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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on the Second Stage of the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015. I will provide a detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill but first I want to highlight the background and main aims of this legislation. The Bill has two main aims. First, it will underpin the central role of the Teaching Council in the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements for registered teachers. Second, it will put in place a meaningful fitness to teach process, to be operated by the Teaching Council. The existing Garda vetting arrangements for the schools sector operate on a non-statutory basis and have been in place for new employees since 2006. Under these existing vetting arrangements, the Teaching Council is the registered organisation that liaises with the Garda central vetting unit for the vetting of teachers. It acts as a conduit for about 3,500 individual recognised schools and education and training boards, ETBs, that employ registered teachers. The Teaching Council plays a vital part in the State’s overall child protection infrastructure for schools. It is the body that has the capacity to ensure that any person that is not suitable to teach will not be registered as a teacher.

The Bill will underpin and strengthen this capacity and, in doing so, will ensure, in tandem with the provisions of the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012, that the vetting of all registered teachers on an ongoing basis will be provided for and carried out on a statutory basis. The Bill, which is intended to be aligned with the National Vetting Bureau Act, will also make it more efficient for schools to meet the vetting requirements of the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012 when it is commenced. The provisions in the Bill will help improve the workability of the vetting arrangements for schools and ETBs. It will enable them to receive vetting disclosures in a streamlined, secure and timely manner through the Teaching Council’s electronic register of teachers.

The number of teachers vetted under the non-statutory arrangements continues to steadily increase, with about 54,000 of the 90,000 teachers on the Teaching Council register now vetted. The remaining 36,000 who have not yet been vetted are typically permanent teachers who have been in the same school since prior to the introduction of vetting in 2006. I think we can all agree how important it is to ensure that such teachers are vetted under the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements. The statutory arrangements will include a check for both criminal offences and also any relevant soft information and, when this Bill is enacted, there will a clear statutory basis for the Teaching Council to require such teachers to undergo vetting and for it to deal with any adverse vetting disclosure that might be received. The Teaching Council and I are mindful of the need to ensure that all registered teachers are vetted. I have asked the council to prioritise this work in the year after enactment of the legislation. Importantly, this Bill provides that renewal of a teacher's registration will be linked to compliance with the Bill's vetting requirements. It also ensures that there will be a robust statutory basis for the Teaching Council to consider in the case of any teacher who is the subject of an adverse vetting disclosure as to whether the teacher's registration should be renewed.

The Bill will prepare the ground for the commencement, for the first time, of fitness to practice procedures for the teaching profession. This is a key part of any professional regulatory system. The enhanced measures now being put in place will help to ensure that high quality standards of teaching can be upheld by the council through the operation of fair, robust and effective fitness to teach processes. The Bill makes provision for a number of changes to the fitness to teach provisions of the Teaching Council Act, before their commencement, so that the Teaching Council can undertake this important regulatory role in an effective manner and to update the fitness to teach provisions to take account of the new statutory vetting arrangements. The purpose of the council's fitness to teach role is to uphold standards and protect children. Robust procedures which are transparent and fair will underpin the council's work. When these provisions are commenced, any person, including members of the public, employers, other teachers or the Teaching Council itself will be able to make a complaint about a registered teacher. Issues of sufficient gravity will result in an inquiry. The council will have the capacity to remove a teacher from the register where it deems the person unfit to teach, including where this is for child protection reasons. The Bill will improve the capacity of the Teaching Council to deal with complaints which indicate a risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult by empowering it to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of the teacher concerned as part of a fitness to teach inquiry.

It is important to bear in mind that the fitness to teach function will also serve to identify areas where teachers can take action to address underperformance or conduct issues. These processes will not displace the existing disciplinary procedures available to employers at school level. Such procedures will normally be completed before the Teaching Council conducts an inquiry and in many cases it would be expected that the matter is resolved at school level. I intend to commence the fitness to teach provisions at the earliest opportunity after the enactment of the Bill.

The Bill contains 23 sections which aim to provide a clear statutory basis for the role of the Teaching Council, which I will now outline in more detail. Section 1 defines the principal Act as meaning the Teaching Council Act 2001. Section 2 inserts into the principal Act interpretations for a number of terms used in the Bill.

Section 3 amends the functions of the council to provide that, in addition to the functions specified in the principle Act, it will be a function of the Teaching Council to obtain or receive vetting disclosures for the purposes set out in the Bill for the purpose of its role as a relevant organisation as defined in the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012 or for the purpose of its role as a relevant organisation representing another relevant organisation under the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012. This provision makes clear that the council may seek vetting disclosures for the purposes of the registration and fitness to teach provisions of the Bill and ensures that its role as a conduit for schools and ETBs in the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements is given statutory underpinning. Section 3 also amends the functions to provide that the council shall, in the performance of its functions under that Act, have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable adults.

In light of recent institutional changes, section 4 amends section 8 of the principle Act to update the bodies providing primary and post primary initial teacher education which nominate persons for appointment to the council. Section 5 provides that the information to be entered in the register in respect of a registered teacher as prescribed by the council shall, in addition to existing information, include whether the registration is subject to any conditions set at initial registration or at renewal of registration; and the information disclosed by the most recent vetting disclosure in the possession of the council in respect of the person. This amendment will enable the Teaching Council to provide a streamlined mechanism to enable a school employer to access the vetting disclosure electronically in respect of a teacher it intends to employ. This approach facilitates a centralised and accessible mechanism for schools and ETB employers to receive disclosures for teachers via the register and in compliance with the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012. It is important to note that records held electronically by the Teaching Council will not be accessible other than to an employer for the purposes of obtaining a disclosure under the National Vetting Bureau Act and in such circumstances only with the consent and knowledge of the teacher in question and in compliance with data protection legislation. Section 5 also clarifies that the existing provisions of the Act which relate to publishing the register, making it available for inspection and providing for a copy of an entry or extract to be made available on request are subject to any enactment or rule of law which would prohibit the disclosure of such information.

Section 6 updates section 30 of the 2001 Act. The existing Section 30 provides that a person employed as a teacher in a recognised school shall not be remunerated out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas where the person is not a registered teacher or where the person is removed or suspended from the register. Section 6 substitutes the existing section 30 of the Act and updates the existing wording to cross reference an amendment made to the Education Act 1998 under the Education (Amendment) Act 2012 to make provision for the employment, in certain exceptional and limited circumstances, of persons who are not registered teachers; and amendments being made under this Bill to sections 44 and 47 of the principal Act, which I will outline later on.

Section 7 amends section 31 of the 2001 Act to make it mandatory for the Teaching Council to obtain and consider a vetting disclosure before initially putting a teacher on the register.This is already the practice of the Teaching Council on an administrative basis since Garda vetting was introduced in September 2006. The Bill makes statutory provision for vetting disclosures from the bureau to be assessed for all new applicants for registration. It provides for the council to consider a vetting disclosure in order to determine if a person is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the register and that the council shall refuse registration where the person has not consented to vetting or where the council, in accordance with this section, is not satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to be registered. It also provides for a revised text in regard to the powers of the Teaching Council to make regulations in respect of initial registration. This section also makes some technical amendments to the existing provisions which provide for the council to refuse to register a person where the person stands removed or suspended from the register and for the council to register a person with conditions.

Section 8 makes provision for transitional arrangements to deal with applications for registration that were received prior to the coming into operation of section 7. Section 9 places a requirement on a person to provide his or her consent to vetting at initial registration or where he or she is requested by the council to do so for the purposes of renewal of his or her registration. Section 10 provides that where a teacher’s initial registration is subject to conditions that have been applied by the High Court following an appeal, the teacher shall be removed from the register where he or she fails to comply with any of those conditions.

Section 11 amends section 33 of the principal Act to provide for revised text in regard to the powers of the Teaching Council to make regulations for the purpose of renewal of registration which shall, inter alia, provide for the form and manner of an application for renewal of registration and the documentary and other evidence that the council may seek to enable it to satisfy itself that a person is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed. This section also makes provision for retrospective vetting and re-vetting arrangements for registered teachers in the context of renewal of their registration. It is aimed at ensuring that all registered teachers who have never been vetted are vetted and that provision is made for periodic re-vetting of registered teachers on an ongoing basis. It is not intended that all 90,000 registered teachers will be vetted on each annual renewal of registration.

The section allows the council to plan and undertake such vetting in a structured and phased manner and sets out what the council will have regard to when considering whether to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of a teacher for renewal of his or her registration. In that regard the section will enable the council to prioritise the vetting of those teachers who were never vetted under the non-statutory arrangements, to subsequently address those who have been vetted under the existing non-statutory arrangements but who have not been vetted under the new statutory vetting arrangements and to provide thereafter for periodic re-vetting of all registered teachers to be undertaken on an ongoing basis.

It also makes provision for the Teaching Council to notify a teacher in good time where it intends to seek a vetting disclosure as part of renewal.

The section outlines when the Teaching Council shall refuse to renew a person's registration such as where a teacher has failed to comply with a vetting request within the required timeframe and it has not been in a position to determine if he or she is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed. The section also provides that a teacher may, within 21 days, apply to the High Court for an annulment of a decision by the Teaching Council to refuse to renew his or her registration or renew it subject to conditions. The amendment will bring the renewal stage of the registration process into line with other stages of registration where such an appeals mechanism is already in place such as initial registration stage or removal from the register following an inquiry under the fitness to teach procedures.

Section 12 is a technical amendment to provide that where, prior to section 11 coming into operation, the period for compliance with a condition imposed during initial registration exceeded the period of the initial registration and the person's registration is subsequently renewed, such renewed registration will be subject to the original condition for any remaining outstanding period for compliance.

Section 13 amends section 34 of the 2001 Act which prescribes a notice period of one month following the expiry of a teacher's registration to be provided for a teacher who fails to apply for renewal and for that teacher to be removed from the register at the end of that month unless he or she has applied for renewal and paid the relevant renewal fee to the Teaching Council within that one month period. Section 13 of the Bill amends section 34 of the Act to provide that, in the case of a teacher who is required to comply with a vetting requirement at renewal of registration stage, the notice period provision will apply only where he or she has complied with these vetting requirements. The existing section 34 also requires that where an application has been made for a fitness to teach inquiry under Part 5 of the Act and the relevant person fails to apply for renewal of registration, he or she shall not be removed from the register until such time as that inquiry is completed. This provision, with a number of others, is also being amended to be consistent with changes being made to the wording of Part 5. These include changing the word "application" to "complaint" and "applicant" to "complainant" and making specific reference to the various provisions of Part 5 under which a fitness to teach process can reach conclusion. Similarly, section 14 simply amends the wording of section 35 to be consistent with other changes being made to wording and to make specific reference to the various provisions of Part 5 under which a fitness to teach process can reach a conclusion.

Section 15 of the Bill amends section 42 of the 2001 Act which sets out the procedures for dealing with complaints against teachers and the role and processes to be followed by the director and the investigating committee in respect of such complaints. Section 15 of the Bill is necessarily detailed so as to set out clearly the powers and procedures applicable at the preliminary stages in the fitness to teach process, including in relation to the treatment of vetting disclosures. It amends section 42 of the Act to outline a range of matters which may be the subject of a complaint against a teacher such as contravention of education legislation, professional misconduct, poor professional performance, conduct contrary to the code of professional conduct for teachers, erroneous or fraudulent registration, medical unfitness, or convictions for an offence triable on indictment. Under this section, the Teaching Council may make a complaint in relation to a registered teacher on the grounds that the information disclosed in a vetting disclosure which has been received by the council in its conduit role for schools and ETBs is of such a nature as to reasonably give rise to a bona fideconcern that the teacher may harm or attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm or incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.

Section 15 of the Bill also provides that, where the investigating committee decides to hold an inquiry and the nature of the complaint raises abona fideconcern of harm, the committee shall request the Teaching Council to apply to the National Vetting Bureau for a vetting disclosure in respect of the teacher for the purposes of considering the conduct alleged in the complaint. Where the investigating committee receives a vetting disclosure, the teacher concerned shall be provided with a copy of the disclosure and invited to make submissions. Provision is also made for the employer, where the employer is known to the Teaching Council, to be informed as soon as possible where, on foot of a complaint, there is a bona fideconcern that the teacher may harm or attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm or incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.

The section also outlines the areas of complaint which can be considered following the coming into operation of this Part of the Bill, notwithstanding that the conduct in question occurred prior to its coming into operation. It also makes clear what information and documents the investigating committee may require or request from relevant parties, including the complainant, teacher, school or schools where the teacher is or was employed and-or other parties. The section introduces a threshold to be reached before the investigating committee will refer a case to the next stage of the process. That threshold is reached before further action can take place and the investigating committee must be of the opinion that there is a prima faciecase. This will ensure only those cases which merit a disciplinary inquiry and hearing will be progressed to that stage.

Section 15 also includes a definition of "document" to ensure digital documents or photographs, for example, can be sought by the investigating committee.

Section 16 of the Bill amends section 43 of the 2001 Act which deals with inquiries of the disciplinary committee following referral of a complaint by the investigating committee. Section 16 of the Bill amends section 43 of the Act to outline the steps to be taken by the disciplinary committee and its panels, including the matters to be specified in inquiry reports. These matters are the nature of the complaint, the evidence laid before the panel, the panel's findings, the relevance of the findings to fitness to teach where the complaint related to a conviction and any other matter the panel considers appropriate. Where the inquiry is conducted into a complaint made by the Teaching Council on foot of information in a vetting disclosure it received pursuant to its conduit role for a school or ETB employer and the panel, having regard to the protection of children and vulnerable persons, is satisfied that there is a risk that the person may harm or attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm or incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person, such panel's report must specify the nature of the information disclosed in the vetting disclosure, the evidence laid before the panel and its assessment of and conclusion in respect of the risk involved. The Bill also makes provision for the panel to dismiss a complaint where it makes no finding against the teacher.

Section 17 of the Bill amends section 44 of the 2001 Act to add a new sanction to the range of sanctions already provided for and which include removal or suspension from the register or retention subject to conditions. The new sanction is framed in the following terms: to advise, admonish, or censure the registered teacher in writing. Section 17 outlines that an adverse decision of the disciplinary committee, other than a decision to advise, admonish or censure in writing, may be appealed to the High Court. It also provides for references to the Supreme Court to be replaced with references to the Court of Appeal and that, where following an appeal to the High Court, a teacher is suspended or removed from the register and leave is granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the relevant court, shall, where the teacher is employed as a teacher in a recognised school, make a direction as to whether the teacher shall continue to be paid pursuant to his or her contract of employment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Section 18 of the Bill amends section 45 of the Act to provide that, where a registered teacher fails to comply with a condition imposed by the High Court on appeal, he or she shall be removed from the register.

Section 19 of the Bill amends section 47 of the Act to provide that the High Court, where it is has ordered that a teacher's registration be suspended, shall also, where the teacher is employed in a recognised school, make a direction on whether the teacher shall continue to be paid pursuant to his or her contract of employment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Section 20 of the Bill amends Schedule 3 to the 2001 Act to ensure consistency with the wording of section 42 and provide for the same definition of "document".

Section 21 of the Bill provides for section 24(7)(b) of the Education Act 1998, as amended by section 6 of the Education (Amendment) Act 2012, to be amended to clarify the type of information on the registration status of teachers the Teaching Council is required under section 24 of the 1998 Act to provide for the Minister or an education and training board, including where a teacher has been removed from the register following a fitness to teach process.

Section 22 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 41 of the Act, reflecting some restructuring of the fitness to teach provisions to bring them more into line with more recent statutes.

Section 23 provides for the Short Title, the collective citation of the Teaching Council Acts and the Education Acts and standard provisions relating to commencement.

During the passage of the Bill I intend to introduce an amendment to provide for fitness to teach hearings to be held in public as the default position, while providing for exceptions, where necessary, to protect the rights of individuals. My officials will consult the Teaching Council on the factors to be considered in such cases. This will ensure the new fitness to teach framework will mirror best practice in disciplinary hearings for other professional bodies.

The changes being brought forward will make a very significant contribution to safeguarding children in our schools and to upholding the high standards of teaching that students and society expect and deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Broadly, we will support the passage of the Bill and welcome its introduction into the House. Fianna Fáil has been calling on the Minister to address the inadequate Garda vetting of new and existing teachers in our schools for a long time and we welcome the mandatory vetting procedures provided for in the legislation. We also call on the Minister to follow through on the provisions by ensuring Garda vetting for new and existing teachers is treated as a priority, expedited and properly resourced. The Teaching Council and Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, have certain reservations about the fitness to practice elements of the Bill. Fianna Fáil is committed to addressing these concerns where possible through amendments and proper debate of the Bill. These concerns were addressed when changes were made to the fitness to practice hearings of other professions in the last few years.

The Bill has two main aims. It underpins the role of the Teaching Council in the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements for registered teachers and it amends the Teaching Council Act 2001 and Education Act 1998 by strengthening the statutory provisions relating to the Teaching Council's fitness to teach function. The Teaching Council is made up of two thirds teachers and their union representatives. Under this legislation, the council will have the capacity to remove a teacher from its register where it deems the person unfit to teach, including where this is for child protection reasons. The Council will also be charged with investigating underperformance or conduct issues on foot of complaints from students, parents and teachers, among others.

Currently, the Teaching Council's role is to determine whether an individual is deemed suitable to be registered as a teacher. The Bill provides that Garda vetting will be a mandatory part of the registration process for future candidates. It also gives the council the power to retrospectively require the vetting of registered teachers and periodic re-vetting of registered teachers. In deciding upon the vetting of currently registered teachers, the council will consider whether or not to vet the teacher if it has received a vetting disclosure under the non-statutory arrangements and with regard to the time elapsed since any prior Garda vetting. This means registered teachers who have never been Garda vetted as well as those who have not been vetted in a long time are prone to being vetted by the council. Figures from the Teaching Council last October showed that approximately 40% of its 90,000 registered teachers had yet to be Garda vetted. Statutory vetting arrangements will, in addition to the existing check for criminal offences, also include a check for any relevant soft information. This is referred to as specified information that leads to a bona fide belief that a person poses a threat to children or vulnerable persons.

The Bill makes some amendments which intend to strengthen and clarify the fitness to teach provisions of the Teaching Council Act before their commencement. It sets out a number of matters about which a complaint may be made and expands the list of parties from which evidence can be required as part of a fitness to teach inquiry. It clarifies that conduct which raises child protection concerns and which occurred prior to the enactment of this Bill can be examined in a fitness to teach inquiry provided the conduct concerned would have constituted a criminal offence when it occurred. It improves the capacity of the Teaching Council to deal with complaints which indicate a risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult by empowering it to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of the teacher concerned as part of a fitness to teach inquiry. The Bill makes it easier to remove teachers from posts with the requirement for a full finding of unfitness to teach by allowing a new sanction of "advice, admonishment or censure" of teachers. Fitness hearings are scheduled to take place later this year under the auspices of the council.

Any person, including the council, can make a complaint to the investigating committee on the grounds of a teacher's failure to comply with teaching regulations, or professional misconduct and poor professional conduct including engaging in conduct contrary to the code of professional conduct. A complaint can also be made if a teacher's registration is based on erroneous information or disclosures, if he or she is medically unfit to teach or if he or she is convicted in the State or outside the State for an offence leading to trial on indictment if it occurred in the State.

Fianna Fáil has been calling for the implementation of mandatory Garda vetting of new teachers and the retrospective vetting of existing teachers for some time. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Bill broadens the complaints for professional misconduct which can be brought to the council for investigation. However, we would like assurances from the Minister that adequate protections, appeals and redress procedures are put in place to ensure complaints that are made against teachers cannot be turned into a witch-hunt against certain teachers. It is the Minister's intention to seek amendments at a further Stage of the Bill, to include a provision that hearings of the investigation committee into complaints made against teachers will be held in public as the default position. The announcement has drawn a negative reaction from teacher unions and teaching staff. The council has advised the Minister that the decision on whether hearings should be made in public or in private should be made on a case-by-case basis, rather than being held in public as the default position. It justified this advice on the basis that Ireland is a small place and the fact that a teacher is up before a panel will be widely known with the potential for an impact on their reputation even if no finding is made against them. The TUI has said it would be extremely unfair if teachers were brought before public hearings, except in cases of serious misconduct. It seems a more reasonable position that the decision over whether hearings should be held in public or private should be taken, with a full knowledge of the facts on the ground, on a case-by-case basis by the council, rather than as a default position.

Some 40% of teaching staff have not been Garda vetted. Delays in the implementation of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 have created a loophole in the system, which is effectively allowing teachers to work in schools without being fully cleared by the authorities. While the mandatory Garda vetting provided for in this Bill is to be welcomed as a necessary, basic step to protect students, these measures must be enforced in full and without exception. It is worrying that the Minister has not set out a timeframe today within which all teachers are to be vetted. Resources must be allocated to the Garda vetting unit to reduce the backlog and ensure that all teachers are cleared. It is unacceptable that more than 36,000 teachers have gone unchecked to date. This is a failure of the Government which must be remedied promptly.

There is a need to highlight the exceptional job that is done by the overwhelming majority of teachers, and I know the Minister would agree. For example, the chief inspector's report 2013 endorsed the excellent job being done by Irish teachers, with 87% of parents happy with teaching standards in Irish schools. Against the odds, teaching standards have been upheld in the context of recent cutbacks in primary and second-level schools, including the reduction in teacher numbers and a moratorium on middle management posts. Many of the weaknesses or slippages in standards that have been identified correspond directly to areas affected by the education cuts, including access to career guidance services and the leadership capacity of schools. Unfortunately, the Minister has not done enough to support teachers and management in schools in their efforts to keep up the quality teaching standards. Even yesterday's proposed changes to small school teacher numbers do not go far enough and it is little more than tokenism for the many schools which have already suffered cuts over the past two or three years and whose teacher numbers will not be restored as a result.

While these changes are a small improvement, nothing less than a full reversal of the damaging measures imposed by the former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, is required. While the new policy announced yesterday acknowledges the scale of the cuts to which small schools have been subjected, it is no more than optics in that it does not reflect the reality on the ground. Population increases have resulted in an increase in enrolment figures and it is incumbent on the Minister to ensure schools are equipped to cater for these growing pupil numbers. In her statement yesterday she did not reflect this or make any move to address it.

Despite these new retention thresholds, schools which have increased their student numbers from 52 to 55 will not be entitled to a third teacher, while a school where pupil numbers have dropped from 56 to 53 will retain a teacher. This is unfair and inequitable and should be reviewed. In this instance both schools should be entitled to a third teacher. Similarly, a school that has gone from 82 to 85 pupils this year will not be allocated a fourth teacher whereas a school that has seen a drop from 86 to 83 students will retain its fourth teacher.

While we welcome the Bill, which has many technical aspects, it needs to be reflected in real actions which will improve the lot and situation of teachers on the ground and better equip them to play their role. Oversight is a key part of the responsibilities of the Minister and the Department. It is crucial that we have appropriate vetting procedures in place and that we move promptly to a situation where all teachers are vetted. It is also appropriate and necessary that there is correct oversight of fitness to practise and quality. It is also important to ensure there are sufficient teachers to provide a quality education service. The Government has made it very difficult for teachers in the 50% of primary schools that have fewer than five teachers to provide the service they would like to. That has led to real pinch points and higher class sizes in many of those schools.

I urge the Minister to go the full way. She has finally acknowledged that the Government’s policy is putting real pressure on the schools in her small row back yesterday. Nothing less than a full row back is required to provide for the appropriate number of teachers for schools with growing numbers of pupils. The Minister knows better than anyone that there is a bulge in the population moving through schools. The number of schools with increasing pupil numbers and in need of additional teachers outweigh those losing pupils and which face losing teachers. The Minister’s move yesterday would help address this situation in the 30 schools due to lose a teacher next September. That will not in any way affect those who have already lost teachers or those who should have gained teachers if the Minister had not increased the threshold of students.

I urge the Minister alongside the Bill, considering her announcement yesterday, to go the full hog. I welcome her announcement that she will publish the value for money report after the Government has sat on it for over two years. I note that finally the Minister seems to have concluded she will not go ahead with the recommendations contained therein. That comes after much damage has been done to the school system by measures the Government has introduced in the past three years and which she indicated will not be reversed between now and the next general election. I look forward to a comprehensive debate on that report when it is published next week. I also look forward to the debate on the next Stages of this Bill and its passage through the House.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the Minister for missing the beginning of her contribution, but I will get a copy of her speech. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill which we will support. There is a major amendment to be tabled on Committee Stage, which the Minister has outlined, on public hearings being the default position. We have not seen the wording of the amendment but we support all the other provisions of the Bill and look forward to the publication of the amendment and to debating its merits. We have some concerns about it.

The Minister and Deputy Charlie McConalogue have outlined the two main purposes of the Bill, to provide a statutory basis for the teaching council in the vetting of registered teachers and to act as a conduit for schools that need to obtain those vetting disclosures, and to strengthen the statutory provisions relating to the Teaching Council’s fitness to teach function. It is a technical Bill. The research paper provided by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service is excellent. It goes through each section of the Bill outlining what it proposes in detail and the consequences for the previous legislation. It is well worth reading for any Member who has an interest in this. It also outlines issues that might arise from the proposals.

We fully support the vetting of teachers. The latest figures are from November 2014 when there were over 90,000 teachers registered with the Teaching Council and almost 54,000 of them have been vetted. Approximately 40% remain unvetted. Many of those are teachers who had been teaching for many years before the vetting laws and procedures came into place. There would have been no need for vetting procedures. The provision in the Bill to ensure that teachers who have not been vetted may now be vetted on an ongoing basis is welcome. We should strive to achieve a position where everyone who teaches in schools is vetted.

This Bill deals specifically with teachers and will not cover other members of school staff such as special needs assistants, SNAs. I know from responses to parliamentary questions we have put down about the number of SNAs who have Garda vetting that the Department does not hold that information. We should try to rectify this. I know it cannot be done in the confines of this Bill, but we should have that type of information particularly when dealing with people who have access to children in classrooms.

Section 15 of the Bill amends section 42 of the principal Act to provide:

“(1) A person (including the Council) may make a complaint to the Investigating Committee in relation to a registered teacher, and the Committee may consider the complaint, where that complaint concerns any of the following matters . . . "

(g) that he or she has been convicted in the State of an offence triable on indictment or convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions that, if done or made in the State, would constitute an offence triable on indictment.

On the issue of soft information, Sinn Féin fully supports its use, particularly in respect of vetting procedures for those who are dealing with children and vulnerable adults. The briefing material provided by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service notes that section 5 of the Bill deals with the register and the information that will be contained therein. The briefing note provides a list of all the information to be included such as the name and address of the correspondence, the date of birth, qualifications and so forth. The last item will be the information disclosed by the most recent vetting disclosure in the council's possession in respect of that person. I imagine this item would include any soft information that had been provided as part of the vetting disclosure. However, on publication of the register, it states the Teaching Council may withhold some information to ensure and protect the privacy of persons entered on the register. I ask the Minister to confirm, when she wraps up this debate or perhaps even on Committee Stage, that such soft information would be the type of information the Teaching Council could withhold when it publishes the register. I believe it also is important to protect the privacy of teachers and to ensure that any information that is brought forward but which does not constitute a criminal offence is not included in the register.

While I have covered most issues, the final point I wish to raise concerns the amendment the Minister intends to bring forward. There has been much media speculation on whether there should be public or private hearings. I acknowledge that public hearings are held in Scotland and Wales and that one reason the Minister has cited is to bring it into line with best practices in other areas, such as in the Medical Council, for instance, which has public hearings. Reservations have been expressed by some teaching unions with a view to ensuring that due process is given to teachers who are being investigated and this must be taken on board. I acknowledge, having touched base with the Sinn Féin Minister for Education in the Six Counties, that they currently are considering legislation that would make public hearings the default position there as well. While I am not fundamentally opposed to it, one must be careful that where it is being used - if it is being used - it should be in exceptional circumstances. I understand the Teaching Council has proposed the establishment of a sub-committee to examine which cases could or should be made public. I do not know whether this will be incorporated into the Minister's amendment, which is why I stated at the outset that while Sinn Féin broadly supports the Bill, it must await publication of this amendment to ascertain whether there will be public hearings on a wide scale or whether it will be done on a case-by-case basis. I would prefer the latter because it is important that due process be given to teachers. While it may be something of a cliché, this is a small State and if it enters the public domain that a teacher has been investigated, even if such a teacher is vindicated, he or she unfortunately sometimes still will be victimised because he or she was under investigation in the first place. This may be the case even though the allegations have been found to have been unfounded and the teacher has been deemed fit and proper to teach. A balancing act must be performed in that regard and I look forward to the publication of the aforementioned amendment.

I reiterate that Sinn Féin broadly will be supporting the legislation and looks forward to it being debated on Committee Stage, where Members can delve into each individual section in greater detail. Sinn Féin may table one or two amendments, particularly in respect of the issue to which I referred in section 15 regarding ex-political prisoners. While what is proposed in theory is good, the purpose will be to ensure that in practice, it does not discriminate against some members of the teaching profession.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand Deputy Finian McGrath is sharing time with Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan, Ruth Coppinger and Michael Fitzmaurice.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015. I welcome both the Bill and this particular debate, as it is an opportunity to plan ahead, reform the education system and ensure that Ireland has educational standards of top quality and, through this Bill, top-class professional quality teachers. One should never forget this point in respect of the broader issue of education. There are many high quality and top-class professional teachers in the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Teachers Union of Ireland and the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland. They are valuable people to the State and, in particular, they also are a valuable asset to broader society. Many make huge contributions in education, as well as in the arts, sports and broader community matters. It is important to acknowledge this point, particularly in respect of this Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill. One must also focus on quality standards and the true professionalism of teachers. I will use this opportunity to commend many of those teachers, particularly those class teachers who work in disadvantaged schools. Many of them face huge problems in respect of education and social and economic disadvantage yet are doing a magnificent job, many times against the odds. It is up to all Members of the House, not simply the Government, to support these teachers because they can make an impact on the development of children, particularly from the age of four to the age of 13 when they leave the primary cycle. This also is a matter on which Members must focus. In addition, they should not be afraid to look at the faults and weaknesses of some of the practices that go on in the schools and the educational service. It also is important to commend and thank the many principals who work in such disadvantaged schools because on top of being principals and prime educators, they also operate as social workers and work in many other administrative areas. Their job is extremely difficult, particularly in modern society, and many pressures are placed on them by both the Department and wider society. They are and wish to be accountable to people but one must also ensure they are supported. I raise these two issues in respect of the aforementioned Bill and will develop the link further later.

I also commend and thank all those teachers who work with children with special needs in both primary and second level education. That is why I was particularly disappointed a few days ago when I learned that the Minister's plans to reform the allocation of resources for special educational needs had been shelved for this year, despite concerns about the unfairness associated with the current system. In recent days, the Minister has stated she did not plan to change the system next September as originally had been proposed. Many people were looking forward to the implementation of those changes for the new children coming into the system next September. I believe the reason given was that the National Council for Special Education advised that sufficient time should be allowed for further consultation with the educational stakeholders. While I am disappointed by this, I also suggest that if further involvement with stakeholders is envisaged, the Minister should include parents, as well as parents of children with special needs, who are feeling very excluded. I do not wish to see more families going down to the law courts to secure their rights, services and resources.

The position at present is that the Minister's own Department has specifically pointed out that children in wealthier areas get more special education teaching resources than do children in disadvantaged areas. The Department of Education and Skills itself drew up a report that found that children in more affluent parts of the city were receiving more special education teaching resource hours than were children in poor disadvantaged areas. The reason for this discrepancy in provision in respect of middle income or middle-class schools is that psychological assessments were paid for privately by parents and then those assessments were fed into the public education system. These assessments are used to determine the resource hours and staffing allocated to a school. My point is that parents who can afford between €400 and €600 to have an education assessment carried out in private are at a major advantage over those parents who cannot. In the case of any Government, country or society, all children should have equal access to educational resources irrespective of their parents' wealth.

The Bill caters for two main overarching aims, namely, to underpin the central role of the Teaching Council in the statutory Garda vetting arrangements for teachers, as set out in the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, as well as to amend and strengthen the statutory provisions of the Teaching Council Act 2001 relating to the Teaching Council’s fitness to teach function. It is important that teachers are vetted under the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements which will include a check for criminal offences, as well as any relevant soft information, an important new element of the vetting procedures. I support these sensible provisions. Historically, people with major dysfunctional issues with children emerged in the education system and were an abuse threat to children. We must be focused in ensuring children in primary schools are protected from abuse. It is also important to ensure those teachers working with children with special needs are strongly vetted, as such children might not have the ability to report sexual or other types of abuse. When the Bill is enacted, there will be a clear statutory basis for the Teaching Council to require such teachers to undergo vetting and to deal with any adverse vetting information that might be received. Removing a teacher from the Teaching Council register is the best way of achieving child protection across all recognised schools. I welcome this aspect of the legislation. As well as underpinning the role of the Teaching Council, the Bill also provides the statutory basis for retrospective or periodic revetting of all registered teachers during the renewal of a registration. It also sets out several grounds on which a complaint may be made such as professional misconduct, poor professional performance and medical unfitness.

The majority of teachers are highly committed. It is important to encourage young people to enter teaching because it is a wonderful career. Speaking from experience, I know that there are many quality teachers who develop, evolve and nurture children in their schooling, creating great citizens for the future. The Minister must listen to the teachers on the front line if they have a quibble or an issue; it is not about just attending the Easter conferences. I welcome the positive aspects of the legislation.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had some exchanges with the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, on the issue of the Teaching Council. With many of my teaching colleagues, I have been very critical of the idea of a Teaching Council, particularly the way in which it was set up. The first engagement we had with the Teaching Council in June 2009 was when we receiving letters threatening us that if we did not join, we would not be paid our salary for teaching. This was long before the council had any legal right to do this. The bullying approach in the early days certainly did not get it off to a good start with teachers.

There were other issues of concern which certainly had teachers very sceptical. They were issues on which the Teaching Council showed itself as being far from efficient. A point I brought up with the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, concerned the loan of €6 million the council had received to set itself up in the first place and if it would be repaid, as it had a healthy income from the yearly subscriptions teachers had to pay to it.

As a profession, teachers are very much maligned by various sections of society which only see the long holidays and shorter hours. Teachers are now even more maligned because of the stance they took on the junior certificate reforms. That comes from their loyalty to their students, what they think is best for them and their belief that the current fair, transparent and open correction of junior certificate examination papers is good for their students. Very often we do not hear about the commitment, dedication and sheer hard work of teachers at both primary and second level inside and outside the classroom. My experience in my own school and of the many teachers I know is of the time and energy given inside and outside the school in extracurricular activities such as sports, drama, concerts, debating, competitions such as the Young Scientist, the many field trips taken and history tours. Many of us found the clause in the Croke Park agreement on additional hours per week quite offensive, especially for those who were doing it on a voluntary basis.

I acknowledge teachers' flexibility and adaptability in embracing the many changes and new initiatives introduced during the years. There is still a demand for careers in teaching, as seen in the numbers of applications to the Central Applications Office every year. There is also a high level of career satisfaction among teachers, unlike in other countries which are having difficulties in maintaining the status of the profession. This is notwithstanding the much lower salary on which incoming teachers start as opposed to in other times.

There was a major battle with the Teaching Council over the original registration fee of €90. It had to be paid, regardless of whether one was a full-time or a part-time teacher or even just going for an interview. This figure has come down to €65.

I have also been critical of the Teaching Council's inability to collate accurate information on teachers, its lack of accessibility to teachers and the way it interacts with teachers at times. There have been negative engagements between the council and teachers. A particular case I am pursuing involves a teacher taken off the register by the council which claims it had made efforts to contact him in this regard. However, he can prove otherwise, apart from one occasion. The first he knew he had been taken off the register was when he discovered he had been deprived of eight days' salary. The council originally claimed that it had made efforts to contact him by e-mail and text message, but it now acknowledges it had the wrong telephone number. Surely, with a major staff complement, it could have made a personal telephone call to identify why there was a problem with his registration. There could have been any reason such as an illness or a bereavement.

I am also sceptical about the Bill’s proposal that the Teaching Council be able to determine fitness to teach. Notwithstanding the work of the current director whom I have met and whose hard work and dynamism I recognise, the council still has to prove to teachers that the sum of €65 is worth paying. I have been struck by some quotes from teachers about the council - “useless regulatory body”, “jobs for the boys and jobs for the unions”, “absolutely no impact on the teaching profession” and “expensive, pointless, self-serving bureaucracy”.

There are 37 people on the Teaching Council, of whom 22 are registered teachers, six from the unions and 16 are elected. In the 2012 council elections, in one area 7,497 ballot papers were issued but only 613 returned. In another over 10,000 papers were issued but only 800 returned, while in another 9,939 papers were issued but only 751 returned. This shows that the council has an awful lot more work to do to prove its worth and the benefits to teachers and before teachers will take it seriously. The majority are not taking it seriously.

I acknowledge the Bill’s intentions. Everyone wants to protect students and ensure they have the best teachers with no issues regarding teachers’ standards, personalities or work. I was struck, however, by the Bill’s vagueness in certain provisions that were almost like the Salem witch trials. For example, the council shall not register a person who applies for registration unless it has sought and received a vetting disclosure. It also states, “the Council shall refuse to register a person where it is not satisfied that he or she is a fit and proper person to be admitted” and “any other requirements to be met for renewal of registration which may include requirements relating to completion of programmes of continuing education and training". Teachers are consistently and continually involved in training programmes, many at their own expense and in their own time. I do not believe this is acknowledged in the Bill.

In spite of all my reservations about the entity that is the Teaching Council, I do hope what is being proposed in the legislation is in the best interests of students and their teachers.

I do not think the Bill is going to add to a person being a good teacher. There are also questions around whether there are enough resources for Garda vetting to be carried out.

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

As a former secondary teacher, I, too, share a huge amount of the reservations about the Teaching Council. It was set up in 2001 as a professional standards body for teaching and to promote and regulate the profession. What has it actually done to defend teachers? What has it actually done to take on some of the key questions facing teachers? I argue it has done very little.

The view of teachers on the ground, as the previous speaker said, is that it is a quango. Teachers do not understand why they had to pay €90 up until last year to click a button on a computer to renew their teaching certificates. Certainly, the first time a teacher registers, anyone can understand that she or he must pay a fee for the processing and checking of all of the requirements, but to pay €90 to the Teaching Council every year was completely wrong. Suddenly, after many complaints, the council was able to reduce the fee to €60 last year, so why were they not able to do that in previous years?

The biggest crisis in teaching right now - I ask if the Minister agrees - is not poorly performing teachers. It is that one in four secondary teachers in this country does not have a permanent job or full teaching hours, and half of them have to work in Lidl and McDonald's at the weekend. This has been told to the Minister and the Teaching Council for several years. Compare the figures for Ireland where, in second level schools, only 73% of teachers have a permanent position, with those for Norway, where it is 90%. For under-30s it is much worse, as 52% have a contract of a year or less, which is more than half of secondary teachers under 30. When Deputy Ruairí Quinn was Minister, it was reported in the Irish Examinerat the teachers' conferences, that a number of teachers were going to Lidl, filling stations and McDonald's to supplement their incomes to survive. What is being done about this? Certainly nothing by the Teaching Council. There is not a mention of it to be seen on its website. Now here it is, seemingly more concerned with sacking teachers than actually defending teaching.

The Bill is not known about. I rang a number of teachers today and checked the union websites. There is no discussion or mention of it. People do not know about it. I would like to deal with some of the issues that it raises. Fitness to practice hearings are to be made public and there is to be an expansion of the grounds for a teacher to be hauled in front of one of these investigating committees. Will the Minister justify and explain why something like that has to be done in public? Is it to feed the tabloid media and an anti-teacher sentiment that is clearly evident? Is it to distract attention from the serious cuts that have taken place in education and the pressures teachers are under? I think it is.

Why is it beneficial that somebody who is medically unfit to teach would be hauled up in front of a public investigation? I do not think something like that is beneficial to somebody in that position. If somebody is clearly medically unfit to teach, that can be dealt with by a body. I do not think the media have to be there outside to cover it. In the United Kingdom, for example, there was a doctor suffering from depression and it was deemed he would be a suicide risk if he was called in front of one of these public hearings. He asked voluntarily to withdraw his own name from the medical register, and the medical council refused. They said, "no, we must carry things out in public." Why is that beneficial? Are there any public hearings of bankers? For most employees in this country, there are internal investigative procedures, for example in the banking sector, the insurance sector and so on. It only seems really to apply to doctors, nurses and now teachers, who are already under a lot of stress and strain.

This has nothing to do with child welfare. Nobody is saying anyone who is a danger to children should be teaching or should not be in front of an investigative committee. I ask, though, how effective is vetting? Is it likely that we are going to find a whole load of paedophiles or people who are a danger to children through the vetting procedures we currently have? No, it is not. It is not a key problem in teaching. There is no evidence that it is a major problem.

What this seems to be about is making public show trials of teachers. The tabloid media and many in the Government would like to convince the public that there is a serious crisis of under-performing teachers, but in fact, looking at the literacy and numeracy qualifications that have been attained in recent years despite the gutting of education and all of the cuts, the loss of SNAs, teachers, resource teaching and English back-up teachers the standards have actually increased. That is because teachers have taken on board a whole lot of evidence from other countries. There has been a lot more team teaching and more focus on key things that I saw when I was teaching in a disadvantaged, DEIS area. Huge strides were made and there was constant updating of teaching methods.

There are enough things, including drive-by inspections in force. What other profession has drive-by inspections? At any moment, an inspector can come in. The teacher might be having a bad day, might have a cold, might be dealing with discipline issues in the school etc. An inspector comes in on top of that. Now the Minister wants to have show trials and public hearings and the grounds for this, I challenge, have nothing to do with child welfare. The grounds which the Minister is adding with this legislation are poor professional performance, which is not a child welfare issue, and conduct contrary to the code of professional conduct. Obviously, the issue is not if someone has a conviction in the State or has committed an indictable offence as that person is going to be disciplined and may lose his or her job.

This seems to feeding into an anti-teacher sentiment which the Government wishes to increase right now, as it is taking on the ASTI and the TUI, which through major strikes are defending their right not to give State accreditation to their own students. It seems to be quite convenient that the Minister is bringing this legislation forward at this time. What is she doing about the more than one in four secondary teachers who have to work in other jobs to try to keep a roof over their heads? She is doing absolutely nothing. She is not increasing their wages. As for the newly qualified teachers, NQTs, I would love to see what the Teaching Council has done to keep casualisation out of teaching and to defend the profession. I am very disappointed and hope the unions involved with the Teaching Council rear up about this.

Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice who is not in the Chamber. I will go to the next speaker on the list. The Government grouping is: Deputies Fergus O'Dowd, Mary Mitchell O'Connor, Jim Daly and John Paul Phelan. As Deputy Fergus O'Dowd is not present, I call Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will split the time between us.

Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate and say, "Well done," to the Minister on lowering pupil-teacher ratios for small schools, which is a great initiative. We know that there is wonderful work being done in smaller schools and I am glad that the Minister has responded on that issue.

The Teaching Council director Tomás Ó Ruairc said the council was responsible for the story book of teaching. It is responsible for setting up the framework for the profession. They do not do the doing: the teachers do the teaching and therefore it is up to teachers to fill out the details of the book in each of the chapters.

The Teaching Council was established in March 2006 to promote teaching as a profession at primary and post-primary levels, to promote the professional development of teachers and to regulate standards in our profession. Its major achievements to date include setting up the register, the ongoing review of teacher training programmes and piloting "droichead", a new model for formal induction of new teachers conducted by more experienced colleagues. Last October, the council also launched its consultation on continuing professional development, CPD.

Draft guidelines are due to be published in March 2016 with the aim of supporting and developing an embedded culture of research in the profession. I commend the Teaching Council for its work and welcome the changes the Bill will bring.

Good teachers must have excellent communication skills, a great classroom presence, a love for children and a love for teaching and learning. Learning is not just a passive activity on the part of children but it is about engaging children, motivating children and awakening in children a love of learning. I know from my experience as the principal of a primary school that a mediocre teacher just tells, a good teacher explains, a superior teacher demonstrates and a really great teacher inspires. W. B. Yeats, speaking in the Seanad, said that education was not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire. Children must learn how to think and not what to think.

In the past, talk and chalk was an acceptable form of teaching - children in their seats, silence prevailing. I quote the poem, "The Village Schoolmaster":

And still they gaz'd and still the wonder grew,

That one small head could carry all he knew.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I will take up some of the points made by the previous contributor, Deputy Mary Mary Mitchell O'Connor. It is important to highlight the importance of teaching and learning. There is a huge relationship between the two. All of us will our children to learn to the very best of their ability. However, there are good teachers and underperforming teachers. Make no mistake about it - learning will be affected by the quality of the teaching.

I was a teacher for a number of years. I have been a full-time politician for ten years so I am longer in politics than I was teaching. Before that, I was a publican. The greatest satisfaction I got from being a publican was that there is a way to measure one's input and output and getting a return on it. One can check the till in one's pub to see how one has done. If one puts on music, one might do a little better. The same applies to politics in that I can work that bit harder to get those few extra votes. Every five years, or sometimes more often, one gets the opportunity to put oneself to the test.

In teaching, there is a very monotone existence. I found it very frustrating - perhaps it is my genetic make-up - because it was very hard to quantify one's efforts. If I worked very hard one year but did nothing the following one, the cheque - it is not about money - was exactly the same as were the rewards on every level. I found that quenched the desire in me to perform as best I could. I am a very competitive person by nature - I am sure some of my colleagues might attest to this - but in teaching, it is difficult to give it one's all because it is very hard to measure the inputs and the outputs and, by extension, measuring how much satisfaction one gets from the job is always difficult.

There is a reality which must be faced. This Bill goes some way towards doing that, although it does not go as far as I would like. However, it begins an interesting debate on the whole area of education and teacher dismissal. In any walk of life, there must be an active dismissal process. However, it is not only about dismissal; it is equally important there is a reward structure. In my experience as a primary school teacher, regrettably, neither are in existence. It might be slightly different at other levels but certainly at primary school level, it is very unusual to see anybody being dismissed or being rewarded for the extra input they put in. We are all human so over time, the natural reaction is to ask oneself is why should I bother because the person alongside me is not making an effort? We all start to down-skill a little. I am not saying that is universal, but it would certainly be human nature.

The current disciplinary procedure is abysmal. One relies on the boards of management, and they have long been a hobbyhorse of mine. Boards of management do not have the wherewithal to deal with disciplinary issues. It is a very difficult area and it is beset with challenges if one wishes to challenge a teacher and, ultimately, if one was to try to dismiss the teacher. The figures back up what I am saying because they are dismal. It is a very complex area. We must embrace that sort of change and acknowledge the failings in the system. Again, I stress the need for the ability to dismiss teachers but also to reward good teachers, who are a wonderful feature of our education system and who we need to encourage.

I make no bones about it but there is a very hesitant attitude towards reform of any kind in education. It is very difficult to get people to change. Recently, I spoke at the launch of a Teagasc advisory course. I was reared on a farm in Drinagh in west Cork and farming today is utterly unrecognisable from the farming I remember as a young fellow. However, when I quiz my young children in the evening about what they did at school that day, what they tell me is recognisable from the time I was at school 30 years ago. There is a reluctance to engage and we see it across the board, whether in terms of junior certificate reform or the National Council for Special Education proposals for a new model of allocating resources for special needs education. Straightaway, a minority of people, with vested interests and a little mix of an agenda and ignorance, start to stir the pot and put it out that it is a cut or a reduction. I regret that is the case but as long as it is and as long we do not face up to it, unfortunately, the education system we have will be the poorer for it.

John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor in welcoming yesterday's announcement by the Minister in regard to smaller schools and changes to the pupil-teacher ratio for smaller schools which hope to keep teachers on staff.

It is a welcome announcement which I want to acknowledge.

I welcome most of the provisions in the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill and the underpinning of the statutory vetting arrangements, the subject of a large part of the Bill. I was undertaking some research about the Teaching Council before I came into the Chamber and was surprised to learn that there were still so many people involved in teaching who had not yet been fully vetted, despite, in some cases, having taught for many years.

As previous speakers said, the role of teachers in society is very important. I would not say I have a vested interest, but I was briefly an unqualified maths teacher, for the most horrific six months of my life, and I hope I will not have to return to it anytime soon. It did, however, give me an insight into the challenges facing teachers in their day-to-day work. Previous speakers mentioned the invaluable contribution teachers made to the lives of young people. Outside the immediate family, they have the capacity and are in a position to influence young people more than any other category of individuals. We can all remember from our own school days teachers who had a positive and lasting impression on our lives. I was thinking that when I entered third level education, I mostly studied economics, having only taken up the subject in fifth year purely down to the fact that I had had an inspirational teacher who, although a socialist and holding a slightly different political outlook, had had an impact on me and my interest in that subject. The sad reality is that for many young people today, in certain family situations, teachers have an even bigger role to play in providing stability in their lives. That is why teaching is such an important profession.

It is welcome that the Bill sets out a number of grounds on which complaints may be made such as poor professional performance, an issue mentioned by previous speakers. Most of those involved in the teaching profession, as in most other professions, are eminently suited to the job but some are not. The Bill, with its fitness to teach provisions, is a step in the right direction.

I understand that, like any such organisation, the Teaching Council costs money, but the most common issue about the council on which I interface with teachers concerns the level of fees charged. Teachers who qualified outside the State, in particular, can face fees of up to €200, with perhaps an additional fee of €100 for each post-primary subject taught. They could, therefore, face fees of €400 or €500, as well as an annual charge. That is a significant amount of money, particularly for newly qualified teachers and especially for those who had to obtain their qualifications outside the jurisdiction, thereby incurring associated costs. Such fees are, effectively, a barrier to entry in some instances. One can make the argument that those who work full time as teachers can earn a living from it and that such fees, in the overall scheme of things, are not significant. However, for newly qualified teachers, particularly those who qualified outside the jurisdiction, who may be trying to pay off educational loans, it can be an unwelcome extra burden.

I also raise the issue of the change from the one-year H.Dip. course to a two-year masters qualification. It has merit, but it must be noted that this is another significant extra cost for those who wish to qualify as teachers. In one sense, it could be looked on as a further barrier to entry into the teaching profession.

I welcome the principal provisions of the Bill. I welcome the fitness to teach provisions and the increased capacity of the Teaching Council to vet, such that Garda vetting can become an integral part of the teacher registration process and that all teachers will be fully vetted in the performance of their functions.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for giving me the opportunity so late to contribute to the debate. I had to attend a number of other meetings today and was not sure whether I would get an opportunity to contribute to this debate.

The legislation is both fundamental and very important, but there are a number of issues about which I want to raise genuine concerns, including the holding of fitness to practise hearings in public. We must be very careful in this regard. I know many people involved in the teaching profession which has served the country very well. If one looks at any assessment made from the 1950s onwards, there have been issues, but there is no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water. We must be very careful in having public floggings. While there are grievances which must be dealt with appropriately, we should be mindful that not every complaint is authentic or one that must be discussed in public. In other professions in which such hearings are held in public, when an allegation is made, it sticks, regardless of whether people are found innocent or guilty. We, therefore, need to proceed with caution because teachers across the country are very concerned about the way things are going.

Junior certificate reform is a major issue which must be dealt with in a serious way. We must be mindful of the vast economic well-being to which the education system has led in the last while.

I raise the issue of further education. I am aware of the great services being provided, particularly in Mallow, which serve much of my constituency. They provide a second chance for persons who had to leave education because of family circumstances, finances or whatever else and who benefit enormously from them. The thinking is that this function should be offloaded from the Department of Education and Skills, the old vocational education committees and the education boards and given to SOLAS. It is vitally important that we maintain educational links in the reforms proposed. There are many colleges that are doing massive work in communities in encouraging people back to take courses. I am aware of people who have been greatly empowered in taking these courses, particularly women from a difficult socioeconomic background. That is one of the great strengths in terms of the money spent on courses across the spectrum. We must be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where, for the sake of reform or streamlining, the educational element will be removed. We must, therefore, proceed with caution.

Like previous speakers, I welcome the common-sense approach adopted by the Minister yesterday to the issue of small rural schools.

It was a disgrace that the initial idea made it through the Cabinet in the first instance. It was a deplorable proposal which showed a degree of blindness and was clearly driven by a Dublin-centred agenda. The Minister has taken the correct decision, which will be good for rural communities, but more action is needed in this area.

To return to my main point, for far too long a tiny percentage of teachers have not been pulling their weight. However, teachers have described the proposal to deal with teachers about whom issues are raised as akin to a public flogging. The Minister must be very careful in this regard. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, referred to paralysis in the Civil Service and the tendency among civil servants to take the safe option. This will become an issue in the teaching profession. Previous speakers referred to innovative teachers. I had many teachers who pushed the boundaries in what pupils could achieve. It is vital that we empower such teachers and avoid a scenario where they will have to look over their shoulders as they wonder whether they will be hauled before the Teaching Council for failing to dot an "i" or cross a "t". I ask the Minister to reconsider her proposal in this regard because I have serious concerns about it.

I also have an issue with reform for reform's sake in the adult education sector. It is vital that the educational aspect of the sector be maintained and not be lumped in with training. Adult education should continue to be the responsibility of the education and training boards. I ask the Minister to address this issue.

It is wrong that the Minister has established a system for carrying out what one could describe as public floggings. It is difficult enough to attract people to the teaching profession and teachers view her proposal with scepticism. Many fine teachers in primary and secondary schools show great commitment to education. Last night pre-school teachers protested outside the gates. They also do great work in educating the next generation and empowering young people to develop their talents and use them to serve society. We do not need another sector of society looking over its shoulder. We have become too politically correct in establishing systems to ensure every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed. This approach lends itself to paralysis in the system. We need to have people who are willing to be innovative in their sphere.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak about the Bill.

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

I thank all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate, in particular, the Opposition spokespersons for their support for the legislation. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien thanked the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the very good summary of the Bill it had provided. I, too, thank the service for its work on the Bill. We do not always acknowledge its work in assisting our discussions on legislation.

I agree with speakers on all sides who pointed out that the vast majority of teachers did a very good job. For a long time, however, there has been a general view inside and outside the teaching profession that a process that enjoys public confidence should be in place to deal with cases in which questions arise about whether a teacher is providing an adequate education for young people. For this reason I introduced a section on fitness to teach. Deputy Jim Daly summed up the issue well when he pointed out that children only got one chance at education. While Deputy Michael Moynihan noted that some adults returned to education, it is extremely important that children have the best possible teachers. Deputy John Paul Phelan also referred to the influence of very good teachers.

No one questions the need to have a system in place to allow for the removal of teachers who are not performing. The holding in public of fitness to teach hearings will be the default position. This issue generated considerable discussion, although it is not addressed in the Bill, as published. I will table an amendment to provide for public hearings. This will give Deputies an opportunity to tease out the issue on Committee Stage. As Deputy Jonathan O'Brien noted, such hearings are held in public in other jurisdictions, including Scotland and Wales, and in other professions. Public hearings are held, by and large, to ensure there is public confidence in the hearings system. This will be the default position, which means that the Teaching Council may decide that it would not be appropriate for a hearing to be held in public for reasons of confidentiality or to protect a person's reputation. I intend to table an amendment to provide that public hearings will be the default position. I will do so because public hearings will instil public confidence in the system and protect professionals in giving people access to information.

As I stated in my previous contribution, a threshold must be reached before an investigation committee refers a case to the next stage in the process. The committee must be of the opinion that there is a prima facie case to warrant further action. This will ensure only cases that merit a disciplinary inquiry and hearing will be progressed to that stage. The committee will establish whether a complaint is frivolous or justifies a hearing and if it considers that a complaint is without substance, it may decide not to refer it for a disciplinary inquiry or hearing. This will provide protection in cases in which a hearing is not appropriate.We will tease out on Committee Stage the concerns expressed about public hearings.

Concerns were expressed about the number of vetting applications that had been completed. To clarify the issue, the number of teachers on the register is steadily increasing. Approximately 54,000 of 90,000 teachers are on the register, which amounts to almost 60%, rather than 40%, of the total. The Bill has been designed to place the vetting process on a statutory footing and will result in teachers being vetted. As Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor stated, one of the advantages of the process is that a teacher will not have to be vetted every time he or she moves school because the Teaching Council will hold the vetting documentation. This is a positive development.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger who is no longer present referred to security of tenure for teachers. I received a report from an expert group led by Mr. Peter Ward, SC, which specifically examined the issue of improving tenure for teachers and giving them tenure at an earlier stage than was the case. The report also addressed the need for teachers to have certainty that they would have a minimum number of teaching hours. I received Mr. Ward's report a couple of months ago and I am working on the implementation of its recommendations. It specifically addresses the issue raised by the Deputy.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien referred to cases involving teachers who had been convicted of offences, etc.

It is only where the complaints relate to fitness to teach that they will be considered under this legislation. In other words, unless there is a fitness to teach issue in terms of their conviction, it will not be relevant to the Bill.

The Deputy also raised the issue of the vetting of SNAs but the vetting of people other than teachers is covered by the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 and will not be dealt with under this legislation. However, it is intended that this issue will be addressed.

I have covered the issues that were raised relating to the Bill. I acknowledge Members have raised other education issues, as always happens whenever an education Bill is taken, but I will only respond to the issues relating to this Bill.

We will tease out on Committee Stage the issue around public hearings. The Bill will make a significant contribution to safeguarding children in schools and upholding the high standards of teaching that students and society expect and deserve. I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate.