Vol. 658 No. 3
1 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he recently decided to dismantle the information and communication technology advisory service for both primary and secondary schools in the context of the Government’s promise to spend €252 million on developing ICT within Irish education. [26389/08]
The change to which the Deputy refers arises from a value for money review of the ICT support service undertaken by my Department, which will shortly be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The review concluded that while the service is generally effective and efficient, the resources currently utilised by the operation of the service from the regional education centres would be better employed in focusing supports for ICT leadership and change within each school. The review highlights the need to ensure the integration of ICT is specifically incorporated into all support service activities funded by my Department and that it is recognised as an integral part of all curriculum development, support and training rather than as an optional add-on.
There are three vacancies among the 21 ICT adviser posts attached to the regional full-time education centres. A further post is due to be vacated in September following the retirement of an ICT adviser. Of the remaining 17 posts, 14 are filled by teachers on secondment from their teaching duties and three are filled on a non-secondment contract basis. These posts have been renewed annually. Against this background, the education centres have been advised by the National Centre for Technology in Education, NCTE, that my Department is not prepared to renew secondment arrangements for the 14 teachers seconded as ICT advisers. The NCTE has discussed the implementation of these arrangements with the education centres and the schools concerned and my Department will ensure that any difficulties arising in specific schools due to the return of the teachers concerned will be addressed. The position of the three non-seconded ICT advisers is under consideration.
The role of ICT co-ordinating teachers, with the support of school principals, will be prioritised in the provision of ongoing ICT support and advice to teachers. Local school-based and peer-to-peer support has been identified internationally as the most effective way to further ICT integration in schools.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This emphasis on in-school promotion and support for ICT integration in learning and teaching is consistent with the findings of the report of the strategy group appointed to advise on the priorities for investment in ICT in schools and the evaluation report undertaken by my Department's inspectorate on the impact of ICT on teaching and learning. These reports will be published shortly.
I have previously indicated to the Deputy that I am reviewing the overall financial position for my Department, having regard to spending trends to date and emerging pressures, prior to making decisions on specific areas of expenditure such as ICT in schools. I expect to be in a position to make such decisions shortly.
A key area of the ICT in schools programme is the provision of broadband connectivity to schools. As the Deputy will be aware, my Department has worked in partnership with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Telecommunications and Internet Federation on the current schools broadband programme. I am sure the Deputy will welcome the launch this morning of the next-generation broadband policy paper, which includes the objective of equipping second-level schools with broadband connectivity of 100 Mbps and installing local area networks. I look forward to working with my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in the pursuit of this objective.
Was this decision taken by the Minister or by his predecessor?
The decision was taken by my predecessor.
Am I therefore right in saying that this decision was taken in March——
I must add to my previous reply by stating that even though the decision was taken by my predecessor, having examined the files I would have come to the same conclusion.
I understand this decision was taken in March by the Minister's predecessor. Thus, it landed on the Minister's desk when he was appointed. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the way in which these ICT advisers learned of the abolition of their posts was on a news programme on RTE on 20 June? From March to June, nobody in either the Department or the NCTE informed the advisers of this position. Does the Minister feel this is an acceptable way to treat professionals?
It is not the way I would have preferred it to be done. I accept that. When the decision was taken, a strategy report was available and an evaluation was carried out by the inspectorate. To give the background to the notification process, on Friday, 20 June, the director of the NCTE first attempted to contact the chair of the Association of Teachers' Education Centres in Ireland, ATECI, to say that the renewal of contracts would not be taking place. Unfortunately the chair of the ATECI was not available until 4.30 p.m., at which time the issue was discussed. Letters to the education centre directors were e-mailed at 4.45 p.m. and hard-copy letters were posted the same day.
When I raised the issue of ICT with the Minister during Question Time last May, I made the point that the Government had given a cast-iron commitment to spending €252 million over the lifetime of the national development plan. In the context of this issue and the Department's appalling record of supporting schools in enhancing technology, when will the Minister provide an opportunity for schools to draw down that money? Is that money in place?
Can the Minister tell the House whether the expert report given to the Department in September was doctored in any way? Why has this report not been fully published and placed out in the open despite the statement by the Minister's predecessor that this was the best way to decide how to spend the money?
Under no circumstances am I aware that any doctoring of an independent report took place. I am quite satisfied it did not. It certainly has never come to my attention that such a thing would happen and I do not believe it would happen within the Department. We must bear in mind the evaluation that was carried out by the inspectorate. While it was accepted the education centres were performing a very important role, we must recognise that ICT, like education, evolves. They were set up in the early 2000s and now, nearly nine years later, we had to have another look. International practice would suggest it is far better to have a principal and a fully trained ICT co-ordinator within each school, providing leadership and ensuring that other teachers within the school are brought into play.
One of the issues that was pertinent in this decision was the impact the service was having. How well aware were schools of the existence of the education centres? My information from the evaluation was that levels of recognition were quite low. Obviously, while the centres were performing an excellent function in many ways, their impact was not equal to that of having the service within the school itself, in accordance with international practice.
Will that report be published soon?
Yes, I intend to publish the evaluation and the strategy report together. I hope to be in a position to do that next week.
2 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps he intends to take to deal with the crisis in primary school accommodation in view of the findings of his Department that around 2,300 additional classrooms will be required over the next five years and the disclosure that around 40,000 pupils are being taught in prefabs; if his Department will consider the introduction of an emergency building programme to provide new classrooms and upgrade existing accommodation, using the surplus capacity now available in the construction sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26106/08]
4 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of schools that have applications before his Department under the school building and modernisation programme; when he will make an announcement in connection with the next phase of the programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26390/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.
Due to demographic increases in the general population, my Department is planning for a minimum increase in primary school enrolments of some 58,000 pupils over the next five years. This increase will require the building of about 2,300 classrooms nationwide during this time. These extra classrooms will be provided through a combination of brand new schools in developing areas and extensions to existing schools.
A total of 1,548 schools have applied to my Department for major capital projects under the school building and modernisation programme. The projects in question vary greatly in size and priority and include renovations to existing schools, extensions and applications for new schools. While many of these applications will require capital investment, not all are of a sufficiently high priority to warrant the expenditure of substantial capital.
As I have indicated in the House and elsewhere, I am currently in the process of reviewing my Department's school building and modernisation programme with my officials. I do not propose to make any further announcements on the school building programme until that review has been completed. However, it should be noted that the current school building programme is a major programme, involving an investment of almost €600 million in school buildings. This includes the completion of construction work during the course of 2008 on 67 large-scale building projects, the opening of 26 new school buildings in rapidly developing areas, and the progression of 374 devolved projects under the permanent accommodation and small schools schemes.
This level of activity under the school building programme builds on the significant achievements under the last national development plan when over 7,800 building projects were delivered to provide new and modernised educational infrastructure.
As I have outlined, the current schools building programme is delivering a record number of new schools and extensions. In response to growing demand for school accommodation in rapidly developing areas, a dedicated developing areas unit has been established within my Department's planning and building unit. This unit is focused on planning solutions for the accommodation needs identified in these areas. In addition, my Department has a programme of public private partnerships, PPPs, for the construction of new schools and I am currently examining the suitability of additional projects for inclusion in the PPP programme.
While the capital funding available to my Department has increased significantly over the years, I accept that there is also a very significant level of demand from schools and that it will not always be possible to respond to this demand as rapidly as I would wish. While there may be surplus capacity in the construction industry at present, my Department has to operate within the overall financial parameters set out in the national development plan. Nevertheless, the financial resources being made available for school building under the current national development plan and the prudent allocation of these resources will see continued improvements in the quantity and quality of the accommodation available in Irish schools.
Having been recently appointed to his post, is the Minister surprised that the Department has been totally taken by surprise by demographic figures that were boasted about by his Government colleagues when speaking of the growth in the labour force? Was there no joined-up thinking between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Central Statistics Office, CSO, and the Minister's Department, which, ironically, is called the Department of Education and Science? Surely it was recognised that an increase in the labour force would mean an increase in the children of those extra workers knocking on school doors. What effective action has been taken to deal with this massive managerial deficit in the Department?
Is the Minister confirming for the House the statement made during the debate on the Estimates? It was said that just under €600 million would be invested in the schools building programme. This would mean the completion of work on the 67 large projects, the opening of 26 schools, although the Minister's predecessor announced 27, and the completion of work on over 150 devolved projects. Are these projects to go ahead in this calendar year or has the Minister frozen financial commitments contained in the figures he quoted and further decisions on the release of moneys as a result of the review that will not be completed until September?
I was asked whether the Department anticipated this and I am in the best possible position because I was previously the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with responsibility for housing, urban renewal and developing areas. During my time in that post I arranged full contact with the Department of Education and Science because local authorities would influence the availability of sites and so on. A developing areas team was established at that time within the Department of Education and Science. Meetings between the Departments are ongoing and there is much integration and understanding. Before I left the housing office, we arrived at a situation where local authority city and county managers were prepared to anticipate demand and purchase sites on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. There is evidence of this all over Dublin. The level of co-operation I received from city and county managers was outstanding and there was much joined-up thinking and joined-up action between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Education and Science.
I was asked whether the difficulties that were to arise were not anticipated within the Department of Education and Science. There was not a lack of anticipation but migration patterns tend to favour certain locations and approaching April to June of 2007 there was an indication that there would be serious issues with regard to finding places in developing regions of the greater Dublin area. This was handled extremely well, with the co-operation of local authorities and others, to ensure that by the end of September all the people were accommodated.
Regarding the programme, Deputy Quinn will understand that the previous Minister announced around 54 projects. Some 24 of these were allowed to go to construction phase. My arrival at the Department coincided with a change in economic circumstances and, as a result, I had to review Departmental spending. I am well into the review at this point, although until Cabinet takes a collective decision I will not know for sure what finances are available for the remainder of the year. I am confident that I can produce a construction programme in the latter part of 2008 but I cannot outline the extent of it this afternoon. By September I will be in a strong position to outline what can and cannot be achieved.
The Minister referred to the 54 projects announced by his predecessor last February and said 24 have gone ahead.
I think it was actually 26 projects.
Where stand the remainder? They are obviously in limbo. The standard reply we get to parliamentary questions is "however, in the light of current competing demands on the capital budget for the Department, it is not possible to give any indicative timescale for the progression of this project". The previous Minister for Education and Science said in February that a further list would be announced after Easter but, obviously, that time has passed and no announcement has been made. Should we expect, therefore, that the Minister will indicate a timescale for the remainder of the 54 that were originally announced in February in addition to those that should have been announced at Easter?
Does the Minister have a timescale for the completion of the review that is taking place in the Department? Will he announce the outcome of this review? The Minister says there is now an indicative group established in the Department for these projects. I know of a particular case in which no capital expenditure demand is placed on the Department and in which a programme is being put in place, under a PPP scheme, with the Department. The physical building, completed to the standards required of the Department of Education and Science and fully fitted, is being provided on the site for the Minister and the Department to consider without any capital demand. It will be leased back to the Department for a period to be agreed at the Minister's discretion. Surely this is an opportunity for the Minister because there is a dire need for projects to proceed urgently. The Minister cannot turn his back on such a proposal if there is any understanding in the Department.
There were about five questions there. When I came into the Department, I had to examine spending within the terms of the budget. I indicated clearly that, given the downturn in revenue, it would take me some time——
To sort out the mess in the Department.
They spent all the money.
——to examine what could and could not be achieved. I confirmed to Deputy Quinn this afternoon that I have made much progress regarding what has been spent and what we will be capable of in September. I must wait to see what the Government decision is on overall spending for the rest of 2008 before I can make a complete decision on what can and cannot go ahead. I have indicated this afternoon that I believe I will be in a position to make some announcements in September on a building programme for the latter part of 2008 and into 2009.
At a time when our finances have taken a downturn it is important that we be as innovative as possible. I want to make it clear to the Opposition and everyone else that if people have innovative ideas, I will listen to them.
Regarding Deputy Burke's point, we must always remember that the Secretary General of the Department will always be answerable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In taking on board any particular scheme, one has to have regard to the borrowing power of the Department — the level at which it can borrow. It is obvious that no charge can be more than the long-term cost of the borrowing to the Department. We will have to have a serious look at how competitive is the offer mentioned by the Deputy. It is obvious that if it is competitive, we will be happy to take it on board.
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that the Revised Estimate his predecessor announced in this House on 24 April last no longer stands, in effect? Is it the case that the commitment to 67 large-scale projects in the primary sector, 26 new schools and 150 other works no longer stands? The Minister has put all projects which have not yet started on-site under review. He intends to make a decision in September on the projects which have been put on hold. He will communicate that decision to those involved at that stage. He is taking four months of capital spending out of the Estimate, in effect. I am sure it will be the end of September by the time the outcome of the review is communicated to the people in question. At that stage, there will be less than two calendar months remaining in the year in which cheques can be cashed.
That is right.
Is it not the case that a massive cutback, in real terms, is being dressed up as a review? The reality is that there will be less than seven weeks left in which money can flow on to a building site or into the pockets of building workers.
Can the Minister give a definitive answer in respect of the many schools to which specific promises and guarantees were issued? On 15 May 2007, a guarantee was given to Kinvara secondary school that everything would be up and running within 12 months. A deadline applies in that case. The Sisters have given some leeway to the Department and the board of management so that the school can enjoy a continuous intake. Some 15 months have passed since the guarantee was given, but the project is still not finished.
I have given the Deputy a good innings.
I remind the Minister that €35 million was spent on prefabs last year.
We are well over time on this question.
Deputy Quinn was regarded as a prudent Minister for Finance. He always operated within the resources that were available to him. I would like to think I can be a similarly prudent Minister for Education and Science.
Frugal.
I will examine what is in my bursary before I dispense it properly. I am conscious of the commitments that were made and I want to meet them as best I can. I have indicated that I hope to make an announcement in early September to specify those projects which can proceed to construction. I will do that in early September. I understand that school authorities are waiting on projects which have gone to tender. They want to start work on them.
The school has a guarantee.
I appreciate that. I cannot answer questions about specific schools.
I am concerned about the principle of withdrawing a guarantee that was made in May of last year.
This year's massive allocation of €600 million for the school sector represents an increase of €44 million on the allocation for 2007. We will complete many more school extensions this year than we did over recent years. It will be a record high. We will be happy to——
We must move on to Question No. 3.
3 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science if, regarding the two rulings made against his Department by a rights commissioner, where two part-time teachers were awarded €100,000 in total salary arrears, he will quantify the amount owed to teachers as a result of this failure to implement the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26516/08]
I assure the Deputy that the Department of Education and Science is aware of the issues relating to the pay adjustments which are due to certain part-time teachers under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. It has worked closely with school management bodies and teacher unions to ensure the legislation is implemented and applied to teachers fairly and consistently. The Department has made pay adjustments and paid arrears to the majority of part-time teachers, including substitute teachers, who are on the payrolls it directly administers. It has funded VECs to do likewise for part-time teachers on their payrolls. Part-time teachers who are employed on a part-time basis by individual boards of management of primary schools have yet to receive adjusted pay and arrears. There is a grant system in place to allow the boards to claim from the Department the funding required to pay such teachers. The boards of management pay part-time teachers directly. Such teachers are mainly employed by schools as resource teachers for special needs pupils, as language support assistants for newcomer pupils or under the modern languages primary schools initiative.
Under the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001, qualified eligible part-time teachers are entitled to be paid salaries appropriate to their qualifications and to receive incremental credits for their relevant teaching service. The Department decided to extend the single payroll process for all other teachers in primary, secondary and community and comprehensive schools, rather than persisting with the practice of having boards pay them directly, to ensure that the terms of the 2001 Act could be applied to part-time teachers who are paid directly by school boards. This approach ensures that teachers who have served part-time in more than one school can get full credit for their overall service. Software development is well advanced on the required extension to the payroll system.
It is not possible to assess the amount of money due to individual teachers, or in aggregate, because the Department holds no records on the teachers concerned. To calculate the correct salary details, the Department needs to obtain a complete service history for the teachers in question from each of the schools involved. This information will be added to the payroll database to make any salary adjustments needed when entitlements under the legislation are matched to the service history of the teachers. Under the implementation schedule, the collection of this service history data will begin when primary schools reopen in the autumn. All part-time teachers will be paid directly on the teachers' payroll from 2009. The system will have the capacity to pay arrears due on the basis of past service.
I would like to focus on the real problem that exists at present, rather than the payroll system that will be introduced in the 2008-09 school year. I understand that up to 1,000 part-time teachers have not been paid the correct amounts for their work over the past seven years. Will the Minister give the House an indication of the total financial liability the Department of Education and Science will face when the review has been completed? Will he confirm that arrears of €100,000 — €60,000 in one case and €40,000 in the other — had to be repaid to two teachers in the cases, taken at rights commissioner level, which were brought to the Minister's attention in a brief when he took over as Minister for Education and Science? Will he also confirm the total number of cases taken by part-time teachers which are before rights commissioners or the courts at present? I presume he will face a huge financial bill as a result of the incompetence of the Department of Education and Science in enforcing this legislation.
When the Minister read the departmental brief on this matter when he took office, what was his view? What was his reaction when he read the part of the brief which suggested that the Department's failure to pay the appropriate rate of salary to part-time teachers could lead to it being found to have acted unlawfully? This problem has emerged seven years after the enactment of legislation that was supposed to give part-time workers the same rights as permanent workers.
My first reaction was to ensure that those who are entitled to increased wages are paid those wages as soon as possible. As the Deputy is aware, a substantial process of negotiation and discussion took place before agreement was reached on the payments. It was agreed by all the stakeholders in the agreement that those who are on the direct payroll should be paid immediately. Unfortunately, information about the system that applied to part-time teachers, including resource teachers, in primary schools, was not available on the Department's database. Under the system that was used, the Department paid two moieties to each school. The board of management of each school paid each part-time teacher directly. We have started to obtain all the relevant information. It is not as easy as it sounds because some teachers work in a number of different schools. The collation of this information is difficult and time-consuming. We want to be as fair to everybody as we can. We have made contact with all the schools to ask them to supply the information. We are satisfied that the new payroll system will be up and running quite soon. We will then be in a position to make the outstanding payments, even if that is happening belatedly.
Can the Minister give some indication of the total cost to his Department of the payment of arrears to part-time teachers? How many cases taken by part-time teachers are currently before rights commissioners?
I do not have information regarding the Deputy's final question about the cases before the rights commissioners. I will make sure that the Deputy is made aware of how many cases are in question. As he will know, an individual has the right to to go to the rights commissioner even though an agreement has been reached between the stakeholders. That has been adopted.
Of the two cases that were taken to the rights commissioner, I believe one had an agreement of €35,000 and the other was of €55,000.
Has the Minister any ball-park figures concerning how much this will cost? He does not have the money at the moment.
I have asked the officials to try to piece this together but I understand it will be quite a substantial sum.
Question No. 4 answered with Question No. 2.
5 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps he is taking to address the English language deficit of legally resident migrants; the steps which have been taken to date to provide additional resources to vocational education committees to take over the operation of the Integrate Ireland Language and Training programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26392/08]
The English language needs of legally resident migrants are being addressed on a number of fronts.
First, there are currently almost 2,000 English language resource teachers working in our primary and post-primary schools at an annual cost of some €120 million. This number has increased from 262 teachers in 2001-02. I believe most Members will accept that this is a significant upping of resources.
The arrangements for enhanced provision of English language resource teachers were set out in a circular from my Department which issued to schools in May 2007. The previous restriction of two such teachers per school was removed and a two-year limit of English language classes for the students was also lifted, where a specific request is made. A school with more than 121 pupils with English language needs can now have six English language resource teachers. Resource materials, including intercultural guidelines and assessment kits, have been prepared and provided to assist teachers with this work.
Second, for adult migrants the network of VECs throughout the country provides English language classes. In 2007 there were approximately l3,000 students attending these English language classes at a cost to the Exchequer, or to the VECs, of approximately €10 million.
Third, Integrate Ireland Language and Training, IILT, provided English language classes to immigrants with refugee status. In 2007, just over 900 learners attended IILT courses at 12 centres around Ireland. Due to turnover, approximately 450 students are in direct tuition at any one time.
IILT approached my Department earlier this year with a proposal to withdraw from direct tuition for adult refugees and with a request that this tuition be mainstreamed. IILT envisaged continuing direct tuition for a group of up to 200 programme refugees, namely, those on the resettlement programme. I accepted that mainstreaming of service provision was appropriate as it accords with the overall approach to provision of services to migrants as set out in Migration Nation — A Statement by the Government on Integration Strategy and Diversity Management, a report I wrote myself and recently launched.
In this context, it was decided that all direct tuition provision should be mainstreamed and provided by VECs as it would be less efficient to seek to continue with a small element of provision by IILT.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The funding allocated to IILT will now be redirected to provide for the continuation of this service to refugees through the VEC network. The Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, has confirmed that it is happy to co-operate and collaborate with my Department in the delivery of English language services through its nationwide network of 33 VECs. The VEC sector has already developed best practice in teaching English for speakers of other languages, ESOL.
My Department has already had discussions with the IVEA with a view to ensuring a smooth transition to the system. An independent review was commissioned to develop a national English language policy and framework for legally resident adult immigrants. The review involved extensive stakeholder consultations. I await the report and recommendations which will inform the future development of provision for adult immigrants.
The statement issued by the Department announced that, via the VECs, the Department would immediately take over the provision of the service for refugees. I presume that means from 1 August. If that is the case why was the IVEA approached to come into the Department about this matter only last week? What additional funding will be provided to the VECs? What funding over and above that provided to IILT will be given to the VECs? Surely it will cost more money if it is to be mainstreamed rather than continue as the pilot scheme in place to date.
Why have the VECs not yet been given any indication of the additional funding that will be provided? They must have this service in place within less than a month. Is it not the case that, because of the lack of adequate funds, funding will be taken away from the training and education of the indigenous population to support this scheme?
I apologise to the Deputy because time did not allow me to read the full answer into the record of the House. I assure him and anybody else concerned about this issue that this particular service is being mainstreamed. The provision for IILT service will be incorporated in the overall provision that the VECs will now deliver in place of IILT. This service is now to be mainstreamed through the network of 33 VECs across the country so there is absolutely no question of there being a shortfall. The cost will be absorbed by mainstream spending through the VECs which is very good news for the service and for migrants in particular. Rather than being on a pilot basis the service will be part of the conventional provision made by the Department. Any funding that IILT had will be given to the VEC structure and network.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. In light of that information is it not the case that there is to be no additional funding over and above what was given to IILT? As a result the money will be spread over 33 centres instead of 14. Is it not a fact that the existing services provided by the VECs around the country will be directly impacted as a result of this decision?
What specific provision is being made to retain the staff and expertise developed over the past nine years by IILT? I understand that the IVEA recommended this expertise should be incorporated into the VECs throughout the country. Will the Minister of State give a specific recommendation that the staff be taken on in this manner?
From the point of view of Government it is very clear what is happening. IILT is a private not-for-profit company based on the Trinity College campus. It makes the decisions with regard to this matter. It approached the Department with a view to ending its service because it is delighted, as we are, that it is now to be mainstreamed. The decisions will be made by the company in the first instance, with regard to redundancy payments and entitlements. In terms of the actual provision, the VEC network was enthusiastic about taking on this particular challenge. It is not looking at the situation as a burden that will involve extra stress or pressure.
The CEOs around the country are saying that.
The VEC officials are in direct discussions with me. I have spoken to them twice within the past week and my officials are in constant contact——
They are extremely concerned.
The priority from my officials' point of view is that there be a seamless transition to the mainstream option. That will happen in July and August this year and nobody will be at a loss because of it.
With regard to the staffing issues and the expertise the Deputy referred to as being lost, namely, the 40 teachers who are ably represented by SIPTU, that is a matter for negotiation between that union and the staff and management involved from IILT. Obviously any decision by the VECs to employ any of those 40 teaching staff who will lose their jobs because of IILT's decision to close will be a matter for the VECs. I cannot dictate to them that they should employ one person over another. From the point of view of the VECs, the employment of staff will involve an open competition.
Not one red cent will be spent.
Given the experts——
There will be twice as many centres.
