Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 21, line 26, after "inquiry” to insert the following:", and such an inquiry will be held in private although any findings made against a registered teacher may be made public,”.

The last group of amendments and this one are the ones teachers are most concerned about. Amendment No. 8 relates to whether inquiries should be held in public or private. The Minister indicated at the outset of this discussion that she intends to introduce amendments in the Seanad that will make the inquiries public. It is poor form to introduce the amendments at a late stage in the Seanad rather than giving us a chance to debate them here in the Dáil. I do not see the case for it. If there was a hint of pandering to a certain prejudice about teachers in the refusal to take on board the last set of amendments, there is an even greater hint in this case given the requirement that the hearings be in public.

The Minister has refused an amendment that would ensure only serious complaints would be covered in the legislation. There may be cases in which a hearing should be public if there is a public interest but in many cases, probably the vast majority, there would be no public interest associated with having it heard in public.

There might be a voyeuristic, media sensation or scapegoat interest, but there is no public interest. Before we put somebody in a public star chamber, we need a very good reason to do so because it could have lifelong consequences for the person concerned and his or her reputation and career. The potential for this to happen in the case of teachers is very significant for obvious reasons.

Let me make myself clear. I am not saying we do not need a rigorous mechanism through which legitimate serious complaints can be made because we are dealing with a profession that deals with children and young children and their rights must be protected. There is no question about this and we need a very rigorous system to do so. However, because of the nature of the profession, there is, undoubtedly, the possibility of complaints being made that are not well founded and that are purely vexatious, but they could be very serious in nature. Once these complaints are made and put into the public domain, the mud will stick, regardless of whether there is subsequent vindication. Let us be honest. Some elements of the media are scrupulous and conscientious, but others are not. They might be very quick to cover a sensational allegation against a teacher, but they are a lot slower to cover the subsequent vindication of the person concerned. They might be very happy with trial by media of the teacher - the victim for the week in the school of paparazzi journalism - and not give a damn about what the consequences might be for the individual concerned who is deeply immersed in the community.

I know that the Minister will say other professions have these public hearings, but nobody interacts with the community on a day-to-day basis and is an organic part of a defined local community in quite the same way as a teacher. Therefore, we need to be sure we will not put them in a public media star chamber or a kangaroo court where serious and very damaging allegations are made that may not be true but that could be tremendously damaging to someone, unless it is necessary to do so and where there is a genuine public interest in the case being heard in public. This is of the utmost seriousness in terms of the need for justice. Of course, I do not dispute the fact that there is a delicate balance to be struck in this case, but the Minister will need to do a lot to convince me that there is a public interest in having hearings such as this which essentially deal with individuals and their dealings with possibly quite a few others under the gaze of the media in a very public way.

It is set out clearly in the amendment that should there be a finding against a person, it could and should be made public, particularly if there was a public interest at stake, and that there could be serious consequences for others that would require the findings to be made public. These issues need to be looked at and weighed up specifically. I do not agree with the idea that the default position is that hearings would be held in public. It is the case for nurses and midwives - I am not even sure that is a particularly good idea - but, to an even greater degree, we are heading into dangerous territory if we apply it to teachers. People's lives and reputations could be damaged unnecessarily and besmirched in a such a way that they might never be able to recover from it. We should not legislate for this to happen unless we have all of the necessary safeguards in place.

That is the argument to be made. Hearings should be held in private, but the findings could be made public. There are other qualifications regarding where there might be a very definite public interest in an issue. The Minister could insert these qualifications to allow for public hearings to be held in certain narrowly defined cases, but as a general rule, it should not be the case. I will be pressing the amendment.

See this speech in context