Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001

Vol. 541 No. 4

Priority Questions. - Community Employment Schemes.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

101 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will give details of the proposal to transfer £46 million of community employment funding to his Department; the way in which this funding will be allocated to schools; the reasons for the delay in notifying the schools of these proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23296/01]

The Deputy will be aware that I have recently secured the transfer of £46 million to my Department on a phased basis between now and 2003 as the FÁS school based community employment schemes come to an end. The availability of this funding will enable me to make significant progress in relation to the provision of secretarial and caretaking services for schools by putting in place an equitable system of funding for ancillary services throughout the free education school system. My Department will receive a total of £32 million in this school year.

Not £46 million.

Proposals for the redistribution of the moneys received this year at primary and post-primary levels are now almost finalised and I expect to be in a position to announce them within the next week. My Department is arranging for circulars to be issued to all primary and second level schools. These circulars, which will be available shortly, will outline details of the new funding arrangements.

The Deputy will be aware that I recently agreed with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS that all school based CE participants, with a legitimate expectation of up to three years participation in a school based CE scheme, will be facilitated to complete their full term. This adjustment to the phasing out of CE schemes in schools means that certain CE participants may be entitled to continue working on CE schemes in schools up to and including 2004, depending on their individual circumstances and entitlements under CE. This adjustment should also ensure the withdrawal of CE schemes takes place on a more gradual basis and, therefore, reduce the immediate impact on schools.

Is it not the case that the Minister made this announcement and issued the press statement in early July without having thought out the implications of this proposal? It was quite clear from a meeting that I had with senior officials in the Minister's Department in the middle of July that many aspects of the proposal had not been thought through and that there are, in fact, very negative implications for many schools throughout the country with regard to the changeover.

I asked the Minister the reason for the delay. After his statement in July he issued one on 17 September promising clarity within two weeks. It is now three weeks since that date and we still have not received any clarification.

Will the Minister explain how he proposes to disperse the £32 million in the current year? Specifically, will he state if, in the case of secretar ies and caretakers employed under the 1978-1979 scheme, they will receive additional funding, or will they be excluded? Will he explain what will happen in the case of schools that have several CE scheme participants? With regard to those schools, largely disadvantaged, with a full complement of 15 CE scheme participants doing vital work, including maintenance, decoration, classroom assistance, meal preparation etc., what are the implications of the plans? They stand to be further disadvantaged by the Minister's proposal. Will he explain this to schools now? It is only fair that school principals should be clear in this the second month of the school year where they stand for the rest of the year. It is only fair to those on community employment schemes that there is clarity about this. Will the Minister answer those questions?

The statement in July was about the negotiation of £46 million.

Without thinking about it.

No, there is a major difference between having £32 million—

It was a botched job.

Order, please.

—and having £46 million. That was an important announcement.

It is a major difference to schools.

I made it clear as soon as I had clearance from the Government for it that I was happy with that and that we were working on £46 million. When the Deputy met officials at the time, details had to be worked out because it was a case of having £46 million instead of £32 million and—

That is inaccurate.

Order, please. These are Priority Questions.

—obviously with the transfer, there would be anomalies and difficulties. We have had consultation on these in the meantime. There has been extensive consultation on the issues the Deputy raised here and with me earlier. I took up the questions she asked—

What are the answers?

The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.

—with the people. There is a series of answers. On special needs assistance, a number have come forward.

What does that mean?

The Deputy should not interrupt.

My Department will provide a special needs assistant independently of these arrangements on the basis of assessed need. Where FÁS workers were used as special needs assistants, we have a scheme for such assistants and they could transfer to that depending on what the school does in that case.

On the other anomalies the Deputy raised, such as where schools have taken on a large number for various purposes, we are providing a contingency fund for that purpose.

The time for this question has expired.

What about secretaries?

I call Question No. 102.

Where there are secretaries—

I ask the Minister to deal with Question No. 102.

Top
Share