Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 19 October 2022
107. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Minister for Education her views on whether it is just or equitable, that there appears to be no mechanism for persons who made a complaint about the behaviour of a teacher towards a child (details supplied) to appeal a decision made by the Teaching Council in that regard; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52253/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra108. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Minister for Education if her Department views the lack of an appeals process in the matter of a decision made by the Teaching Council regarding a complaint as contrary to the common-law principles of natural justice; if her Department is in favour of the introduction of such an appeals process for complaints and complainants; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52254/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra109. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Minister for Education if she will identify the primary legislation within the Teaching Council Act 2001 or the Teaching Council (Amendments) Act 2015 that provides the legal grounds for the investigating committee of the Teaching Council to refuse an application; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52255/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra110. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Minister for Education if she will identify the primary legislation within the Teaching Council Act 2001 and Teaching Council (Amendments) Act 2015 that provides for refusing a complaint, classifying it as frivolous; the officers of the Teaching Council who retain that power; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52256/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra111. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Minister for Education the legislation that provides for a determination of the seriousness of a complaint during the investigating committee process of the Teaching Council under part V section 42; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52257/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 107 to 111, inclusive, together.
I am advised by the Teaching that the Investigating Committee is a complaints screening or filtering committee, and it can determine whether to send a complaint forward for an inquiry or not. Under section 42(9) of the Act, the complaint may not proceed to inquiry where the Investigating Committee is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case to warrant further action. This in effect, means where there is no real prospect of the complaint being proven at inquiry given the standard of proof at inquiry is the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and also the threshold of seriousness required for a complaint to be referred to inquiry. In addition, there are preliminary ways in which a complaint can be refused, including where it does not relate to the fitness to teach of the teacher or where local disciplinary procedures have not been exhausted (unless there are good and sufficient reasons for proceeding despite this) which is set out in section 42(5) of the Act.
Where a complaint is refused at complaint screening stage by the Investigating Committee, there is no right of appeal in the legislation. This is consistent with the legislation for many other professional regulators such as the Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Board and CORU.
Section 42(3)(b)(ii) of the Act provides that the Director of the Teaching Council may refuse to refer a complaint to the Investigating Committee (the complaints screening committee) if they consider the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith or an abuse of process. If such a decision is made, a complainant can appeal the Director’s refusal to the Investigating Committee, which will then decide whether to uphold or quash that decision. This appeal process is referred to in section 42(4) and 42(4A) of the Act.
Where a complainant remains dissatisfied with how the Teaching Council has dealt with their complaint, they can consider taking judicial review proceedings, having taken any necessary legal advice.
