Vol. 634 No. 2
6 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Education and Science if her Department has an estimate of the full costs that will be incurred by the Residential Institutions Redress Board; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [10722/07]
The Residential Institutions Redress Board was established under statute in 2002 to provide financial redress to victims of child abuse in residential institutions in order to assist them in their recovery and enhance the quality of the remainder of their lives.
Expenditure associated with the redress board to the end of 2006 was approximately €564 million. At that time, 7,290 applications out of a total of 14,540 received were processed by the board. The average award to date is approximately €70,000 with awards ranging up to €300,000. At this point it is estimated that a provision of another €600 million may be required to meet the remaining award, administration and legal costs of the board. This would bring the total cost of the scheme to an estimated €1.16 billion. I should emphasise, however, that this revised estimate, like earlier estimates, is tentative as the board had some 7,250 outstanding applications to process at the end of 2006 and the level of award in these remaining cases may vary substantially. The final cost of the scheme will not be known until the board has completed its work, which may take up to a further three years.
The previous estimate of up to €1.3 billion for the total cost of the scheme, which was included in the 2005 appropriation accounts, was based on the number of applications received by the December 2005 deadline, an average award of €76,000 at end 2005, and legal and administration costs of approximately 20%. The average award has fallen to €70,000 since then, but there is no guarantee that this will continue.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has stated that any estimate of the ultimate liability arising from the redress scheme is based on assumptions which are impossible to validate and should therefore be treated in a cautionary way. While earlier estimates of the cost of the scheme, made by my Department, were lower than the current estimate, the scheme is without precedent and nobody could have predicted with certainty how many applications there would be.
Of course, the final cost of the redress scheme must be viewed in the context of the Government's acceptance of its responsibilities in apologising to victims of abuse and the substantial costs that would have been incurred had no such scheme been established, with cases processed in the normal manner through the courts. The scheme enables victims to obtain compensation for their injuries without having to face the trauma of pursuing their cases in court.
In establishing the scheme, the Government considered it was the just and humane thing to do as the State was responsible for children that were placed in institutions by the courts and other public bodies.
In view of what the Minister has said, and given the hugely escalated costs above what was originally anticipated, does she believe that the Government was wrong, at that time, to impose a cap on the responsibility of the religious institutions? Should the Government have insisted on some kind of joint responsibility on a percentage basis, rather than a cap, in view of how much larger the State's contribution has been? Does the Minister expect many future court cases in the context of this legislation? When does she expect the full complement of properties to be transferred to the State under the indemnity deal? Most important, will the Minister and her Department revisit the total washing of hands concerning the abuse that was perpetrated in the past on day students in schools, and which may well be continuing now? We all know of cases where people have tried to get some kind of justice but got nowhere. They can be faced with enormous costs. I have raised one such case with the Minister on a number of occasions.
In the context of the current situation, parents may suspect that abuse is going on, yet they may feel their concerns are not eliciting a serious response from the school's board of management and possibly from the patron. Will the Department of Education and Science take any responsibility in such cases? It makes a mockery of the apology that was given on foot of everything we have found out about the past, if the State body — in this case, the Department of Education and Science, which runs the schools and pays teachers — completely washes it hands of anything that has happened or could possibly happen in day schools.
As regards the indemnity agreement, it should be made clear that the State had a duty to make amends for the abuse of children placed in institutions. The State was involved in placing those children in institutions and obviously had a responsibility to make amends. Nonetheless, it was considered that the congregations should make a contribution towards that. That is why the negotiations were entered into between the Government and the congregations. The Deputy spoke of a possible 50-50 arrangement.
As recommended by the Department of Finance.
Yes but at the time it was quickly realised that that would not be achieved and that the best deal available was the €128 million. The amount was agreed with the Department of Finance.
In secret and without the Attorney General's involvement.
The reality is that had all of these people gone to court — which it was open to them to do — and sued the State, the State would have had to pay for every single one of them.
No. Other people would have been cited in the cases as well.
Yes, but the one with the deepest pockets has to pay. In those cases, the State would always be seen as the one with the deepest pockets.
How come the State is not paying out for day students?
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
That is the phrase as regards the law.
It is not as simple as that.
The Deputy asked about property and cash. It was broken down as follows — cash contributions of €41.14 million; provision of counselling services, €10 million; and property transfers of €76.86 million. The cash and counselling contributions of €51.14 million have been received in full. The property transfers of €66 million and cash in lieu of property of €10.7 million — which amounts to €76.7 million — have also been agreed. The balance of €160,000 is to be settled shortly. Some properties are still held up with the commissioners for charitable bequests whose consent is required before the transfer of title can be effected. We are anxious to get our hands on that property quickly, once the legal issues have been dealt with, because a number of schools are awaiting the transfer. There is no difficulty with it, however. I wish to clarify also that the value assigned to those properties is the value at the time of the agreement, not the current value. Therefore, it is not as if we are going to get any less property just because it has not been transferred to date.
There is a significant difference between the State's responsibility concerning day cases and residential cases. Children placed in industrial schools and other institutions were taken away from their families, who had responsibility for care and protection, and the family unit was not available to them. When children did not have that care and protection the State had a responsibility to ensure they would be adequately cared for in State care. The State had to make amends when children were abused in those institutions.
The day care school system is quite different because the education system is structured on the basis that schools are run by local management which has legal responsibility and a duty of care for pupils. With the exception of pay issues, the recruitment, appointment, discipline and dismissal of teachers in an individual school is a matter for the board of management. This has been clarified in the courts by three different High Court judges in four separate cases. The responsibility of the State is very different in a day school than in residential care.
Schools have a serious obligation relating to child protection guidelines which have been issued to schools along with training for staff. New teachers are vetted as are other staff working in schools from this year and we are working towards the vetting of existing teachers. The protection of the child is crucial in every school.
That is an enormous responsibility for boards of management.
The State pays the salaries of teachers in these schools and the Minister will be aware of the case of Fr. Donal Dunne in my constituency. He taught in seven different schools and received references to facilitate his move from one to another. It is clear that by the later stages of this case the Department of Education and Science was aware of the matter and did nothing about it, so I do not understand how the State can wash its hands of such cases. It is very difficult for victims to understand how the State can wash its hands in some cases and accept responsibility in others.
Of the 16 properties transferred to the Minister under the indemnity deal how many had received investment from the Department of Education and Science over the years and does the Minister know the total value of properties being assigned to her Department?
Has the State responsibility for day students that stayed overnight? Does the €1.6 billion the Minister mentioned regarding redress include money awarded to date in the courts? How much has the legal profession made in this area?
Will the State take even partial responsibility in this matter? Does the Minister not feel that this is an onerous responsibility to lie entirely on the shoulders of a school's voluntary board of management?
The figure relating to the indemnity deal was actually €1.16 billion and this is expected to be the total cost, including everything to do with the board and legal costs. I cannot say what investment was made in the properties in question but some were schools that were transferred to the Department.
The payment was made twice.
Given the level of investment the State made in buildings at the time I suspect very little investment was made in these buildings because in most such cases the religious orders built their own buildings. I do not know the exact answer and will check if the information is available.
Regarding Deputy Crowe's questions, there were a number of criteria that influenced whether the State had a liability relating to an institution including where a child was placed by the courts and where the State had an inspection role.
7 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Education and Science the amount of time allocated to physical education for each student at post-primary level per day; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [10778/07]
In accordance with the rules and programme for secondary schools, all second level schools should provide physical education as part of the curriculum. The syllabuses have been developed on the basis of a time allocation of two hours per week.
As Deputies will be aware, this Government has worked hard to improve the opportunities for young people to get physical exercise both in school and in their local communities. There have been a number of positive developments in relation to physical education, PE, in schools in recent years.
We have funded the provision of PE, general purpose and outdoor play facilities as part of the school building and modernisation programme. Over €2 billion has been provided for school building projects since 2002, while a further €4.5 billion will be invested under the new national development plan. We have put in place new curricula for PE in primary schools and at junior certificate level and last year primary schools received €2,000 each in PE equipment grants at a total cost of €6.5 million. A similar grant is on the way for second level schools.
We believe that PE is an important part of the school curriculum and that every child should get the opportunity to exercise at school. However, we are also conscious of the fact that children spend just 20% of their waking hours at school and so their level of physical activity during the rest of the week is just as important.
This Government's investment in community sports facilities has been unparalleled. Since 1998 almost €470 million has been allocated to over 5,000 sports capital projects and a great many of the new facilities built by this Government are used by children and young people. In 1997 the annual sports budget was €17 million. This year it is €297 million and I think that speaks volumes for our commitment.
Through an increased focus on exercise in school and in the community, we are working to encourage more children and young people to get active. Indeed, the State of the Nation's Children report, recently published by the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Brian Lenihan, found that children in Ireland are doing well on physical activity, ranking second across 32 World Health Organisation countries in being physically active for at least four hours per week.
I thank the Minister for her reply but we have heard the argument that children spend only 20% of their time in school time and again from her. I understand this but if children had a poor standard of English having spent 20% of their time in school we would not find it acceptable and the fact that children do not get enough exercise is similarly unacceptable.
In terms of investment, I am aware of the figures from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism but I am concerned with the Department of Education and Science today. Fine Gael surveyed 1,400 primary schools and got the following results. Of the respondents, 51% had no indoor PE facilities whatsoever, 25% had only a multipurpose room and 23% had a sports hall. Some 54% of schools had a playing pitch and 46% did not — in other words, little or no sporting facilities.
The Minister mentioned that the Government spent €2 billion on school buildings and I understand this is a priority but is she admitting that the provision of PE facilities in schools is not a priority for this Government? Schools that apply only for a PE hall tend to be given a band four rating. Does this indicate the provision of sports facilities is not seen as a priority?
Regarding the first part of the Minister's reply, is she saying that all second level children spend two hours exercising in school per week or merely that this is what the Department requests of schools? Is there a difference in how this applies at junior cycle level and senior cycle level?
It is recommended that they exercise for two hours per week and this differs from school to school. Like relationships and sexuality education, time spent on PE tends to lessen as classes approach exams.
The Department's policy is to provide PE halls to schools that do not have such a facility and they are already part of the design for new schools, major renovations and extensions. However, the provision of schools in areas that have no school is the number one priority and this will continue to be the case. Large schools such as Castleknock community college and Loreto secondary school, Bray, which had been waiting got the go-ahead to build PE halls.
Under the summer works scheme schools have been able to upgrade outdoor and indoor facilities. Bearing in mind that more than half the schools in the country have four teachers or fewer, with less than 80 pupils, a sports hall would not be provided, but there would be space in the school. Many schools may use nearby community halls, sports pitches and so forth. The recommended course is flexible to allow schools to use nearby facilities. While we want to encourage young people to be active and use school facilities, our priority is the provision of classrooms.
The physical education curriculum for primary 11 reads well as it features subjects such as aquatics. In practical terms, however, the Department does not provide funding to cover the cost of transferring children to swimming pools in the locality. Will this policy be reconsidered? Does the Minister plan to prioritise swimming and aquatics?
The Minister referred to small four-teacher schools, many of which are in rural areas. It is inaccurate to claim these schools are frequently located close to sports facilities. This is often not the case and where such facilities are nearby, they tend to be outdoor facilities given that few indoor gymnasiums have been built in rural areas either by the private or public sectors.
The reason aquatics is included in the curriculum is to give schools the flexibility to use the sporting facilities available to them. Pupils in my constituency can walk from school to the blue pool and use it as part——
They cannot do that in my constituency.
It would be wrong not to allow schools to use such facilities as part of the acceptable curriculum.
Should all schools not be afforded the same opportunity?
Let us be reasonable, not every village will have a swimming pool.
That is true but schools should be facilitated to use pools in the locality.
It also means a school may offer dance or any of the other subjects on the programme. For this reason, it is important that the programme is sufficiently flexible to enable schools to use facilities provided for them. Pupils in Thurles need only walk across the road from their school to access a swimming pool. In addition, a new pool is about to be built in the town.
Schools should use all local facilities. The capitation grant is available to cover the cost of taking students to a local swimming pool. I appreciate, however, that not every school will offer swimming or, for that matter, hurling.
Swimming is not facilitated.
We all seek to have equality in the system but while some schools have great facilities, others do not have any facilities. Should there not be a fund to compensate schools which do not have facilities or access to free community facilities in their locality? For example, some schools cannot afford to pay the entrance fee to commercial swimming pools, which may be the only facility available locally. Will the Minister consider establishing a fund to which schools could apply to enable them to fulfil their role in terms of the PE curriculum?
No. The fund made available to primary schools last year was to enable them to purchase equipment.
They do not have a place to put it.
The fund which will shortly be made available to primary schools is to enable them to buy equipment that they can use in accordance with the needs of their students and taking into account the facilities available to them. The Department will continue to upgrade and provide quality facilities for our schools. All recent building and modernisation projects have delivered top-class extra facilities. As the schools building programme proceeds — 1,500 projects are scheduled this year — more and more schools are benefiting from top-class facilities. Those schools which have not yet benefited have the flexibility to adapt the PE programme to suit their needs.
In other words, it is tough luck for them.
I listened attentively to the Minister's comments on physical education halls and other facilities. A PE hall in an educational facility located to the rear of a school in Crumlin is not being fully utilised. Will the Minister explain what type of co-ordination takes place in this regard? Is it possible to fast-track proposals to allow one school to use the facilities of another school, as in the case in Crumlin? It is crazy that schools are not able to use nearby facilities or that efforts to use them have been delayed as a result of the structures in place.
I am not sure if the Deputy is referring to a sports hall built in the drugs task force area.
I refer to the facilities of Pearse College at the rear of Loreto College in Crumlin.
I am not familiar with the schools in question.
I will send the Minister a note on the case.
8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Education and Science the amount it would cost to set up a national primary school pupil database. [10807/07]
I am committed to the development of an individualised records system for primary level as soon as practical since it will give us vital information on pupils in our primary schools as well as enable us to better track children's progress from primary to post-primary level. The development of such a database is a complex and resource demanding task involving a number of agencies external to my Department, as well as a range of data needs which are changing over time in light of administrative and policy developments.
The database project is linked to the development of an online claims system for schools for the processing of salary claims which is nearing full completion. In light of the desirability of linking data at primary, post-primary and further education, it has been decided to proceed with a short feasibility study on the implementation of a learner database to link these levels either through separate databases for each level or in one single database serving all levels.
The study will assess the costs and benefits of developing a learner database that would encompass both the primary and post-primary system and scope out the availability of data in various agencies as well as sections in my Department, the priority needs as determined by policy and administrative priorities and the options for best matching needs with availability of data through a comprehensive data system.
At this point it is impossible to place a value on the likely cost of the different options likely to emerge from this study. However, consideration will be given to the human, financial and organisational implications of implementing a new database as well as the best approach to linking data in a way that underpins policy needs.
When this question was raised during a discussion on the Estimates the Minister referred to a figure of approximately €250,000, which appears to be very low. Does it refer only to the cost of the feasibility study? Is it planned to use PPS numbers in the tracking system? Every year, 1,000 children fail to make the transition from primary to secondary school. When does the Minister anticipate that the database will be up and running?
Deputy Crowe referred to a figure of 1,000 pupils who do not transfer to secondary level. This figure appeared in an NESF report in 2002 which cited an estimate contained in a 1997 report that as many as 1,000 primary school pupils did not make the transition to secondary level. At some point someone estimated that the figure might be 1,000 and in the absence of any other study this figure was used in a report in 1997 and repeated in a 2002 report. There is no empirical evidence or data available to substantiate the estimate.
More recently, a census of schools at the end of the 2005 school year requested that they estimate the number of pupils who did not progress to secondary schools in the State. The cumulative figure arrived at in September 2005 was 263 children. A further category, "destination unknown", may have included children who had left the country or moved elsewhere in the State. The absence of accurate data provides further reason for having the type of database under discussion.
The online claims system, the precursor to a database in so far as it is an elaborate computer system, is being rolled out to all schools. It is important that this rollout is completed before we introduce new systems. The likely focus of the feasibility study will be on mapping existing data holdings, assessing the need for policy relevant indicators and data, identifying gaps in the data infrastructure and determining what type of database would be needed. We want to ensure the database provides information required by the Department or bodies such as the National Educational Welfare Board and National Educational Psychological Service on issues such as transfer or for the purposes of disadvantaged status schemes. The feasibility study will examine these issues.
The Minister did not provide a timeframe for the establishment of the database. She hit the nail on the head when she stated we do not know how many children fail to transfer from primary to secondary education. From speaking to school principals in some disadvantaged areas, it is clear that a substantial number of young people drop out of school or do not attend classes on a regular basis. This is a matter of concern. Leaving aside the feasibility study, when will the database be established?
The feasibility study will start shortly. The Department wants to see how the online claims system operates before rolling out a new computer system. The National Educational Welfare Board, which has a staff of 94 and is due to increase its staff numbers this year, should be able to make a reasonably quick determination of how many primary pupils transfer to second level. In addition, the role of the school completion co-ordinators is to ensure there is a link between primary and second level schools. The familiarisation visits they organise to local second level schools for primary school children helps young people make the transfer seamlessly.
Does the Minister not agree it is a failure that despite the existence of the school completion system and the National Educational Welfare Board, we are still speculating about the numbers of children who may have left the country? We are talking about 12 year olds and it is extremely worrying that we do not know the status of children of that age.
Was it initially envisaged at the establishment of the NEWB that the function of drawing up the database would rest with it? I recall some discussion of this at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, but I may be mistaken in this. What role will the NEWB have in this regard?
It would be far too narrow to allow any one agency to have control over setting up the database. The information that could be gleaned from it is of wide application. Nor should it be available to all the other relevant bodies. It is important that this information should be kept within the Department of Education and Science. I do not know it if was ever intended that the NEWB should have a role in establishing the database, but that is certainly no longer the intention.
Deputy Enright has tabled questions on the disadvantaged status of various schools. If all that empirical data were included in a database, we would not have to ask the schools for it. By undertaking an effective feasibility study, we will ensure we have the type of database we need. We are talking about an enormous investment in a computer system. We must ensure the on-line claims system is operational in all 4,000 schools and we can then build on that experience.
It is my understanding that, according to legislation, children must stay on the roll book of their primary school until they go onto the roll book of a post-primary school. Will the Minister confirm this is the case? This means children should be automatically tracked as they move from primary to second level. In effect, primary schools should retain children on their roll books until they have enrolled in a post-primary school. In this way, we should be able to identify the children who have not transferred.
The NEWB has a specific responsibility to ensure that a child of compulsory school-going age is in school. It must ensure this information is gleaned and that all children make the transfer from primary to second level. Children are obliged to be in school from the ages of six to 16 years.
Is the Minister satisfied that the NEWB is doing that?
It is part of its statutory remit.
Does the Minister check whether it is happening?
The NEWB, school completion co-ordinators and home-school-community liaison officers play a valuable role in this regard.
9 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Education and Science the most recent figures on the percentage of GDP and NDP that is spent on education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [10742/07]
Investment in education has increased dramatically under the Government. This year, we are providing €8.6 billion for education compared with just €2.9 billion in 1997 and €5.4 billion in 2002. Thus, expenditure has virtually trebled since 1997 and risen by 60% since 2002. It is estimated that the gross education provision in 2007 represents a projected 4.5% and 5.3% of GDP and GNP, respectively.
Given the distinctive structure of the Irish economy and specifically the high proportion of our GDP that is expatriated as profits of foreign direct investment enterprises, GNP is a better indicator of the relative resources available. This is particularly relevant in the context of any international comparisons of education expenditure. Such comparisons tend to be done on a GDP basis, as for most OECD countries the difference between GDP and GNP is negligible. However, this is not the case in Ireland. For example, the difference in magnitude between Ireland's GDP and GNP was 18.5% in 2003. This means that standardised expenditure data for Ireland would be higher if GNP were used instead of GDP.
The results of the increased investment in education in recent years are clear. There are now 5,000 more primary teachers than in 2002. Thousands of school buildings have been modernised in recent years, while many new ones have been built. Children with special needs and those from disadvantaged areas are receiving more support than ever before. There have been huge increases in the numbers of young people reaching third level education.
Ireland's education outcomes are among the best in world. CSO data show that the educational profile of 20 to 24 year olds has improved steadily in the last several years as a result of major investment in tackling educational disadvantage and increasing opportunities in the further education and training sector. By 2005, 85.8% of 20 to 24 year olds had attained upper second level education or equivalent, up from 82.6% in 2000 and putting Ireland way ahead of the EU average of 77.5%. Our third level participation rates are also well ahead of international averages.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
