Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Sub-Committee on Education and Skills díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Mar 2015

Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Committee Stage

The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative basis for the role of the Teaching Council and for the forthcoming arrangements for the vetting of registered teachers to empower the Teaching Council to seek and obtain vetting disclosures as a registration body and to clarify and strengthen the statutory provisions relating to the Teaching Council's fitness to teach function.

I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and her officials to the meeting. If anybody has a mobile telephone, I ask them to either turn it off or put it on to flight mode.

If the committee is agreeable, we will conclude consideration of Committee Stage of the Bill this morning. Is that agreed? Agreed. I refer members to the list showing the grouping of amendments for this debate. All amendments not grouped will be discussed individually.

Before we proceed to discussion of the Bill, I wish to inform the Minister that before this meeting we discussed correspondence from the ASTI regarding a court case that has just finished on which a judgment has been made. The ASTI thought this Bill should be deferred as a result. I understand the Minister informed the ASTI she did not consider there was a need for that. Would she like to say anything about that now?

I would like to make some comments on that. My officials had meetings with representatives of unions on this issue and we have taken legal advice. The specific issue in regard to the Corbally case concerns public hearings and what matters should be brought to a public hearing.

I indicated on Second Stage that I intended to bring forward an amendment on having hearings in public being the default position. That amendment is not being submitted today on Committee Stage but my intention is to bring it forward at a later stage in the Seanad. The Bill will then return to the Dáil. That is the substantive issue that is of concern with regard to the court case. It is not the subject of an amendment today.

There are matters with respect to which I am considering amendments but which are not included today. With the Chairman's permission and with respect to the committee, I will briefly mention what these are. The amendments are largely technical changes or amendments designed to bring further coherence to the overall approaches to registration, fitness to teach and vetting throughout the Bill. I intend that these will be progressed on Committee Stage in the Seanad. However, the committee will recall that prior to and during the Second Stage debate, I also indicated my intention to provide for the conduct of disciplinary hearings in public, and that I would bring forward these amendments at a later stage. It has not been possible to finalise the draft provisions in time for the committee's consideration of the Bill today. I remain committed to the inclusion of this provision and I intend to bring forward amendments in the Seanad to give effect to this policy. We have to allow sufficient time to seek and consider legal advice and the views expressed by stakeholders, including the stakeholders referred to by the Deputy, as well as the views outlined in the House on Second Stage. My officials have briefed the teaching unions and the Teaching Council in this respect.

Having taken cognisance of the relevant issues and in light of the legal advice, the approach I plan to take is as follows. Mirroring recent legislation for other professional regulators, specifically the nursing and midwifery board and the Medical Council, I intend to provide that fitness to teach hearings will be held in public as a default position but that on the request of a witness and where the witness can show reasonable and sufficient cause to the disciplinary committee of the Teaching Council, some or all of the hearings may be held in private. This approach can cater for long-standing principles of natural justice, such as those espoused in the European Convention on Human Rights. I also plan to include express provision that the registrant who is the subject of the hearing is entitled to be represented at the hearing and will be furnished in advance with information about evidence in support of the complaint.

As well as the conduct of hearings in public, I will also provide for the publication by the council of the outcome of disciplinary hearings where it is in the public interest to do so and the notification of findings against a teacher to regulators outside the State where appropriate. Again, this is in keeping with the arrangements applying to other professional regulators, and the legal provisions will be similar to those which already exist. I am advised and am satisfied that this approach can cater for the types of issues that have been raised in respect of individuals' rights, such as the safeguarding of minors or vulnerable adults, the protection of private lives and privacy concerning medical fitness. The disciplinary committee will have sufficient discretion to determine when privacy should be employed, including anonymising where it is considered appropriate. We have a series of steps before any case would come to a public hearing.

The disciplinary committee is largely the body that will make those judgments as to what is severe enough to go to public hearing. It is also important to be aware that no case will proceed to a hearing without having gone through several screening stages that are designed to weed out less serious complaints that would not merit a full disciplinary inquiry. Following completion of Committee Stage, my Department will also be proofing the Bill, as amended, and if any technical corrections are required, the necessary amendments will be introduced on Report Stage. I hope this provides some clarity on the issues raised.

I am a little confused by the Minister's comments. On the one hand, she is proposing that the default position is that a public inquiry would be held but she also indicates that there are many hoops to be gone through before getting to a public hearing. I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by teachers, particularly in Ireland, which is such a small place. That is one of the points that has been made. Having a default position where complaints are heard in a public hearing, when the potential for very damaging complaints that may not really have substance, could tarnish the reputation of a teacher or vulnerable children who are put in the limelight when they really should not be. That is quite problematic and for the protection of both teachers and children, if there is acknowledgement of the need to screen complaints, why should there be a default position of a public hearing? On a case-by-case basis, as unions and the Teaching Council have indicated, there may be good reason for something to go public. That should surely be considered on a case-by-case basis if we are going to be sensitive to all the concerns about people's reputations and potential damage. This should be examined on a case-by-case basis to decide whether it is appropriate for such issues to be in the public domain.

Are there no examples in other professions where this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis?

The two examples in Ireland are the nursing and midwifery board and the Medical Council. In those cases, hearings are by default held in public unless there is a specific reason for them not to be in public. This is really about giving confidence to the teaching profession, as well as the public, in following that model. The earlier investigations are about ensuring they are appropriate to go to full hearing. I presume there will be cases where there would not be sufficient evidence to suggest that there should not be full hearings. The model we propose is that by default a hearing would be public but it would have gone through a process to clarify whether the action is appropriate for a hearing. A judgment can be made that it would not be appropriate to have the hearing in public and then it would be held in private.

In reaching this decision, has the Department examined comparable practices in other countries or guidelines on what has worked in other countries? These issues must be dealt with in every country and I am sure various practices, guidelines and perspectives have been drawn up in other areas. Have the officials looked at those on a comparative basis?

We can presume the Dáil and committees operate in public but there are some circumstances where they may not. If too much discretion is allowed, a body might not do its business in public because it can pick and choose its issues. If we presume the operations are public, justice will be done in public.

Yes, although teaching is not like politics or midwifery. In the midwifery area, people have either complied with the proper medical procedure or they have not. It is reasonable where there is negligence or professional misconduct, or an allegation of same, for the hearing to occur in public. Teaching is different. We are a small country so although international comparisons have some relevance, we need to be specific about this country.

We are a very small country and if mud is thrown it can stick and follow one around in a serious way, even if there is no basis to the mud.

The relationship between teachers and students is different. Various conflicts can occur between teachers and students on both sides, and people may simply not get on. There should not be a default position whereby disputes, many of which could have that sort of character and do not involve professional misconduct or unsuitability to teach, or which could be just the product of vulnerable children being upset or whatever, which are serious matters that need to be dealt with, are put before a type of public star chamber. That is problematic.

Is the Deputy asking about examples? In Scotland, for example, which is a neighbouring country of similar size of population, the arrangements are for public hearings. We can give the Deputy other examples and come back to him in regard to the position-----

I do not want to go into that. It is not an amendment before the committee today.

It is not, and we do have the exact wording yet.

We know the views of various people here and there are a lot of amendments to be dealt with so if members are happy, we will start to deal with the amendments.

It is important that I get the views of the committee, which I appreciate.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“ ‘Garda Central Vetting Unit’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2012;”.

This is a technical amendment to insert a definition of the Garda central vetting unit in the principal Act. This definition being inserted corresponds with the definition used in the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5

I move amendment No. 2.

In page 5, line 26, to delete “Act 2015” and substitute “Act 2015)”.

This amendment is necessary to correct a typographical omission in the published Bill by inserting a missing closing bracket after the term "Act 2015".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6

Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Clare Daly. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett is substituting for Deputy Daly.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, line 18, after “Oireachtas” to insert “and shall be immediately informed of this”.

In fact this is my amendment in the name of Deputy Daly. The point of the amendment is that, as I have been informed, if someone is not registered or is removed or suspended from the register of the Teaching Council he or she is not paid, and teachers often do not know this. They are working for weeks and they do not know that they have not been paid and that they are not registered. They discover many weeks afterwards that they have not got paid because they were not registered or they had been removed from the register for some reason. While it is reasonable that they should not be paid, they should be informed immediately that this is about to happen to allow them remedy the situation if it is simply an omission that they should have registered, but it is not fair if people are not being paid and discover after the fact that it is because they are not on the register. It seems reasonable that there should be a requirement to inform the teacher. Ideally, when the decision is made that their pay will be stopped they should be told immediately that is the case.

I share the concern but all concerns should not find their way into legislation. There are other ways to solve these issues.

It is happening-----

-----but putting it into law does not make that much of a difference.

It does if it is a requirement to inform them.

I believe it can be dealt with just-----

We might be able to deal with the issue without putting it into the Bill. Deputy Conaghan is right on that point. I appreciate Deputy Boyd Barrett's concern but there is already provision in regard to informing people that they are not on the register. I will explain it in more detail.

Section 30 of the 2001 Act provides that a person who is employed as a teacher in a recognised school shall not, subject to certain limited exceptions, be paid from Oireachtas funds where he or she is not a registered teacher or where he or she stands removed or suspended from the register. A substantial communication campaign took place in preparation for the commencement of section 30 of the Act, which was commenced last year, so that all teachers would be well aware of the requirement to be registered and the implications of non-registration.

While it appears that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that a teacher's salary would not be discontinued without that teacher being informed, there are appropriate provisions elsewhere within the Bill that address this issue. Requirements in regard to the council notifying teachers of decisions made in respect of initial registration, renewal of registration and in regard to fitness to teach inquiries are already in place. Under the amended Act teachers will therefore be notified of decisions regarding their registration status, including any decision to remove or suspend registration which impacts on payment of salary. However, as the Teaching Council is not directly involved with teachers' employment or payment, the council would not be in a position to notify teachers of changes to payment in accordance with the amended proposal. For those reasons I do not consider that the amendment is appropriate in section 30.

There is already provision that teachers will be notified if they are not on the register or if they are removed from the register. The implication of that is that they will not be paid. There was an information campaign when that section was brought into place. We cannot force the Teaching Council to tell people they will not be paid because the Teaching Council does not pay them. They are paid from a different source but if there is a need to in some way further communicate, I would be very happy to take up the intention of the amendment. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to put it into the legislation.

I was told this by a teacher. I will go back before Report Stage and report what the Minister said, but I was informed that this does happen and it clearly is unfair. Whatever is in place now is not adequate from the account I was given. I do not understand why it is a problem for the Teaching Council. Even though it does not pay people I do not see why it is a big deal to ask the Teaching Council to inform people that they are not on the register and if they are not on the register they should know they will not be paid.

It does not matter that it is not the body that pays them. It should simply be a piece of information that it passes on to them.

It does, and should, give them the information that they are not on the register, and the implication should be drawn by the teacher that they will not be paid. However, the Teaching Council cannot tell somebody that they will not be paid because it does not pay them.

It can inform them that the legislation means they will not be paid. It could say, "You are not registered and the consequence of that, according to legislation, is that you will not be paid". Why can the Teaching Council not tell them that?

It is not its responsibility to do so. However, I will take up the intent of it and make sure the procedures are clear enough, so teachers know exactly what the outcome is if they are not on the register.

What currently happens when a teacher whose registration is not up to date becomes employed in a school? As Deputy Boyd Barrett pointed out, this has happened on a number of occasions. The teachers have been teaching for a few weeks and it is only when the pay cheque does not come through on pay day that they realise their registration is not up to date and that they are not liable to be paid for the period they have already worked in the school. How can there be a situation that a teacher whose registration is not valid, because he or she has not paid, can commence work and be working, yet the school has not checked that or the teacher, for whatever reason, would not be aware of the fact that his or her registration is not up to date? Surely there could be some means, in legislation or otherwise, whereby a better checking mechanism is put in place to ensure the school verifies that the teacher's registration is up to date and that it will be in a position to pay them. What is happening is a sign that the schools are not checking that a teacher's registration is valid and up to date, and I would have thought that would have been a requirement when somebody starts a job.

Perhaps we should remind schools of their duty not to employ anybody who is not a registered teacher. They are not supposed to employ anybody who is not a registered teacher. If there is an information gap, I will be happy to fill it. The Deputies are obviously referring to specific cases they are aware of, but I do not believe it is appropriate to include this in the primary legislation.

I will return to it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 26, to delete “fit and proper” and substitute “qualified”.

This section deals with the fitness of teachers to teach and be admitted to the register. The concern raised in the amendment is that the term "fit and proper" is too subjective and is open to abuse or a subjective interpretation which is too wide. Obviously, one wants people to be fit and proper in the sense one would generally understand that, but that phraseology is too subjective. It is the type of phrase that could allow the parish priest to say somebody is not fit and proper, for example. The proposal is that we be a little more specific about what we mean by fit and proper and remove that subjective phraseology. What we want them to be, I presume, is qualified and vetted according to the legislation. The vetting ensures that they are fit and proper. If the Minister wishes to state there are other criteria that should be deployed in deciding what is fit and proper, that is fair enough but the obvious ones are that they would be properly qualified to do the job and that they would be vetted according to the legislation. However, fit and proper is too subjective.

I support Deputy Boyd Barrett on that. The phrase "fit and proper" has other connotations rather than qualified and vetted, so I support the amendment.

It is precisely because of the vetting aspect that the phrase "fit and proper" is used. The Teaching Council will make the decision, not a parish priest. The Teaching Council will decide whether somebody is fit and proper.

I gave it as an example.

That is unless there is a parish priest on the Teaching Council.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 involve replacing the term "fit and proper" person with "qualified" person. The Bill's provisions relating to the council being satisfied that an applicant for registration is a fit and proper person to be registered enable the council to consider, before registering a person, whether that person is a suitable person to be registered, including whether that person is a suitable person from a child protection perspective. A key aim of this Bill is to make Garda vetting an integral part of initial teacher registration and to ensure that any person who is not a suitable person to be registered, including where a person poses a risk to children or vulnerable persons, shall not be registered as a teacher in the first instance. The effect of amendments Nos. 4 and 6 would be to remove the capacity of the council to assess a Garda vetting disclosure for this purpose. If amendments Nos. 4 and 6 were accepted, the council would be able to assess a Garda vetting disclosure only for the purposes of determining if a person was qualified to be admitted to the register. This is clearly not the intended purpose of a vetting disclosure. The proposed amendments run contrary to the intention of the relevant provisions amending section 31 and the overall child protection aims of the Bill.

Regarding whether a person is qualified to be registered, the Bill already makes separate provision relating to the council setting out requirements in respect of the qualifications that a person must have attained in order to be registered. I therefore do not accept amendments Nos. 4 and 6.

My amendment No. 5 is necessary to correct references inadvertently used in this provision of the published Bill to a registered teacher applying for a renewal of registration under this section. As section 7 amends section 31 of the principal Act and is concerned with applications for initial registration, this amendment now correctly refers to a person applying for registration under this section.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 7, the effect of which is to re-state in the provision in question a requirement for vetting that is already in place in the Bill. Section 7 already amends section 31 of the principal Act to provide that the Teaching Council shall not register a person unless the council has received and considered a vetting disclosure in respect of that person. Accordingly, I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to make this amendment.

The council, as a body, will develop its own procedures and guidelines setting out the manner in which an assessment will be carried out. That was one of the Deputy's concerns, that there would be guidelines as to how the council would assess whether a person is fit and proper.

I take the point. That is the reason I make reference in amendment No. 7 to the national vetting bureau in the legislation. My aim is to try to ensure that how "fit and proper" is defined by the council in making its decisions is not open to some type of over-subjective viewpoint. I take the point that qualification is only one dimension. The other dimension, as the Minister says, is that they have been properly vetted according to the legislation and are fit and proper. Perhaps I must look again at exactly where I should insert the amendment to make that point, or perhaps the Minister would look at it, and ensure we do not have that subjective phraseology whereby a subjective judgment could be made.

It should be more specific and state that what we mean by fit and proper is qualified and vetted according to the legislation.

Under the current non-statutory vetting arrangements, the Teaching Council has published its procedures for assessing evidence of character in vetting disclosures. It might be useful to have a look at that. That would give the Deputy an idea of the kind of guidelines they intend to operate under the legislation when it is completed. That will also be published. It would give a picture of what considerations are taken into account in dealing with the vetting process and how the council decides whether someone who is currently being vetted is appropriate to be registered.

Those guidelines are not on a statutory footing, so they could change at any point.

Yes, they are guidelines. However, in legislation one must put some language in to describe what one is looking for.

Is there any definition of "fit and proper"?

Not in this Bill.

Would it not be an idea to define it in the Bill?

I do not know if one can give a legal definition of "fit and proper", because it is a judgment on each case as to whether-----

That is the point. That is why there is a need to define it.

Does it have precedents in other legislation? Would any other council, such as the Medical Council, use similar terminology?

Vetting is widespread, as the Chair knows, for the protection of children. I presume in all cases somebody makes an assessment as to whether a person is appropriate to work with children in whatever capacity. I am sure there would be many precedents for how those decisions are made. The primary concern is to protect children. Everybody here would agree with that. I can see if I can get the Deputy specifics on that. It would certainly be worth his while looking at the guidelines as they are currently operated in the non-statutory process.

I have made the point, and I will not labour it. That should be defined in the Bill. The Minister should consider that because it is very subjective. It is a reasonable term to use, but it must be defined. Otherwise people-----

I do not know if one can define it.

I think we just have and I am inviting the Minister to say whether there is any other dimension to it. We agree here that "fit and proper" means qualified and vetted according to the legislation. There is the definition. The definition of "fit and proper"-----

Obviously, one has to assess the disclosure and decide whether that person is appropriate to teach.

We can say that too.

Is the Deputy going to withdraw the amendment and then look at it again on the next Stage?

Yes. I have made the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, to delete lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following:

“ “(5A) The Council may seek a vetting disclosure in respect of a person applying for registration under this section.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11

Amendments Nos. 8, 10 to 14, inclusive, and 23 are drafting amendments and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 9, line 15, to delete “that a person is a fit and proper person” and substitute “that a registered teacher is a fit and proper person”.

These are minor wording amendments to provide for consistency of language throughout section 11 by using the term "registered teacher" rather than "person" in the relevant provisions amending section 33 of the principal Act. Section 33 of the principal Act is concerned with applications by registered teachers for renewal of registration and it is therefore more appropriate to refer to "registered teachers" in this section. Amendments Nos. 10 and 23 are also concerned with ensuring consistency of language in the Bill. In these cases, references to "the teacher" are being replaced with references to "that teacher" for consistency with similar provisions in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 9, to delete lines 34 to 40, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 12 and substitute the following:

“ “(4A) (a) The Council may seek a vetting disclosure in respect of a registered teacher for the purposes of renewing the registration of the teacher in accordance with this section.

(b) The Council shall notify a registered teacher in writing where the Council intends to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of the registered teacher under paragraph (a) and the notice shall—

(i) request the registered teacher to provide the Council with a declaration of consent (within the meaning of the Act of 2012) and any other information specified in the notice which is required by the Council to enable it to obtain a vetting disclosure in respect of that teacher,

(ii) specify the time period within which the registered teacher shall comply with a request under subparagraph (i) and the form and manner in which the information requested under that subparagraph shall be furnished,

(iii) advise the registered teacher that the Council intends to consider the vetting disclosure for the purpose of determining if he or she is a fit and proper person, in accordance with subsection (4D), to have his or her registration renewed upon his or her next renewal under this section,

(iv) advise the registered teacher that the Council shall refuse to renew the registration of that teacher under this section if he or she fails to comply with the request under subparagraph (i) within the time period specified under subparagraph (ii) and the Council has not been in a position to make a determination as set out in subparagraph (iii), and

(v) advise the registered teacher that the Council may, having regard to the information contained in the vetting disclosure, where it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, apply to the High Court under section 47 for an order that during the period specified in the order his or her registration shall be suspended.

(c) A notice issued under paragraph (b) shall be issued—

(i) not earlier than 10 months prior to the date of expiration of the period of validity of registration of that teacher, or

(ii) within such lesser period as the Minister may direct in respect of all notifications made to registered teachers under that paragraph.

(d) Where a registered teacher receives a notice from the Council under paragraph (b), the registered teacher shall comply with the notice within the period specified in the notice and the period for compliance specified in the notice shall be the same in respect of all registered teachers to whom a notice is issued in accordance with this subsection.”.

Section 11 of the published Bill amends section 33 of the principal Act and provides that the council may seek a vetting disclosure for the purpose of renewal of registration. It also puts in place requirements in relation to the council notifying the teacher concerns where the council intends to seek a vetting disclosure for that purpose. It is important to note that under the Bill not all registered teachers will be vetted each year. Rather, section 11 of the Bill allows the council to plan and undertake such vetting in a structured and phased manner and sets out what the council will have regard to when considering whether to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of a teacher for renewal of his or her registration. In that regard, this section will enable the council to prioritise the vetting of those teachers who were never vetted under the non-statutory arrangements, to subsequently address those who have been vetted under the existing non-statutory arrangements but who have not been vetted under the new statutory vetting arrangements and to provide thereafter for periodic revetting of all registered teachers to be undertaken on an ongoing basis. It also makes provision for the council to notify the teacher in good time where it intends to seek a vetting disclosure as part of renewal.

On review of the published Bill, I considered that the obligations on the council in terms of notifying the teacher where it intends to seek a disclosure as part of the renewal process should be set out in a clearer manner. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to ensure that in circumstances where the council intends to seek a disclosure for the purposes of renewing the registration of a teacher under section 33, the written notice to the teacher of this intention must also formally request the teacher to comply with the vetting requirement, specify the form and manner by which the teacher can do so, set out why the vetting disclosure is being requested and what it may be used for, and inform the teacher of the obligation under the Act to comply with this vetting request and the consequences for the teacher should he or she fail to comply with such a request. This amendment ensures that those teachers who are being vetted for renewal of registration purposes receive adequate and timely notification in this regard.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, line 23, to delete “the teacher” and substitute “that teacher”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 10, line 41, to delete “a person” and substitute “a registered teacher”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 10, line 42, to delete “that the person is” and substitute “that the registered teacher is”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 11, line 3, to delete “the person” and substitute “the registered teacher”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 13, in the name of the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 14

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, line 4, to delete “that person” and substitute “that registered teacher”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, to delete lines 32 to 41, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:

“(b) shall refuse to renew the registration of the registered teacher where—

(i) the Council having notified a registered teacher in accordance with subsection (4A)(b), the registered teacher fails to comply with the notice within the time specified in that notice and the Council has not been in a position to determine if that registered teacher is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed, or

(ii) the Council receives a vetting disclosure in respect of a registered teacher under this section and is not satisfied, in accordance with subsection (4D), that the registered teacher is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed,

or

(c) may renew the registration of a registered teacher subject to such conditions (if any) as the Council considers appropriate and such conditions shall be complied with within such period as may be specified by the Council.”,”.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the wording of the provision in section 11 which provides for the council to refuse renewal of registration where a person has not complied with a vetting request or where the council, having sought a vetting disclosure for renewal of registration, is not satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed. The substituted provision involves some minor rewording to make clear that where the council refuses renewal of registration for non-compliance with a vetting requirement the council must have notified the teacher of that requirement for vetting in accordance with the notification requirement of the Bill.

The amendment also involves some re-wording of the provision to make clear that where the council refuses to renew registration on the basis that having received a vetting disclosure it is not satisfied that a person is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed, the council must have reached that decision having considered that vetting disclosure in accordance with the Bill’s provisions for assessing vetting disclosures obtained for the purposes of renewal of registration. These involve providing the teacher with an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the vetting disclosure and also preclude the council from considering specified information contained in a disclosure where that information relates to conduct which occurred prior to the coming into operation of this section and where that conduct would not have constituted a criminal offence at the time it occurred. This amendment more clearly sets out the requirement for the council in respect of making a decision to refuse renewal of registration in the circumstances specified in the Bill. It also amends the Bill to provide that where the council renews a teacher’s registration subject to conditions a time limit may be set by the council within which such conditions are to be fulfilled. It is logical that there should be a timeline for conditions to be complied with but the time limit provision was absent from the published Bill.

In respect of a reference to the council’s code of conduct, “that he or she has engaged in conduct contrary to a code of professional conduct established by the Council under section 7(2)(b);” there is an ongoing dispute between the Minister and the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, ASTI, about junior certificate reform. A concern was expressed to me that one can be de-registered on the basis of some of these provisions and that in the code of conduct there is a requirement to adhere to the policy of the Department of Education and Skills. Does that mean one could be denied registration if, as a teacher, one refused to implement the Minister’s policy of junior certificate reform in respect of the controversy about independent marking and teachers marking their own students?

Absolutely not. I give the Deputy a clear assurance this is nothing to do with such issues. It concerns fitness to teach in respect of the various elements of the Bill involving vetting procedures.

If, in the course of an industrial dispute between the Minister and the teachers about policy changes teachers refuse to implement some of those policy changes, as part of a legitimate industrial dispute, there will be no question of this legislation being used to de-register them.

No. The job of the Teaching Council is to decide whether somebody is appropriate and fit to teach. It is not to interfere in any way and I would not want to interfere in any way. It is absolutely nothing to do with industrial disputes or issues involving junior cycle reform. I give my absolute assurance on that.

My point is about the code of conduct. Under section 15-----

The Deputy is referring to section 15. We are discussing amendment No. 15 which relates to section 11.

I was reading section 15 of the Bill. I apologise.

One way or another an industrial dispute would not be a reason to consider someone to be unsuitable as a teacher. I would like to make that clear, irrespective of which section is involved.

I take the Minister's word on that but there is a reference in section 15 to compliance with the code of conduct. In that code, which is not in the Bill, there is a requirement to adhere to the policy of the Department of Education and Skills. Therefore, if teachers engaged in industrial dispute and did not comply with the Department’s policy that code could be invoked as a reason not to register that person.

We have not yet come to that section. Perhaps I can respond to the point when we come to the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 12, to delete line 4 and substitute the following:

“(f) in subsection (8)—

(i) by the substitution of “certificate” for “notice” in each place it occurs, and

(ii) by the substitution of “under subsection (11)” for “under subsection (7)”,

and”.

These amendments provide for consistency with the wording used in section 31 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 by making provision for the council to issue to a registered teacher a certificate, as opposed to a notice of registration, upon renewal of registration. As a consequence of this provision some updating of other references to notices and cross-referencing within section 33 is also required. The overall effect of these amendments is that the council will, when renewal of registration has been completed, issue to the registered teacher a certificate of registration

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 12, to delete line 26 and substitute the following:

“appropriate.

(11) When renewal of registration has been completed the Council shall issue to the registered teacher a certificate of registration in such form and manner and containing such information as the Council may prescribe.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 18:

Renewal of registration subject to conditions

12. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 33:

Renewal of registration subject to conditions

33A. (1) (a) Where the renewal of registration of a registered teacher is subject to conditions to be complied with within a specified period under section 33(7)(c), the registered teacher may apply in writing to the Council, within the specified period, for an extension of that period.

(b) Any extension of the specified period shall be at the discretion of the Council.

(2) Where a registered teacher fails to comply with the conditions referred to in subsection (1) within the specified period or any extension of the specified period under that subsection, he or she shall be removed from the register.

(3) Where a registered teacher fails to comply with any condition imposed under section 33(10)(b), he or she shall be removed from the register.”.”.

In some cases the council may decide that a teacher may have his or her registration renewed subject to conditions within a certain timeframe. This amendment provides that a teacher may seek an extension of the timeframe set by the council to comply with these conditions. Such an extension may be granted at the council’s discretion. Where the teacher fails to comply with conditions set by the council or the High Court, if applicable, this amendment provides that the teacher shall be removed from the register. Similar provisions are already in the 2001 Act and in operation, relating to conditions set at initial registration. As conditions may now be set on renewal the same requirement arises to allow a teacher to apply for an extension where it has not been possible to fulfil the conditions within the initial timeframe. The amendment is to allow a teacher have extra time should he or she request it.

Is this where a teacher is temporarily removed?

This is where a condition is set and the teacher is temporarily removed and must comply with certain things to get back on the register.

Is it clear that is the meaning of the term?

Is the Deputy speaking about the word "temporary"?

The wording in the Bill is: “that teacher’s registration stands renewed subject to the condition for such portion of the period for compliance". It relates to where extra time is given to comply and the teacher wants more time.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 30 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 13, line 23, to delete "section 42" and substitute "section 42 (as so amended)".

These are drafting amendments to ensure that cross-references in the Bill to various sections of the 2001 Act which are also being amended by this Bill correctly refer to those sections as now amended by this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 13, line 34, to delete "section 42" and substitute "section 42 (as so amended)".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 15, to delete lines 2 to 20 and substitute the following:

"(1D) The Council may make a complaint to the Investigating Committee in respect of a registered teacher in relation to information, other than in relation to specified information in respect of the registered teacher which relates to conduct of that registered teacher which occurred prior to the coming into operation of this Part where the conduct would not have constituted a criminal offence at the time the conduct occurred, contained in a vetting disclosure received by the Council on behalf of another relevant organisation the Council represents for the purpose of vetting procedures under the Act of 2012 on the grounds that that information is of such a nature as to reasonably give rise to a bona fide concern that the teacher may—

(a) harm any child or vulnerable person,

(b) cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed,

(c) put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm,

(d) attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, or

(e) incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.".

The Bill provides that the council may make a complaint under Part V of the Act on the grounds that the information in a disclosure which it has received in its conduit role for schools and ETBs gives rise to a bona fide concern that the teacher may harm, attempt to harm or cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed or incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person. The Bill, however, precludes the council from making such a complaint in respect of specified information in a disclosure which relates to conduct that occurred prior to Part V of the Act becoming operational where that conduct would not have constituted an offence at the time it occurred. The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarity in the wording used in this provision to ensure that the wording of the provision does not also preclude the council from making a complaint in relation to other information in such a disclosure, perhaps criminal records or other specified information, which gives rise to a bona fide concern that the teacher may harm, attempt to harm or cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed or incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 15, to delete lines 38 and 39 and substitute the following:

"(I) by the substitution of "may refuse to refer a complaint" for "shall refuse an application", and".

This amendment aims to ensure that the director is not obliged to refuse a complaint that does not satisfy certain requirements but has discretion on whether to refuse the complaint or refer it to the investigating committee. The current provision, in accordance with section 43 of the principal Act, requires that the director shall refuse to refer a complaint to the investigating committee where the complaint is not made in writing, signed by the complainant or accompanied by such documents and information as may be relevant to the complaint or where the director considers that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, is made in bad faith or is an abuse of process. It is considered more suitable for the director to have discretion based on the information available to him or her in relation to each individual complaint to refer the complaint to the investigating committee and not to have to refuse it in all cases. For example, a complainant may not be able to satisfy the requirement to include documents relevant to the complaint if the complainant is not aware of or in possession of such documents. This measure aims to ensure that bona fide complaints may be referred to the investigating committee as appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, line 35, to delete "inform the" and substitute "inform that".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 17, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(f) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):

"(4A) Where an appeal is made by a complainant under subsection (4) within the time specified in that subsection, the Investigating Committee shall review the decision of the Director which is the subject of the appeal and either—

(a) uphold that decision, or

(b) quash that decision and proceed to hold an inquiry in respect of that complaint under subsection (5)(a).",".

The 2001 Act provides that the director of the council, where he or she refuses to refer a complaint to the investigating committee, will inform the person making the complaint of that decision and the reasons for it within 21 days. It also provides that the person may appeal the decision to the investigating committee and that where such an appeal has been made the complaint will proceed to the investigating committee stage. However, it is more appropriate that, where the director's decision to refuse the complaint has been appealed, the investigating committee would consider in the first instance whether it agrees with that decision, rather than proceeding to investigating committee stage. Accordingly, this amendment makes provisions where such an appeal has been made for the investigating committee to review the decision of the director not to refer the complaint to the investigating committee and to either uphold that decision or to quash the decision and then proceed to hold an inquiry in respect of that complaint.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 17, to delete lines 7 to 13 and substitute the following:

"(i) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a):

"(a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Investigating Committee shall hold an inquiry into the fitness to teach of a registered teacher in respect of each complaint—

(i) referred to it by the Director under subsection (3)(a), or

(ii) to which subsection (4A)(b) applies.",

and

(ii) in paragraph (b)—

(I) by the substitution of "a complaint" for "an application or appeal", and

(II) by the substitution of "the complaint" for "the application or appeal" in each place it occurs,".

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are technical amendments consequent to amendment No. 24. As a result of amendment No. 24, it is necessary to amend section 15(f) and (g) of the Bill to reflect the provision in amendment No. 24 for the investigating committee to hold an inquiry or not where a complaint is referred to the committee on appeal of the director's decision to refuse the complaint. The amendments remove the references to the investigating committee holding an inquiry in respect of an appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 17, to delete line 15 and substitute the following:

"(i) "a complaint" for "an application or an appeal", and".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 18, line 8, to delete "the Council may not consider" and substitute "the Investigating Committee may not consider".

This is a technical amendment. The intention of the proposed section 42(7C) as inserted by section 15(i) of the Bill is to provide that where the investigating committee has obtained the vetting disclosure it may not consider specified information in that disclosure where that specified information relates to conduct that occurred prior to the coming into operation of Part V unless the conduct concerned would have constituted an offence at the time the conduct occurred. Amendment No. 27 corrects an error in this provision of the published Bill whereby reference was made to the council rather than the investigating committee in this context. The provision in section 43 of the principal Act is that where, following an inquiry by a panel of the disciplinary committee, the panel dismissed a complaint, the disciplinary committee informs the complainant.

Amendment No. 28 explicitly provides for the more appropriate situation that where a complaint is dismissed it is the director, as secretary to the disciplinary committee, who advises the complainant on its behalf. It is considered appropriate that, for clarity, such explicit provision should be made consistent with the other sections of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

There may be other references in the Bill to the same idea but it states in this section that "A person (including the Council) may make a complaint to the Investigating Committee in relation to a registered teacher, and the Committee may consider the complaint, where that complaint concerns any of the following matters in relation to the registered teacher". There then follows a series of cases, one of which is "that he or she has engaged in conduct contrary to a code of professional conduct established by the Council under section 7(2)(b)". I am reassured and, more to the point, teachers will be reassured by the Minister's earlier assurances that she would never dream of invoking any of this in the context of an industrial dispute but I wonder if there are legal grounds on which some other Minister might invoke this provision. If teachers were engaged in a legitimate industrial dispute could a Minister have the teachers deregistered because they were not doing as he or she had told them?

It refers to the code of conduct of the council, not the Minister, who is not in any way involved in this.

The Bill refers to grounds against which a person can complain against a teacher and request that he or she is deregistered. The Minister said she would not do this but another, nastier, Minister might deregister a teacher for being in breach of the code of conduct on the grounds that the law justifies it.

The council makes the decision, not the Minister, and it would be quite extraordinary if the council agreed to deregister a teacher in this context. When it receives a complaint, the council has to make decisions on the basis of its own codes and its own requirements.

I am talking about if somebody made a complaint that a teacher was in breach of the code.

In the context of a disagreement with the Minister in an industrial dispute it would be extraordinary.

Who can make a complaint?

It would seem unusual that a Minister could make a complaint.

Anybody can make a complaint.

The council has to decide immediately whether it is a relevant complaint and it goes through the processes we spoke about earlier in terms of the investigating committee.

Perhaps the Minister does not understand my point. If the code says that one must comply with departmental policy, which it does, and somebody then complains and says by refusing to implement the junior certificate reform a person does not comply with departmental policy, according to the Bill that could be a basis on which one could request the deregistration of an individual. It is in the law.

That is not feasible at all in my opinion in terms of how the council would operate.

Obviously that would be the case with such a benign Minister as Deputy O'Sullivan, but it is possible legally. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody might well do that.

If the Deputy requires further reassurance on the matter I will return to it on Report Stage, but as far as I am concerned that is completely off-side from the purposes of the legislation we are dealing with.

The Minister is aware of unintended consequences.

I agree that we do not want unintended consequences but this is about ensuring teachers are fit to teach and that children are protected.

I know it is, but it is amazing how people can sometimes construe the law for their own purposes.

I will return to it on Report Stage but I think Deputy Boyd Barrett's fears are entirely unfounded no matter who is the Minister for Education and Skills.

I am just being scrupulous in my scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 21, lines 13 and 14, to delete all words from and including “and” in line 13 down to and including line 14 and substitute the following:

“(ii) by the substitution of “the Director” for “the Disciplinary Committee”, and

(iii) in paragraph (a), by the substitution of “the complainant” for “the applicant”.”.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 23, line 28, to delete “and” and substitute the following:

“(c) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph 5:

and”.

This amendment inserts a new provision in Schedule 3 of the Act to make clear that a disciplinary panel, which is considering a complaint that has been referred to it by the investigating committee may also, where the committee had sought a vetting disclosure in respect of that complaint, consider that disclosure for the purpose of the panel's inquiry into the complaint. It provides that the panel may consider the disclosure in the same manner as the investigating committee may consider it. The panel is therefore similarly precluded from considering specified information contained in the disclosure where that information relates to conduct which occurred prior to the coming into operation of Part 5 of the Act and where that conduct would not have constituted a criminal offence at the time it occurred.

Where a vetting disclosure had not previously been requested by the investigating committee, this amendment also makes provision to allow the disciplinary panel itself to request a vetting disclosure if it considers that the complaint gives rise to a bona fide harm concern. Where the panel requests such a disclosure the amendment provides for the teacher concerned to be provided with a copy of the disclosure and to be invited to make written submissions to the panel in respect of that disclosure. It requires the disciplinary panel to consider information in such a disclosure only in so far as it related to the conduct which is the subject of the complaint and it precludes the panel from considering specified information contained in a disclosure where that information relates to conduct which occurred prior to the coming into operation of this section and where that conduct would not have constituted a criminal offence at the time it occurred. This amendment is necessary to ensure that there is a lawful basis for a vetting disclosure obtained by the investigating committee to be provided to and considered by the disciplinary panel appointed to deal with that complaint and to allow the panel itself to request a vetting disclosure where one had not previously been obtained and where the panel considers that the complaint gives rise to a bona fide harm concern.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 24, to delete lines 9 to 11 and substitute the following:

“(i) by the substitution of “sections 32, 34, 35 or 45 (amended by the Teaching Council (Amendment) Act 2015)” for “sections 34 or 35”, and”.

NEW SECTION

Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 24, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 29 of Education Act 1998

22. Section 29(1) of the Education Act 1998 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (d):

“(e) makes a decision which a parent or guardian of the affected student, or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student, considers is unfair, disproportionate or otherwise not in the best interest of the student,”.”.

This amendment seeks to deal with instances in which a decision of a board of management can be appealed to the Department of Education and Skills. We are amending the Education Act in significant ways as part of the Bill under discussion. I accept the amendment does not directly relate to the establishment of the Teaching Council but it is important that the issue would be considered. I wish to broaden the avenues available to parents and students who are not satisfied with how a board of management deals with a particular complaint or issue. At the moment under section 9 of the Education Act the only instances in which an appeal can be made to the Secretary General of the Department relate primarily to enrolment issues and also to issues of suspension or expulsion of a student from a school. Where a parent of a child is dissatisfied with how a board of management deals with any other issue no avenue of appeal is open to them outside of a court application.

Often, in the past when people contacted the Department on the matter they were referred to the Ombudsman for Children. However, that office is restricted in handling complaints made to it to the process by which the complaint was dealt with as opposed to the content of a complaint. That is something which needs to be addressed. It is a role in which the Department, as the overseeing body for education and the setting of education policy, needs to become involved. In addition, the Department is the primary funding body for education. We need the Department to provide avenues for appeals to be made to it where a family or a young person aged over 18 feel they have been treated disproportionately or unfairly or a decision has been made by a board of management which is not in their best interests and where there is no provision for an appeal in that regard to another body.

The issue relating to sections 28 and 29 must be addressed but it is not appropriate to this legislation. I will introduce further legislation in the near future. Section 28 of the Education Act 1998 provides for grievance and appeal procedures in schools. It expresses a desirability of determining appeals and resolving grievances in the schools concerned. I am not satisfied that the current provisions of section 28, which was of its time, and I plan to revise it in order to provide in law for a charter. There is a commitment to introduce a charter for parents and learners. The Deputy will be aware that changes to the Education Act 1998 will be necessary to provide for and support the introduction of a parents and learners charter, and that I am already considering amendments to sections 28 and 29 of the Education Act in that context.

The 1998 Act does not provide a cohesive approach to enhancing the manner in which parents and students are served by schools. With that in mind, a set of principles will be required to act as the foundation of a charter to strengthen the relationship between parents, students and schools and the position of parents and students generally within the school system. Therefore, discussion on the matter proposed by the Deputy is premature at this time. The Deputy will have an opportunity to have his proposals considered and debated in due course when amendments to sections 28 and 29 of the Education Act are progressed further. I intend to do that before the summer. There will be more appropriate legislation where we will be able to look at the issues in totality.

Is that the admissions Bill?

Yes, I refer to the admissions to schools Bill. We hope to publish it by the end of April.

On the basis that the Minister does not wish the matter to be addressed in this Bill, I will not press the amendment on this occasion but the matter is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.

We move now to amendment No. 32 which is in the name of Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, for whom Deputy Ferris is substituting.

NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 24, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Review of operation of Act

23. 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 not later than two years after this section comes into operation a review of the operation of the Act be commenced and that not later than 12 months after commencement of the Act the Minister report the findings of the review to each House of the Oireachtas. The purpose of this section is to review how the Act is working at a particular point in time.

I understand the objective of what the Deputy is seeking to achieve. However, I consider it to be unnecessary at this time. The existing suite of provisions for ongoing oversight of the implementation of the Teaching Council Act and operations of the Teaching Council are comprehensive. 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. The additional provisions in this Bill have been carefully considered and drafted. Therefore, I do not consider the proposal necessary.

The Teaching Council appears before this committee. What we are doing by way of this Bill is amending the original legislation upon which the council is based. The Teaching Council also publishes an annual report. There are opportunities to follow through on these issues in a variety of ways, including by this committee. All legislation needs to be kept under review in case something is not working in accordance with the intention during its passage. This is amending legislation and as such a review of it in two years time might not be the most practical way of doing things.

The purpose of this amendment is to put in place a timeframe in respect of review of the Act. It would also address concerns raised by other Deputies. Acceptance of the amendment would ensure that issues arising in terms of implementation of the Act could be addressed at a particular time. If the amendment is not accepted I will withdraw it but propose to resubmit it for Report Stage.

Deputy Ferris has raised a legitimate concern. However, the Minister has given an assurance that there are other mechanisms by which those concerns could be addressed.

The amendment seeks to put in place a specific timeframe within which the Act should be reviewed. I suggest that there are ways, other than setting a particular timeframe, of ensuring legislation is kept under review. For this reason, I would be reluctant to include a specific timeframe in primary legislation. There are many ways in which the Act can be kept under review. This committee has a role in that regard.

The Teaching Council has appeared before the joint committee. We could arrange for it to appear before this committee.

With what section are we now dealing?

Section 23.

Is that the final section?

I have been informed that the Teaching Council has approximately €13 million in cash and that this is money paid to it by teachers. Apparently, the Teaching Council purchases property with money paid to it by teachers, which property it then rents out. That is pretty bizarre and appears to me to be a pretty strange thing for a council to do. Perhaps consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation around whether a Teaching Council should be purchasing property with funds garnered by way of registration fees from teachers, which money rather than being used to purchase property could be returned to the teachers.

I do not think that is relevant to this legislation.

It is relevant to a possible amendment that could have been included in what is an amendment to the Teaching Council Act. This Bill is amending legislation of the primary legislation. It is something to consider.

The Deputy could table an amendment in that regard on Report Stage.

I am flagging my intention to do so now and alerting the Minister to the issue of the Teaching Council having €13 million with which it is purchasing property.

We do not have any way of clarifying that. It should perhaps not even be put on the record as the Teaching Council is not here to respond.

I was informed of this.

I have just been informed that the council has purchased the building within which its offices are located. This will result in a cost saving for the council over time.

The Teaching Council is a State body. Presumably, whatever money it collects is gathered on behalf of the public. The Minister might confirm if I am right in saying that. The idea is that it would be self-financing.

It is self-financing.

If it has €13 million surplus, what is it doing with it?

The cost base of the council will increase significantly when certain sections of the Teaching Council Act in relation to core functions are commenced, which will be in the near future. The accumulated funds will be used, among other things, to meet these extra costs. It is also considered prudent that the council maintain a reserve. That information was provided in the Dáil recently in response to a parliamentary question. I can forward the information to the Deputy if he so wishes.

It would be helpful if the Minister could do so. She might also look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Barr
Roinn