Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

It may have been done but it is not regarded as very good practice.

I have already dealt with the High Court case and the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. I have a note on redeployment, which states:

We already have an agreed redeployment scheme at second level which worked well in 2011. A previous version of the second level redeployment scheme was the subject of a High Court case in which the then AG's office advised that there was a fundamental strategic weakness in the department having to secure agreement with all parties to effect change in relation to certain terms and conditions of employment of teachers.

This is a response to that legal observation and we are trying to have consultation.

The record of consultation between the Department of Education and Skills and stakeholders in education is there for people to examine. Anybody who has taken time to look at the ongoing engagement in consultation with the stakeholders in education would realise the Department is the last to rush into a summary decision, having had perfunctory consultation. A s long as I am Minister there will not be a change in that direction.

The fears that can be read from the black and white of a statement, that says an agreement gave people, in effect, a veto on consultation that could simply be window-dressing, will not be realised. There will be real consultation because it is not in the interests of the Department to provoke a reaction of that kind by simply going through the motions of consultation and not being sincere.

Senator Healy Eames referred to redeployment, deployment, the role of patron bodies, unqualified teachers, special needs services and the HSE. This Bill is tightening the legislation. There was a lacuna between the Department of Health, and subsequently the HSE, in the delivery of services and that interface with the Department of Education and Skills and schools. The clarification in the Bill is based on the experience the Department has had.

Senator Barrett made a number of points. I remind him the HEA now caters for more than just seven universities. It may come as a surprise but there are 13 institutes of technology and a number of other institutions that come within its ambit. It started out with just seven universities. I know some elements of the universities are not happy about having to cross the River Liffey and deal with Marlborough Street. Until the 1960s they were funded by the Department of Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach. A certain Mr. Whitaker, who is much admired by everybody in this House, decided to send the responsibility for universities to the then Department of Education with the marvellous administrative resource of one assistant principal, a certain Mr. Dukes who is the father of the current Mr. Dukes we know of.

A question was asked about community national schools and primary schools. There was consolidated legislation before a committee today to establish new local education and training boards legislation which, inter alia, involves the consolidation of nine pieces of primary legislation and a host of statutory instruments. Given the power of the VECs, now to be known as the local education and training boards, to have the possibility to operate as patrons of what are known as community national schools, the legislation should be properly vested in that comprehensive legislation. It was in the original draft of the Bill when it was before the Dáil. It was retrospective, because in response to a demographic crisis schools were set up on an ad hoc basis with the Minister for Education and Skills being the patron. Initially the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Martin, was the patron of one school because of this demographic crisis. It was a temporary measure to retrospectively provide some legal basis but from a legislative point of view it is better to have it where it properly belongs, that is, within the framework of the local education and training boards. We will return to that debate and question. In the context of what was raised, the report on the forum on pluralism and patronage is virtually complete but has yet to be brought to the Government. It will be brought to it in a matter of weeks. When it is published, there will be a possibility that this House or the Dáil could consider having a debate thereon. It will require considerable discussion by all the relevant stakeholders.

The Senator referred to a database of qualified teachers. We are moving in that direction. A circular issued in May 2011 stated schools are required to maintain a list of available registered teachers. Senator Reilly, who is no longer present, expressed similar concerns over redeployment, and these have been addressed.

Senator Ó Domhnaill referred to having a panel. Where recent arrivals on the panel have a more fluent command of Irish than some others, it gives rise to an issue concerning both the quality of Irish teaching in Gaeltacht schools and the rights of redeployed teachers.

Questions were asked on small rural schools. This is not a problem that Ireland has. Last Monday, I participated in a discussion with the heads of the inspectorates from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and our own head inspector, Dr. Harold Hislop. Countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia are dealing with similar issues. We have a statutory obligation to deliver education across the country, irrespective of geography or the population base, but it must be quality education. The world has changed. As Professor John Coolahan has written in his history of Irish education, there were at one stage over 6,000 primary schools. The system is 181 years old this year. There has been change in so many aspects of life that rural schools cannot be considered to be insulated therefrom.

No school closes because a teacher is lost. From the data I have seen, I note the factor that will, in the majority of cases, reduce the number of teachers in a school is falling enrolment. I accept that the thresholds that I started to increase will possibly accelerate that.