Teaching unions have criticised the Department of Education over what they see as a lack of engagement about a proposed law.

They were giving evidence to Tynwald’s social affairs policy review committee, chaired by David Cretney MLC, which is looking at the planned Education Bill, which would replace the Education Act 2001.

The unions were represented by Darren Northcott and Geraldine O’Neil from the NASUWT union and David Trace, Sue Moore and Richard Tanton from the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL).

Mr Trace, a former headteacher of Ramsey Grammar School, criticised the Bill, saying it ’proposes a huge shift of power to the department and the minister away from the teachers and head teachers and that parts of the Bill read ’like it was legally written by someone in England who doesn’t know Manx law’.

Mr Northcott said that the Bill, in its first draft, ’contained some positive elements, but some require further thought’. He said that while the legislation was important he did not believe it was ’sufficient’ to address problems found in the island such as social media abuse and bullying.

Richard Tanton from ASCL said there were four key problems with the Bill and how it was being created, adding he had ’really serious concerns about the Bill in this form’.

Firstly, he said the Department of Education, Sport and Culture ’had an opportunity to shape the landscape for a generation with children at the forefront’. However he felt that the Bill ’fails to put children right at the middle of its purpose’.

Mr Tanton said the unions had grown frustrated at the lack of engagement during the formulation of the Bill, saying the process had been ’Byzantine’ and ’failed to engage with major stakeholders’.

He provided the example that his union had responded to the Bill in March, but had still not had a follow up discussion or meeting with DESC and that the second draft is due to be released on July 1, but the unions will only get to see it ’five days before then’.

Mr Tanton said that, under previous governments, the unions had been more involved. However, he said: ’This time when we asked to see sections of the new draft, we were told no.’

Sue Moore, the headteacher of Peel’s Queen Elizabeth II High School, added: ’We were told we wouldn’t understand. I may not be an expert in the law but I do know quite a lot about secondary education and we have people we can call upon who know about legislation and policy.’

And Mrs O’Neil told the committee that teachers ’were told we would have an opportunity to look at everything in the Bill before the draft was published, but it never happened’.

Thirdly, Mr Tanton criticised the language and tone of the language, saying that in particular clause 22 of the Bill, titled ’failures by governors and head teachers’ ’doesn’t inspire or motivate’ educational staff.

Mr Tanton said that wording such as ’appear to the department to be unable or unwilling to perform their function’ is not clear enough as appearance is a subjective opinion.

And lastly he criticised the lack of detail in the Bill, saying ’we’ve been promised secondary legislation, but we’re frustrated at the lack of opportunity to engage in it’.

Mrs O’Neil added: ’None of this is personal a criticism of a minister, this is just policy criticism.’

The department planned to put the Bill out for consultation last summer. But it was delayed. At one point, it was due to go to the Keys in April.