Seanad debates

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

This is a very capable Minister who gives consideration to matters. We had experience of him in this House in previous sessions and it is always a pleasure to discuss matters with him. I have a couple of questions for him. He says his initial instinct was to allow teachers who had perhaps inadvertently allowed their registration to lapse or whose registration was pending to be included, but that following the receipt of trade union representations, he changed his mind. I ask him to explain why he thought it was a good idea because it is and the reasons the trade unions have adopted this attitude. As I am a member of three trade unions, I am not anti-trade union and happen to think the Minister's party is not socialist enough for my taste. Therefore, I am not speaking from a right-wing perspective.

The Minister seemed to talk about persons who were partially qualified. He did not actually use that phrase, rather I am employing it. I think he said something about individuals who had some qualification. What constitutes a partial qualification? If people are completely unqualified, they are just like goatherds or shepherds, simply keeping students in their places. If they do not have knowledge, they cannot impart it. In having somebody who is completely unqualified and has no knowledge to impart to the young people in his or her care, the students concerned would be much better off having somebody who had inadvertently allowed his or her registration to lapse. If such a person was to give a guarantee that he or she would complete his or her re-registration, or if registration was pending, there would be a much stronger argument for including them than for using persons who were completely unqualified.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.