Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

126. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills in view of the resignation of the board of a school (details supplied) in County Limerick in June 2011, the previous and subsequent problems in the school relating to the alleged obstructive behaviour of a teacher at the school and the circumstances whereby Canon Law was invoked by the Limerick Catholic diocese to reject the decisions of the school board to dismiss the teacher concerned, the agreement between her Department and the patron of the school in relation to monitoring the behaviour of the teacher concerned; the number of agreed inspections which have taken place; if these inspections reported satisfactory progress; and if any child protection issues arise. [3359/15]

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question relates to issues of child welfare and, at its essence, religious control of schools and who controls our schools. In light of a particular circumstance that I believe the Minister is aware of in Limerick where the board of management resigned on a number of occasions in relation to the behaviour of an obstructive teacher, it was deemed that the local parish priest had more influence than the board of management.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with the Education Act 1998, teachers are employed by the school management authority of each individual school. In the case referred to by the Deputy, in 2009 the school management sought to dismiss the teacher concerned.

The Maynooth statute provided that "a clerical manager shall not dismiss a teacher or assistant, male or female, or give notice of dismissal, until the Bishop be notified, so that the teacher if she/he will, may be heard in her/his own defence by the Bishop", and this statute was initiated in this case.

The school was subsequently advised by the patron that permission to dismiss the teacher concerned was refused. Subsequently the bishops agreed to abrogate the Maynooth statute, section 264, section 2, at a general meeting in December 2010 and this was approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education on 29 March 2011 with effect from September 2011. There is no agreement between the patron and the Department in relation to monitoring the behaviour of the teacher concerned.

My Department is not aware of any child protection concerns regarding this school and should the Deputy have any such concerns, these should be reported to the Child and Family Agency. As there is ongoing litigation in this case I do not wish to comment further until this action is concluded.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that the litigation has completed and that the former principal has been exonerated in terms of her very responsible role in this situation where she sought in the best interests of her student to have an obstructive teacher removed. That stance was unanimously supported by the board of management in the school, but as the Minister indicated, it was not agreed by the archdiocese. The school board made an intervention to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, but it was cited that he could not intervene due to canon law. That gets to the heart of a subject that has been very much in the news of late, namely, the erosion of a constitutional right to a secular education system whereby the Catholic Church should not have a right to impose its rules over various schools. The law is clear. The board of management is supposed to decide on the running of a school, but in this case the board of management resigned twice. The case ended up in the courts. The school lost and the principal was vindicated. At the root of the problem was the intervention of the church in the background, which is a completely inappropriate place for the church to be in education.

Will the Minister clarify the point about ongoing inspections? My understanding is that an agreement had been reached, and given that the teacher would not be dismissed, his behaviour would be monitored and the Department undertook that would be the case.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is ongoing litigation between the teacher concerned and the Minister for Education and Skills and, accordingly, I am not in a position to comment. The Department of Education and Skills lodged its amended statement of defence on 4 September 2014.

The Department carries out regular inspections but inspections can also be undertaken in specific circumstances. As part of its annual inspection programme, the Department conducted an incidental inspection in the school concerned on 5 June 2014. I do not know whether Deputy Daly has different information from mine on the legal proceedings, but the information I have is that the legal proceedings are ongoing.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister follow up the situation as I believe there have been developments since September and that while perhaps a hearing did not take place, an arrangement was reached outside of the courts? The position can be checked. The point is that the board of management, which is supposed to be the organisation that runs schools, twice decided that the teacher should be dismissed. The Department of Education and Skills did not uphold the lawful decision of the board and instead bowed to interference by the Catholic Church and the parish priest in the area who intervened, despite the resignation of two boards of management. My clear understanding is that seeing as the teacher was not dismissed, the Department gave an undertaking that his behaviour would be monitored. I accept that there have been follow-up inspections but the teacher's behaviour has not been monitored. I wish to put on record that we are not talking about sexual abuse. It is obstructive and inappropriate behaviour but not of that character.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not unsympathetic to the general philosophy behind the matter raised by Deputy Daly, but because there is ongoing legal action on the specific case, I cannot comment on it. In general, if concerns arise about behaviour in schools, the Department inspects and monitors the situation and will give undertakings, when necessary, in such cases.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Coppinger has arrived. I call Question No. 121 in her name.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to raise a point of order. Is it not true under Standing Orders that a question falls if the Deputy asking the question is not present in the Chamber? Is it not the case that the question cannot be revisited?

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had checked that point with the clerk.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow the next question to be taken.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is my understanding that the question does not fall and therefore, it can be taken.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not intend to take the question.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next question is No. 125 from Deputy Paul Murphy.