Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

Tááthas orm a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht seo. Tacaím leis an méid atá ráite ag an Teachta O'Rourke faoi mhúinteoirí ar fud na tíre atá dífhostaithe ag an am seo.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Education (Amendment) Bill 2010. While I welcome the main provision of the Bill I see no reason for inclusion of other aspects of it. It is possible it is hoped they would go unnoticed or be considered unimportant. I do not understand the reason for the provision in regard to untrained and unregistered teachers. I will come back to this point later.

The main provision of the Bill in terms of its dealing with new patronage of the VECs is to be welcomed. There are many multi-denominational schools in this country which are functioning well with no difficulties in regard to the teaching of religion. There may be minority groups that believe they will be omitted or suppressed for their religious beliefs. I can understand from where they are coming in this regard. This issue first developed in our schools in 1831 at which time the then commission allocated the functions and duties of schools. Some 90% of schools in this country are Roman Catholic and 5.7% of schools are under the patronage of the Church of Ireland. I recognise the statement a few years ago by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. He was the first senior person from the Roman Catholic hierarchy to acknowledge that there would be a compelling reason for the Catholic Church to divest the patronage of some schools throughout the country. He opened up that debate.

It is a pity the olive branch offered on that occasion was not taken up. There was and remains a need for broad consultation between all the partners and interest groups in education. This can still happen. During a debate earlier this year in this House there was a declared resistance by the Minister to the establishment of a forum at which all those involved could discuss the best way forward in education. I hope that the Minister and Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, in consultation with the officials of their Department, open up the window of opportunity that now presents.

Last week, an important statement on education was issued by Mr. Martin Murphy, managing director of Hewlett Packard, on behalf of many of the US multinational companies which operate here. Like me, Mr. Murphy understands that it is vital that those who come through the education system - from primary to second or third level - should emerge as fully-rounded individuals. Mr. Murphy said:

I have long argued about the urgent need for reform in Irish education – as a route to fulfilling Ireland's potential ... However, education, if it is prioritised, can provide us with the single most important route to job creation – white collar, blue collar, any collar – full stop.

This statement is extremely important and should not be allowed to go unnoticed. The best way to obtain proper reform in education, and not merely that of the piecemeal variety that has been on offer to date, would be through the establishment of an forum at which the various partners in education could discuss the type of reforms that are necessary.

I have the utmost confidence in the vocational education committees as they are currently constituted. I am sure I will have the same confidence in them when they are reconstituted in the way in which the Tánaiste envisages. However, I am of the view that the system of using single entities to cover large geographical areas will be somewhat cumbersome. It is unfortunate that quite an amount of the detail relating to this matter is absent from the Bill. I hope that the Tánaiste will outline the detail to which I refer. All we are in a position to do today is suggest areas and matters which require to be addressed.

I wholeheartedly support the comments of Deputy O'Rourke and others in respect of unemployed teachers. No Minister can justify the argument to the effect that there are certain peculiar and individual circumstances which apply in some parts of the country and which make it necessary for school principals and boards of management to call on the services of untrained individuals. There is no logic behind the provision being proposed in this regard. The INTO made a very reasonable statement to the effect that it will not, beyond 2013, co-operate with schools in which untrained teachers have been employed. Up to five years ago there may have been a justification for employment such teachers, particularly because there was a shortage of trained professionals and because the output of the teacher-training colleges was not sufficient to meet the demand that existed. This matter was dealt with in a particular way at that time and the individuals to whom I refer received a particular form of ongoing training in order to allow them to take a final examination and thereby qualify. Initially, these people were employed on a part-time basis. There is no doubt that they made fantastic teachers once they were fully trained and there can be no questions posed with regard to their subsequent work as full-time professionals.

It is terrible that the Teaching Council's registration process is being undermined by the relevant provision in the Bill. I ask that the Tánaiste explain how she can make provision for the employment of untrained teachers when the process of registration is ongoing. It is not possible to reconcile the two approaches and I want the Tánaiste to outline her thinking in this regard.

Many ethnic and religious groups have been incorporated into our primary school communities in recent years. County Dublin Vocational Educational Committee ran a pilot scheme in this regard and similar projects were also run in many of the centres of urban growth in Dublin, in which many of the new entrants to the country live. There is a need to make provision for diversity in education. However, we must not place the focus in this area solely on religion. If we did so, it would be easy to become sidetracked and miss some of the other important aspects of this matter. For example, there are many children who do not have a basic knowledge of the English language. Such children also struggle with other subjects at primary level.

We must not focus too much on the religious aspect. The VECs, as the new patrons in the area of primary education, are well placed to provide assistance in respect of difficulties to which I refer. The Educate Together movement has already made great strides in this regard. Educate Together schools are fantastic, as are the gaelscoileanna. There is a gaelscoil in practically every urban centre and elsewhere throughout the country. These schools were established by those who have an interest in the Irish language and its promotion. The gaelscoileanna have done more to promote Irish than did all of the previous initiatives taken in respect of the language. At present, the vocational education system deals almost exclusively with second level and continuing education. However, it has the capacity to become involved in the area of primary level education.

I ask that the Tánaiste and her officials should examine the concerns expressed by the Atheist Ireland group. Every Member received an e-mail from the latter in respect of its concerns regarding issues of human rights and also the management of schools. The Tánaiste must acknowledge that there may be a difficulty in this regard and respond to the concerns expressed by the group to which I refer in a positive way. I will say no more on the matter other than to remark that the Tánaiste must, when replying to this debate or on Committee Stage, deal with the concerns of this group and those of others.

The Tánaiste's decision to transfer responsibility for speech and language services to the HSE is regrettable.

As public representatives, parents and school managers, we all know of the failure of the HSE to provide speech therapy services for children in need. Early intervention appears to be an absolute necessity for correcting, if possible, or improving the difficulties children endure in that instance. I hope the Minister will consider the matter again.

There is no doubt that speech therapy numbers have increased in the country, whether the specialists are employed in the Department of Education and Skills or the HSE, but the waiting list is unacceptable. I hope the Minister will see fit to reverse her decision as neither I nor many others have confidence in the HSE. It is so removed from reality in many different ways but giving it this responsibility is an admission of failure on the part of education and I am certain the executive will make a mess of it. It is too serious an area for the many young people who want rapid access to services at a time of greatest need.

I know services were provided at primary level but there was a failure when children moved to second level or into special schools. This came about primarily because of bad planning and poor connections between primary and secondary schools. The transition from primary to secondary level must be considered in that context.

I will finish on the disbanding of the committee for disadvantaged people. It had the opportunity to bring many people from disadvantaged backgrounds into third level education. I do not know if there is any real commitment within the Department of Education and Skills to the disadvantaged student issue. Two years ago the first real Scud missile was thrown into the area when the home school liaison officers were taken away from many of the DEIS schools in particular. There was reference in the Minister's speech earlier with regard to DEIS schools but does she not realise what has happened in so many areas where the disadvantaged were denied an opportunity with liaison officers and the fantastic work that can be done? The proof of this is that many schools classified within that category lost the label because of their competence and success; they were denied the ability to continue in the area.

At third level we can see that there has been practically no change in 20 years. We were told so many people from disadvantaged areas would be taken into third level but were it not for the Access programmes, many people who have gone through the system would not have qualifications. We are not serious about bringing in people from disadvantaged areas.

Disadvantage may take in the social and economic areas. I hope the Minister will address this issue, although it may not be a provision of this Bill. I cannot let the opportunity go when we are discussing disadvantaged students. Currently, many people are looking for access to education through the back to education scheme but the barriers have continued to rise. I know a person who has been told she is two days short of the requirements and is being denied access to the programme. The person was on jobseeker's allowance and must continue on it for another year while losing out on an offer to go into nursing. As she was two days short of requirements, she must wait another year and go through the process again. Why could the Department of Social Protection not see this as a realistic case where the person could be given an allowance to continue her education?

While this is happening, nobody will accept that we are serious about bringing people back to education. Various statements have been made in the media by Government spokespersons and time and again the importance of going back to education has been mentioned as a means of improving people's skills in order to get better jobs. The Government is denying such people so there is no consistency in the issue.

See this speech in context