IDA Ireland's latest annual report informs us that Ireland is moving up the value chain and that the foundation for future success will be based on innovation, education, skills and research. This week the Science Foundation Bill is being discussed on Committee Stage in the House having passed Second Stage by agreement. Today we find that by a schizophrenic decision of the Government, 300 teaching posts are to be cut in the area of physical sciences. On the one hand, IDA Ireland is setting out future strategy for the development of skills and innovation in our country, while on the other, the Government is cutting back 300 concessionary teaching posts in the area of physical sciences. How can the Taoiseach justify this?
Leaders' Questions.
I have seen the report. My information is that the number of teachers in the second level system will increase from 25,307 in the previous academic year to just under 26,000 for the academic year beginning in September. The number of pupils in the second level system has decreased by more than 32,000 in recent years, from 371,000 in 1996-97 to 339,000 in the academic year just gone. The pupil-teacher ratio at second level has fallen from 16:1 to 14:1 since 1996-97, and the projected ratio for the current school year is 13.6:1. More than 1,200 additional teaching posts have been created in the second level sector in the past four years.
The point made about curricular needs is that, traditionally, second level schools have been given an extra teacher allocation to meet curriculum needs where it is shown that such needs cannot be met from the normal staffing complement. Such allocations are made on a concessionary basis and are over and above a school's normal staffing allocation. Schools are expected to make every effort, and always have, to address their curriculum needs within their normal staffing complement. For the forthcoming school year, the Department of Education and Science informs me that the number of wholetime equivalent teaching posts being made available for curricular concessions is 699, which represents a reduction from 871 posts in the current school year. The curriculum issue, however, cannot be viewed in isolation from the overall school needs and staffing allocations for which I have just given the figures.
For the first time this year an independent appeals committee was established to consider appeals from schools regarding their allocations for curriculum needs. A total of 143 second level schools from almost 750 applications have submitted appeals and the committee has granted 65 posts. Those are the facts and figures.
A person would want a master's degree in calculus to figure out what that means.
It means there will be more teachers this year than last year, it is simple.
Does it mean that 300 concessionary teaching posts will be axed in September? Does it mean that pupils who are currently studying minority subjects will suffer as a result? Does it not make a mockery of the task force estab lished by the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, on physical sciences that stated that science education should be addressed in every school plan and that the teacher allocation should be enhanced in post-primary schools with low physical science enrolment? If this report is true, does it not mean that 300 posts are being axed? It is directly contradictory to the IDA's report and the report of the former Minister, Deputy Woods, and means that students following minority subjects will suffer from September onwards. They are being condemned by a tunnel of darkness that the Government should not stand over. It is a completely schizophrenic decision and I would like the Taoiseach to confirm whether it is true. I do not need a litany of figures and statistics, I want to know if the Government is to axe 300 concessionary posts in September.
The report suggested that the number of teachers being lost to the system is close to 600. I gave the bottom line figure, that for the forthcoming school year the number of whole-time equivalent teacher posts being made available for curricular concessions is 699, a reduction from 871 posts in the current school year. The point was made that the curricular issue could not be taken in isolation from the schools' overall needs and staffing allocations. The figures for staffing allocations were up, the number of pupils was down and the pupil-teacher ratio was down. We also made the point that 1,200 teachers were provided over the past few years.
Minority subjects, particularly science and engineering, are important and we have emphasised that in the programme. I have given the figure for the reduction but, in the overall figures, I have also given the number of extra teachers in the second level system.
Is that a yes or a no?
The Taoiseach announced the most topical matter today on Question Time in respect of the future of the Flood tribunal and the request of Mr. Justice Flood to be relieved of his position of chairperson from a current date. I received the letter a few minutes ago and have not had the opportunity to take advice on it but the Taoiseach said the Cabinet discussed the matter today. Two separate questions arise, the chairperson of the tribunal deciding the question of costs and the future of the tribunal.
I understand that last Easter it was indicated that the question of costs would be disposed of. Then we heard that former Minister Ray Burke was asserting he had a deal on costs with the tribunal. Following that there was a statement from Mr. Justice Flood categorically denying a deal. Will the Taoiseach tell the House if he has established what happened since last Easter? There have been no public hearings and now we read in this letter that the issue of costs has not been decided. Does the Taoiseach have information on why the costs have not been decided?
The Taoiseach got this letter last Wednesday or Thursday. What advice has he received, in so far as he has had the opportunity to take advice? How is it proposed that someone who did not hear the case or several cases can now be asked to decide costs? This is an issue of public interest in terms not only of the prospective recoupment of a significant amount of money to the Exchequer but also in terms of the punitive value of that facility to levy costs against persons or companies who obstructed the tribunal to encourage them to be more forward in future.
The House wants to be assured because the issue of costs is major. We need to hear unqualified assurances that the Taoiseach can pass the chair on to someone who was not seized of the issues when they were being heard at the tribunal.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me earlier to give a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the letter from Mr. Justice Flood and the questions that arise from it.
I cannot answer Deputy Rabbitte fully until all the matters are looked at but in the first instance he is correct. In the spring, around St. Patrick's Day, the staff in the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office had to work over two weekends because there was a rush to get all the work related to costs done so they would be dealt with at that time, but they were not dealt with.
I cannot answer for the tribunal but it was made clear that the issue of a deal with Ray Burke was nothing to do with that and it was clear there was no such deal, irrespective of other issues. Mr. Justice Flood's letter explains some of the reasons for that. Mr. Justice Flood, who has done an excellent job in this matter, has not found it possible to deal with the strain arising from these issues and the burden of work that arises as chairperson.
As Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny said, costs are a major issue that could result in enormous liabilities to the State, although that is not necessarily what will happen. I am advised that it would create difficulties if another person takes the chair on this issue because the judges who are now involved were not there for the evidence in these cases. Legislation would be required, but issues could still arise.
I understand and respect the reasons set out by Mr. Justice Flood, but my advice is that concerns exist about the prospects of legal challenges to future reports of the tribunal in light of the contents of what Mr. Justice Flood puts forward. The Government is concerned about the risk of legal proceedings related to a report produced by a tribunal and the difficulties that might arise if the issue of costs were dealt with by someone else.
I do not want to get into legal issues but the Government, following the meeting this morning, set down its concerns and is sending them to Mr. Justice Flood. Let me be clear that the Government would prefer if Mr. Justice Flood was in a position to decide the question of costs and we will set that position out in a letter. As soon as Mr. Justice Flood has a chance to deal with this issue, I will be glad to exchange that information with the leaders of the Opposition.
I agree with the Taoiseach. If Mr. Justice Flood, having laboured long in the vineyard, wants to be relieved of this onerous responsibility, my party will agree to that but we would need assurance on the question of the costs. I note Mr. Justice Flood is indicating that he will stay on as an ordinary member of the tribunal and in that regard it is remarkable that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)(Amendment) Act 2002 contains a subsection which states:
If the chairperson of a tribunal is for any reason unable to continue to act as such chairperson, another member of the tribunal may be designated as its chairperson, and the former chairperson may continue to be a member of the tribunal.
It is almost as if someone foresaw this set of circumstances. We are not normally so insightful in the matter of amending legislation in the area of tribunals of inquiry. Is it not the case that one would expect that the costs would follow on the report, and the report is in the public domain?
The Deputy's minute is concluded.
Is the issue of costs stressed in the Taoiseach's reply to the letter from the Attorney General? Is the Taoiseach saying that the Attorney General has advised that he has similar concerns in this area? I draw attention to the penultimate paragraph of the letter—
The Deputy has gone over two minutes and he was entitled to one minute.
The tribunals have gone over by a number of years, Sir, so if you will just permit me one final question before I sit down.
I would prefer that leaders would try to stay within the time provided for in Standing Orders.
I will and I always do, Sir.
You are not, Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach comment on the penultimate paragraph in which Mr. Justice Flood requests that we would deal with the matter in the current Dáil session so as to allow, "the resumption of public hearings, including hearings in relation to costs." Is the implication that if we do not deal with it in the current session, public hearings will not be able to resume?
The Deputy asked if the Government is dealing with the issue of costs in the letter. We are dealing with a number of issues but costs is a very important one. We are making it clear that the Government would rather see Mr. Justice Flood deal with the issue of costs. On the reading of his letter that is unlikely – I accept Deputy Rabbitte, like myself, has had only a brief opportunity to go through it – but it is still our preferred position. If it is unlikely, legislation will be required to deal with the issue to reduce, as best we can – as that is my advice – the risk of legal challenges arising from the proposal that the costs be dealt with by a new chairperson. We will have to further examine that issue but there are concerns about the way we can ring-fence that or secure that position.
The second question the Deputy asked me was in relation to the penultimate—
The actual provision in the law for this set of circumstances.
Yes, that is in the legislation. It was probably envisaged in different circumstances. There were concerns some time ago about the position if anything happened to the sole member. That is the reason we amended the legislation to provide for three judges, and a stand-in judge, effectively having a total of four.
That is not the net point being dealt with here.
Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to allow the Taoiseach conclude.
Is Deputy Rabbitte asking why it was set out in legislation in the first place?
The net point is why it provided for the retiring chairman to stay on at the tribunal.
I cannot answer that question. It is provided for in the legislation but I understand the original tribunal legislation enabled somebody to move out of his or her role. I understand that was in the old legislation as well, although I did not get a chance to check that issue.
On the question of whether the tribunal can continue with public hearings, the tribunal has not held public hearings for some considerable time because of the issue of costs, which has to be dealt with. My advice is that many other issues have to be dealt with to try to get on top of this one. While on the face of it perhaps the House should rush in and pass resolutions to allow the changes take place and bring in new legislation, but all my legal advice to date on the issue is that we should not rush it because the House needs to deal with it comprehensively. As I said earlier, the Attorney General had been in the Hague for the weekend and returned home to deal with the matter. My first meetings on this issue only took place today, and I wanted to bring it to the House immediately.
I wish to revisit the second focus of Deputy Kenny's question earlier. Did the Taoiseach discuss with the Minister for Education and Science or did the Cabinet discuss and approve the latest Government cutbacks in respect of 300 concessionary teaching posts at second level education? Does the Taoiseach not recognise that, irrespective of his response earlier, what we are looking at here is the closing off of access to teaching positions in second level education from the autumn? Is it not hypocrisy on the Government's part, having only recently boasted that it was committed to ensuring fair access to education at all levels, that we now see the axing of teaching posts at second level education? Is the Taoiseach aware that a number of these posts are used to ensure that the needs of young people with special needs are met—
That is not true.
—and that the consequence of the cuts now announced will be a further enlargement of class sizes and the closing off of subject options for children in a number of schools in different parts of the jurisdiction?
I do not want to go back over the issue again but to reply to the Deputy, I have given the figure. This is a matter that is dealt with by the managements and principals of schools in their overall positions. The fact is that the number of teachers in the second level system will be increased for the next academic year. The number of pupils is way down and the pupil-teacher ratio is now down to 13.6:1. The Deputy is incorrect to try to link this with the issue of disabilities. He knows that area is dealt with in first level where we are now spending €350 million on education for students with disabilities, but that is a separate issue. School managements have to deal with the position. They have more teachers, fewer pupils and a lower pupil-teacher ratio.
The Taoiseach does not want to revisit the question because he did not respond to it in the first instance.
The Deputy does not want to hear the facts.
Deputy Ó Caoláin has only one minute.
No. The reality is that we are talking about the concessionary posts and there is, undeniably, a reduction in the commitment to the provision of concessionary posts from the autumn. That is the inescapable fact, irrespective of the statistics the Taoiseach will quote on teacher numbers at any level throughout this jurisdiction.
They are not just statistics; they are realities.
The fact is that the Taoiseach has now authored yet another cutback, and that will have significant consequences because there is an important reliance on the role of the concessionary teachers in the second level system. In the programme for Government which Fianna Fáil and its Progressive Democrats colleagues presented before the last general election, they gave a commitment to assist schools in areas of significant disadvantage to recruit and retain teachers. The reality is that this announcement will see the loss of concessionary teacher input in a number of schools throughout the country.
The Deputy's time has concluded.
Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to the consequences of this decision for schools in areas of disadvantage?
Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions are always treated exceptionally well, as I know from experience. If the idea is that we should keep the number of concessionary teachers at exactly their current level and at the same time employ more teachers overall when there are fewer pupils and a lower pupil-teacher ratio, it is ridiculous. The Deputy wants to give me facts, but the fact is that the number of teachers on the payroll next year will increase from 25,307 to 25,597.
We are talking about concessionary teachers, not payrolls.
I have already given the figure for concessionary teachers.
He does not want to hear it.
The Deputy wants to keep concessionary teachers when there are more teachers, fewer pupils and a lower pupil-teacher ratio.
Yes, the—
(Interruptions).
The Deputy wants Santa Claus morning, noon and night.
I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to remain silent and allow the Taoiseach to reply.
The number of teachers in the second level system will increase in the next academic year, there will be fewer pupils, the pupil-teacher ratio will be down to under 14:1 and over the past few years we have had 1,200 additional teachers. As a result, the number of concessionary teachers will decrease from 871 to 699, which is a difference of 172 by my calculations, not 600.
Some 1,000 positions were open.
They have been made permanent. The Deputy should check out the matter.
I will do so. The Minister for Finance has taken over the Department of Health and Children in addition to the Department of Education and Science.
I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to remain silent. The leader of a party cannot ride roughshod over Standing Orders and, like everyone else, must obey them.
I think I have answered the Deputy's question. I hope he will acknowledge the true figures.