Vol. 647 No. 4
100 Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on the fact that nearly half the State’s private fee-paying schools are claiming to be charities to avail of tax exemptions; if she will withdraw State funding for these schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6768/08]
The issue of tax exemptions is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Finance. However, I understand that those primary and post-primary schools that have been granted charitable tax exemption by the Revenue Commissioners under section 207 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 were granted the exemption on the basis of their charitable objects and purpose. The matter of whether they are fee-charging schools was not a consideration. Approximately 420 primary and post-primary schools have been granted charitable tax exemption.
Since 2001, all primary and post-primary schools providing education based on a programme prescribed or approved by the Minister for Education and Science automatically qualify as approved bodies for the purposes of the donations scheme under section 848A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. There are approximately 4,000 such schools in the State. The schools do not have to be charities to qualify for the donations scheme.
Any consideration of the funding arrangements for fee-charging secondary schools should take account of the historical context that gave rise to the differentiation between these schools and non-fee-charging secondary schools. This differentiation arises essentially from the arrangements put in place when free second level education was introduced and those arrangements took account specifically of the position of minority religions with dispersed membership through the creation of the block grant.
As the Deputy may be aware, there are currently 56 fee-charging second level schools, of which 21 are Protestant, two interdenominational, one Jewish and the remainder Catholic. Fee-charging schools, with the exception of the Protestant and Jewish fee-charging schools for which special arrangements apply, do not receive capitation or related supports. I referred previously to the block grant by way of which Protestant fee-charging schools receive funding. The block grant has its origins in the desire of the State to enable students of the Protestant and Jewish persuasions to attend schools that reflect their denominational ethos and it includes payments in respect of capitation.
It would be inappropriate for the State to depart in any fundamental way from the original intent that allowed some schools to opt to remain outside the free scheme and continue to charge fees and therefore I do not propose to withdraw State funding from such schools. This support has been a long-standing feature of our education system and one continued by successive Governments.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
However, as I have stated previously to the House, it is important to take stock at this point and in particular I am of the view that while continuing to give reasonable support to existing schools, there should be no further development of the sector and accordingly I do not intend to provide State funding for any new fee-paying schools.
As with all public expenditure measures I will keep the funding arrangements for the schools concerned under review to ensure they remain consistent with their original policy basis.
The denomination of such schools is of little interest to me. However, these schools receive taxpayers' money on the double. They are in receipt of the €80 million pot earmarked by the Department for private post-primary schools. Would the Minister consider deducting from that contribution of taxpayers' money to them an amount equivalent to the money they receive under the tax exemption scheme? I accept this is a matter for the Minister for Finance and it should be examined as part of the tax review. However, such schools are receiving money on the double from taxpayers. Would the Minister consider using the money thereby saved by the Department, for example, to reinstate the summer works scheme? The Minister knows as well as I do about the considerable number of schools waiting for significant funds. Stonetown school in my constituency is seeking funding for a roof, Louth village school is seeking a toilet replacement and Termonfeckin school has asbestos on the roof. These schools and many others throughout the country are depending on the summer works scheme to have the works carried out. Will the Minister consider allocating a sum of money equivalent to that which schools are receiving by way of the charitable status tax exemption?
The original definition of "charitable purposes" dates from 1601 and 1634. It was established in law as long ago as 1891 that giving money for the advancement of education is a legitimate pursuit. Schools use the provision for a wide variety of reasons. For example, Sion Hill school in Blackrock had a magnificent 100-year old concert hall in need of refurbishment. It was not funded by the Department of Education and Science but, because of donations, it was able to proceed with the project and reopen last Saturday. Taking donations allowed it to qualify for an additional tax relief, thus affording greater benefits. This is a very topical example of a non-fee-paying school that was able to do very valuable work on a magnificent building and great asset by using the tax reliefs available. Since the relief is available to all schools, it would have been very unfair to deduct the amount from which the school benefited.
The Minister informed the House that 420 primary schools obtained the exemption. Given that there are approximately 3,500 primary schools in the State——
I referred to primary and post-primary schools.
That 56 schools out of the 420 have obtained the charitable status tax exemption means that at least 10% of them have done so. Is it not the case that schools are obtaining the exemption to make up for the shortfall in capitation funds? That is how wealthier schools in more well-to-do areas of the city are operating. They are seeking donations as a means of trying to make their books balance because the capitation funding they receive from the Department is insufficient.
I understand only 32 of the schools are fee-charging. I do not have the breakdown between primary and post-primary schools but the phenomenon is evident right across the sector.
Does that not amount to 400 primary schools?
No. Seven hundred second level schools are non-fee paying. They are included in the figures.
How many primary schools are there?
I do not have the breakdown between primary and post-primary schools but there are 420 primary and post-primary schools in total.
I have just given a very practical example of how a non-fee-paying school was able to carry out valuable work by using a relief available to all. Obtaining the relief does not interfere in any way with the running of the schools. Since the relief is available to all, and not just a specific group, I do not see any reason to remove it. However, it is not a matter for me but for the Minister for Finance to determine which schools should qualify.
Does the Minister believe we should be trying to move towards circumstances in which there is no need for private schools and in which public schools will deliver adequate education and facilities for all pupils in the State? Would this not be the ideal model? Is the Minister doing anything to move the education sector in this direction?
The quality of education in fee-paying and non-fee paying schools is identical, regardless of their location, and this has been borne out by international studies. I have no intention of breaking a 40-year old tradition of recognising the fee-paying schools but I have said that while I continue to provide reasonable support for existing fee-paying schools, there should not be any further development of the sector.
101 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Education and Science if her attention has been drawn to the possible detrimental effects on the health of children who are burdened by heavy schools bags; if there are plans to reduce the number of books they are obliged to carry to and from school; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5026/08]
The report of a working group to examine potential problems caused by the weight of school bags, which was presented in July 1998, acknowledged that many of the solutions belong at local school level. One of the main recommendations of the report related to the need to heighten awareness of the potential health hazards posed by excessively heavy school bags and, in this regard, my Department initiated an awareness-raising campaign by disseminating the report, with an accompanying circular, to all primary and post-primary schools.
A further circular was issued in 2005, again highlighting the potential health hazard of heavy school bags and outlining a range of measures that could be adopted at school level to alleviate the problem. Ultimately, it is a matter for each individual school to choose those measures that would be most suited to its needs and that fit with how it organises teaching and learning. The report of the working group makes various recommendations in this regard, such as optimum use of storage facilities, developing pupil organisation skills and timetabling.
My Department is aware that positive action has been taken by many schools on these issues. Actions taken consist of a range of measures, including the provision of lockers and, in the case of second level schools, the arrangement of the timetable into double class periods, active liaison with parents and the co-ordination of homework by subject teachers.
Apart from a small number of prescribed texts at second level, mainly in the case of language subjects, school textbooks are not approved or prescribed by my Department at first or second level. Decisions on which books to use in schools are taken at school level. However, the report of the working group was disseminated by my Department to the Irish Educational Publishers Association and it was asked to include consideration of the weight of school texts in its deliberations and liaise with teachers on finding solutions to the issue. The report highlighted that both teachers and pupils favoured the use of multi-level textbook production for convenience and ease of access and cited a high demand for them.
A copy of the report of the working group on the weight of school bags and all current circulars on this issue are available on my Department's website.
There have been memos, reports, circulars and recommendations but the problem still persists. While coming to work this morning, I witnessed young children of no more than eight on their way to school with what can best be described as rucksacks. One would think they were going on safari rather than to a primary school. Is the Minister aware of the report by an American professor that states no child should be allowed to carry a school bag that weighs more than 10% of his or her own weight? The report also states it is harmful to the skeletal development of a child to be carrying such burdens.
The reports and circulars have not been effective. Ministers and Governments come and go, yet the problem arises every year. Will the Minister consider legislating to set out in black and white what is allowable?
It is not feasible to legislate on the weight of school bags but I appreciate what the Deputy is saying. The problem is even greater for first year students because, at 13 years of age, they decide to carry to school all the books for all their new subjects.
Some of the problems that have arisen, which must be weighed against each other, concern the fact that certain junior certificate courses, such as history, are three-year courses. Some of the textbooks are composite books that cover the three years and parents therefore prefer to buy them rather than three separate books because doing so is cheaper. However, although they are cheaper, the child must carry more weight, bearing in mind that the problem can arise in respect of books for all subjects.
Another difficulty arises because teachers like books that encompass all levels. Where honours, ordinary and foundation level students are all in the one class, especially during first and second year, they must all work from the same textbook rather than three different ones. This is a practical problem that must be addressed at school level.
The provision of lockers is important and we provide funding for them as part of our furniture grant under the schools building programme. This is one way of ensuring that students do not have to carry heavy textbooks to and from school every day. Students will not pull a bag behind them because it does not look cool. If they did so, it would alleviate the problem, but if one is 13 one does not want to do so.
Does the Minister agree that heavy school bags have a detrimental effect on the health of children and that long-term damage can be caused by carrying them on one shoulder using one strap? Will the Minister consider recommending that these multi-level textbooks, or large tomes as she described them, which include three years' work, be divided into at least year groups of work? Will she consider issuing a ministerial order or directive to this effect, if she agrees the weight of heavy schoolbags containing heavy school books poses a danger to the health of children's backs? Has she received any reports from physiotherapists, orthopaedic professionals, chiropractors or others regarding the danger imposed on children by having to carry heavy schoolbags to schools under the aegis of her Department?
Is the Minister aware that a number of countries such as Israel, Italy, Poland, Bolivia and New Zealand to name but a few have already legislated on this issue? The Minister mentioned the provision of lockers in schools, but there are difficulties in terms of cost and space. Will she initiate a system of grant assistance for schools that would like to avail of this solution? Will the Minister consult publishers about the possibility of the publication of smaller-sized books? Students do not need books the size of Encyclopaedia Britannica for every subject; why can smaller textbooks not be published? Furthermore, could more use be made of computers by students to view books electronically or could they not have two sets of books, one at school and one at home? These constructive suggestions should be considered in view of the potential danger to children’s health posed by this problem.
It comes down to the balancing act I spoke about. It is an issue of cost versus weight.
What about children's health?
I am not a doctor. I cannot vouch for whatever damage might be done, but I appreciate that schoolbags are very heavy. Parents could not be reasonably expected to buy two sets of books for their children to have one set at school and one at home.
Deputy Stanton asked about requesting publishers to publish lighter-weight books. The demand for high quality books is such that all the textbooks are colourful and contain many maps, drawings, pictures and photographs, which make learning easier.
They are very heavy.
They are, but if a book is made attractive for the learner, it will include all these elements.
What about the publishing of paperbacks rather than hardbacks?
Deputies will remember school books in which there were no pictures whereas now they are attractive, but they are heavier.
They are very heavy.
It is a balancing act. I hope that schools locally examine homework policy and provide storage facilities.
Will the Minister do anything about it?
The furniture grant awarded to schools includes money allocated for lockers.
Will the Minister do anything about this issue?
We will be here discussing it again next year.
102 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Education and Science if her attention has been drawn to a no running policy in school yards being adopted by some schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6502/08]
It is my view that it is important for children to avail of the opportunity to exercise at school and that children should be able to run and move freely in the school yard unless there are very compelling reasons for individual schools to prohibit such activity.
The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 sets out the responsibilities on individual school management authorities to have a safety statement in place in their schools. It is also a matter for school authorities to determine school policies, taking into account any health and safety risks to children running in the school yard and to put appropriate safeguards in place to mitigate any potential risk to the school community.
As part of the management of the risks, there is an onus on boards of management to ensure, as appropriate, that they have put in place comprehensive insurance cover for schools. Boards are advised by my Department to ensure that all such insurances are effective and maintained as are necessary to safeguard the school, the board and the trustees against all public liability.
A key element of the management of the risks is ensuring there is adequate supervision of pupils in school yards. The Education Act assigns each board of management and principal teacher responsibility for the day-to-day management of schools. School principals are obliged to organise supervision for the order and general behaviour of pupils during school hours. In particular, they should organise and participate in the effective supervision of the pupils during breaks, lunch-breaks, assembly and dismissal. While the Department does not issue specific guidelines on requirements for supervision of pupils of different ages, it acknowledges that the degree of supervision required of school authorities varies with the circumstances, including the age of pupils.
While appreciating that it is not always possible to eliminate all risks, it should nevertheless be possible to manage them in such a manner that pupils can run in school yards provided it is done in an orderly and supervised manner.
Will the Minister outline, from her experience of the reporting of this issue by colleagues on all sides of the House, how widespread is this problem? It was brought to my attention by a number of parents in recent months. Will she agree at the very least that an audit should be undertaken to ascertain how widespread this issue has become? This must be the most bizarre new practice in our schools that children are being prevented from running in a school yard because of fear of litigation. It is a scandal. If that fear exists or if cases have been taken, surely there is an onus on the Minister and her Department to introduce composite insurance cover for schools to ensure actions cannot be taken against individual schools. Will the Minister arrange for an audit to be conducted in this regard? Will she consider the production of guidelines in this respect? Schools need to know that such a policy is not acceptable. We are trying to tackle obesity among children and ensure that children can remain children for as long as possible and now this practice is creeping into the school system. It is unacceptable.
I am not aware that such a policy is widespread. It was only one school that came to my attention in this regard. There is no record in the Department of complaints from parents in this respect. I do not believe such a policy is widespread. Where it exists, it is based on fear rather than a genuine reality that children will pose a grave danger to themselves.
The adoption of a "no ball" policy in one school was reported recently where children were not allowed to play in the area because of the grass being out of bounds or some other reason, but that is different from children running around a school yard. I see no reason for such a policy.
There is a supervision package in place where teachers are able to supervise children before and after school and during break-time. That supervision package in one year alone cost €54 million. Therefore, the supervision aspect is covered. All the schools have public liability insurance. Therefore, the insurance aspect is covered. The upgrading of play areas has been happening over a number of years, not only through our building fund but through CLÁR and RAPID. Money has been allocated to even the smallest of country schools to enable them to upgrade the surfaces of playgrounds. Last year alone 447 schools were provided with outdoor play areas. Therefore, it is not as if the bad condition of the play area could be a cause of concern. In terms of the play area and the supervision and insurance aspects, there is no reason for a "no running" policy to be in place.
Will the Minister agree she would be doing a service to all schools if she wrote to the principals and boards of management informing them of her comments and views on the matter to ensure if there is, to use the phrase, any lingering animosity on this policy, it is cleared up by her comments?
I am not sure it is necessary to write to every school in the country about something that only one or two schools are doing, but I am sure because of the interest that will be taken in Question Time today that they will all get this strong message.
I would not bet on it.
I am sure the Minister is right.
103 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Education and Science if her attention has been drawn to the fact that Integrate Ireland, the body to whom she has given responsibility for training English language support teachers, has had no seminars for some time and none is currently planned; the way she expects language support teachers to get the education and experience necessary when no training is available; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6772/08]
As the Deputy may be aware, the Government has dramatically increased the number of language support teachers from just over 250 in 2002 to nearly 2,000 this year. We have also placed an emphasis on developing specific materials for teaching English as a second language.
Integrate Ireland Language and Training has developed a number of key resources which have been distributed to all schools by the Department. These include comprehensive packs of classroom materials for language support teachers and recently a tool kit for diversity in the primary schools was issued to all primary schools on the island of Ireland as this was a North-South project. A language assessment kit for use in primary schools will be issued after Easter. The post-primary version of this assessment kit is currently being developed by IILT and will be available later this year. IILT has also delivered some seminars for teachers. However, its primary function has been one of research and direct provision to programme refugees and other non-nationals with leave to remain in the State and its role in teacher training has always been a limited one. Training for teachers in supporting students with English language needs is being provided in a number of ways.
All student teachers are given an awareness of inter-cultural issues, including the challenges of teaching students whose first language is not English. Language support teachers at primary level are qualified to teach English.
The review of initial teacher education being undertaken by the Teaching Council will undoubtedly be informed by the need for all teachers to be able to respond to the increasingly diverse backgrounds of our students.
Summer courses play a very significant role in meeting the professional development needs of primary teachers in particular. This year Coláiste Mhuire Marino, in conjunction with the INTO, piloted a national on-line course on teaching English as an additional language. More than 900 teachers participated in this course.
An English Language Support Teachers Association has recently been established under the teacher professional network scheme for post-primary teachers, which is funded by my Department. This network will assist post-primary language support teachers in the provision of peer professional development. The inspectors in my Department will conduct an evaluation of the provision of English as an additional language in a number of schools in the next school year. This will help identify needs and inform policy in this area for the future.
Can we just focus for a moment on primary English language support teachers? My understanding is that seminars had been arranged for teachers in that category for some considerable time. My colleague, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, tabled a question to the Minister in November 2007, at which point it was established that no seminars were scheduled. No seminars for primary English language support teachers are scheduled at the moment, as far as I know. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case, that there were no seminars scheduled then, and that none has been scheduled since? Is she concerned about that?
I am not aware of seminars due to take place, but the fact is that all schools will be issued with a language resource kit, the materials for supporting teachers, the assessment kit for identifying children's needs — with a particular focus on the years they might need — after Easter. This material will be going out to primary schools as well at the end of the year. The fact that this initiative is also integrated within the whole teacher training area probably picks up the need. However, the support teachers' professional development body, funded by the Department, also looks at peer development, which will also work towards filling the gap.
The lack of adequate resources for migrant children is fuelling segregation within schools. It is forcing teachers to slow down the pace of their education in class to the detriment of Irish pupils. Will the Minister put a specific capitation grant in place for migrants, especially the children of asylum applicant parents who cannot avail of extracurricular activities, for example? Will she promote greater flexibility as regards funding for language training? For example, some training could be provided during the summer months when migrant children are on holidays so that they are up to speed when they actually start school on 1 September.
On the post-primary assessment kit, why is that not being expedited? Is it not the case that the biggest challenge we face as regards language is at second level, yet this is the one that is being put on the long finger?
It is not being put on the long finger. That will be issued this year as well. The primary one is ready first, because there are more children attending primary schools, and more teachers at primary level. I do not accept what the Deputy says about children not being able to participate in extracurricular activities. That is one sure way in which they will pick up the language, and they do. The achievement of children, particularly at primary school, in picking up the language skills is noteworthy. They are getting the opportunity and children under the age of 12 learn a second language quicker than older children. It is very important to note that each of those teaching English as an additional language in our primary schools is qualified and trained to do so. The language kit is also there for them, as is the assessment kit. Resources have been put in place and, as I said, the second level kit will be going out at the end of the year. When the inspectorate does its evaluation of the work that is going on, it will be useful to see what policy changes need to be implemented, because the ground is fast changing. However, the fact we have 2,000 teachers, whose sole job is to teach English as an additional language is a great credit to the education system and teachers throughout the country.
Will the Minister please confirm that her Department intends to hold no further seminars for primary English support teachers and that the seminar scheme, which was poor enough in its own right, will be replaced by the issuing of a language resource kit? Will she accept that this is the cutback of all cutbacks?
As regards her earlier reference to the INTO-Marino College course, my understanding is that 230 applicants applied for that in the autumn of last year and that teachers paid for it out of their own pockets. Will the Minister accept that this is clear testimony to the need for additional training by teachers, which should not be paid for by them but by the State?
Some 900 teachers participated in that course last summer. It was part of the summer courses primary school teachers do. They do a five-day course and get three days in lieu, time off, during the school year. It was a particularly popular course, so the Deputy can see we are being flexible in all——
It was paid for by the teachers.
They do, however, get three days in lieu. It just shows the flexible manner in which the Department is supporting the teaching of English as a foreign language — as an additional language, in this case.
104 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Education and Science the effective rate of interest for each contract, in respect of the third level public private partnership programme, designed to procure additional built capacity for third level institutions; the duration of the period of payment; if the repair and maintenance clauses are included in the overall capital sum involved or if they are a separate contract on a costed basis; the person who will be the owner of the property during the period of repayment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6065/08]
113 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Education and Science the interest rate being charged by the preferred tenderer which is being procured by the National Development Finance Agency in respect of the first bundle of major projects in the third level public private partnership programme, announced on 15 January 2008; the duration of the first bundle three contracts; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6041/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 104 and 113 together.
In January of this year, I announced the bundling arrangements for the delivery of public private partnership, PPP, projects in nine separate third level institutions. The first bundle includes library projects at Limerick Institute of Technology, the University of Limerick and Cork Institute of Technology and a digital media building, workshops and multi-purpose hall at Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology, DLIADT.
The second bundle includes an engineering and science building, architecture building and business and enterprise extension at the Waterford Institute of Technology; and a catering and tourism building, multi-purpose centre and engineering building at the Institute of Technology in Tallaght.
The third bundle includes a mathematical sciences and computer centre at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth; a teaching research wing, new administration and support centre at Carlow Institute of Technology; and an engineering school at the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology.
Following my announcement, pre-procurement work consisting of the preparation of output specifications, the public service benchmark and applications for outline planning permission is ongoing in my Department for the first bundle of projects. On completion of these key tasks, it is envisaged that this bundle will be offered to the market by the National Development Finance Agency, NTFA, by the third quarter this year. In the meantime, work will continue on the second and third bundles.
As we are still at the pre-procurement stage, all technical, legal and financial matters including the interest rate being charged, will not be finalised until the tender process has been completed. Therefore, it is not possible to indicate the interest rate being charged by the successful bidders for the three bundles at this stage. It is proposed that the concession period for the operation of all three bundles will be 25 years.
All costs associated with the provision and maintenance of the buildings will be taken into account in the preparation of the public service benchmark, including the cost of repairs and maintenance for the duration of the contract. The cost of repairs and maintenance for the concession period must be included by shortlisted bidders in the overall contract and cost.
The buildings will remain in State ownership for the duration of the contract and the PPP company will be granted a licence to build the facilities and maintain and operate them for a period of 25 years.
I thank the Minister for her reply, and I know it is a complex area. Do I understand that she will not be able to answer the questions, specifically Question No. 104, as to the effective rate of interest until the third quarter of this year?
Subject to correction, I would say not before the tender process has been completed for the first bundle. The second and third bundles will go out then.
When will that be?
It is envisaged that this will be the third quarter of the year.
As regards the first bundle, the tenders will be in by the autumn of this year, so as not to confuse two numbers, and the tender price will include the rate of interest the PPP tenderer proposes to charge.
That is correct.
Can the Minister give me an undertaking that she will have that information available in the autumn, and not reply to the effect that it is a matter for the NTFA and has nothing to do with her Department?
I am not aware that I have answered questions on this particular issue before.
I have never been here before.
The Deputy is not the only person who has sat in that seat. I do not know the actual procedures about answering his questions on the NTFA. However, I can give him some indication. I have the information as regards the three previous PPPs, so I do not envisage there should be a difficulty. I shall certainly report back to the Deputy.
They were not necessarily procured through the NDFA, were they?
No, they were not. The NDFA has come in since.
This is my point, in the interests of transparency. No doubt the Minister's officials will advise that if this is left to the NDFA I cannot ask questions from that body because it is outside the remit of parliamentary questions, in which case the Minister has no responsibility. I am trying to establish whether it is cheaper to use the traditional capital programme of the State by borrowing or by raising extra capital, as distinct from paying through the public private partnership process. The chartered accountant beside the Minister, Deputy Michael Ahern, will no doubt be able to elaborate in some detail as to whether we are going to be ripped off for projects for which there is no market risk whatsoever.
It is also important to recognise that the value can only be assessed over a period of 25 years and the way in which the risks were transferred has to be considered. These will be accelerated projects and might not have been delivered as quickly under our own capital programme. Equally it must be considered that management is built into the project. This must all be taken into account when looking at the figures. We learned from the first bundle of schools and we took on board all the recommendations of the pilot project. The interest rate charged on those projects was 6.196%. The interest rate on the National Maritime Museum was 5.563% and 4.5% on the Cork School of Music. When one takes into consideration the 25 years, the management of the projects being included and the state-of-the-art buildings, these have been very good value for money.
I will allow a brief supplementary question. I am anxious to get to the last question.
On the information available to the Minister, is the interest rate she quoted a fixed interest rate over the 25 years or a variable rate?
I do not want to mislead the Deputy. I will return to the Deputy with confirmation.
105 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Education and Science when she will publish the Port report regarding the need for a new university for the south east; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6432/08]
The report prepared by Dr. Jim Port of J M Consulting on the application from Waterford Institute of Technology for designation as a university under section 9 of the Universities Act 1997, is available on my Department's website since this morning.
I was wondering why the Leas-Cheann Comhairle wanted to get to the question.
Waterford Institute of Technology is a very important institution making a great contribution to education generally and to the economic and social wellbeing of the region. We are considering carefully its request and also that of the Dublin Institute of Technology, to be designated as a university. This issue does not just affect Waterford or DIT, but will have a major impact on the future structure of the higher education system throughout the country.
The Government wants to build on our strengths and to provide an environment where all our higher education institutions can develop in a way that best serves the country as a whole and the regions where they are based. These issues must be central to consideration of the appropriate next steps in respect of both applications which I am examining in conjunction with my Government colleagues.
While Dr. Port's report is specifically on the Waterford application, it also provides a useful analysis of the context in which any application for designation as a university must be considered. I hope the publication of the report will provide an overview of the complex issues involved and encourage an informed debate, both nationally and regionally, on the issue and help inform final consideration of the issues.
I thank the Minister for reading her press release. It is unfortunate she did not take the opportunity to expand upon it. I find it disappointing that the Minister has had the report for about eight or nine months but it was only released just before Question Time today.
I can only describe the report as a political manoeuvre to get over the 2007 election. I can only assume she has an open mind about this application but the perception is that she does not have an open mind on this issue. I was speaking to my friends on the Fianna Fáil backbenches about the little one-to-one she had with Deputy Cullen and it is said she is not in favour of Waterford Institute of Technology being upgraded to a regional university.
She must consider the regional aspects. We have the highest rate of unemployment in the country, the lowest number of students attending third level courses and the lowest number of graduates returning to the region, the lowest level of disposable income and the lowest rate of gross valued-added product. The Minister cannot ignore these issues.
The aspect of the report which is of the greatest concern is its terms of reference. The two main terms of reference——
I am loath to interrupt the Deputy when he is making this important contribution but a question is required.
Has the Minister an open mind about the upgrading of Waterford Institute of Technology to the status of a regional university?
The reason the report has been published today is because it was cleared by Government just yesterday. Any consideration of a university for anywhere, be it the Dublin Institute of Technology or the Waterford Institute of Technology, must be based on very strict academic criteria, on the case made for the region, as the Deputy said and must be considered in the context of national education policy. We are very well served by the existing dual system of the institutes of technology and of the universities which have served to develop our regions, to strengthen our economy and in particular, to support society.
One of the issues highlighted in the Port report is that we do not have set criteria under section 9 of the Education Act and this needs to be re-examined. The section states merely that it should be in keeping with sections 12 and 13 of the Act but it does not set out the criteria and the hoops that must be jumped.
With regard to the third level participation rate, Waterford does not have the lowest rate in the country; it is below average but its participation rate has increased by 8%. It is interesting to note that the highest rates of participation in the country are in counties which do not have a university. The highest rates are in counties Kerry, Sligo, Leitrim.
I was referring to the south-east region as a whole.
The increased participation rate is very good. County Wexford is above average.
I am very glad to hear it. I am sure it could do better.
I must correct myself, it is on the average figure.
I agree with my colleague, Deputy D'Arcy.
The Taoiseach said in September 2005 that the university was on the point of being delivered. He said many things before the general election.
The Minister is treating the university for the south east in the same way as she is treating ABA schools. She does not want to make a decision. She has her own view and she could not care less about her backbenchers.
I am not sure if she heard one of those backbenchers, Deputy Aylward, this morning on local radio in Kilkenny. It almost came to fisticuffs with a local Fianna Fáil councillor. That is how hot this issue is in the south east.
The Minister is turning her back on this issue. It is great to commission a report and this was promised before the general election. Previous to the election she knew exactly what she wanted in the report. Is the Minister in favour of a university for the south-east region? How long will it take the Government to make up its mind in the consideration of this important report?
A map of Ireland will show that the south-east region is completely neglected with regard to university status.
She will promise it when she is going for the Taoiseach's job.
If one was starting again, one would probably not put the universities where they are now but we are where we are and it is not fair to tell us to look at a map.
However, with regard to Waterford I understand the great demand in the area but the Deputy is showing a scant lack of knowledge about the process. I do not have the say; I do not designate universities. One of the great provisions of the Education Act 1998 is that anyone——
What about the Cabinet?
The Deputy is misinformed. Neither does the Cabinet have a say. That power was taken away under the Education Act. A process must be undergone with regard to academic criteria——
The Minister should at least give it her support.
——and all the other criteria set in the context of policy. My views do not matter in this regard. The power to designate a third level institution, by whatever status, is no longer the power of the Minister and this is as it should be.
The Minister could give it her support.
We do not have that power.
Unfortunately, that concludes Question Time for today.
The Minister is running from the Chamber.
The Minister has concluded questions for today and we have given extra time. I am in the Chair but the Deputy will realise this is an issue that will be forcibly returned to in another debate.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
