which I hope will be protected. A number of years ago I raised a matter on the Adjournment concerning the parents of two autistic children who lost the services of a speech therapist because they moved district in Dublin. Autistic children do not just stop improving, they go backwards.

Disadvantage has been taken in under the DEIS programme and I hope it will be vigorous in pursuing the issue. Even though I do not come from the wonderful County Donegal, the Larkin school and Marlborough Street, where the wonderful Breaking the Cycle project was introduced, are in my area. We must have this basis. The first doctor, lawyer, teacher and Deputy from these areas, rather than those involved in drugs, will become role models

The increase in the demand for education was dramatically illustrated last night. Senator Barrett will agree with me. When I was in Trinity College, Dublin the total staff, teaching and student body was 3,000; it is now 20,000. That feeds in from the greater education in our schools. Although we are slipping at the top end, in 17 areas of scientific research in Trinity College, Dublin we are in the top 1%. We can be proud of that but we need a base and, with this Bill, the Minister is providing it. It may need some modification but I do not share the views of some of my other colleagues.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jimmy Harte)

Senator Norris is always welcome in Donegal.

Senator David Norris

I have been there on a number of occasions and hope to revisit.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I thank the Senators who have contributed and for the broad support for the Bill. Some people were familiar with it in another time. As Senator Fidelma Healy Eames said, it is the first time this House has debated the Bill. It is a short Bill that embraces some fundamental points of education. As Senator Power said, the measures are largely technical and I will deal generally with the issues that arose, including deployment and qualified teachers.

Regarding deployment, the employment control framework is one of the concomitant consequences of the loss of economic sovereignty. We do not have control over the numbers employed in our public services. The memorandum of understanding and the negotiations with the troika oblige us to reduce expenditure on our current account, because we are spending €19 billion more on services than we are taking in taxes, which is twice the entire budget of the Department of Education and Skills. We must get there in two ways, one of which is by reducing public service numbers. The role of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and line Departments such as the Department of Education and Skills involves strict guidelines and control mechanisms. Specifically, where a teacher becomes supernumerary to a school for whatever reason and is on a panel, the person must be redeployed before we can hire a new student teacher who has qualified from the teacher training colleges. I can come back to this issue in detail on Committee Stage. Last year there was a large redeployment project. I was there for the latter part of it and it was handled exceptionally well. The concerns expressed by a number of people about being redeployed against their will or inappropriately allocated to different schools, did not materialise. We can get into the detail of that when we talk about it, when I will be better prepared to provide Senators with chapter and verse.

Senator Mullen expressed concerns about that area, which has history. There was a High Court case that did not proceed but we must have a certain degree of give and take. The ethos of the school is particularly important for all concerned but there are some aspects of the curriculum to which the schools, which receive public money, have signed up to. The teaching of geography is something that is not influenced by ethos, religious belief, other belief or sexual orientation. We must be selective in how we examine these measures in terms of the precise role of the teacher in a particular school.

Regarding section 30 and the Teaching Council, the most important element in this legislation enables section 30 to come into effect. This will enable the teaching profession to go fully professional in the same sense as lawyers, medical practitioners and architects. In order to practise as a teacher, lawyer, medic or architect, one must be registered in the profession and one must reregister on an annual basis. Senator Moran pointed out that previously there was merely an obligation to pay €90 and one was registered. There was no obligation to verify that one had maintained continual professional development and was in the process of renewal. We must all do this and in politics we call it an election but the professions do not necessarily see it in that way. The Teaching Council, the CPD requirements, the conditionality that now applies as a consequence of this legislation will enable teachers to do what many right-wing commentators say, which is that if there is a bad teacher, one cannot get rid of him or her. It is a frequent dinner party topic of conversation among people who have little or no contact with schools in recent times. Just like bad lawyers and bad doctors, the profession is probably the best to regulate its own affairs at this point in time. The Teaching Council currently has a majority of teachers, as the Medical Council at one stage had a majority of medical professionals. There will be an organic move towards a balance of professionals and lay people. This measure will enable the Teaching Council, which is dominated by teachers, to ensure it will exercise, with the knowledge of the system, the necessary disciplinary powers that are required to the point where a registered teacher would be deprived of the validity to practice as a teacher and not be able to teach in a State-funded school. If that sanction, after due process and natural law, is exercised it will send a signal, as it is intended to do, to every other person in the profession. That is to be welcomed. When we get into the detail of that we can look at how it has to be applied.

Senator Mary Moran welcomed the abolition of quangos, as she called them. Senator Ó Domhnaill referred to the EDC. It was stood down in 2005 when DEIS band 1 and band 2 were introduced. DEIS effectively replaced two other well intentioned but ad hoc schemes that did not have the same basis of scientific analysis and assessment as DEIS ones. There are anomalies in the allocation of resources to schools that need them.

The question of unqualified teachers being hired has vexed this debate and was to the fore in the teachers conferences I attended, particularly the INTO in Sligo last year. Unqualified teachers are not hired by aliens or people from Mars. They are hired by principals in schools, in many cases. One has to look at the way in which unqualified or retired teachers are hired. The entire profession, not just the Department of Education and Skills, including boards of management has to have regard to this issue.

There is a comfort factor in having somebody down the road whose abilities one knows, who can be called in easily to help and who knows the school and landscape. We would all gravitate towards that situation, which needs to be recognised and understood. It is not fair for people who are trying to work on probation. A Senator made the point that one cannot get a job if one does not have experience and if one does not have experience one is caught in a catch-22 situation. We have to break that.

There is now a requirement for schools to publish the identity of a substitute person and we can develop that. I made the point in my Second Stage opening remarks that if there is a choice to be made by the management of the school — frequently this involves small schools — between closing a school for a day and sending all the children home, perhaps to an empty house because both parents might be out working, something that was not the case 20 or 30 years ago, that is more irresponsible then keeping them with an unqualified or retired person. We are trying to move from the current situation to a point where, in certain circumstances, principals can, for a period of time specified in the legislation, take in somebody. They will have to account for that and we can examine how that is implemented.

Let us be very clear. The reason we have had to modify the application of section 30 of the Teaching Council legislation is precisely because of a very important piece that is unaltered in the legislation. Under the current legislation before the Bill is enacted, anybody who is hired by the State to teach in a school will not be paid if he or she is not qualified. Oireachtas moneys cannot be used to pay an unqualified teacher. I can confirm that on Committee Stage when we discuss the provision.

As the provision is so absolute there has to be an emergency clause. Some day a system will break down and special circumstances must be taken account of. A school should not be faced with a choice between sending children home or, as somebody suggested, bundling up children in different classrooms. There could be health and safety and all sorts of other problems.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

We used to do that all the time.

Acting Chairman (Senator Feargal Quinn)

The Minister to continue, without interruption.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It may have been done but it is not regarded as very good practice.

I have dealt with the High Court case and the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. I have a note on redeployment, which states:

We already have an agreed redeployment scheme at second level which worked well in 2011. A previous version of the second level redeployment scheme was the subject of a High Court case in which the then AG's office advised that there was a fundamental strategic weakness in the department having to secure agreement with all parties to effect change in relation to certain terms and conditions of employment of teachers.

This is a response to that legal observation and we are trying to have consultation.

The record of consultation between the Department of Education and Skills and stakeholders in education is there for people to examine. Anybody who has taken time to look at the ongoing engagement in consultation with the stakeholders in education would realise the Department is the last to rush into a summary decision, having had perfunctory consultation. As long as I am Minister there will not be a change in that direction. The fears that can be read from the black and white of a statement, that says an agreement gave people, in effect, a veto on consultation that could simply be window-dressing, will not be realised. There will be real consultation because it is not in the interests of the Department to provoke a reaction of that kind by simply going through the motions of consultation and not being sincere.

Senator Healy Eames referred to redeployment, deployment, the role of patron bodies, unqualified teachers, special needs services and the HSE. This Bill is tightening the legislation. There was a lacuna between the Department of Health, and subsequently the HSE, in the delivery of services and that interface with the Department of Education and Skills and schools. The clarification in the Bill is based on the experience the Department has had.

Senator Barrett made a number of points. I remind him the HEA now caters for more than just seven universities. It may come as a surprise but there are 13 institutes of technology and a number of other institutions that come within its ambit. It started out with just seven universities. I know some elements of the universities are not happy about having to cross the River Liffey and deal with Marlborough Street. Until the 1960s they were funded by the Department of Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach. A certain Mr. Whitaker, who is much admired by everybody in this House, decided to send the responsibility for universities to the then Department of Education with the marvellous administrative resource of one assistant principal, a certain Mr. Dukes who is the father of the current Mr. Dukes we know of.

A question was asked about community national schools and primary schools. There was consolidated legislation before a committee today to establish new local education and training boards legislation which, inter alia, involves the consolidation of nine pieces of primary legislation and a host of statutory instruments. Given the power of the VECs, now to be known as the local education and training boards, to have the possibility to operate as patrons of what are known as community national schools, the legislation should be properly vested in that comprehensive legislation. It was in the original draft of the Bill when it was before the Dáil. It was retrospective, because in response to a demographic crisis schools were set up on an ad hoc basis with the Minister for Education and Skills being the patron. Initially the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Martin, was the patron of one school because of this demographic crisis. It was a temporary measure to retrospectively provide some legal basis but from a legislative point of view it is better to have it where it properly belongs, that is, within the framework of the local education and training boards. We will return to that debate and question. In the context of what was raised, the report on the forum on pluralism and patronage is virtually complete but has yet to be brought to the Government. It will be brought to it in a matter of weeks. When it is published, there will be a possibility that this House or the Dáil could consider having a debate thereon. It will require considerable discussion by all the relevant stakeholders.

The Senator referred to a database of qualified teachers. We are moving in that direction. A circular issued in May 2011 stated schools are required to maintain a list of available registered teachers. Senator Reilly, who is no longer present, expressed similar concerns over redeployment, and these have been addressed.

Senator Ó Domhnaill referred to having a panel. Where recent arrivals on the panel have a more fluent command of Irish than some others, it gives rise to an issue concerning both the quality of Irish teaching in Gaeltacht schools and the rights of redeployed teachers.

Questions were asked on small rural schools. This is not a problem that Ireland has. Last Monday, I participated in a discussion with the heads of the inspectorates from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and our own head inspector, Dr. Harold Hislop. Countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia are dealing with similar issues. We have a statutory obligation to deliver education across the country, irrespective of geography or the population base, but it must be quality education. The world has changed. As Professor John Coolahan has written in his history of Irish education, there were at one stage over 6,000 primary schools. The system is 181 years old this year. There has been change in so many aspects of life that rural schools cannot be considered to be insulated therefrom.

No school closes because a teacher is lost. From the data I have seen, I note the factor that will, in the majority of cases, reduce the number of teachers in a school is falling enrolment. I accept that the thresholds that I started to increase will possibly accelerate that.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

It will exacerbate it.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

However, if it is accelerating something that will happen in any case, why not——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Let them decide.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

They will decide. When a school loses a teacher, the school does not necessarily close. The teacher does not lose his or her job, and this is why we had the debate on deployment. We need, however, to ascertain how we can achieve the delivery of a quality primary education system in parts of the country where the populations have changed, for reasons we all understand. We must determine how we can maintain standards and use new methods of communication and transport. We must examine what other countries are doing in this regard.

In the next six to eight weeks, we will have the value for money report on small schools. It covers just under 600 schools, each with a student population of 50 or fewer. Much work is being done on it. We might have an informed debate when it is published.

On the changes that are to take place, if they do take place, I am told nine out of ten schools will not be affected by the measures next September. There is an appeal process for small schools. When they receive their allocations of teachers in the coming three or four weeks, they will then be able to appeal to the Department specifying how the allocations affect them. There are precedents such that one can say the potential student population in a given area is greater than the Department is estimating. We can now verify that. As I stated on another occasion in this House, the Department has an electronic geographical information system that tracks the child benefit payment, both by age and location, right across the country. We can, as a consequence, determine the potential demand for education. It would not make sense, knowing what is likely to happen over the next three or four years, to make an intervention based on a dip in a given year that would cause the kind of disruption in question.

These are matters we will examine, but we cannot ignore facts on the ground. These facts are that the population is changing in some areas and that we must respond to that change.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Every year matters for a small community.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It does. If one is trying to deliver equality of educational outcomes, ranging from a school with two teachers teaching six pupils each to one——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

No one is talking about that.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

That is what we have; that is the threshold. It is 12 for the second teacher. Consider the spectrum beginning with a primary school of that scale and ending with one such as the one I opened recently just outside Naas, which has 700 pupils, including young preschool, crèche and special needs children. Trying to deliver the same curriculum to the latter school, with its required number of teachers and resources, and to some of the smaller schools is difficult, even in good or flaithiúlach times. We are not in flaithiúlach times — quite the contrary — and we must, therefore, be open to considering changes.

I thank the Senators for their responses and look forward to Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.