Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I thank the Minister for his response which was very thoughtful and informative, if I may say so, and I am grateful for it. It is not that late so I do not have that excuse for saying I did not quite follow one objection the Minister raised with regard to the wording of section 24(10) relating to suspension or dismissal. We are clear that what we propose does not draw in the requirement for agreement before a person can be suspended. We are discussing the way in which procedures are arrived at. I do not think there is any misunderstanding there.

The key word is "agreement" and whether it should be there with "consultation", but if this was all there were between us and the Minister I would happily settle for deletion of the word "consultation" in favour of "agreement" on Report Stage. I take the Minister's point that there may be a degree of superfluousness or superfluity - I will defer to Senator Norris on which is the correct word - in having both "consultation" and "agreement". However I believe, as the Minister stated, we are back at the same point on whether the relationship was good in the past. The Minister hinted it was not good and that too much consultation took place in the past and there was too much waiting on the viewpoint of various parties. The Minister also cited the co-operative spirit that has existed, but I think this all comes down to the fact that he prefers not to have to depend on this co-operative spirit in the future.

I have said what I said about education. I am not happy that we go from Archbishop McQuaid to the Minister for Education and Skills, and there is a bit of this happening. As one person involved in the boards of management of schools asked me, is this representative of a new culture and command style in the Department of Education and Skills? In my view it does not fit the requirements of education.