Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 6, to delete lines 7 to 34.

We are back to the discussion on the issue of redeployment, the concept of which is not defined legally in the Bill or elsewhere. A lack of precision in legislative drafting will only set the stage for future disputes and possible judicial reviews, resulting in further costs to the taxpayer. The word "redeployment" is used by the Department as shorthand for a set of procedures designed to avoid the necessity to pay a teacher's redundancy entitlements at the expense of the autonomy of schools to recruit appropriate teachers and manage the turnover of staff. Such a mechanism should be nothing more than a temporary solution employed to solve a problem until a more permanent solution can be arrived at and such a temporary solution should not be placed on a statutory footing.

I have no doubt that some very fine teachers make their way from panels onto the staff of new schools or schools in which there is a vacancy. I am in no way impugning the quality of many teachers who have been surplus to quota and are on panels, but who, ultimately, gets to decide whether to make an appointment? That is not a matter that should be removed so dramatically away from the influence of school managers of boards of management.

I note the Minister's informative analysis of the way management has evolved in schools. He has outlined the de facto position. I know this to be the case where de facto the manager is often the principal. That is a source of concern because with the best will in the world it is not ideal that we have strong principals and weak boards of management. That is the reason the role of chairperson of the board of management is crucial. It is up to schools, patrons and trustees to ensure strong, informed and competent chairpersons of boards of management are in place. I make this point as an aside. I am not in any way impugning or seeking to denigrate the quality of teachers who find themselves on panels, but an issue arises about who, ultimately, gets to make the call about whether to make an appointment to a school.

When a job is advertised and there is no question of a panel being formed, it is clearly the prerogative of the board of management to pick the best person for the job. By definition, the use of a redeployment panel system involves the possibility that sometimes the best person for the job will not be chosen, and that is a key issue. That is why we should view this mechanism as a temporary solution employed to resolve a problem until a more permanent solution can be arrived at. I have warned of the danger of putting such a temporary solution on a statutory footing. Redeployment is a fundamental interference with the capability of boards of management to run their schools and recruit appropriate staff. In reality, different schools, even in physically proximate areas, will have different needs, education models, ethos and so on. It is about many issues, be it religious values, the Irish language in some cases or basic competence in other cases, and we cannot presume that the needs of every school are uniform.

Redeployment also presumes that one teacher is the same as the next and has the same skills and training but teaching is not a one size fits all profession. Different teachers will bring different experiences, strengths and qualifications which may benefit one school more than another, and that is a big issue. That is the reason this is such an important question. Foisting teachers upon schools without allowing them to assess applicants for suitability does not sit well with any claim to have children at the heart of our education system. This has the potential to militate against the pursuit of excellence.

The Minister has stated that the EU-IMF framework requires redeployment to ensure that the State stays within the limits set by the employment control framework. Surely making suppressed posts redundant and thereby terminating the employment of the holder of a post rather than redeploying him or her is the more logical and obvious way to achieve those targets. It is a question we should at least debate. Keeping the suppressed post holder on a panel and continuing to pay in that respect does not achieve what the Minister claims he wishes to achieve.

I have raised the question of the employer in this context. Are we moving to a position where the Department will be construed as the employer? In many ways that would seem to be the logic that flows from the powers the Minister seeks under this Bill. The board of management may well be a titular employer but the Department is becoming the entity with all the powers and rights normally accruing to an employer. That raises the question of whether the Department will be open and subject to all the judicial and statutory processes to which employees are - those of court actions, employment appeals tribunal hearings, equality tribunal proceedings and so on and dealing with the binding judgments of those fora. If a redeployment decision by the Minister or his Department were to lead to some kind of misconduct, or some other issue were to lead to a court action and to an award, where normally the board of management, as I understand it under the law, would be the body with liability in such a case, will there be extra liability on the part of the Department in the future where mischief flows from a redeployment decision made by the Minister? I would be interested to know if any consideration has been given to that. These are legitimate questions which flow from the changes the Minister proposes.