Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I will refer to my speaking note as I can only speak once. I will then address the speculative points that have been raised.

The effect of the Senator's amendments would be to introduce a general requirement that the Minister must agree with the education partners any change in the terms and conditions of employment of teachers and other school staff, and to continue the requirement to reach agreement with all parties on appointments, suspension and dismissal procedures. Amendment No. 7, which we will come to presently, deals with redeployment in so far as it might be construed to be appointment related. It is connected to the matters at hand in amendments Nos. 6 and 12.

For clarity, I will confine myself to addressing the substance of amendments Nos. 6 and 12. Senators will recall that we discussed these matters at length during Committee Stage last week. Amendment No. 6 introduces a requirement to consult and agree the terms and conditions of employment generally. This would set aside the existing provision whereby it is the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform that can determine the terms and conditions of confinement. I am simply not going to diminish the existing powers and legislation given to the Ministers and, by extension, the Government regarding terms and conditions of teachers and other staff remunerated from public funds.

On amendment No. 12, the existing legal position which requires agreement all around concerns three particular aspects of the terms and conditions of teachers and other staff. They have been referred to already and are appointment, suspension and dismissal. Furthermore, it is confined to the procedures that apply or are carried out in regard to those matters. In a situation where the existing legislation permits Ministers to determine the terms and conditions anyway, the new provision will bring legal clarity on the carrying out of recruitment, suspension or dismissal. The procedures that apply will in future not be subject to a potential veto by one party withholding agreement.

I am not accepting the proposed amendment because it would maintain such a veto. I understand the concerns about substituting consultation for agreement, but we can allay concerns outside the statutory provisions through the existing well-developed partnership structures. I said on Committee State that agreement should not equate to unanimity or veto, but equally that consultation must not be a steam roller. I used the phrase, if I recall accurately, that it should not be a diktat.

I have asked my officials, following enactment of the Bill, to engage in discussion with the education partners on having a general consensus on the extent and clarity of such consultation and how agreements were reached. We will use the well-established mechanisms under the teachers' conciliation council, which comprises school management bodies, teacher unions and officials from my Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. While management bodies may have a mandate from patrons, officials will also engage directly with bodies representative of patrons that are not members of the council.

I am conscious that I have been invited to offer a comment and my remarks, therefore, are without prejudice to anything we might do subsequently. Senator Mullen, supported by Senator Quinn, is concerned that owing to the necessity to take somebody from the panel who may not be deemed appropriate, for whatever reason, to the employing body or school, the nature of the relationship is being changed. However, the nature of the relationship has been changed fundamentally under the employment control framework, which is part and parcel of the loss of our economic sovereignty. The consequence of not accepting somebody from the deployment panel, although the school in question may have great reservations, is that the teacher would be blocking the employment of a new person unless he or she got a job elsewhere. It is conceivable, given our circumstances and bearing in mind my comments on having meaningful consultation with the education partners, that a definition of "consultation" would be agreed. What is at issue is our being in a position to alter that without having to return to this Chamber or change a statutory instrument. As a former Minister responsible for labour, I realise some things are best left with a bit of fudge on different sides such that there is room for manoeuvre. One cannot, therefore, transpose by way of statutory instrument, let alone primary legislation, as we are doing at present. The definition, which can be written down and clearly understood by the education partners, can be changed over time.

As Minister I certainly do not want to be in a position where the Department is imposing a teacher from a panel who has been redeployed because of changes elsewhere and who is deemed to be utterly unacceptable to the school to which he is being deployed. I find it hard to believe that the teacher would be deemed to be unable to do the job properly, to use Senator Healy Eames's phrase. This Bill will enable section 30 of the Teaching Council legislation to be activated and will enable the council, using its professional powers, to decide whether a teacher is up to standard. Through the council, a teacher or all teachers may be required to demonstrate proof of CPD in order to have his or their registration properly validated and renewed. It will be a matter for the council, whose powers have been strengthened. The power to ensure that no person can be on a panel for redeployment whom a prospective employer will say is not really up to the job is being transferred back to the teaching profession. If the employer says this, an alarm bell will ring elsewhere in the system and the system should respond appropriately.

Senator Mullen's other cause of concern, that a prospective teacher could present a problem in regard to upholding a school's ethos by behaving in a manner disrespectful towards that ethos, I speak hypothetically, would be a question for the Teaching Council. I am offering an opinion rather than interpreting law in stating I do not believe a teacher would be behaving responsibly if he or she were to be disrespectful towards the ethos. There is sufficient anecdotal evidence, certainly from my consultation with teachers and their management bodies and representatives, to suggest there are many teachers in the system who are carrying out duties required by their schools under their ethos, that do not necessarily conform with their personal beliefs. Those teachers are not, to my knowledge, disrespecting the ethos or causing offence to the extent that they would be inappropriately employed.

With the continuation of social diversification, rather than secularisation, as some might say, we will need to determine how best to address the issue. With regard to the amendment, I assure the House that we will define what "consultation" means. It will not involve some kind of steamroller or diktat. To repeat what I said on Committee Stage, although the legal or union representatives of a would-be redeployed teacher may want him or her to be agreeable to a change, the teacher can exercise a veto over which they do not necessarily have control. Senator Mullen, whose many talents and skills include his being a professional lawyer, will know a client can ultimately determine whether to accept advice. I am seeking some room for manoeuvre.

Senator Quinn articulated a view that was supported broadly on Committee Stage. It is not the intention of the Department of Education and Skills to micro-manage individual schools. We are, however, brought into the system on occasion where there are appeals to section 29 of the 1998 Act, which concerns admissions policy. I issued a document last June inviting schools to consider their admissions policies in order for us to minimise the number of disputes that proceed immediately to a legal appeal.

There is, of necessity, a close coming together but the coming together generated by people going to law should not in any way be interpreted, either on foot of an attitude in the Department internally or an attitude of the Minister, that we want in any way to micro-manage or interfere with the relationship between the patron, board of management and employees in respect of how they run their affairs. This autonomy is one of the essential qualities of our education system. I want to respect that. Cases brought to us, because of section 29, in the main, and also because of demographic change, which includes people moving from one town to another, necessitated our examination of existing roll policy. Some people may have interpreted that as a desire, either by me personally or the Department institutionally, to intrude in an area that was previously ignored. It is absolutely not the case. Although I am prevented from straying from the amendment, I had no choice but to respond on this matter considering that the Chair allowed it to be raised.