Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I welcome Senator Norris to the debate. I do not know where he was up to now but I am of the view that he may have been receiving treatment from a psychic because he has anticipated much of the debate that has occurred and a great deal of the etymological exploration of the difference between words such as "agreement" and "consultation". His long years of experience in the Seanad appear to travel with him outside this Chamber.

Before dealing with the specifics of the amendment, I wish to deal with a number of general issues. The history of the control and management of our schools is well known to all Senators. The system in this regard is 181 years old this year. From 1922, when the State came into legal existence, the manager of a school was a sole person appointed by the patron who, in 92% to 93% of cases, was the Catholic archbishop or bishop of the relevant diocese and usually - but not always - the local parish priest. Under that hierarchy of command and control, being a manager meant that one had absolute power. That is something many schoolmasters know to their cost. I include in that regard the late John McGahern who was summarily dismissed from a teaching post in Clontarf because he offended the bishop of the day and the manager was instructed to dismiss him. In 1976, when the then Minister for Education, Mr. Richard Burke, introduced - on foot of an election campaign pledge give by the then coalition Government - the participation of parents, teachers and others, I suspect that in order not to frighten the horses, particularly those in Drumcondra, the words "manager" and "management" were retained. The board of management has expanded to contain ten or eight and Senators are familiar with the present structure. However, they have never been managers. It is more accurate to describe them as boards of governors. They have very limited powers and the real managers of a school, as anybody will tell one, are the principal and vice-principal. They have the responsibility for the school's day-to-day affairs. A board of shareholders or directors has a chairman but, in making the educational experience happen every day in our primary schools, the chief executive officer is in my view the principal. The terminology has been passed out.

The new section 24(10) to be introduced to the 1998 Act by section 6 of the Bill states:

The board of a recognised school may, in accordance with procedures determined from time to time by the Minister following consultation with bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations, recognised trade unions and associations representing teachers, or other staff as appropriate, suspend or dismiss, or both, any or all of the Principal, teachers and other staff of a school, who are to be remunerated out of monies provided by the Oireachtas.

Accepting the amendment proposed by Senators Quinn and Mullen would mean it would read as follows, and this is qualified by the debate we had earlier:

The board of a recognised school may, in accordance with procedures determined from time to time by the Minister after consultation with and with the agreement of bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations and any recognised trade union or staff association representing teachers, or other staff as appropriate, suspend or dismiss, or both, any or all of the Principal, teachers and other staff of a school, who are to be remunerated out of monies provided by the Oireachtas.

I am not sure what safeguard the amendment will necessarily give that is not already there. The amendment introduces the words "and with the agreement" following "the Minister after consultation with". We would have consultation and agreement prior to being able to proceed and dispose of a non-performing school or principal.

The suggested amendment from the University Senator from the other university panel would include - based no doubt on practical experience - "having sought the agreement of". We are back to the philosophical question of consultation and agreement. I have already put on the record of the House, but I will repeat it for the benefit of Senator Norris who was not here, that I am prepared to work with the social partners, including the representative bodies of patrons and others, to get a working definition of what "consultation" means and, being slightly repetitious, that "agreement" does not mean unanimity or veto and "consultation" does not mean diktat or imposition. As we have found in the past, sometimes precision in legislation can be too complicated in the area of human relations, which is what we are discussing.

The reason this is necessary is because in the past when a difficult situation arose one did not have to resolve it there and then before one could hire new teachers. This is the fundamental difference. Whether we would repeal all of this following our recovery of economic sovereignty would be a matter for other people. It is one of the experiences that has come out of last summer. I must state informally I was told difficulties arose and it was due only to good co-operation from various patron bodies, and I have already paid tribute to one of them, namely, the Catholic Church, with regard to taking into its schools in southern Ireland a number of teachers not working for schools under the patronage of the Catholic Church but from another ethos.

In the logic of what I have rejected and accepted in the past I cannot accept this amendment because it goes back to where we were with regard to consultation and agreement. The amendment would mean mentioning consultation and agreement so it would be belt and braces; the Senators are seeking a consultative process and a process that would require agreement, which is unanimity. As I see it this would be a veto. It is not necessary. I have no doubt as to the motives put forward by Senators Mullen and Quinn, but it is excessive in the context of where we are and I cannot accept it.