Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members will recall that they requested that they be kept informed of progress in respect of the Education and Training Boards Bill 2012. The Bill has now commenced its legislative passage through the Oireachtas, with Committee Stage to be dealt with shortly by the Select Committee on Education and Social Protection.

I welcome Mr. Gerry Craughwell, president, Mr. John MacGabhann, general secretary, Mr. Declan Glynn, assistant general secretary, Ms Bernie Judge, education research officer, Mr. Paul Whelan and Ms Ciara O'Donnell, executive committee, Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI; and Mr. John Stewart, national adult literacy co-ordinator, Ms Olive Phelan, adult literacy learner and Mr. Denis McBride, National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA. Apologies have been received from the Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, which had sought to join us in our discussions on this issue but for which the date of the meeting was not suitable.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery that all mobile phones must be switched off. I wish to advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If witnesses are directed by this committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled, thereafter, only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Gerry Craughwell of the Teachers Union of Ireland to make his presentation.

Mr. Gerry Craughwell:

The Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, has traditionally supported the broad concept of the provision of post-primary and further education on a regional basis. The TUI position in this regard was set out in its submissions to the 1992 Green Paper on Education and the National Education Convention 1993. The TUI submission to the round table discussions in 1994 set out arguments for local democratic education structures based on political, economic, social, equity, effectiveness and efficiency principles. Further information in this regard is available for members to read in the TUI's submission to the joint committee.

The TUI submission to the National Education Convention states:

We see the provision of a free, co-educational, non-selective, multi-denominational service as a duty of the State. We believe that this can best be done through a network of local educational authorities...which (would) subsume the role of VECs.

The support of the TUI for the rationalisation of VECs is not unconditional. In the 1990s, the union's support was enabled by appropriate safeguards set down for staff at the time. It is interesting to examine the guarantees made available to serving staff at that time vis-á-vis those now being made available under the current Bill. The stated purpose of the 1997 order in respect of the amalgamation of the Borough of Wexford Vocational Education Committee area and County Wexford Vocational Education Committee area is also provided in our written submission to the joint committee.

The structure described in section 55 of the current Bill represents a radical departure from the order mentioned in the Wexford case and from previous legislation where a teacher was moved from one legal entity to another. Section 55 appears to ignore entirely the purpose and intent of the European Union directives dealing with transfer of undertakings. In the preamble to Directive 98/50/EC, referring to the Social Chapter adopted on 9 December 1989, it is stated that the completion of the Internal Market must lead to an improvement in the living and working conditions of workers in the European Community. The Council Directive makes it clear that it is necessary to provide for the protection of employees' rights in the event of a change of employer. The purpose of the directive is to ensure the employees retain their jobs, seniority and continuity and conditions of service.

In our opinion, the terms of section 55 reflect scant regard of the honour and spirit of the EU directives dealing with transfer of undertakings. By contrast with the reasonable protections afforded to staff in the amalgamation of town and county VECs, the protection set down in section 55(4) of the Bill is limited to "conditions of remuneration" only. The TUI seeks assurances that the definition of "remuneration" as referred to in this clause, includes the right to increments and incremental payments. Furthermore, the TUI is alarmed to note, and is completely opposed to, the exclusion of conditions in relation to superannuation in subsection (5) from this already inadequate protection.

With regard to subsection (2), the TUI seeks assurance that serving VEC teachers are subject only to redeployment within the terms of the current redeployment schemes negotiated under Towards 2012 and public service agreements and in accordance with section 6 of the Education (Amendment) Act 2012. The TUI requires that serving teachers , as heretofore in the case of the amalgamation of town and county VECs, are amenable to transfer only within the boundaries of their current VEC administrative areas. The TUI finds the diminution of explicit protection unacceptable and requires the same level of protection of conditions of service in subsection (4) as was provided in the case of previous transfers and amalgamations. The TUI looks to the Legislature to accommodate this reasonable position.

In tandem with the repeal of the exclusion of certain categories of employees from the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Bill provides that a teacher, or other member of staff of an education training board, could be dismissed directly by the CEO of an ETB or by another member of staff of the board, if such power is delegated by the CEO under the authority conferred in section 16. Having been dismissed, a teacher-member of staff would be in the position of seeking redress from the Employment Appeals Tribunal. So rare are the instances of reinstatement of staff by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, however, that the TUI considers that removal of the current protections could result in serious injustice upon a teacher-member of staff.

The TUI notes that the intention set out in the explanatory memorandum on the general scheme of an Education and Training Boards Bill 2011 is to ensure an employee's rights are not detrimentally affected as a result of the Bill has been dispensed with in the Bill. It is abundantly clear that employees' existing contractual rights will be significantly and detrimentally affected by the removal from the Bill of both layers of protection currently enjoyed by teachers in the vocational sector including, namely, consideration by the vocational education committee and consideration by the Minister for Education and Skills.

The TUI notes that, by contrast, the ETB retains the power to suspend the CEO of an ETB and the sanction of the Minister for Education and Skills will continue to be required for the removal from office of the CEO. Given the sweeping away from teachers and other categories of staff of the protection of sworn inquiries and ministerial sanction in respect of dismissal it is reasonable that the arrangements in section 17 in respect of CEOs should apply also to teachers and other staff. In this regard, the TUI seeks that the power to suspend staff is designated as a reserved function under section 12.

With regard to the general functions of ETBs as set out in section 10, the TUI believes that subsections (1)(b)(iv) and (1)(h) are excessively permissive in so far as they could, potentially, require ETBs to provide education and training support to private for-profit providers. A similar concern arises from section 19(d). The TUI advocates that recognised trade union representing staff of ETB should be included in the range of persons, bodies, set down in section 10(2) with whom education and training board would confer in respect of the performance of their functions. The TUI believes that this section would also be strengthened were periodic consultation with the listed persons-bodies required of ETBs rather than permitted for them at their own discretion, when they might consider consultation appropriate.
Section 14(3) provides that a chief executive officer shall hold office upon and be subject to such terms and conditions, including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances, as may be determined by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform or by the Minister for Education and Skills, with the former's consent. The TUI is concerned about the possible implications of this provision for the conduct of industrial relations and the negotiation of collective agreements. Matters relating to terms and conditions should remain within the remit of the Minister for Education and Skills.

With regard to the functions of a chief executive officer of an education and training board, the TUI seeks that the provision of information by the CEO to a board should explicitly include in section 15(2) information in relation to the conduct of industrial relations on behalf of the board. This arises because in many instances such information has not been made available to VECs since the enactment of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act 2001, arising from interpretations that executive decision making authority of the CEO facilitates the withholding from VECs of information on decisions taken on behalf of the committees on personnel, staffing and other human resource matters. The TUI believes that the requirement to report to the education and training board on such matters does not detract from the authority conferred on the CEOs under the executive reserved divide introduced in the 2001 Act and is, we advance, in the interests of transparency and accountability at local level. This moderate and sensible amendment is sought from the Legislature. The TUI also seeks the insertion of "executive" before functions in section 15(4) and seeks that the CEO be required to report to the board on the exercise of these functions on a biannual basis and as otherwise determined by the board.

The TUI believes that section 18 should provide that the appointment and terms and conditions of staff of education and training boards should require the consent only of the Minister for Education and Skills. The migration of the function to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform provided for in subsection (2) is considered a retrograde step. The TUI seeks that arrangements continue to be determined solely by the Minister for Education and Skills. The TUI is concerned to receive explanation for the apparent exclusion under section 18(4) of the teachers and principal teachers from the authority conferred on education and training boards. Under subsection (3) to pay remuneration and allowances expenses to its staff, subject to the caveats cited in the subsection.

With regard to the composition of education and training boards under Part 3, the TUI considers that the provision, under section 28, that 55% of the membership of boards would comprise local authority members is disproportionate and runs counter, in real terms, to the parity of esteem with which, in its view, each of the main stakeholder groups should be recognised and treated. The TUI considers that this unbalanced composition of boards detracts significantly from participative, democratic decision-making, involving all key partners and cannot be regarded as reflective of a true partnership approach to the provision of education and training and statutory democratic decision-making at local level. In essence, the Bill provides for statutory representation of political representatives at the expense of other partners whose role in education is no less vital or valuable.

The TUI notes that less than 20%, in the aggregate, of the membership of ETBs, as provided for in the Bill, is devoted to staff and parent representation and that adult student representation is not provided for explicitly. The TUI believes that an opportunity has been lost to accord equal status in the composition of ETBs to the main partners involved in education and training at local level, namely, local authority members, staff and other constituent groups, including parents and adult students.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Mr. Craughwell would summarise the remainder of his opening statement at this point.

Mr. Gerry Craughwell:

Yes. The case we are making under Part 3 is for a more evenly distributed membership of the board.

I might ask my colleague, Mr. Declan Glynn, to summarise the remainder.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

We are advocating dedicated teacher representation on the boards because we believe the boards would have significantly less expertise at their disposal in the absence of teacher representatives on the boards. We seek clarity in respect of the groups from which the additional four persons under the remaining subsection of section 28 would be drawn. Specifically, we request that recognised trade unions and staff associations be included among the nominating groups. We welcome the provisions in respect of the filling of casual vacancies on the boards and the disqualification from ongoing membership of an education and training board of a person who ceases to be a member of the staff of that education and training board. What has transpired is that a difficulty has emerged in VECs where persons resign their employment but remain as members of boards. In our submission we query the waiver on the requirement that parents' representatives on education and training boards would be parents of children enrolled in one of the schools or centres under the aegis of a VEC. It is incongruous that a parent on the education and training board could be required to live in proximity to the ETB but the section would facilitate a parent from any other part of the country being a member of a local education and training board on the nomination of an association. That creates a difficulty.

The sole category from which gender representation on education and training boards will derive assuredly is the parent representative constituency group. We believe that the principle of gender balanced representation should be extended to each of the sub-categories from which representation is drawn.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Mr. Glynn could conclude, as there are other speakers and other items on the agenda, and allow us to move to questions.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

I will be succinct. The Freedom of Information Act applied to vocational education committees and we request that it apply in the context of the establishment of education and training boards. We look forward to the parallel legislation on the establishment of SOLAS. We are very concerned that it had been intended to bring forward in the general scheme of an education and training boards Bill last year an amendment that could lead to the criminalisation of teachers, punitive sanctions, including custodial sentences, arising for teachers in the event of alleged unwillingness to co-operate with the Department's inspectorate. This is highly inappropriate and a retrograde step. We are looking to the committee to protect us against any such amendment coming forward on Committee Stage. It has been withdrawn from the Bill but we are alarmed to read the remarks on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills at the session on 16 October.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are matters that we can go into when we turn to questions and answers. I invite the representative from the National Adult Literacy Agency to make a presentation.

Ms Olive Phelan:

My name is Olive Phelan and I am an adult student who returned to education through NALA four years ago. I am here on behalf of the further education and training board. There are 200,000 adult learners in further education and training services. There is no designated seat for adult learners in the Education and Training Boards Bill, yet there are 18 seats on the board. Higher education students are routinely represented on the board and academic councils of national authorities such as the Higher Education Authority and the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland. Learner involvement in all aspects of education provision is a core principle of NALA's work and learners have been centrally involved in all NALA board structures for more than 30 years. Learners have regularly been elected chairpersons of the NALA board. The NALA board has a student sub-committee, of which I am a member, to inform all its works. There are many types of learning and adult education. NALA believes that learners' experiences are vital for the effective organisation of adult education and training provision and that learners should be centrally involved at all levels of the education and training boards.

The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, amended the legislation to allow for two learner representatives to sit on the board of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland. Why are there no adult learners represented in further education and training services? The NALA board believes it is essential for adult learners to have a designated place on the education and training boards. A dedicated adult learners' voice on the board would improve the quality and effectiveness of services, as outlined by the Minister in the House on 5 July 2012, and make education and training boards more learner centred and inclusive. We demand a seat and to be represented. After all, we represent 200,000 reasons for a seat on the board.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take questions now.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join the Chairman in welcoming the representatives from the TUI, NALA and thank them for taking the time to appear before the committee and giving their comprehensive thoughts on the Education and Training Boards Bill and how it will affect education, with particular regard to the their areas of expertise. I thank the TUI representatives for their initial presentation and going through it in such depth. There will be an opportunity for us at look at it in more detail as time did not permit them to go through it all. They have outlined serious concerns from a teacher's point of view in respect of the impact of the changes in the Bill, not just the structural changes and the amalgamation of VECs and expanding the role of the education and training boards, and how it will impact on staff currently employed by those VECs. Some pertinent issues have been raised which the committee will be required to explore with the Minister as the Bill proceeds.

We discussed previously how VECs deal with teachers and the increasing issue of casualisation of employment. I am aware from a previous discussion with the TUI that up to 35% of teachers in the VEC sector are not permanent. In respect of the establishment of the education and training boards can anything be done to address that issue, as VECs are amalgamated, and bring about more security for teachers? It has been a growing problem for staff in the VEC sector and will have a long-term impact in terms of attracting graduates and ensuring that a viable livelihood and career is available for those who decide to enter the profession.

Will the representatives comment on the proposal to amalgamate the FÁS training element with the VECs under the oversight of the education and training boards? How do they see the benefits or otherwise of the ETB proposals in bringing all that sector together?

I thank the NALA representatives for their presentation.

There is a gap in respect of ensuring adult representation on education and training boards, ETBs. An issue arises in the case of one of the points put forward by the Teachers Union of Ireland in terms of ensuring a good spread of parent and teacher representation on the boards. The number of local authority members makes it somewhat restrictive at the moment. The powers of decision making given to local authority members in terms of deciding who the community representatives should be ought to be examined and explained to ensure a strong representation of the various partners on the ETBs. I am unsure whether this has been given the appropriate level of thought at this stage either in the Bill or the drafting.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the TUI and the National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA, for coming before the committee today. It was important not to rush Committee Stage. We have completed Second Stage but it was wise for the committee to have the opportunity to meet some of the groups before starting to deal with the amendments. In fairness to the Minister he has stated in the House that he is willing to ensure the amendments are published in time to allow the committee members to digest them and take them on board and in order that they can come back to him with any queries. He has indicated that he will bring forward several amendments. One amendment was referred to in the conclusion of the presentation which could have real and serious consequences if and when it comes before the committee. This was despite it being omitted when the Bill was published.

There is an issue with the membership of the ETBs. When the general scheme of the Bill was published I read through the submissions on ETBs. I noticed that many of them focused on the particular make up of the ETBs. It was somewhat disappointing that he Minister did not take on board some of the observations. The published Bill is more or less the same as the general scheme and this is posing some problems, especially with regard to the four community representatives. This will affect the type of representation and experience that will be needed for ETBs. Adult learners are in one category and there is almost a hope that adult learners will get one of those four posts but there is no guarantee. The make-up of the board will be the subject of much focus and many amendments on Committee Stage.

The TUI presentation focused on the role of teachers within ETBs, the repeal of all previous Acts and some of the attendant consequences. I realise the TUI submission outlined some possible impacts but perhaps the delegation could go into a little more detail on that section.

The Minister has indicated he will table one amendment on Committee Stage. Will the delegation offer a view on that? What would the likely impacts be on teachers if the amendment is taken and incorporated into the Bill? Perhaps the TUI representatives will focus on these two issues.

I realise NALA is seeking support for an amendment to specifically state that adult learners would have one of the four positions available. Many groups are looking at the four final positions and the make up of the boards. We have received representations from IBEC, which holds that the business community should have a position on the boards. Perhaps this is a question for both organisations here today. Is there any merit in extending the four positions or tabling an amendment on Committee Stage to categorise how each of the four positions should be divided up, whether among adult learners, union representation or IBEC and so on? What are the views of the delegation?

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of the TUI and NALA for being here today. The TUI submission is remarkably extensive and it will probably take some time to digest the variety of issues addressed. Due to time constraints the delegation was not in a position to go through them in greater detail. Nevertheless, I understand the sentiments expressed.

I welcome the representatives from NALA. I will be tabling an amendment to get an adult learner on the ETBs. Literacy is a civil right and it is one of the greatest issues in our country at the moment. We must complete the circle but we have no real potential to tackle the issue of literacy from all stages of education and the life cycle unless we get the life experience of an adult learner who has dealt with the issues so eloquently outlined by the NALA delegation today. I will table an amendment and I hope it will be accepted and that NALA will have an adult learner on the ETBs. I believe that is justified.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Craughwell, do you wish to comment on any of those points?

Mr. Gerry Craughwell:

We will deal with each of them. I will ask my colleague, John MacGabhann, general secretary of the union, to deal with issues relating to the casualisation of the profession and some other issues that were brought up.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

To some extent the casualisation is not fundamentally located within the Bill, but it is a remarkably important issue. I will provide some indication of the extent of the problem at the moment. The membership of the TUI is running to 30% of fixed term, that is to say, non-permanent teachers. I understand that the membership of ASTI is in the same region. At second level more than at primary level casualisation is a crisis unfolding. Almost without exception this situation relates to teachers who come in as new recruits to the sector and who in the first instance are not getting permanent positions and in the second instance are not getting full positions. They are getting fragments of jobs, bits and scraps, an hour here and an hour there but spread throughout the week such that other entitlements are denied them. They hold these on sufferance for a year under a fixed-term contract. They hope to get subsequent fixed-term contracts for a period of at least four years in total and sometimes into a fifth year, to eventually scramble over the line under the fixed term legislation of 2003. Then they get permanency but, by and large, they are getting permanency on part-time hours. We have members living on what anyone would describe as extreme income poverty. That is the truth of the matter.

These people come to us day by day. It is bizarre but we are looking to get them permanency for an impoverished part of a job. That is the truth of our situation. This is damaging quality. It is producing a churn in terms of education personnel and this in turn disturbs every school which is attempting to provide a consistent service. The child of anyone here could end up in the course of his second level education having four, five or six teachers for the same subject in the course of the six years. This is the way things are developing. From now on these people will spend six years without payment to get into second level teaching but after that period we want them to have at least the prospect of a decent living. We want the schools where these teachers are appointed to have consistency.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. MacGabhann explain the six years?

Mr. John MacGabhann:

Typically, it takes four years for undergraduate studies. A proposal soon to come into effect will make the postgraduate degree in education of two years duration. That amounts to six years in total to become, frankly, a galley slave.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not correct.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

That is correct.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for interrupting but this needs clarification. Mr. MacGabhann is talking about four years for the basic degree.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

Correct.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is he talking about the higher diploma in education?

Mr. John MacGabhann:

No, I am talking about what is to be the postgraduate diploma in education, which is to replace the higher diploma in education and is to move to a two year course. That is specifically provided for and, in fact, insisted upon.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It depends on the basic degree. Some of the basic degrees might be three years long.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

Typically, the basic degree has moved to four years. One way or another, what we are speaking of is an increased period in training for everybody.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of at least one year.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

Of at least one year.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that point. It was the mention of six versus five years that I had a query about.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

That depends on the combination of subjects one is pursuing and the university one goes to. We are seeing people spending, typically, six years which are unpaid but, more importantly, it gets one into a situation in which one has absolutely no security and nothing but income poverty. What can the ETBs do in this respect? There are a number of things that can be done. ETBs will be given an allocation of whole time equivalent positions, as VECs are at the moment. Each whole time equivalent position should, to the greatest extent possible, transfer to an individual as a full job, not as scraps of a job. Some employers have become quite cynical. What they do when they get an allocation of, for example, an additional position is to scatter that allocation across two, three or more people, giving each of them the pretence of a job as opposed to a real job.

We have put it to the Department of Education and Skills that, as is the case at primary level, a panel system for fixed-term staff could be established for post-primary staff. We currently do not have one, but we have a claim which is being resisted by management - not hugely resisted but resisted none the less, because it wants to retain the flexibilities that result in our members, who are new members of the profession, remaining in income poverty. Through the ETBs, we could revise the contractual arrangements over time so that people who, for example, have a specialism such as physics, which not every school can provide, would be employed to provide the service to a number of schools. One would have people with a roving brief. That would address two issues: that of casualisation and that of the provision of broad curriculums in small schools. This will become extremely important in terms of the curricular changes the Minister is proposing.

Deputy O'Brien raised the issue of the amendment which appeared in the heads of the Bill but does not appear here. This is an amendment to section 13 of the Education Act, rather than any of the vocational Acts. In discussion with the Minister and elsewhere, we have described this amendment as positively bizarre. We understand that there is a need to protect the inspectorate in terms of the discharge of its duty if, for example, an inspector is charged with checking into financial irregularities within a school. That is fair enough, but where an inspector comes in to do his or her normal job, which is to observe teaching and learning within a school, if it happens to be the case that there is a genuine professional discussion or argument to be had between the school, the principal or teacher being inspected and the inspector, there should be nothing in legislation that would seek to prevent that argument or discussion taking place. There should certainly be nothing that would criminalise the teacher or teachers for engaging in that. The word "impede" can mean anything one wishes it to mean and is far too liberal. We suggest that if an amendment is required, it is not an amendment to section 13 of the Education Act but one to those parts of the Education Act that deal with finances. If there is to be an amendment and if it is felt that some protection is needed for the inspectorate in the discharge of its duty, a far less heavy hand should be applied to it. We would ask the committee to give serious consideration to and reject any proposal to reinstate a measure about which there is doubt even in the Department, because it would have already included it had there been no doubt.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Phelan wish to comment on any of the questions? Deputy Ó Ríordáin responded to her concerns. Does she or anyone in the delegation have anything to add?

Mr. John Stewart:

The demand for an adult learner or service user voice on the ETBs would not be met by leaving it to the current provisions and hoping that representation comes through the four community seats. The only way to secure an adult learner voice on the ETBs is to provide for it in the legislation. There is no tradition of adult learner involvement in the current structures and it is our view that adult learners will lose out to other lobbying interests and powerful stakeholder groups. Providing a dedicated seat through the legislation is the only way to give the learners the respect they deserve, particularly learners who have benefited least from education services in the past. I was delighted to hear the support from Deputies Ó Ríordáin, McConalogue and O'Brien for that position.

We would not like to be involved in categorising the other seats. We would simply say it is essential that adult learners have a guaranteed and dedicated seat within the legislation. We are not just talking about literacy learners. We are talking about 200,000 adult learners.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing a small part of the beginning of the session. I have two or three different points to make. I will start with adult learners. NALA is making a very strong case. Adult learners have a history of being forgotten and we omit providing for them in the legislation at our peril. If literacy problems are not sorted out early, they will come back to bite us later on as adults and more so as a society. When the legislation passes through the Seanad, we will advocate strongly to the Minister that this needs to be addressed. He is a listening Minister and has a good understanding. However, I am disappointed by the omission of such a provision. Obviously we will do our best in this regard, because it makes no sense to me. I commend NALA for continuing its work; it serves 200,000 people, who are only the ones getting help and not the ones we know nothing about. I do not have a question for the NALA delegation but I would tell it to keep going.

The delegation from the TUI presented us with a fairly serious document, as Deputy Ó Ríordáin noted. Has the TUI met the Minister in respect of the provision of the TUI's vision of free education through local education authorities, which would subsume the role of VECs? This is a major change which is going down the road of adopting the UK model of provision of education through local education authorities. I am concerned about that. I was chair of County Galway VEC at one point. I had never previously worked in the VEC sector. I was a primary school teacher and then worked in a voluntary secondary school and as a lecturer in literacy education at third level. I learned to respect VECs for their diverse provision of education. I would like to see that specialist local provision continue. If the ETBs can take that on in a new way to do even better than the VECs, I would be supportive of that. Could the delegation tell me how they think a local education authority model would be better?

I am very shocked by something I have read here, which needs to be teased out.

It states: "With regard to the treatment of staff of vocational education committees transferring to education and training boards, the TUI is gravely concerned with the diminution and-or elimination of existing contractual and statutory rights and entitlements and considers that the approach of Government in this regard is unwarranted, excessive and unjustified." Can the witness clarify whose contract and statutory rights would be wiped out? How many teachers might this affect? What type of contracts would be affected, and are they currently with the VEC? That is my first question.

Mr. MacGabhann spoke about casualisation. What he described is scary. I feel for the teachers who have only these scraps of jobs, as the witness called them. Does he have a proposal on the minimum number of hours he believes would be legitimate for a teacher to hold? If a teacher is teaching physics and the school only needs that subject taught for four hours that teacher cannot be offered any additional hours. We must be careful about the way we describe jobs and opportunities because if I were a new teacher coming out of college who wanted to get my foot in the door of a school and start building my teaching hours I might be glad to be offered three hours teaching and then four hours. What is Mr. MacGabhann proposing as a minimum to ensure a teacher is not at risk of income poverty and does not consider himself or herself to have a scrap of a job, so to speak? What I am concerned about, ultimately, is the effect of that on the child's education. Does Mr. MacGabhann have any research or qualitative findings that indicate that because my child - I have two children at second level - and everyone else's children are being taught by a number of teachers who teach three or four hours a week, our children are receiving an inferior quality of education and that the standards are lower? If that is the case it is incredible. Has Mr. MacGabhann had a briefing with the Minister on that?

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know what the witnesses are talking about in terms of the inspectorate. If that legislation had been introduced 40 years ago I would have been sent to jail on several occasions. Regarding what he said about the length of time it takes to get a degree, then a teacher qualification and then a few hours teaching, that is a serious situation. I have two children at college who want to go on to become teachers. They are doing the three year course and, following that, they will do the postgraduate certification if it is introduced. I have told them to have another string to their bow because they will not be able to make a living from teaching. We struggled in teaching but we made a living from it and were able to raise our families. I have a great fear that it will not be possible for the new teachers to do that, and that issue must be addressed.

I take the other point made about adult education and board representation. We will examine that and fight for it during the passage of the Bill but there are serious issues facing teachers. Teachers in the vocational education sector have telephoned me asking if there is an hour or five hours' teaching in Dundalk or a job anywhere. Those teachers who are looking for hours are from Meath and other areas. I agree that this is a serious situation.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, on the issue raised by a number of members and the witnesses, I am aware that some teachers in the VEC sector might be qualified to teach in VEC second level schools but do not have the qualifications to move to second level, which hinders their prospects of mobility within education. The dilemma is that they could go back to full-time study but if they have families that is not feasible. In terms of helping TUI members get their educational qualifications to teach up to the highest level, is the TUI working on ensuring that teachers can do that and work at the same time to allow them get the extra qualifications they need?

Second, regarding the issues the witnesses have raised about contracts and so on, is that a matter for the legislation or for parallel negotiations? They might explain that.

Third, an element of the debate is about representation on the board, with which, as a person who is elected, I am not happy. The VECs had strong representation by local authority members. Local authority members are elected by voters and in local elections every resident can vote. They do not even have to have citizenship and therefore the electorate in local elections is spread among the population. Councillors are elected and they represent local communities. It would be inappropriate to diminish such representation - which is representation in the elected sense as opposed to carving out seats - in the new legislation, compared to the representation that applied in respect of the old VECs. The witnesses might have a different view, but that is my position on it. They might respond to those points.

Mr. Gerry Craughwell:

I will bring in both of my colleagues shortly but I would like to address two issues first. A member asked about FÁS and education and training boards. We are facing three serious changes in the VEC sector in the very near future, namely, the establishment of education and training boards, the establishment of SOLAS and the changes in respect of qualifications. Any one of those on its own would be hugely disruptive to any organisation but the three together represent a massive change. We in the VEC sector and the members of the TUI have always shown ourselves to be flexible, innovative and willing to take on change, and that will not change as we move forward. I wanted to get that point across.

On the issue of casualisation, I can give an example of a mother of three who has nine hours of teaching work a week. She is a single mother, as her husband has left her. That mother is struggling to survive on those nine hours of work. We are talking about real people with real jobs and real problems. These are people who are living in crisis. Because of the nature of our work, with our hours spread across a five-day week, people such as this mother do not qualify for any form of supplementary welfare. They do not qualify for family income supplement. We are talking about serious problems.

I will ask my colleague Mr. Declan Glynn to deal with representation on boards and with the impact of the changes on teachers, and I will ask my colleague Mr. John MacGabhann to respond to the other issues that were raised.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of clarification, I acknowledge the difficulty resulting from the fact that nine hours spread over the week wipes out a person's opportunities for other benefits, but why does the person mentioned not qualify for family income supplement, which is related to total income?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before members raise additional questions, I ask that they allow the witnesses to respond.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a question for them to bear in mind.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

We have been asked to offer some clarity on the statutory rights and entitlements we see being disposed of. It is quite a straightforward matter. Since 1944, teachers may be dismissed following a local inquiry or a sworn inquiry. If a recommendation derives from such a sworn inquiry locally it is forwarded to the Minister, who sanctions or rejects a recommendation to dismiss a teacher.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, is Mr. Glynn referring to the minimum statute?

Mr. Declan Glynn:

No.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is he talking about permanent or temporary teachers?

Mr. Declan Glynn:

It applies to both. I am talking about sections 7 and 8 of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act 1944. The issue of the dismissal of a teacher in the future is a matter of great magnitude and at a minimum it should be a reserved function of the committee.

However, it is not proposed that it will be a reserved matter but that it will be dealt with by the chief executive officer. Consequently, an individual chief executive officer will have the power to dismiss the staff, inclusive of the teachers, of an education and training board, ETB. Worse than that, that authority of a chief executive officer is transferable to another officer of the VEC. Arguably, therefore, the human resources manager of a VEC could dismiss a teacher. Our point is that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the provisions currently in the Bill in respect of chief executive officers should also be applied to other members of staff of ETBs.

I refer to the second important aspect of this matter. The TUI is and always has been very supportive of the concept of the provision of education on a regional basis. We were fully supportive of the rationalisation involving the amalgamation of town VECs into their respective counties. Moreover, we support the establishment of ETBs, leading as it does to the rationalisation from 33 to 16 of VEC committees. We believe the ETBs will be well placed, together with the intended SOLAS legislation, and will be at the vanguard of the provision of education in respect of post-primary education, further education and local training. We believe they will spearhead those developments competently. However, the issue is that when the towns were subsumed by their county VECs, the conditions of service of teachers at that time were maintained. There now will be a dispensation whereby teachers may be transferable out of their current areas into a much larger geographic area. For example, a teacher in west County Mayo will henceforth be transferable to north County Sligo. It is reasonable, in the context of such a gargantuan movement and reorganisation of education, to maintain the entitlement to protected limited transfer for serving employees. We also seek assurance from the Government that a situation cannot arise in which a teacher could be redeployed from one ETB to another because vast distances are involved. In County Donegal VEC, one of our members was transferred recently from north-west Donegal to Ballyshannon, the effect of which was €700 worth of diesel payments per month. The man concerned was obliged to undertake a two-and-a-half hour commute each way. While it is bad enough that this might happen to any individual human being, in this case teachers who maintained their employment with an ETB potentially could be transferred over significantly larger distance. Worse still, those who did not maintain their employment with an ETB but who became an employee of a different ETB could be redeployed over vast distances. While we greatly welcome this legislation, this must be highly qualified.

I will raise two final issues. We support the question-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible for the witnesses to address the questions members asked about the serious position put by the TUI concerning the diminution or elimination or both of existing contractual and statutory rights? Mr. Glynn should tell me how and where that could happen. How many teachers might this affect? To what type of contracts might this happen? This is the question I have asked and to which I seek an answer.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator must allow the deputation to conclude because they are getting through the various questions. We should have the questions answered, after which we can ascertain whether further clarification is required. I also note the joint committee has another item on its agenda today.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

I thank the Chair. The right to a sworn inquiry prior to dismissal is a statutory right. It is set out in the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act 1944 amending the primary legislation of 1930. This is the explicit right to which we refer. At present, teachers have contractual rights in respect of limitations of distances over which they can be transferred and we seek to safeguard those contractual rights in the new dispensation. As for answering-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, I understood the previous questioners were answered.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, for example-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am the only person, together with Senator Jim D'Arcy, who has asked a question on this section and I seek a response because I do not know the answers.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, there is a limit to how much detail into which the joint committee can go. However, an example has just been given of a statutory right and other examples have also been given. I am conscious that the new chairman designate of the Grangegorman Development Agency is due to appear before the committee and, consequently, it is important to proceed with this matter.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

To be specific, I am talking about section 105 of the 1930 Act, as well as sections 7 and 8 of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act 1944. Moreover, this is dealt with in section 63 of the Bill because, ironically, these rights are being maintained for the staff of institutes of technology. Consequently, the right to a sworn inquiry prior to any potential dismissal is maintained for lecturers in institutes of technology and in Dublin Institute of Technology because, decades ago, they used to be employees of VECs. Ironically, the Bill protects the smallest grouping, who are erstwhile employees of VECs but does not protect current employees of VECs.

To answer the other questions, in respect of the casualisation of teaching, one straightforward measure can be taken immediately, which is that when a full block of hours that constitutes a single job arises, there should be no impediment to that work being offered initially, ab initio, as a permanent teaching job. Even where there are full units of work, permanent whole-time teaching jobs are not being created in the vocational education system at present. This is despite there being no impediment to so doing and this is a highly significant issue for us. As for the Chair's own question regarding teachers transferring out of ETBs, on the whole the differences and qualifications between vocational teachers and teachers in the voluntary secondary system are so negligible as not to be a matter of great concern. Some decades ago, there might have been a significantly greater proportion of teachers in the vocational system who did not possess higher diplomas in education or the current postgraduate diploma equivalent, but that is not the current dispensation. Consequently, we do not perceive this to be a particular difficulty. As for the composition of boards, we intend to table three matters. First, it is an 18-person board and in broad terms, the TUI believes; there should be three thirds, that is, local authority members should comprise one third, one third should come from the teacher and staff side and one third from the parents, adult learners and other groupings side.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the percentage of local authority members on VECs at present? It is higher than one third.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

Yes, it is much higher than one third. I believe it comprises nine of 15 at present.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely, the idea of an education board is to make it representative in the sense of people who are elected by the community. I would have thought that ideally, everyone would be elected to it. Consequently, if one resiles from having that kind of representative, it actually undermines local representation on those boards.

Mr. Declan Glynn:

I take the Chairman's point. We do not detract at all from the merit of representation that is offered by local authority members. We are not impugning it in any fashion. Our point is that in tandem with that, there should be dedicated teacher representation on boards because that constitutes a core professional and practitioner expertise that is being lost and is not being catered for specifically. While not everyone might agree, we think it a straightforward matter that teachers and other staff of ETBs would have the professional practitioner expertise that would enhance the composition and role of VECs, while not taking at all from the vital contribution that local authority members make. Moreover, we support strongly the representation of adult students, including further education adult students, and adult learners generally on the VEC.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

In response to a specific question asked by Senator Healy Eames on what is a minimum necessary for a job, we would have stated one should not be subdividing jobs anyway, as a job is a job. Anyone who comes out of the teacher training element of college - that is, the professional diploma in education - is required to do 300 hours to get full registration. The three hours per year suggested by the Senator would take-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Forever.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

Yes. The person who does not have 300 hours and who lacks full registration usually is restricted, not least because that person cannot go abroad with a licence from this country to teach abroad.

Therefore itdoes not have the protections under the European directive's mutual recognition of qualifications. If one is looking for a minimum - and, by the way, I am not advocating this - there is a logic that 300 hours would be the minimum in the first year.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we want to make progress here we have to move away from the ideal position of one job always being maintained as the one job when it is not. I do think Mr. MacGabhann should look at a minimum, be it nine or ten hours. I agree with him that ideally they should get the registration in the first year, but we have to be reasonable otherwise we will achieve nothing. We come in here to debate really important matters. As was said, the Bill has not yet gone to Committee Stage. Has Mr. MacGabhann met the Minister? He is raising many issues but I have not heard that.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of these issues are obviously statutory but some seem to be more about parallel negotiations. Perhaps Mr. MacGabhann could reply briefly and I will then go to NALA, the National Adult Literacy Agency.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

That is true. I did say from the outset that it does not necessarily or absolutely relate to the Education and Training Boards Bill.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Mr. MacGabhann met the Minister?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, please let Mr. MacGabhann finish.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

On several occasions we have met the Minister and we have also met the Minister's officials. I do not consider that we would be reasonable were we to fragment jobs. I know the Senator chose a random figure, but she mentioned that somebody might be happy to have three hours in the first year and four hours in the second.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that. I said if three hours were being offered per week for physics, for example.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

Just let me translate that. Three hours is in or about €5,000 per annum to live on. That is the total of three hours and it is not a living wage.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is accepted.

Mr. John MacGabhann:

On the other issue of the intersection between negotiation in the IR forum and legislation, may I give one concrete example? We represented a gentleman to the point where we secured a contract of indefinite duration for him, having had to go to the Labour Court to get his rights vindicated under section 9(3) of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. When he was given his contract of indefinite duration by the employer, it was a contract for zero hours and zero pay. One gets permanency on nothing, so 100% of nothing is nothing. It was an absolutely cynical, but unfortunately not untypical, manipulation of existing legislation based on a misreading. When considering education and training boards, and the provision of education, it is inescapable that consideration must also be given to the people who are concerned with its delivery.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will now ask someone from the National Adult Literacy Agency to respond and wrap up with their concluding remarks.

Ms Olive Phelan:

I thank everyone for listening to NALA's proposal. As adult learners we need to feel that we are being heard. Our way of being heard is to have that person on the education and training board. I thank the joint committee again and we know that we will be heard this time.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thanks very much. I will conclude by thanking the representatives of the TUI and NALA for their presentations and for taking questions also. It was a good debate, which was informative for us before we deal with the legislation. We will send the presentations to the Minister together with a transcript of the meeting. We will ask the Minister for his comments. If we have any reply before that, I will revert to the witnesses.

I now propose to suspend the meeting to allow Mr. Monaghan to take his seat.