Carol Nolan (Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ní bheidh mé ag tógáil an deich nóiméad go léir. Sinn Féin is not opposed, in principle, to the establishment of an ombudsman for education. As a primary school principal for three years and somebody who spent 12 years in the sector between special education, mainstream education and as a principal, this is not the way forward to address the problem. There are a lot of gaps and there are many parts of the Education Act 1998 which have not been fulfilled, particularly in regard to special education. I hope that our admissions Bill will address the issue of access for children with special needs.

I will outline our position. We recognise that there are gaps within the education sector. We also recognise that this Bill is an attempt to address those gaps but we are not convinced that it will address those gaps. It is flawed legislation. The Bill provides that decisions of the ombudsman would be legally binding. I am not sure this has been thought through thoroughly. Making the decisions of an ombudsman legally binding would lead to the involvement of lawyers in these types of disputes. This would prove costly for parents and schools but, more importantly, our children would pay the price.

Let us just consider the impact of such legislation. Another legal layer would be added to our education system. It is a system that is already troubled and overloaded in many ways, with lots of issues to be addressed. The cost of accessing the ombudsman would reach into the thousands and it might take years to obtain a decision. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds would most likely find themselves unable to access the system due to legal fees. Empowering an ombudsman with the right to make legally-binding decisions is not in keeping with the traditional spirit of an ombudsman role. The spirit of the ombudsman is to provide an alternative to court proceedings and work on the element of encouragement to resolve complaints. A decision of an ombudsman is often highly respected and valued by all sides of a dispute and can be a very effective way of resolving a complaint. Overall, our party would not be in favour of granting legally-binding powers to an ombudsman in the absence of any clear evidence of the need for such powers and an assessment of the potential impact on children from special needs and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Another question arises on the purpose of an ombudsman for education. There are clear gaps for parents and children in respect of complaints procedures. I am very aware of those. One has to wonder if this Bill truly addresses these issues. I am informed that there is no such office for an ombudsman for education in European countries and this legislation puts forward quite a unique proposition. Some would argue that there are more effective mechanisms for dealing with complaints, such as implementing the relevant provisions of the Education Act and the Teaching Council Act. In a recent submission the Ombudsman for Children's office states that the Minister for Education and Skills has made a commitment to introduce procedures for schools to deal with complaints effectively but this has not happened. It seems bizarre that we are proposing the establishment of a separate office with legally-binding powers instead of taking relatively simple measures to tackle these problems. No one can doubt that the Ombudsman for Children does an excellent job. The fact that 47% of complaints in that office relate to education is of concern.

However, the Ombudsman for Children has a wide remit and can investigate all aspects of a complaint, including those that cross over into a range of areas such as health, education and social welfare. This holistic approach serves to achieve the best possible outcome for the child and one would wonder if such an approach would be achievable by an ombudsman for education.

It could be argued that the best approach would be to widen the remit of the current Ombudsman for Children. Alternatively, is it possible to establish an ombudsman for education within the remit of the Ombudsman for Children in order to relieve some of the pressure on that office? If we are thinking about co-ordinating services, in many cases the services are completely disjointed. In terms of joined-up thinking and co-ordination, it might be a possible solution.

It is not clear whether third level students or mature students would be catered for under this Bill, which is an oversight.

All in all, I believe this Bill is quite flawed. It does not provide the most effective solution to the problems identified and my party will not be supporting it.

See this speech in context