Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I welcome the main thrust of this Bill, which gives formal and legal recognition to the VEC primary school model. The legislation comes in response to demands for change in our educational models at primary level. I support the demands for faith based schools and believe they should continue to be available to the many parents who want them for their children. However, they should not be the only patronage model for our schools.

Archbishop Martin has pointed out that 92% of schools are Catholic even though only 70% of the population follow that religion. Only half of Catholic parents desire religious based education. Ireland is changing with immigration and intermarriage and our population has become much more diverse. The educational system has to meet the needs of this new diversity. People want choice and if 50% of parents want Catholic education, they should be entitled to it. A number of Protestant schools are located in my constituency and there continues to be strong demand for this model. However, we must also reflect our changing population. Parent groups are seeking different models of education, such as VECs, gaelscoileanna and Educate Together, all of which reflect a changing Ireland.

On a recent Saturday morning, I attended a meeting held to establish demand for an Educate Together school.

I was amused to hear that at 7.30 a.m. on a Saturday, there was a queue of parents forming to register their children's names on the grounds that they would be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Within an hour, 120 children were registered. There is certainly demand for a variety of school models. We should take this into account.

There is a need for a master plan outlining how we should move from the one model we had in the past to a variety of models. We need a roadmap. At present, we have an ad hoc approach that depends, perhaps, on a few enterprising parents in a particular area with some vision of the kind of education model they would like. That is all very well but it is not the basis for a good, sound national educational plan.

If the church wants to divest itself of school ownership and responsibility, as appears to be the case in many instances, we need an agreed mechanism for that to happen. There is urgency in this regard. In my area and, I am sure, others, parents are voting with their feet. Schools are losing pupils, not because there is a lack of children but because people want alternative models. Rather than have buildings go to waste and have people fighting change or trying to poach pupils in other schools, we should determine what people want in any given area and plan for that. Thus, money would not be wasted building schools where there are existing schools that people have decided, for whatever reason, not to support.

The VEC model is welcome and represents a possibility anywhere. However, where are the schools to be? What assessment has been done of the cost of the VEC school model? Have other models been assessed? Is the VEC model the best? What is the plan? Have criteria been laid down as to the kind of school models that will exist in the future?

How is demand being established in any locality? It is not a good idea for Educate Together schools and Gaelscoileanna to be running Saturday morning get-togethers. I suspect parents would put their names down on lists at several such events. Something needs be done on a national basis. A mechanism needs to be put in place to determine how existing schools pass into State ownership from clerical ownership. We must determine how existing schools can morph from faith-based schools under religious patronage to Educate Together or VEC schools. There is urgency in this regard. Fine Gael has called for a national forum to decide how to move forward. It does not matter what it is called; we need something other than the ad hoc approach that seems to obtain at present.

The transfer of responsibility for speech and language services from the Department of Education and Skills to the HSE ought to be mentioned. It bothers me because I do not know what is behind it. There has always been tension between education and health services where they interface. Parents of children with special needs have always been going from Billy to Jack seeking health-related services in an educational setting.

I welcome the change, however, in the sense that it allows for clarity of responsibility. At least we know who is not responsible. The Department of Education and Skills will no longer be responsible. Where does responsibility now lie? Children will still need speech and language services in a school setting. Nobody in this House is unaware how woefully pathetic the speech and language services have been in our schools. How will the relevant section of the Bill change this? Will the services still be available in the school setting or will parents have to travel outside school hours to gain access to services?

If I were a parent of a child with a disability, I would be extremely worried. I just do not know what agenda is being pursued for special needs children. For years, the impetus was towards integrated schooling in a mainstream setting but now responsibility for therapies is shifting out of schools. In spite of this, children with disabilities need these therapies. Supports in schools are being removed, special educational needs posts are being abolished and special classes are being closed down. However, we do not know what setting the Department envisages for special needs children in the future.

Integration into mainstream schools is now being dismantled. Perhaps this is a good thing for some children; I do not know. However, if there is to be a change, we should know what model is in place. Parents need to know the model and need to be able to plan for their children's education, especially when those children have severe disabilities. In many cases, it is necessary to plan where one is going to live because schools for children with special needs, if they are to comprise the model of the future, will not be as numerous as mainstream schools. At present, parents, particularly of young children, are in a complete vacuum in terms of what the future holds. We need a major debate on this to achieve clarity on the Department's thinking thereon.

I want to deal with the section on the use of unqualified personnel. To be honest, I do not know where the proposal came from in this era of surplus graduates. Many of us were at the USI lobby meeting today where reference was made to the emigration of as many as 1,000 graduates per week. This seems to be a very large number but, even if the number is only half that, it is far too many. Everybody would agree that there is no shortage of teachers available at present. It may be there is some very good reason behind the proposal. Deputy Gogarty mentioned ABA schools, which may require different training and which may have different needs. Perhaps the new curriculum for maths may require teachers who are not necessarily qualified as teachers but who have a superior qualification. However, that is not what is being said. Apparently it is being said there is no availability of teachers, but I do not believe it.

There are databases of available teachers. Young graduate teachers I know are willing to travel miles for work and across the country, if necessary. The introduction of unqualified personnel to the classroom is a retrograde step. We need to maintain a standard of professionalism in schools. If we do not do so, we can kiss any future for our children goodbye. That is really important to bear in mind. We spend thousands of euro educating our teachers but then let them emigrate or languish in the dole queues. Even if young people are only given part-time or temporary work, they must be given the opportunity to get their foot in the door and gain some experience, thus enhancing their prospects of obtaining employment in the future.

I agree with Deputy Gogarty, whose point may be ageist, that principals have a responsibility to give available jobs to graduates rather than teachers retired on good pensions. This may be controversial and perhaps I will be one of the teachers looking for a job in time to come. However, who is going to pay the teachers' pensions but the young graduates of today? If they are not working, who will pay the pensions? It is time for a little intergenerational solidarity in this area.

Fine Gael will not be supporting the introduction of unqualified teachers to schools. It represents a retrograde step and unless there are very strict safeguards, I will not contemplate supporting it. There are safeguards but they are very weak. They state the principal "may" do this or that but there is no statement that he or she "must" do this or that to ensure the employment of unqualified teachers will only be temporary. This needs to be re-examined.

See this speech in context