Vol. 676 No. 3
1 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of the 128 special classes in primary schools which will be suppressed by his Department from 1 September 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8197/09]
No pupil with a special educational need will be without access to a special needs teacher as a result of the decision to apply the normal rules which govern the appointment and retention of teachers of special classes for pupils with a mild general learning disability. These special classes, which are to close, pre-date the 2005 general allocation model of allocating additional teacher support to schools to enable them to meet the needs of pupils with mild general learning disabilities and a number of other high incidence disabilities. All primary schools now have in place additional teaching support for this purpose.
All primary schools were allocated additional teaching resources under the general allocation model to enable them support pupils with high incidence special educational needs, including mild general learning disability, MGLD. Schools can decide how best to use this allocation based on pupils' needs. Most pupils with a MGLD are taught in ordinary classes with their peers and are supported by their class teacher. The curriculum is flexible so that teachers can cater for the needs of children of different abilities.
Teacher allocations to schools typically increase or decrease depending on pupil enrolment. In the case of classes for MGLD, the normal pupil teacher ratio is 11:1. However, my Department permits schools to retain a teaching post in respect of a class with a minimum of nine pupils. In the case of 128 classes in 119 schools, the number of pupils dropped below the minimum enrolment number. Therefore, these schools no longer qualify for the 128 teaching posts allocated to them. There are currently 534 pupils enrolled in these classes.
When the general allocation model was introduced, schools with additional teachers in classes for MGLD were allowed to retain those teachers. Effectively, these schools received a double allocation. The number of these special classes has decreased since 2005 in line with falling numbers as pupils were supported through the additional teaching allocation provided and integrated into age-appropriate mainstream classes. All of the other primary schools in the country who do not have classes for children with MGLD cater for these pupils from within the general allocation model.
I ask Members to ensure their mobile phones are turned off.
Hear, hear.
While the Minister's reply is interesting, it did not answer my question. Are the 128 special classes to be abolished from 1 September next? A "Yes" or "No" answer will do.
The Minister first said he was going to suppress all of the classes. Within a week of that he said he would consider amalgamating some of them and has today refused to answer my question in regard to whether these classes will continue. I put it to the Minister that he is making this up as he goes along and that the impact of his decisions in terms of special needs education is effectively terrorising parents in this country. Further, there are no sound educational arguments for the decision taken two weeks ago. The National Council for Special Education is currently compiling research in this area. The Minister chose to make this savage cutback for financial rather than educational reasons.
Will the Minister tell the House if he is going to row back on this latest savage cutback?
If parents are being terrorised, it is on the basis of the misinformation disseminated. The first report stated that 900 pupils were involved. I want now to deal with the Deputy's question, which is important.
One must first take into account the manner in which we have dealt down through the years with general mild learning disability. Special classes were established in 1989. In 2005, we introduced the general allocation model which provided for resource and class teachers. Mainstreaming of children with mild general learning disability has been ongoing in 3,000 schools around the country since 2005 and it has been successful. The whole purpose of the exercise was to examine whether children with this disability would be better off if integrated with their peers. The EPSEN Act and UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities espouse that children with a mild learning disability be integrated and educated with their peers.
Deputy Hayes asked what will happen to these classes. We examined the whole situation. The general rule since 1989 has been that there must be an 11:1 ratio in such classes. We became aware earlier in the year that these ratios were not being fulfilled.
I must call Deputy Hayes on a supplementary question.
There were five or fewer children in half of the classes.
I know all that. What is the answer to my question?
The answer is that these children will be integrated into mainstream classes. Where there are two special classes on the same campus and the school can demonstrate a particular——
Political?
——educational advantage in that regard I will consider amalgamating those classes.
The Minister is telling the House it will be a matter for schools to make a case for the retention of classes following which a "political" decision will be made. The word "political" was on the tip of the Minister's tongue. That speaks volumes about where we are.
A Freudian slip.
Perhaps the Minister will respond to the following question from a mother, Cathy Shevlin, from Castleblaney, County Monaghan, whose son is ten years old and has the reading ability of a five year old.
It is not normal to refer to people outside of the House.
That child is a pupil of one of these classes. This woman has asked me to ask the Minister what advice he would give to her and her son when next September he is put into a class with a greater number of children? What advice would the Minister offer this woman?
The Minister announced 32 cutbacks last October-November and a few more since January. Will he state categorically on the floor of this House that there will be no further cutbacks in his Department this year?
Equally, I could read out to the Deputy a letter from a parent whose child was removed from a special class and mainstreamed and who is thankful to everybody for the great strides made by that child within mainstreaming.
That is not the issue.
Deputy Hayes must make up his mind what policy to pursue. Does he pursue a policy of integration which psychologically, socially and emotionally is better for the child?
Is there a mobile phone in the House that is not turned off?
My apologies, it is mine.
Deputy Hayes must make up his mind whether he agrees with the UN convention in terms of integrating children into mainstream classes and providing them with support——
I do, but there are some children for whom that will not work.
Deputy Hayes cannot have it both ways. He cannot continue to issue press releases that this will damage children.
It will damage children.
The Minister is ignoring them.
It is in the best interests of children to mainstream them and to give them the supports they need. That is what we are doing in mainstream classes in 3,000 schools.
It is saving money.
The children are being discarded.
2 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will enter into talks with an organisation (details supplied), some of whose members, as teaching orders, are the legal owners of many of the primary schools here, with a view to seeking to have their legal ownership of those properties transferred to his Department while ensuring that they continue to operate as schools under their existing patron in view of the reality that the teaching orders’ contributions to the costs of the Residential Institutions Redress Board amounts to approximately 11% of the €1.1 billion cost, as against the 50:50 initially sought by the Department of Finance, or even the amount negotiated by the Minister for Education and Science at the time, when the overall estimated cost was much lower than what has emerged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8136/09]
The primary consideration of the Government in establishing the redress scheme was to provide justice for people who had been abused in childhood while resident in institutions which operated under the supervision of the State. The Government's decision to establish the redress scheme was made regardless of whether the religious congregations which managed the institutions would contribute to the scheme. The State had a duty to make amends for the abuse of those in its charge. Nonetheless, it was considered desirable that the religious congregations would make a meaningful contribution towards the compensation of victims of child abuse and the Government accordingly entered into negotiations with the congregations which culminated in agreement being reached in June 2002 on a total contribution by the congregations of €128 million. The agreement reached with the religious congregations represented the best possible outcome in the circumstances. The Committee of Public Accounts acknowledged that there was no capacity to coerce the congregations into any agreement and that the State was faced with a substantial contingent liability in any event.
The alternative option of rejecting the offer and pursuing the congregations through the courts would have resulted in a sizable number of protracted legal proceedings with the involvement of victims in a traumatic and adversarial process, substantial costs in legal fees and with no guarantee of a favourable outcome. There would have been substantial risks with such a course and the real possibility that the State would bear most of the cost and receive little or nothing in return.
I wish to advise the Deputy that my Department does not intend to revisit or renegotiate the terms of the existing indemnity agreement or enter into any new agreement which would see the State seek further contributions from the contributing congregations. The final agreement is achieving its original purpose of providing, in a humane and compassionate manner, redress to those who have suffered abuse with an acknowledgement of what had happened by the key parties involved.
I thank the Minister for the clarity of his reply. He must have a new answer writer in the Department. This is in no way an attempt by the Labour Party or I to further punish the religious orders. On the contrary, we are all indebted to them because of the contribution they have made to education. However, my fear is that the congregations will be obliged to provide 24 hour seven day nursing care for a now ageing and declining community, the members of which do not have children of their own who could support them, and that they will be forced or obliged to sell school properties to finance this obligation. Will the Minister approach the religious orders and suggest that the State or the community could pick up that cost, however it is to be financed? However, at a time of rising school population we do not wish to see the closure and sale of school buildings, albeit into a declining market. That is the motivation. Does the Minister not agree that both he and public representatives have legal ownership of only 3% of the primary school infrastructure? This means we have no control over the decision of a patron to decide unilaterally to sell a property. The likelihood of that now is less than it would have been three or four years ago, but it occurred three times in my constituency. Will the Minister revisit the position and enter into discussions with the existing owners in control of 97% of the infrastructure to draw some commitments or guarantees? I do not wish for any of these schools to be sold. I hope they continue to operate as schools under the existing patronage arrangements, which are more than satisfactory. However, the fear is that if the costs increase further and we have no control over the schools, the owners may sell them and the Minister would be powerless to stop this from occurring.
There are two questions and one relates to indemnity. The Deputy is aware that all but two of the properties are in public ownership. There are two cases in which there are legal difficulties and there may need to be a cash transaction.
That is nobody's fault. There is no fault either on the part of the Minister or on the part of the religious orders.
It is related to the various trusts.
The situation goes back more than 100 years.
Apparently the matter is very complicated. I refer to schools and ownership of schools. The issue is important and we must address it. The Deputy suggested that because of its ownership, the church can willy-nilly sell a school. However, that does not take into account our lease arrangement with the church for these schools. For an order to sell a school it must be granted leave to sell by agreement with the Department. That clawback is in place for all the church properties. In that sense there is no chance of the Deputy's suggestion occurring.
New arrangements are in place, including the arrangement whereby the Department buys a site and leases it back to the patron and, therefore, retains total control of the situation. The Deputy's suggestion would have serious constitutional implications. If the church was unwilling to sell, there would be no obligation for it to do so. It cannot sell if it does not have our agreement. From my perspective, the whole system has worked exceptionally well. The Deputy referred to the ageing population, but we will introduce a new patronage model. We are seeking the agreement and co-operation of others.
I respect the Chair and I will be very brief. There is no problem with the modern arrangements or the modern leaseholds. However, the bulk of the schools in built up areas to which I am referring predate those leasing arrangements. In my constituency schools were unilaterally closed down and the Department told us at the time it had no lean or control over that.
The Minister does not know a great deal in regard to this matter, and it is not his fault. We do not have a proper inventory of who owns what, the terms and conditions and so on. Therefore, the Minister's remarks are insupportable. Ownership, control, rationalisation and maximisation of the use of the infrastructure of our schools is critically important from the point of view of the Minister for Education and Science.
As a first step, I suggest the Minister should explore the possibility, not of the closure of schools, but of the orderly transfer of ownership in a reasoned way from religious teaching orders. My question is confined specifically to religious teaching orders, which are subject to a time clause of the State. This would ensure we safeguard the infrastructure of the schools on the one hand and respect the real needs of these declining religious teaching orders and their communities.
The information disseminated to me from my officials is that we have an ownership on the lease and that orders cannot sell without our release of that lease. I respect the comments of the Deputy and I will have the matter further investigated and communicate with him. At a time of scare resources I must consider the priorities.
I am not requesting the Minister to spend money buying them. The orders should hand them over.
I am not certain that is a feasible option.
That is where I would start.
It is something which may be requested. In fairness, the church is very generous in many ways.
It is.
During the week, I met a priest who offered, for free, a site worth €21 million in the middle of one of our large towns.
Of course the Minister is aware that with ownership comes an obligation for maintenance and care.
Yes, at the end of the day.
3 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science if, in respect of his most recent announcement on 12 February 2009, for major school buildings, additional schools were added to the final list which had been agreed on 11 February 2009 within his Department; the schools in relation to same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8198/09]
As the Deputy will be aware, on 12 February 2009, I made an announcement regarding 43 school projects which will receive approval from my Department to proceed to tender with a view to proceeding to construction this year. I also announced that 25 projects would receive approval to start architectural planning, that is, they will receive approval to appoint a design team and begin work on the architectural design of their projects.
The selection of the various projects to go to construction is complex and was undertaken with regard to the availability of funding and the priority of the projects. Priority is established primarily on the basis of the projects' band-rating in accordance with the criteria for prioritising large-scale projects, details of which are published on my Department's website. However, certain other factors are taken into account in the selection of projects. These factors include the stage of progression through the architectural design process, that is, whether the project is technically ready to proceed to tender and construction; whether the project was previously allowed to proceed to tender but did not do so for various reasons; the need to achieve an appropriate balance of capital expenditure on a multi-annual basis between primary and post-primary building projects; the need to ensure that contractual commitments are not entered into in any particular year which might not be capable of being met in future years; the need to ensure adequate funding is available for the purchase of sites for key projects and the need to provide additional school places in rapidly developing areas to meet increasing demand while at the same time balancing this with the need to maintain investment in the improvement of existing school buildings.
All of these factors have to be considered before making a final selection and this work was done over a period of time. The selection of the projects to be included on the list was finalised on 11 February 2009 and a press release issued the following day. As is normal with a process like this, there would have been a number of initial draft lists which would have been subject to amendments prior to being finalised. At the time the Government was considering the capital programme and subsequently decided to allocate additional resources to the school building and modernisation programme. At all times during this process I consulted with, and was advised by, officials in my Department.
I know exactly what the Minister said on 12 February. That is not the issue. The issue is that a document was posted on the Department's website some days in advance of that date, announcing that 41 major school building projects would proceed to tender and construction. Underneath that was the sentence "Insert link here once list is cleared!!!"
Two schools were added to the list. What were they and why were they put on the list? It is clear to schools around the country that politicisation of the schools building programme is at the centre of all decisions this Minister and his predecessors have got away with for the past ten years. Schools are decided not on the basis of priority, as the Minister suggests, but on votes and a cynical attempt by the Minister to use this as a slush fund for Fianna Fáil. We need transparency. The Minister has been exposed because the official advice on his Department's website 24 hours before 12 February cited 41 major school projects but the actual announcement was for 43 schools. Politics gets in the way of all decisions the Minister takes in respect of this list.
The Deputy answered his own question when he said this appeared on the website. I was not aware of that and thank him for the information.
I have a print-out.
I was not aware it was on the site. The important phrase is "to be cleared".
It was taken off the website within three minutes.
The important point for me is that I cleared the final draft with my officials on 11 February. That afternoon I did an interview with RTE which was to be held over for 12 February. I cleared the final list with my officials on 11 February and announced it officially on 12 February. I do not know what appeared.
The process involves meetings with officials who show a range of schools on the list to be brought forward but one has only a certain amount of money to spend. A critical factor for me was how to ensure that these projects could commence in 2009 and how could I be certain that I could create jobs and would not have approvals for jobs which could not commence in 2009. The position of the schools was critical.
That list covered schools around the country. I have given a commitment that the various stages of the school building will be put on the website. I apologise to the House because I understood that this information would be available before Christmas. The building unit has been extremely busy, preparing for 43 projects. We will produce 19,000 school places this year. Last year, we produced a record 12,000 places. It was no mean feat and we held many meetings to ensure that the projects we undertook could commence and give gainful employment to 4,000 extra people in the construction industry.
Does the Minister understand people's cynicism about this decision-making process when they hear that in November 2006 his predecessor, Deputy Hanafin, gave the green light to six of the 43 schools to which he gave the green light on 12 February? The Minister is worse than Paul Daniels, saying "now you see it, now you do not". This is an extraordinary situation, six of the 43 projects were re-announced three years later.
The education partners and schools around the country have no confidence in the decision-making process that results in the list the Minister produces at various times during the year. I am glad that the Minister will now give us the website, warts and all, as he promised he would do before Christmas. The process of selecting schools must be much more open and transparent because the cynicism in the education community is well-justified when even on the Minister's admission six of the 43 schools were given the green light three years ago but nothing happened.
Several schools were announced but funding was not available. This time I had adequate funds. I made sure that the commitments entered into would be honoured, the schools were announced and the reaction was very good. I do not accept what the Deputy says about cynicism. The process in the Department will be open, above board and decisions will be made on merit and need. In 2009 the most important element was the stage the schools had reached. Many people are disappointed. I met many deputations from around the country. I make it my business to visit schools to meet deputations and to hear what people have to say. Many schools are disappointed. I am sorry about that. I wish I could have delivered more.
This year I had two things in mind on the question of delivery, that the building could go to construction and that I would deliver jobs in a sector that was badly affected by the downturn. We are confident that in the education sector we will create and sustain 4,000 jobs within the construction industry. That is no mean achievement. We will deliver a record number of school places to ensure that a good environment is created for pupils.
4 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Education and Science the progress that has been made in reducing the level of restricted literacy to between 10% and 15% by 2016 following the commitment made in 2007, and without measurable indicators; the progress that has been made in achieving this target; the level of funding that has been provided to achieve this target; the progress beyond increased participation rates made in implementing the policy recommendations included in the White Paper on Adult Education 2000 and the National Development Plan 2002-2007 that has been achieved; and the impact on adult literacy levels of the increased investment in adult literacy since 1997. [8135/09]
The target set is for achievement by the year 2016 and progress will have to be judged in that time frame. The Government's commitment to achieving the target is evident from the increased investment in this area.
Annual funding for adult literacy has increased from €1 million in 1997 to over €30 million in 2008. In the same period the annual number of participants has increased from 5,000 to almost 49,000. Targets in the national development plan have consistently been met or exceeded. In line with commitments in Towards 2016 and the programme for Government 3,000 additional places were provided in 2007. Due to the difficult budgetary position it has not been possible to provide for any further increase in places.
Ireland is participating in the initial development work and feasibility study for a new survey to be carried out by the OECD entitled the programme for international assessment of adult competencies, PIAAC. This survey of adult competencies, including literacy and numeracy, is due to be completed in 2013. Participation in the main study will be decided on the basis of the results of the development work and feasibility study and the availability of resources. PIAAC can provide data that can be compared to the data in the last survey of adult literacy in Ireland, conducted in 1995.
Several different initiatives have also been developed to tackle adult literacy. These include the intensive tuition in adult basic education programme which provides up to six hours of tuition per week to learners, instead of the normal two hours; a family literacy pilot scheme to address poor literacy from an intergenerational family perspective; and a workplace literacy programme, the return to learning scheme, in all local authority areas for outdoor workers.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Participants in community employment schemes can avail of intensive literacy tuition provided by the vocational education committees, VECs. There are other special funding projects, including literacy for deaf people, for people with dyslexia and for native Irish speakers in Gaeltacht areas. In partnership with the National Adult Literacy Agency my Department has provided funding for several successful TV series to raise awareness of adult literacy issues.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply but the figures he read out indicate that there is a natural reduction in expenditure per capita on adult literacy. We know from the 1997 OECD survey that 25% of the population is at the lowest literacy level. The Government has indicated that there has been an improvement in the relevant figure. It now claims that a reduced number of people — between 10% and 15% of those between the ages of 16 and 64 — are at the lowest literacy level. How do we know we are making progress? How can we be sure the figure has been reduced to between 10% and 15%? There has been no national evaluation of interventions aimed at improving literacy levels. In the absence of measurable indicators, how does the Minister of State know we are on course to achieve any of our goals? The measurement of progress was not recommended in the White Paper of 2000 or in the national development plan. How, therefore, can we know what has been achieved?
I would like to think we have made significant progress in this area.
How can it be measured?
Deputy Burke spoke about funding. As I said earlier, funding in this area has increased from €1 million in 1997 to more than €30 million in 2008. The number of places has also increased significantly since 1997. I accept that we need new data. We are participating in the OECD survey to establish new data in this area. It should be pointed out that the survey that established that 500,000 people were at the lowest literacy levels was compiled in the mid-1990s. This figure is likely to have decreased considerably since then, as more than 300,000 people have availed of the literacy service in that time. The availability of free second-level education since 1967 means that the percentage of the population that has completed second-level education is now larger than it was in the 1990s. In the circumstances, I consider that the targets that have been set out in the various policy documents, including the national development plan, the programme for Government and the programme for social inclusion, are reasonable and may be even exceeded. We have made substantial progress. I have prioritised expenditure on adult literacy and lifelong learning in the context of the current difficult budgetary situation.
The Minister of State claims to have prioritised adult literacy. The overall expenditure plans for 2009 provide for a fund of €420.5 million for further education and adult education and a fund of €43.6 million for special initiatives in adult education. From which of these funds will adult literacy be funded?
The Deputy will be aware that I administer a number of adult and further education schemes, including Youthreach, the back to education initiative and the adult literacy schemes. This country's serious and difficult financial position has meant that I have had to reduce the number of places being offered on some schemes, unfortunately, including Traveller training schemes and the back to education initiative. I made the retention of places in adult literacy programmes an absolute priority. The Government is giving serious consideration to matters like upskilling and lifelong learning in the context of the changed economic circumstances and the increase in unemployment. New policy initiatives in that regard may be announced in the coming weeks.
From which fund is the provision being made?
5 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties that will be caused to a college (details supplied) in County Dublin as a result of the 560 cap imposed on post-leaving certificate student numbers, and the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio from 16:1 to 17:1, which will cause a reduction of 1.6 teachers in September 2009 and a further 3.2 teachers in September 2010 and the decision to discontinue apprenticeship courses in block laying in April 2009, and carpentry and joinery apprenticeship courses in April 2010, resulting in permanent whole-time teachers having no teaching hours; if his attention has been further drawn to the fact that growth areas exist in the building industry that will experience a skills shortage into the future; his views on whether it would make more economic sense to utilise highly qualified teaching staff to train people to provide for such skills shortages rather than fitting staff into a teaching situation that is incompatible with their qualifications; if he will agree to raise the capped post-leaving certificate numbers by 28 in September 2009, and a further 56 in September 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8200/09]
I am aware of the stipulation that has been imposed on the college referred to in the question. The Deputy will be aware that the national reduction in apprentice recruitment has necessitated a reduction in the current level of training provision. The problem is particularly acute in the construction trades, which have suffered a reduction in recruitment of almost 70% in the past two years. This reduction is beginning to feed into the education sector. A reduction in provision is necessary because apprentice numbers are declining. Officials from the Department of Education and Science have met the principal of the college referred to by the Deputy to discuss the issues arising from the reduction in apprenticeship provision. These issues are being considered.
Nationally, some 30,188 places are available on the post-leaving certificate programme. Most of these places are allocated to VECs on an annual basis following an application process. It is a matter for the VECs to allocate the places to their colleges and institutions. Each application is examined by the Department on its merits, taking into account current and previous allocations, current and previous demand and uptake, the overall number of places that are available and the overall demand from VECs. The application process for the 2009-10 academic year is ongoing. Any application from the VEC responsible for the college referred to in the Deputy's question will be considered on its own merits, taking into account all relevant circumstances. The Deputy should be aware that the increase from 16:1 to 17:1 in the pupil-teacher ratio in the post-leaving certificate sector was sanctioned on the same basis as the increase from 18:1 to 19:1 in the ratio in the post-primary sector. The identified reduction of 200 teachers in the education system in the 2009-10 school year is based on the increase in the ratio in the post-primary and post-leaving certificate sectors.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I do not want to get into too much detail in the time available to me. By 2010, the cancellation of courses for apprentices will affect 4.8 permanent whole-time teachers who are qualified to teach in this area. If the Department's requirements are to be met, part-time teachers in the post-leaving certificate sector will have to be let go. It is ridiculous that 4.8 teachers will be walking around doing nothing because certain requirements have to be met. There is a simple way out of this. Skills will be needed in certain sectors of the construction industry in the future. The college referred to in my original question has identified two courses — conservation and the built environment, and sustainable construction technology and practice — that should be developed further. The 4.8 teachers I have mentioned are capable of teaching those courses. We need to continue to give people skills for the future. It would be wrong if 4.8 teachers were doing nothing, simply to meet a departmental requirement, at a time when courses are being cancelled. It is time to think differently about the training of apprentices. I do not understand why the retraining agency, FÁS, needs to be involved in education.
Absolutely.
A person who wants to become a doctor does not have to find an employer — he or she goes to university to develop his or her skills and eventually gets a piece of paper. The same system should apply in the case of apprentices. Ireland is part of Europe. If they cannot find employment in Ireland, those who have completed apprenticeships are entitled, like anybody else, to go to other parts of Europe to use their skills.
As I said earlier, we have to examine the overall context in the first instance. A cap has been imposed on the number of places in the post-leaving certificate sector as a result of the current financial position and in line with the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. I accept that the Deputy has made a constructive proposal. Officials in the Department of Education and Science have met the principal of the college concerned. These issues are being considered. It is ultimately a matter for the local VEC. I accept that the Department will decide how many places are allocated to each VEC. Each VEC will allocate those places to the various colleges in its area. Three colleges are administered by Dún Laoghaire VEC. It is up to each college to make a case, through the VEC, for the number of places it considers it needs. The Department will allocate places on that basis. Applications have been received from the colleges and the VECs. The process of receiving applications will be finalised in March. We will notify the VECs of the position at that stage. The question put forward by the Deputy can examined in the context of allocating places to the Dún Laoghaire VEC, and that VEC subsequently allocating places within its jurisdiction.
I did not ask this question simply because of a particular problem in my own constituency. I want to highlight a more general issue. People with skills should be used to train others and provide them with opportunities in other parts of the construction industry. It is time we reviewed the issue of training apprentices. It is an educational rather than a FÁS issue. The Minister of State should take money from FÁS, transfer it over to his Department and let it carry out the training. Practical training can be done in-house, so there is no need to have a complicated means within which somebody becomes a carpenter, cabinet maker or block layer. Somebody should be able to do that in college, just like in any other post-leaving certificate course or degree. People should be given the opportunity to qualify in their skills area.
We should not have a ridiculous situation whereby somebody has gone half way through his or her training but cannot continue because his or her sponsor employer has gone out of business. That is no way to deal with education. I thank the Minister of State for his positive indication about Dún Laoghaire but outside that, it is time to transfer funds to his Department from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to let people qualify in the same way a doctor would qualify.
There are seven phases involved in the training of apprentices.
It is an antiquated training system.
The fourth and sixth phases are provided for in the education sector. The Tánaiste has made a number of announcements because of the difficult situation facing apprentices due to the current unemployment situation. The overall point made by the Deputy is being given serious consideration at this stage, which is the need for employment activation. My role is to co-ordinate education and training between the two Departments. We have an upskilling co-ordination group which brings all the players together. We are also looking at the provision of education and training and at who does what in the implementation plan for the national skills strategy. The Deputy's proposal is being actively examined by all the major stakeholders.
That concludes Priority Questions. We must take the next questions in ordinary time.
