Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, line 18, after “Oireachtas” to insert “and if in employment in a recognised school, shall be informed in writing immediately”.

There is no dispute about the need for people to be up to date with their subscriptions to the Teaching Council to be on the register, but they should be notified if their salary is to be suspended in order that they can move immediately to rectify the situation. That is the purpose of the amendment. We discussed the issue on Committee Stage but it is a fair amendment and the Government should take it on board.

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

Before I deal with amendment No. 1, I wish to make the House aware that there is a number of matters on which I am considering amendments. They are largely by way of further technical changes or amendments designed to bring further coherence to the overall approach to registration, fitness to teach and vetting throughout the Act. I intend to progress them on Committee Stage in the Seanad but I just wished to inform this House. While moving the Bill on Second Stage and on Committee Stage, I also indicated my intention to provide for the conduct of disciplinary hearings in public and I intend to bring forward amendments on the issue on Committee Stage in the Seanad following the finalisation of drafting, having considered the views of stakeholders and Members of this House during Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage. I accept we will deal with this matter in a later amendment.

With regard to the current amendment, section 30 of the 2001 Act provides that a person who is employed as a teacher in a recognised school shall not, subject to certain limited exceptions, be paid from Oireachtas funds where he or she is not a registered teacher and where he or she stands removed or suspended from the register. An extensive communication campaign took place in preparation for the commencement of section 30 in 2014 in order that all teachers would be well aware of the requirement to be registered and the implications of non-registration. While it appears that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure a teacher's salary would not be discontinued without the teacher being informed, there are appropriate provisions elsewhere within the Bill that address the issue. Requirements in relation to the council notifying teachers of decisions made in respect of initial registration, renewal of registration and in relation to fitness to teach inquiries are already in place. Therefore, teachers will, under the amended Act, be notified of decisions in relation to their registration status, including any decision to remove or suspend registration and which impact on payment of salary.

However, given that the Teaching Council is not directly involved in teachers' employment or payment and may not even be aware that a teacher is employed, it would not be in a position to notify teachers of specific changes in the payment of their salaries in accordance with the amendment proposed.

The Teaching Council writes to each registered teacher annually to remind him or her of his or her registration renewal. In this letter it also reminds teachers that only registered teachers may be paid salaries from State funds and urges them not to let their registration lapse. Where a teacher fails to apply to renew his or her registration, the council is required to give him or her one month's notice in writing that his or her registration will not be renewed unless the application and renewal fee are submitted within month. Again, this notice reminds teachers that only registered teachers may be paid salaries from State funds and urges them not to let their registration lapse. In regulated professions the onus is on the practitioner to ensure his or her registration is in place and up to date. This should also be true of teachers. The Teaching Council has put in place simple measures by which teachers can check their registration status at any time. It also takes all reasonable steps to remind teachers that their renewal date is imminent. In this context, it is important that teachers inform the council of any change to their contact details. The legislative and operational measures in place are sufficient. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Life is difficult and stressful for all of us. It is difficult to keep up with all of the correspondence we receive, the bills we have to pay, the forms we have to fill in and cope with all of the stresses, strains and complications in getting through the week. I am sure the Minister knows all about this, as I do, and it is no different for teachers. As the Minister said, people might change addresses, have family crises, be away for a few weeks or there could be an illness in the family. There could be all sorts of reason somebody who generally keeps up his or her payments and ensures he or she is on the register might, even once in a lifetime, let his or her registration lapse by failing to make payment. It seems rough that a person who has been working away, believing he or she will be paid, will discover that he or she is not going to be paid, forfeit a few thousand euro and have to fight to recover a salary for work he or she has done. I do not see why there is a problem in going the extra mile by including in the legislation a requirement that if somebody has been suspended from the register and consequently will not be paid, he or she would be told immediately, giving him or her the opportunity to rectify the matter at the earliest opportunity. This is reasonable and teachers have raised the matter with me. As I mentioned, although I do not know the details, there are cases in which people have had to go to rights commissioners to contest the issue and fight to receive money owed to them. The amendment is fair and reasonable and I do not see why the Minister cannot include it in the Bill.

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

As I explained, teachers are reminded of their obligation to register. If they do not renew their registration, they are reminded again. There are checks and balances and repeated reminders. While I appreciate that teachers, like the rest of us, endure many pressures, the Teaching Council issues plenty of reminders. As I said, given that the council is not the body that pays teachers' salaries, it would not be appropriate for it to be responsible for dealing with the issue. I hope that even by debating it, we will send the message again to teachers that they can check their registration very simply, that they receive a reminder every year and another if they do not register. While the Teaching Council knows whether a person is registered as a teacher, it may not be aware whether he or she is working. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect it to do what the Deputy suggests. I am not accepting the amendment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, line 26, to delete “fit and proper” and substitute “qualified”.

Arguably, the best teachers are those who are not very proper. During my school days some of my best teachers were the improper ones. I will never forget an English teacher I had, Mr. Kelleher, who inspired my love of English literature such that English became my favourite subject. He used to do crazy things such as jump up and down like a chimpanzee on the teacher's desk to get the attention of students and make a point. He did all sorts of funny, humorous and odd things that one might describe as a little improper. It was often the improper and slightly quirky teachers who captured the imagination of students and inspired them, rather than those who might be though of as "fit and proper". The term is too vague, amorphous and subjective and smacks too much of conformity, which is not necessarily a good qualification for teaching. This is the basis on which I propose we remove it and insert the more precise term, "qualified".

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

I agree with one thing the Deputy said. We do not want teachers to be homogenous and all conform exactly to some picture of what somebody else might think a teacher should be. We have all had great teachers who were different in many ways. The wording states teachers should be fit and proper to be admitted to the register. The word "proper" is not used in the sense of somebody being prim and proper but being proper to be admitted to the register.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would replace the term "fit and proper" with "qualified person". The Bill's provisions on the council being satisfied that an applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered enable it to consider whether he or she is suitable to be registered, including from a child protection perspective. The reference to an assessment of whether a person is fit and proper replaces the current wording in the Act which provides for the council to seek evidence of character for the purpose of registering a person. We could debate whether the term "evidence of character" should be replaced. Under the existing Act, the council requests evidence of character from applicants as part of its assessment of an application for registration. Under its current procedures for assessing such evidence, it publishes details of the evidence requested and the considerations taken into account in assessing the evidence. This includes Garda vetting and declarations or references from higher education institutes or regulators in other jurisdictions, as appropriate. This change in wording will set out more clearly the steps the council may take to request evidence from an applicant for the purpose of determining an application for registration, including whether the application is a fit and proper person to be registered. The changed wording will not alter the approach or practice already in place.

The term "fit and proper" is commonly used in legislation concerned with ensuring a person is suitable for particular roles or to be registered for a profession. For example, the Health and Social Care Professionals Act, 2005 which deals with the registration of professionals such as social workers and psychologists contains a similar provision. The Bill places Garda vetting for initial teacher registration on a statutory basis, thereby ensuring any person who is not considered by the Teaching Council as fit and proper to be registered from a child protection perspective will not be registered as a teacher in the first instance. I indicated on Committee Stage that if amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were accepted, the council would only be able to assess a Garda vetting disclosure for the purpose of determining whether a person was qualified to be admitted to the register. This is clearly not the intended purpose of a vetting disclosure.

On whether a person is qualified to be registered, the Bill makes separate provision for the Teaching Council to set out requirements in respect of the professional and educational qualifications a person must obtain in order to register. For the reasons outlined, I am satisfied that the term "fit and proper" is appropriate. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not labour the point because we discussed these amendments on Committee Stage. Even the word "suitable" which the Minister used would be preferable to "fit and proper". As I noted when first proposing the amendment, there is no question of challenging the validity of the vetting process. We need to ensure those who are registered with the Teaching Council are properly vetted and suitable to work with children. However, the term "fit and proper" is inappropriate language. I suspect use of the term elsewhere in legislation dates back to an earlier era when notions of hierarchy and propriety prevailed. It is archaic language which carries the wrong connotations and, more importantly, is too vague and amorphous as a criterion for determining whether an individual is suitable and qualified to be a teacher. The Minister's response does not address my concerns about the terminology and its connotations. Something more precise is required.

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

The Act to which I referred was introduced in 2005. It is, therefore, relatively recent. If we were to substitute the word "qualified", the Teaching Council would only investigate whether an applicant was qualified, whereas it needs to ensure he or she has been vetted and deemed appropriate to work with children.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"Appropriate" is a good word.

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

The word "qualified", as proposed by the Deputy, would not necessarily mean the applicant was fit, proper or suitable. I am not accepting the amendments.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am open to alternatives if the Minister is willing to consider them when the Bill goes before the Seanad.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, line 4, to delete “fit and proper” and substitute “qualified”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, to delete lines 19 and 20.

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

This concerns what regulations the council may make. The Teaching Council Acts of 2001 to 2012 provide that the council may make regulations to require a teacher to satisfactorily complete a programme of continuing professional development accredited by the council as a condition of renewing registration. Section 39 of the Teaching Council Act, which has not been commenced, enables the council to review and accredit programmes of continuing professional development. The Teaching Council's policy on the continuum of education, which was adopted by the council in 2011 following a comprehensive consultation process, states that engagement in ongoing professional learning-continuing professional development is both a right and a responsibility of registered teachers.

The council intends to work towards a position, following the adoption of a coherent national framework for teachers' continuing professional development, where renewal of registration with the Teaching Council will be subject to evidence of ongoing learning. Last year, the council began a comprehensive open consultation on this matter. Every registered teacher and all education stakeholders have had an opportunity to participate and have their views heard. I understand that over 3,000 teachers have availed of this opportunity.

Following the initial phase of consultation the council has published a draft framework called Cosán. Cosán reflects the wide variety of formal and non-formal professional learning that our teachers can and do engage in. The council will further develop the framework in the coming months. The framework will offer reassurance to the profession and the public that teachers are engaging in a range of quality learning activities for their benefit and that of their students.

The enabling provision that allows the council to regulate for continuing professional development as a feature of ongoing registration underpins the already high standard of professionalism among teachers. The final framework remains to be seen but I have every confidence that it will reflect both the existing commitment of teachers to developing their practice, as well as an understanding of a reasonable level of engagement by them with ongoing learning. Ministerial consent will be required for any regulations that the council might intend to make concerning requirements for renewal of registration. I look forward to engaging with the council further at that stage.

I believe the existence of this provision in the Act will serve as a hallmark of quality for our teaching profession and I do not intend to accept the proposed amendment to remove it.

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

I have one area of concern. The Minister is saying that in order for someone to renew their registration as a teacher, they would have to show they have completed in-service training and continuing education, which is not specified. What exactly does the Minister mean? Has any teacher refused to go on in-service training? Is this an issue or a problem? My own experience in teaching is that it was very difficult to be allowed out for in-service training because if a teacher went, somebody had to replace them. Due to all the shortages there were bigger class sizes and a lack of substitute teachers. Teachers had to apply for in-service training but were often not allowed to go. That has been my experience. Is the Minister going to start disciplining and refusing to re-register teachers who have not had the opportunity of in-service training because they were not released by their principals? Ultimately, school principals have the power.

Many teachers are female and leave the profession for a period of years to have children and so on. Before they resume teaching and obtain the Teaching Council registration, will they had to attend a series of new courses? How would they do that? Is there such a programme? The Minister seems to have inserted something onerous in the Bill. It has been my experience that there are difficulties in getting to do training.

Most teachers end up having to pay for all of these things themselves. Since I was elected to the Dáil, I have not heard a peep from the Minister about the one-in-four secondary teachers who do not have permanent jobs. They do not have the money to pay for courses. Many of them are better qualified than the Minister or I because they have had to do masters courses for less pay. I am concerned that this burden will be placed on people.

Most teachers are part-time and work in McDonalds or Lidl at the weekends. That is the reality, yet the Minister expects them to be able to engage in all these extra educational activities. Most teachers do spend a lot of time doing such courses, funded from their own private money. The courses include special needs education, literacy and other elements. I am surprised, however, that the Minister is not detailing exactly what she means. I would have thought that most teachers would love to attend such courses but it might not be possible for them to do so.

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

This is an enabling provision and it would be by way of a regulation that would have to be approved by the Minister. It is not something that is coming in tomorrow, but it is under discussion and consultation through the Teaching Council. In my experience, teachers do engage in continuous professional development, CPD and seek it. I agree with Deputy Coppinger on that. At primary level there are three days' extra personal vacation annually for short study undertaken during the summer holidays. At post-primary level the personal leave available is not necessarily linked to study. Having said that, there are occasional teachers who do not particularly want to do that, but we want them all to do so. We want to ensure that teachers are upskilling themselves and are taking the opportunity to engage in CPD. As the Deputy knows, extensive CPD is organised for teachers. This provision, however, is to enable the Teaching Council to make it a requirement, if and when it believes it is necessary. It is an enabling provision.

With regard to teachers not having permanence and many of them having insecurity in their employment, I accepted the recommendations of the Ward report which was presented to me several months ago. I have indicated that we will be implementing it from September. It will mean that a teacher who has been teaching for two years can get a contract of indefinite duration, whereas currently it is after three years. I accept that there is a lot of insecurity for many teachers but we are moving to address that issue.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Boyd Barrett wish to make a final comment?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the argument has largely been made. As the Minister said, there had been a consultation with the whole framework, although it has not been agreed or finalised. It is a bit of a pig in a poke in terms of what is actually required. This signs it into law and then makes something that is ill-defined into a mandatory requirement. If teachers do not match up they could be de-registered, but I do not think that is the right way to approach these matters.

As I said, and Deputy Coppinger has underlined the point, there is no doubt that teachers are committed to the idea of CPD. However, there are questions about what, where and when it is, as well as what conditions are attached to it. In addition, is it useful and relevant? Teachers have relayed stories to me about things they have been required to do which were ridiculous and patronising. They were of no benefit whatsoever in terms of what they had to do in the classroom.

Teachers are very committed to meaningful CPD but how and what it is needs to be agreed with the teachers themselves. They will then no doubt embrace it enthusiastically. It is pre-emptive to put it in the Bill as a requirement when we do not know what "it" really is.

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

I have a question following what the Minister said. I was an insecurely employed teacher for a long time before I got a permanent job. I would welcome any improvement, but when will the Ward report be fully enacted? It was talked about a year ago and a draft report was mentioned on one of the union websites back in March. It seems to me that everything that is discussed regarding teaching concerns how can we sack them and get rid of them.

Will the Minister bring forward something about how we can actually give teachers a little security in order that they can get a mortgage, find a house to live in or pay their rent, which is the big problem facing most teachers at the moment? Will the Minister indicate the dates when that will be brought forward?

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

It will be from the start of the next school year. I was in a school in County Offaly some days ago and I met a teacher there. He specifically told me that he would benefit from this because he would get his contract of indefinite duration from September, and otherwise he would not have got it. It will be in place from the next school year.

I wish to address some of the other issues. Consultation is ongoing in respect of the framework. As I have said, some 3,000 teachers have engaged with it already. I fully recognise that teachers engage in continuing professional development. The intention is that there would be a variety of ways, formal and non-formal, in which they could engage in CPD, but we are keen to ensure the debate is ongoing with the Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council has teachers on it. It has representation from the teaching profession as well as other people. It is intended to be an organisation that very much supports the teaching profession. That is the way in which it operates. It is in the interests of all teachers that we have legislation that continues to give the public confidence in teachers. We have a very good teaching profession but we are keen to ensure that continues and that is why we are ensuring the Teaching Council has these powers. That is why the profession has the kind of reputation it continues to have.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 15, line 21, after “constitutes” to insert “serious”.

It is fairly obvious why this should be the case, because there is of course potential for trivial, vexatious, unjustified or disingenuous complaints or allegations to be made. That is not to say we should not also have something that is receptive to real, serious, genuine and legitimate allegations or complaints. There is an important balance to be made in this regard. Certainly, we want to exclude cases that are obviously trivial or lacking in seriousness. The particular language the Supreme Court judge used was that it had to be serious.

The Bill has simply not reflected the important caveat put in by the Supreme Court. Indeed, it could make this legislation possibly open to legal challenge as a result. Any hearings that arise from the legislation could be open to legal challenge because it does not have the important qualification about complaints being serious or being about serious misconduct.

This series of amendments attempts to rectify this weakness in the legislation. I did not get a chance to attend the relevant meeting but I understand the ASTI, the INTO and the TUI were in the House yesterday making similar points, although they have proposed somewhat differently worded amendments, which will come up in the Seanad. They address precisely the same issue and require the condition of seriousness when it comes to complaints being made.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say. I believe this is important. Certainly, the teachers and their representatives believe this is an important amendment and that it is required in the Bill.

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

I support the amendments. I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for tabling them because they would not have been raised otherwise. Let us consider the definitions listed in section 42 of the principal Act. They can mean many different things to many different people. We need far more definition of what constitutes the subject of a complaint. Let us consider "poor professional performance". What does that mean? Does it mean after a week, a month or six months? No time limit is put on it. Any person, for example, Deputies, could have poor professional performance, but at least they have a period of five years to get their act together and raise their performance. There should be some time ongoing. Numerous other words could have been inserted to make clear what the Minister means. "Poor professional performance" could involve a teacher showing up late for a week or not preparing for classes for a week when she has a child in hospital or a relative who has died. She could be going through something else. The idea that these grounds would be the subject of a complaint in and of themselves makes no sense. We need tighter definitions in this section. Let us consider the proposed section 42(1)(b), which refers to professional misconduct. Again, there is huge variety of interpretation within that. At least the word "serious" puts some kind of onus on school management to take a complaint seriously.

Another subsection refers to a teacher being medically unfit to teach. I would have expected a raft of subsections in addition to that clause. Again, it is open. Does a teacher come in with a doctor's note, stating she is suffering from depression? There is a stigma around that. The language is very lax and leaves carte blancheto vexatious parents, for example, or school principals.

Let us be clear. I have nothing against school principals and there are many brilliant school principals, but they have considerable power in schools. When I was a branch secretary in the ASTI, I encountered umpteen cases of disputes in schools between principals and teachers. Any principal could use any of those conditions to put a teacher's job in jeopardy.

There should be a tightening-up of the provision in terms of what is meant by having a complaint.

We should bear in mind that where a complaint is made against a teacher, it will go on his or her record. Teaching jobs are hard to come by at the moment because of the huge cutbacks in education funding, which have seen a significant reduction in the number of teaching posts. Even if a complaint against a teacher does not stand up, this is a small country and it might well be raised at interview. As it stands, this provision is shabby and unfair. It requires a huge amount of additional detail to ensure fair treatment for teachers. I have seen ongoing disputes between principals, boards of management and individual teachers where the teacher was disliked for whatever reason. This provision will facilitate complaints being made and acted upon, given that it is usually the principal and board of management who decide whether they will be pursued. I am disappointed that this provision has not been tightened up. The inclusion of the word "serious" would at least raise the bar to some extent.

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

We are talking here about the decision as to whether a case will be investigated. The question of whether to include an additional descriptor in the provision to the effect that professional misconduct or poor professional performance must be "serious" before a complaint against a teacher can be investigated was fully considered during the drafting of the legislation. Legal advice was obtained to assist in the Bill's preparation with regard to this specific issue. Arising from this consideration and our consultation with the Attorney General's office, it is my view that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to include the word "serious" as proposed in the amendment. Moreover, the current wording is in line with similar provisions in other regulatory legislation.

There are several stages to the fitness-to-teach process, which will provide protection against less serious matters proceeding to the stage of an inquiry. This was a point we debated in some detail in committee. It will fall to the council, as the self-regulator of the profession, to determine which cases proceed and how they are managed. However, in doing so, the council has the benefit of established case law and the experience of other professional regulators, which make clear there must be a level of seriousness in any conduct or performance issue before a decision can be made to proceed to an inquiry and before consequential sanctions can be made against the teacher. In addition, the Bill provides for appeal to the High Court on foot of decisions made following a fitness-to-teach inquiry. I am satisfied, therefore, that the wording as set out in the Bill is appropriate. As I said, we have consulted with the Office of the Attorney General on the matter and taken into consideration corresponding provisions in existing regulatory legislation.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having listened to all the arguments, I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. If she acknowledges the point we are making, then she should accept the amendments. The Corbally case in the Supreme Court underlines the need for a requirement that any complaint in such cases be serious in nature. It is an important threshold which a complainant should have to meet. Any reasonable person will acknowledge there is a potential in a profession like teaching for vexatious, trivial and unjustified complaints. As Deputy Coppinger noted, "poor professional performance" is a very broad term and one that is much too subjective. Unless it is qualified significantly, we will have a situation where all the onus is on the teacher for failures that are not his or hers.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court found in the Corbally case that systems failures had to be taken into consideration in adjudicating on any complaint, that is, issues such as the resources available, management issues and all types of other factors that could potentially contribute to instances of poor performance which are not, in fact, the fault of the person against whom the complaint is made. Otherwise, the subject of the complaint might become the fall guy. Against the background of swingeing cutbacks and austerity policies which have led to overcrowded classrooms, special needs assistant caps and so on, the potential for teachers to be accused of poor professional performance when the problem at hand is not really their fault is considerable. Deputy Coppinger, who has direct experience in this regard, has underlined that point clearly.

There is an overwhelming argument, backed up by the Supreme Court, that we need to be much tighter, more precise and fairer in dealing with teachers in situations where serious allegations which could be very damaging to their reputation, character and future career are at stake. We must be much more precise as to the thresholds that have to be meet for making a complaint which might lead to a fitness-to-practise inquiry. The amendments I am proposing are fair and reasonable and would provide some safeguard for teachers by introducing that threshold of seriousness. I reiterate that all the teacher unions, the ASTI, the INTO and the TUI, have made similar points. The wording they propose for discussion in the Seanad will probably be slightly different from mine but the intention will be the same. I am obliged to mark the Minister's card on this because it is a serious issue. I hope she will reconsider this proposal.

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

It was a poor professional performance on my part not to submit amendments on this section. The provision is so broad as to be clearly open to abuse by principals and boards of management. A psychologist friend of mine tells me that the greatest number of cases she deals with concerning workplace issues involve teachers. That is because principals, in particular, have a huge level of power to hire, fire, demote and withhold promotion. I am not being anti-principal in saying this, but there must be safeguards for teachers. There have been many instances, as I am sure the Minister is aware, of teachers being bullied by principals, other teachers or students. A case in Wicklow some years ago involved two female teachers who were subjected to sexist treatment in an all-boys school on an ongoing basis. When the board of management failed to act, the teachers took a legal case.

There are many ways in which the blame can be placed on teachers for difficult situations in classrooms. Most people do not have a clue how difficult it can be to maintain discipline, particularly in certain areas where students face a range of social and economic difficulties. Often, teachers are struggling to maintain good order without any back-up from school management boards which do not want to know about the difficulties those teachers are facing. A situation can arise where a teacher is not able to cope, as I have seen happen in schools, and will have a queue of students sitting outside his or her office at the end of every school day. Principals do not like to see that and will blame teachers without offering any type of assistance to them in their work.

When it comes to adjudicating on whether there has been poor professional performance or professional misconduct, safeguards should be included which explain exactly what is meant by those terms.

What is the timescale pertaining to this misconduct or performance? Did it go on over a period of time? Was it just one week?

This is very disappointing. When the Teaching Council was set up, I was teaching myself. Everyone thought the council would protect teachers and advance the cause of the teaching profession but it is becoming the exact opposite. It is becoming a vehicle for disciplining and sacking teachers. It has done nothing about the downgrading of teaching. We have two-tier pay systems, with new teachers getting paid 15% less. "Yellow pack" teachers are sitting in staff rooms waiting on subbing work. The council says nothing about that situation. Instead of protecting teachers, most of whom are good, it seems to be concerned solely with picking on teachers and joining in this popular - hatred would be too strong a word - antipathy towards teachers in Ireland. This Bill is jumping on that bandwagon.

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

That is not what the Bill is about at all. The Bill is about the Teaching Council and its specific role with regard to fitness to practice and vetting. It has nothing to do with the celebration of teachers because the vast majority of teachers do a great job. This relates to a tiny minority of teachers who are causing concern and who may come to the attention of the Teaching Council and then be subject to the fitness to teach process. It has nothing to do with the general atmosphere in schools. I condemn any bullying of teachers and a number of actions are being taken in respect of bullying in schools, be it of teachers or students.

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

Does the Minister want me to talk about bullying of teachers?

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

The vast majority of teachers do a great job. I have said that in many places where I have spoken publicly. This is simply about the regulation of the profession, which we have in other professions such as the medical profession. In the tiny minority of cases where there is a problem, a process will be in place by the Teaching Council. The council was set up to ensure we support teachers and that the professionalism of teachers is upheld and provided for in legislation. I absolutely support that. Neither is this about bringing a case against a teacher where he or she is not at fault. There is absolutely no question that a person's fitness to teach could be questioned in respect of something that is not his or her fault.

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

Really?

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

That is the case, Deputy Coppinger. This only concerns cases that are brought to investigation. It will only apply in cases where it is appropriate that they would be brought to investigation. There are then a number of stages to the fitness to teach process within the Teaching Council before it would get to a hearing. It would not get to a hearing unless it was sufficiently serious. I use the word "serious" because that is the word Deputy Boyd Barrett uses in his proposed amendments. Our legal advice is that this is implicit in the definitions and the fitness to teach process. Any complaint that gets to the point of a hearing will be a serious complaint. If one reads the legislation and examines the role of the Teaching Council, it is clear that in order to get to the point of a hearing there will be an examination of the complaint. If it is frivolous or something that is not the teacher's fault, the complaint will not get to the point of a hearing. That is clear in the legislation and the fitness to teach process.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Deputy Coppinger just pointed out to me informally, there is a certain irony in the Minister for Education and Skills saying that only serious complaints will be looked at but the Minister does not want to put in-----

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

Will get to the point of a hearing is what I said.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister can use that phrase and sees the necessity for such complaints to be serious, I see no reason for that not to be provided for in the legislation.

The Minister has not really responded to the point on the Corbally judgment. I do not know about the legislation governing the Medical Council but I presume the same promises and commitments about it applying to serious complaints only were made, yet it still managed to happen. The issue had to go to the Supreme Court to be rectified and the judge was very clear about the matter. The word he used was "serious". He said these things had to be serious to get to hearing. That was the threshold that had to be met. If it required the Supreme Court to state and assert that requirement, is it not logical for the Minister to insert that qualification or threshold? Otherwise we may end up with cases like the Corbally case where this could be challenged legally. We may end up with an uncertainty that could lead to hearings on things that are not really meeting the threshold of seriousness and the resultant damage that could cause to someone's career, reputation and so on. Everyone is asking for this qualification in the legislation and I do not see why the Minister will not insert it.

Nor do I accept the point made on other factors that are outside a teacher's control and that a teacher could not be, under certain circumstances, scapegoated for other issues such as system failures that go beyond them. In fact I would say it happens all the time. Perhaps not all the time. That is too strong, but I would say it happens quite a lot. It is likely to happen more frequently when there are big resource and funding shortages, overcrowded classrooms and resultant stresses. We all know they exist but it is not just about whether they exist now. At any time in the future factors things can come into play. They can cause big problems and individuals can be scapegoated because someone does not like them. Someone wrongly blames them for things that are not their fault. They might consider it very serious but any independent observer would say it is clearly not their fault.

It is very reasonable to put in a threshold or qualification requiring the matter to be serious. The contraventions or instances of professional misconduct should have to be serious. The whole issue needs to be addressed in a much precise and qualified manner. It is far too open and vague.

I will press the amendment. I know the Minister will not accept it but we will press it. Similar amendments are being tabled in the Seanad. Those amendments will have been worded by people more eminent in legal matters than myself I suspect - probably senior counsel who represent the unions. I hope that if the Minister is not going to accept the amendment that we will press now, she will accept it in the Seanad.

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

I do not have anything to add except to say again that case law such as the Corbally case will be available to the Teaching Council in terms of any cases which comes before it to be investigated. As I say, proceeding to a hearing is a different matter in terms of going through the processes within the Teaching Council.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6, which is also in the name of Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, arises out of Committee Stage proceedings and was already discussed with amendment No. 5.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 15, line 22, before “poor” to insert “serious”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 15, line 23, after "engaged in” to insert "serious”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I spoke about this issue on Second Stage when I made some of these points. It is unfortunate that the Minister chose to reject something that even the Teaching Council of Ireland had recommended, namely, that it be looked at on a case by case basis and that a sub-committee could make a recommendation on whether a case should be heard in public. For some reason, the Minister rejected that recommenation. Perhaps she might explain why.

Let us be honest about what we are talking about. We are not talking about teachers who are dangerous to pupils in terms of grooming or sexual abuse because any such case would go to court. We are talking about fitness to teach for a variety of reasons we discussed in respect of previous amendments, some of which are very loose and where there is carte blancheto determine them in various ways. They include being medically unfit to teach. What is being said, in effect, is that we should have public show trials of teachers who are potentially unfit to teach in order that the tabloid media, in particular, can feast on someone's misery. I do not support such hearings in other professions either. I do not see the advantage in having compulsory public hearings, or the reason for them, except to add to somebody's difficulties. I do not see why it is necessary to do so. I agree that the amendment is well worded. It states cases could be heard and the findings made public. The Minister is feeding into a tabloid media mentality where teachers, the object of scorn on many occasions in the media, would be put on trial.

Doctors face public fitness to practise hearings. A case I cited on Second Stage involved a doctor who asked to have his name erased from the medical register rather than appear at one of these public hearings because several lawyers testified that it would increase his risk of suicide if he was to be put through a public hearing. The committee voted not to accept that his name be erased from the medical register.

It defies logic if an individual is volunteering not to practise again.

Why is there this burning need for cases to be tried in public? Disciplinary hearings for many if not most workers are not held in public and for most, if there is a disciplinary hearing, it is not reported by the media. It seems to be a creeping development for certain professions to hold disciplinary proceedings in public. Other workers are not subjected to this and I do not see why teachers and nurses should be. That is not to say that serious cases where teachers are a danger should not be made public - we are taking it as read that such cases would be tried in court, as they should be. No one is defending anything like that but we must be very careful, particularly in a small country like Ireland. In Scotland, for example, it is done case by case. If a case is considered serious enough to warrant a public hearing, that is what happens, but if a case is not considered to be very serious, the hearing is held in private. Why has the Minister rejected that option? Perhaps she wants to be seen to be meeting a demand or an appetite in the media. We are constantly hearing that there is an enormous problem of unfit teachers, an argument which is regularly made by Independent News and Media. However, as I said in an earlier contribution, the biggest problem in teaching is the fact that there are many teachers who are not able to survive. They are not able to pay their rent, never mind buy a house because they do not have proper jobs. The casualisation of teaching is a huge problem and is much more serious than this issue, with one in four teachers in the secondary sector without a proper job. We have spoken in this House about zero-hour contracts for Dunnes Stores workers and others, which is totally disgraceful and which has not been legislated for. That would be a more fitting Bill for the Government to be bringing in front of the Dáil. We actually have many teachers on zero-hour contracts. They show up and do not have a clue if they will have any money at the end of the week. I would love to see more coverage of that issue and not just at Easter when the teachers' annual conferences are taking place. The Minister has said that this will be addressed but it will not be unless the Minister creates more permanent jobs by reducing the pupil-teacher ratio. Teachers will continue in temporary positions because the Minister has not increased the allocation to schools.

I have not seen any evidence of a burning demand for the provisions we are discussing today.

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

Deputy Boyd Barrett is right in saying that this is about a balance between the public interest and the right of teachers to their privacy. It is about getting that balance right and making a decision as to where that balance should lie. That is why I have indicated that I will bring forward an amendment in the Seanad to provide that the balance should be, by default, in public but that in certain situations a hearing could be held in private. The main reason for this is transparency. This is about the public interest and also about ensuring we protect the reputation of teachers. We have heard complaints for years that it is very difficult to get rid of a bad teacher. That is a commonly held view but I would reiterate that the vast majority of teachers are excellent. That said, we need to have a process whereby teachers can be removed from the register of the Teaching Council if complaints against them are upheld. I should point out that 22 of the 37 members of the Teaching Council are teachers. In effect, this is teachers regulating their own profession, which is also the case in other jurisdictions.

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

The Teaching Council did not ask for this provision and does not agree with it.

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

I understand that.

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

The Minister should make that clear.

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

I am just pointing out that 22 of the 37 members of the Teaching Council are teachers. I wish to make it clear that no case will proceed to a hearing without going through several screening stages which are designed to ensure the complaint merits a full disciplinary hearing. That is clearly provided for. It is a matter of deciding where the balance should lie between default public or default private but no matter which side of that line one opts for, certain information must be made public and provision must be made for private hearings where that is considered appropriate. On the question of whether teachers should be treated differently to doctors or nurses, general practitioners or public health nurses would argue that they are just as much a part of and engaged with their local communities as teachers.

As I have said, this mirrors recently introduced legislation for other professions, with hearings for nurses, midwives and doctors being held by default in public. That is one of the reasons I have come down on the side of a public default position. However, having considered a request by a teacher or a witness and where there is reasonable and sufficient cause, the disciplinary committee of the Teaching Council can decide that some or all of the hearing may be held in private. I must stress the point that hearings can be held in private if the committee decides that is appropriate. This approach supports an important balance of rights: the rights of individuals who are the subject of complaints to privacy, where appropriate, and the public right to expect that regulation is carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner. It can cater for long-standing principles of natural justice in respect of the individual's rights and rights such as the safeguarding of minors or vulnerable adults, the protection of private life and professional reputation and privacy concerning medical issues.

I also plan to include express provision that the registered teacher who is the subject of the hearing is entitled to be represented at the hearing and will be furnished in advance with information about evidence in support of the complaint. As well as the conduct of hearings in public, I will also provide for the publication by the council of the outcome of disciplinary hearings where it is in the public interest to do so and the notification of findings against a teacher to regulators outside the State where that is appropriate. This and the other provisions are in keeping with the arrangements applying to other professional regulators and the legal provisions will be similar to those already existing.

In addition, under the current Act there is provision for an inquiry to be held on the basis of an examination of documents which might be appropriate in some cases. It is intended that this provision will be retained and it is expected that many complaints could be resolved in this way. I am advised and am satisfied that this approach can cater for the types of issues that have been raised in respect of individual's rights. The disciplinary committee will have sufficient discretion to determine when privacy should be employed, having regard to the balance of rights and the need to protect individuals. It will be up to the disciplinary committee of the Teaching Council to decide, where appropriate, that hearings should be held in private. I would like to reiterate that no case will proceed to a hearing without having gone through several screening stages which are designed to exclude less serious complaints that would not merit a full disciplinary inquiry.

I would also like to make reference to the possibility of frivolous or unfounded complaints being made to the council. This matter was also raised on Committee Stage but I am confident that council procedures regarding complaints which will follow from the provisions of the Bill will be robust and thorough enough to ensure frivolous or unfounded complaints are excluded at an early stage in any complaint process. That is why I have indicated that I intend to make it the default position that hearings would be held in public. That said, I wish to reassure the House that there is specific provision that hearings can be held in private should the Teaching Council decide that is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.

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

I support this amendment and believe the default position should be that hearings would be held in private. As Deputies Coppinger and Boyd Barrett have outlined, if it is in the public interest that a hearing should be held in public, it can be, but the default position should be that hearings are held in private. The Teaching Council can then decide case by case whether there is a public interest element to a case and, if there is, the hearing can be held in public.

This will not just affect teachers. As has been pointed out, an individual might be called to a hearing to ascertain his or her fitness to teach on medical grounds. A teacher may be suffering from mental health problems, for instance.

It may not be a permanent issue that will prevent from them from teaching, but to make that public would be very wrong and unfair on the teacher who would be very vulnerable if he or she were suffering from mental health problems in the first place. It would also have a great impact on the teacher's family. The default should be that these hearings would be held in private. The wording of the amendment allows for all the findings to be made public if there is an adverse finding. On a case-by-case basis the Teaching Council could then decide it could be held in public if there is a public interest. I agree with the previous speakers that the default position should be that it be in private.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The nub of the issue is the default position. The Minister has made it clear that she favours the default position being that it be held in public without making any serious case for it except what she calls transparency. She needs seriously to consider the possible implications for people against whom there are serious allegations that could permanently affect their lives, careers and reputations and where there is the potential for that to happen frequently without those allegations necessarily being justified or having foundation. Even in cases where they might have justification and foundation and where someone needed to be de-registered or disciplined, what is the public benefit in humiliating them? I do not see the case for it.

If anyone wants to make the case for it to be held in public and there is an actual public interest in doing so, there should be provision for that case to be made, but other than that we need to be cognisant that we are dealing with people's lives and reputations where the vast majority of teachers are good people doing their best. I accept that in some cases they might not being doing the best job, but even then it is not about publicly humiliating them and feeding the potential tabloid frenzy that could surround these things.

The Minister should row back on this. She should also consider the witnesses, including pupils or anyone else who might be called. Is it really a good idea to hold these things in public?

The Minister has said people could be represented. We are not talking about people such as Mr. Denis O'Brien. We are talking about people who are average earners and are already struggling to pay their bills. They cannot do what Mr. Denis O'Brien can do and get high-powered barristers to defend their so-called privacy when we are dealing with hundreds of millions of euro of public money. These are just teachers.

On the distinction I made between teachers and nurses, I do not think it is appropriate that nurses, including public health nurses, should have a default position that they would be brought before public disciplinary hearings. It is wrong for them. It is slightly different for public health nurses, but teachers are very identifiable in the community because of the nature of what they do. A public health nurse might fit into that category, but the nurse in the hospital is not quite as identifiable as the teacher in the school who is known by hundreds or possibly thousands of people.

There is a very significant potential for a person's reputation to be besmirched when it may not be justified and for it to have an effect on him or her, and the Minister should reconsider.

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

On first look I can understand why people might have concerns that the default position is that hearings should be held in public. However, in many other professions and in courts of law the default position generally is that hearings are in public. When something is serious enough to go to a public hearing, it is not just about investigating and assessing the complaint that is made. It is also about the transparency of the system and reassuring everyone involved and the wider public that there are good practices and systems in place to ensure those carrying it out do so appropriately and that there are mechanisms for them to be called to account if they do not.

Obviously in cases where findings are made against a person, it can be made public. Equally in a case that does not find against a person, if the default position is that they are always held in private, there will be questions outside from those who were not involved as to what exactly went on. Was it open and transparent? Was a proper hearing given to the complaint? If it is not in held in public as much as practicable and possible, that openness and transparency will not apply. In many cases where the person was found to be in the right, it could be to their benefit to have the circumstances around that aired and clearly seen by all.

It is important to have mechanisms to allow for them to be held in private in appropriate cases. I support the default position being that the hearings be held in public. I urge the Minister to consider whether it would be appropriate to have guidance in the legislation as to how private hearings would be held and the circumstances in which that would be appropriate. It is important that the default position is that the hearings be in public.

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

The debate reflects that we need to find a balance and decide whether the default position is that hearings be public or private. Deputy McConalogue and I believe that the default position is that they should be public. I think such transparency sends a message and gives confidence in the profession. It still allows hearings to be held in private where that is judged to be appropriate. If there was a case involving a mental health issue, as Deputy O'Brien mentioned, it is quite likely that the decision would be made to hold it in private. Obviously that decision would be made by the Teaching Council, which is primarily teachers.

The difficulty is that if the default position is that hearings be held in private, when it is decided to hold a hearing in public, there is a judgment call that this is something that is somehow worse than some of the other cases that are held in private. On balance I have come to the decision that making the default position that hearings be held in public is better for the teaching profession. In the long run having hearings in public will add to people's confidence in the teaching profession while still allowing for hearings in private in circumstances that are considered appropriate. The initial complaint will go through a series of considerations within the Teaching Council before it gets to hold an inquiry.

I accept there is a balance to be struck and people have argued on both sides. As Minister, I have made the judgment call that it is better for the default position to be to hold hearings in public. I am satisfied that is the appropriate approach.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 27, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“Review of operation of Act

24. The Minister shall—

(a) not later than 2 years after this section comes into operation, commence a review of the operation of this Act, and

(b) not later than 12 months after its commencement, make a report to each House of the Oireachtas of the findings made on the review and of the conclusions drawn from the findings.”.

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

I understand the Deputy's intentions. However, in general, all legislation needs to be kept under review, in case some aspect of it is not operating in accordance with the intentions outlined during its passage. There will be opportunities to follow through on these issues in a variety of ways, including at an Oireachtas committee, if deemed necessary. The provisions of the Teaching Council Act, as amended, will be applied on a day to day basis through the work of the Teaching Council and should any issue arise from implementation of the Bill, including the commencement of the remaining sections, and ongoing review of the legislation by my Department and the council, further amendments will be considered, as required. I do not consider there is any necessity to provide for the review suggested by the Deputy because we already have checks and balances.

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

I do not agree, based on the fact that legislation should constantly be reviewed, that this always happens. That is clearly not the case, as we have seen in the case of many pieces of legislation. We need only look at the position of the Clerys workers to identify the inadequacies of that legislation. Given the concerns raised and that we are talking about the teaching profession, it would be appropriate for a review of the legislation to take place within the timeframe set out in the amendment. The findings of the review could then be debated.

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

I reiterate that what we are doing in this instance is amending the original legislation, specifically as it relates to vetting and the role of the teacher in terms of his or her fitness to teach. We have the usual checks and balances, including the committee which can examine legislation. Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary - it would not be common to do this in legislation - to provide for the carrying out of a review at a particular time, after two years as suggested in the amendment.