Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009

Vol. 678 No. 2

Rural Environment Protection Scheme.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan

I welcome the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. As I understand it, letters rejecting REPS 4 applications were issued today to a number of farmers across the country, an issue about which there is currently much consternation. I have a particular interest in the REPS scheme given my involvement in 1995 in the roll-out of the REPS 1 scheme. I recall that over a period of two and a half years approximately 46,000 farmers registered as REPS farmers. I have always considered it to be an innovative and creative scheme that does a great deal to protect our environment. Farmers are the greatest custodians of our environment.

REPS 4 was launched in August 2007 but did not really get up and running until January 2008 owing to operational problems with the eREPS system, a computer package for the compilation of plans introduced as a result of the nitrates directive. An information day for planners in September 2007 merely scratched the surface with regard to the workings of the scheme. While terms and conditions and planner specifications were available at the time, they raised more questions than anything else. In hindsight, these should have been vigorously analysed, but owing to time constraints that was not possible. Insufficient information on the scheme was provided by the Department to planners and farmers at that particular time.

New applicants to the scheme were required to have their plans drawn up and submitted prior to 15 May 2008. Huge volumes of plans had to be submitted in a short space of time which, in turn, put huge pressure on planners and farmers to have work completed before this deadline. Planners claim that in the period up to 15 May 2008 they received little guidance, assistance and clarification from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in regard to drawing up REPS 4 plans. I do not know if this is true but the planners with whom I have been in contact on behalf of farmers all point to the vagueness and misinformation from day one in terms of how the scheme was presented. Also, it appeared to them at that time that there was a great deal of confusion within the Department on how to answer REPS planner questions about the scheme.

Late in 2008, farmers received letters confirming that their REPS plans had been received by the Department and were being processed. Once plans were being processed from May to December 2008, planners received letters from the Department seeking extra information, minor adjustments and clarification on some issues in the plans, which is normal procedure. These changes were in most cases promptly made. There was no mention at that time of major issues arising with measures 2 and 4 within the plans. I draw the Minister of State's attention to measure 2 which relates to grassland management, which is quite simple to represent on a plan and measure 4 which relates to habitats. Totally misguided information in respect of these two measures was issued to planners. Farmers received letters stating: "The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hereby accepts your agri-environmental plan and admits your application subject to the Scheme terms and conditions, and to the provisions of Council Regulations 1698/05." The letter also provided information on when plans commenced, the contract area, how many months and how much they would be paid for in 2008 and how much they would receive for a full calendar year within REPS 4. There was then a time lag between these letters and the next step.

Rumours started to circulate in January 2009 that many of these plans would be rejected or at the very least that a penalty would be imposed on them. Planners were kept in the dark with regard to these procedures and are now being unfairly scapegoated for the whole problem. Many farmers have already missed out on two years of REPS and if plans are rejected they will miss out on another. Farmers simply cannot survive without this direct payment which is the only element of guaranteed income from single farm payments.

Today, farmers across the country received letters in regard to rejection of their plans, an issue about which I am sure all Members will be hearing tomorrow. This is unfair. I am sure the Minister of State will in response to this matter read out the standard reply from the Department. REPS 4 plans should not be rejected. They should be returned to planners for amendment and updating. Also, the Minister of State or his Department officials should explain these measures to planners and advise them in regard to what they must do. This is the least that could be done at this stage for a community under a great deal of pressure to survive until next year.

Deputy Trevor Sargent

Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Deenihan as ucht an ábhair tábhachtach seo a ardú. Also, I acknowledge his hard work during his time as Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

As stated by Deputy Deenihan, REPS has been one of the most successful schemes operated by my Department since its launch in 1994. It has brought more than €2 billion in payments to Irish farmers. Farmers in REPS received more than €313 million in payments last year. The number of people involved in the scheme, including those applicants for REPS 4 currently being processed, stands at more than 60,000.

As the Deputy stated, REPS has always been about much more than money. It has delivered benefits to the environment, water quality, biodiversity and the landscape. Since the nitrates derogation allowed us to open up the scheme to the highly stocked dairy sector, farmers who would not previously have considered REPS are now showing interest. Indeed, many have actually made their applications. REPS is a complex scheme. Currently, a participant in REPS must include all of his or her land in the scheme and must commit to 11 basic measures and at least two biodiversity options. If Natura land is involved, there may be other obligations. This set of undertakings, negotiated with the European Commission, is the basis for payment.

In recent years, the European Commission and the Court of Auditors have taken an increasingly critical approach in their scrutiny of farm payment schemes not alone in Ireland but in other member states. Agri-environment measures such as REPS are being closely audited following a negative report by the Court of Auditors in 2006 which found that huge amounts of EU money was being spent on schemes the outcomes of which were difficult or even impossible to measure.

We had two audit visits on REPS last year; one by the Court of Auditors and one by the European Commission. Both raised serious questions about our procedures for examining applications for REPS. It was evident that we had to make fundamental changes in the way we dealt with applications. It became necessary, therefore, for my Department to scrutinise every REPS application and plan in the greatest detail. We had to introduce an entirely new system last year for processing REPS 4 applications. I am well aware that this has meant that farmers have had to wait much longer than expected for their first REPS 4 payments. I know that up to half of those who applied in 2008 are still waiting for payments. I do not suggest for one moment that this is a satisfactory situation; it is one we hope not to find ourselves in again.

There are a number of reasons for the delay. First, we had to develop a computer system for screening plans that had been prepared on eREPS, the electronic planning system approved and funded by the Department. There are no safe short cuts in developing computer systems and it took several months to get this one to an acceptable level. Second, the non-eREPS plans had to be screened manually at a time when the staff who had to do this work were also heavily involved in the farm waste management scheme. Also, all the plans had to be cross-checked against the LPIS system and further checked to confirm that they included the necessary biodiversity options. These last two checks were also computerised. At that point, which we reached at the end of January, we were finally able to start making payments on plans about which none of the checks had raised any queries. Of the more than 12,000 plans, however, fewer than 1,400 plans came through the initial set of screening checks without being queried. The rest of the files had to be checked manually. Almost 5,000 of the files have since been processed. The queries have been fully resolved in most cases, although small reductions have been applied to a number of payments because of a deficiency in the plan.

The staff of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are making every effort to get the remaining cases processed as quickly as possible. In the case of a plan that is ineligible, it is important for the relevant farmer to ensure that a valid application is with the Department by 15 May next. While the staff of the Department are doing everything they can to identify cases to which problems pertain, they cannot do everything. Applications in respect of 2009 are already arriving in big numbers. Last year, over 7,000 applications came in between 1 April and 15 May. It is too much to expect the staff of the Department to be able to identify every application with a problem in time for a planner to fix it before 15 May. I emphasise that no aspect of any plan can be put right after that date — that possibility simply does not exist under the regulations with which we have to live. That is why every planner needs to be satisfied that every plan he or she prepares is fully in keeping with the terms and conditions of REPS and the cross-compliance obligations.

I acknowledge that farmers have patiently waited for their REPS payments this year, at a time when cash flow is critical for many people. I ask for their continued patience while the remaining applications are processed. I ask them to keep their faith in REPS, which must continue to evolve if it is to meet changing priorities and reflect changing circumstances. I am confident that the agricultural environment will be an important aspect of EU rural development policy for many years to come.

Schools Building Projects.

Deputy Deirdre Clune

I am pleased to have an opportunity to highlight this matter, which I have previously raised on the Adjournment. The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, who responded to me on that occasion, is familiar with the issues which are at stake. Ballygarvan, which is approximately ten miles from Cork city, used to be a small rural village. Like many other villages near large urban areas, it has been an attractive location for development. The provision of facilities such as schools has not kept pace with the development of many such villages, unfortunately. The development of a new primary school in Ballygarvan has been a long and protracted issue. In 1998, the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, promised that the area would get a new school. The site that was identified was in the ownership of three separate parties, which unfortunately led to delays. The entire site was finally acquired this week by the Diocese of Cork and Ross, on the basis of its understanding that the Department of Education and Science will proceed with the construction of a new school building there.

Ballygarvan national school, which has 265 pupils, rents eight prefabs at an annual cost of approximately €84,000. The Ballygarvan area is developing. Many housing estates have been built in the area over the past ten years. Approximately 140 houses have been built in Ballygarvan over that time. Most of the people living in them now have young children and would like to send them to school in the village. It is desirable for young people to be able to mix in their own localities. I strongly support that because it is important for children and their neighbours to have a sense of ownership of their local communities, where possible. I understand that planning permission has been granted for the construction of a further 140 houses in the area, which will put further pressure on the school under discussion.

Earlier this week, Cork County Council signed over the third part of the proposed site for the new school to the Diocese of Cork and Ross, which now owns the entire site. I would like the Minister for Education and Science to give a commitment to proceed with the construction of the new school building. He has indicated previously that it is within his capacity to provide a school at the site in question. Now that the ownership of the site has been reconciled, the next step should involve the appointment of a design team. I ask the Minister to give a commitment to appoint a team and to make progress with this development as soon as possible. We do not want the appointment in question to become a long and protracted affair, involving endless consultation. I do not think Ballygarvan national school should be left in such a quandary. We need action now.

I am aware of schools in other areas that cannot cope with the additional student numbers that have resulted from the excessive development in their localities. Procedures should be put in place to fast-track school developments. In this case, the design team should be appointed, the planning process should be completed, all the boxes should be ticked and on-site work should commence as quickly as possible so that the school, the local children and the local parents can be accommodated.

The Department of Education and Science is well aware of the long history of the proposed development at Ballygarvan national school. As a site has now been acquired, further action should be taken immediately. I ask the Minister of State to tell the House when a design team will be appointed, thereby ensuring that progress can be made with the construction of a new school building in Ballygarvan as quickly as possible.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Deputy Seán Haughey)

I will respond on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. I thank Deputy Clune for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity to outline to the House the Government's strategy for capital investment in education projects. In particular, I will outline the current position in respect of Ballygarvan national school, Ballygarvan, County Cork. The modernisation of the facilities in our existing building stock, like the need to respond to emerging needs in areas of rapid population growth, presents a significant challenge. The Government has shown a consistent determination to improve the condition of school buildings and ensure that appropriate facilities are in place to enable the implementation of a broad and balanced curriculum.

All applications for capital funding are assessed in the Department of Education and Science's modernisation and policy unit. The assessment process determines the extent and type of need in each case, based on the demographics of the area, any proposed housing developments, the condition of the buildings and the capacity of the proposed site, etc. This process ultimately leads to the determination of an appropriate accommodation solution. As part of the process, projects are assigned band ratings under the published prioritisation criteria for large scale building projects. The criteria in question were devised following consultation with the education partners. Projects are selected for inclusion in the school building and modernisation programme on the basis of priority of need. This is reflected in the band rating assigned to each project. In other words, a proposed building project moves through the system in a manner that is commensurate with the band rating assigned to it.

There are four band ratings, of which band 1 is the highest and band 4 the lowest. Band 1 projects, for example, involve the provision of buildings where none currently exist but where there is a high demand for pupil places. Band 4 projects, by contrast, involve the provision of desirable but not necessarily urgent or essential facilities, such as libraries and sports halls.

The proposed development at Ballygarvan national school has been assigned a band rating of 1.1, which is the highest rating possible and reflects the need for a new school in this instance. The brief for this project involves the provision of a new 16-classroom school building. The schedule of accommodation for the new school will include a 195 sq. m general purpose room, a library and resource area, a suite of special education tuition rooms and ancillary accommodation, including a staff room and a principal's office. The Deputy will be aware that the project was included in the recent announcement of projects to commence architectural planning. A suitable site comprising three plots of land was identified for the new school building in Ballygarvan. It was originally intended that the Department would acquire the three plots of land. Late last year, however, the Department agreed a proposal by the patron of the school that the Diocese of Cork and Ross would acquire the necessary plots of land. I understand that the diocesan office has been actively engaged in finalising the acquisition. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that as the contracts will be agreed by the vendors and the diocese, the Minister has had no formal involvement in such discussions. I understand, however, that the council members last night voted to approve the sale of council lands to the diocese and that the diocesan office is currently awaiting formal confirmation of this decision. The Department will proceed with the appointment of a design team once the diocese is in a position to confirm acquisition of the site.

I again thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to outline to the Dáil the current position regarding the school building project for Ballygarvan national school, County Cork.

Deputy Deirdre Clune

I thank the Minister of State for the positive answer.

Deputy Seán Haughey

For a change.

Special Educational Needs.

Deputy Mary Upton

I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this issue this evening and I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this topic.

The decision to suspend classes for children with mild general learning disability is seriously regressive. It is, again, hitting the most at risk children in the community and I am afraid that the mantra that the most vulnerable are to be protected is one that I am finding a bit difficult to take on board anymore. The decision on children with mild general learning disability is damaging to the morale of teachers who have worked so hard to help these children to be able to cope with the mainstream class and it is causing enormous worry to the parents of the children concerned.

I pose a few questions to the Minister. What is his plan for September next when a new intake of pupils will impact on the current status and the probability that the numbers of children who were in the mild general learning disability category will increase? In almost all of the schools with which I am in contact in the areas that I have mentioned in Dublin 8 and Dublin 10, the teachers are aware of their communities, know the children, know what their intake will be like and are confident that the numbers will increase. Will they regain a teacher, or a class, if the numbers increase or will they be left to struggle on and be even more disadvantaged than at present?

What is the position regarding the general allocation ratio? When will that be reviewed? It seems that the Department is prompt in reviewing the ratio when the numbers drop and is not quite so efficient when it comes to an increase in numbers.

Four schools, in particular, have asked that the possibility of clustering be considered to allow the retention of a combined special class for the pupils with mild general learning disability. St. Louise De Marillac junior and senior schools in Ballyfermot would be happy to consider combining classes, thus meeting the required numbers to justify a special class as specified by the Minister. Scoil Iosagáin and Scoil Mhuire-Sheosamh De La Salle in Ballyfermot make the same request. They, too, would be happy to form a combined class if it is approved.

I am anxious to establish the position on clustering of classes in schools for purposes of mild general learning disability. The Taoiseach indicated, at questions in the Dáil a few weeks ago, that this was a possibility. On 10 March last, however, in reply to my parliamentary question, it was not clear what the intentions were in relation to this possibility.

The schools I mentioned need clarity. Many other schools in Dublin 8 and Dublin 10 also need clarity on the prospects for September next and I can only emphasise again the negative consequences for the many children who will be seriously affected if the decision to cut these classes is upheld.

The issue is not just about classes for those with mild general learning disability. For many of the schools in the areas that I have identified the level of disadvantage is significant, the dropout rate is high, the reports have been published and the statistics speak for themselves. While it is true that improvements have been observed, these recent decisions will simply turn back the clock and the cycle of disadvantage and drop-out will continue.

In reply to my parliamentary question on 10 March last, the Minister stated:

I am open to listening to proposals from schools where they can demonstrate that it is educationally more beneficial for the pupils involved to be in a special class of their own rather than to be integrated with their peers and supported by the mainstream classroom teacher and the learning resource teacher.

The sentiment of that statement was encouraging because it reflects educational needs as a priority. The facts, unfortunately, belie the sentiment as it would appear that number crunching and financial considerations are the driving force in the recent decisions.

The schools I mentioned are open to clustering of classes. They are making a serious effort to put together a package that would be acceptable and helpful to them, and I would ask the Minister to take that on board.

Deputy Seán Haughey

I am taking this Adjournment on behalf of my colleague Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, Minister for Education and Science.

I thank Deputy Upton for raising this issue as it provides me with the opportunity to clarify the position on this matter. The first and most important point I wish to make is that all pupils with a mild general learning disability will continue to have additional teaching resources to support their education. There will be no pupil with a special educational need who 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.

All primary schools have been allocated additional teaching resources to enable them support pupils with high incidence special educational needs including mild general learning disability. Each school was given these additional teaching resources under the general allocation model of learning support-resource teaching introduced in 2005.

I emphasise that these additional teaching resources have not been withdrawn from any school. Schools can decide how best to use this allocation based on the needs of the pupils. Most pupils with a mild general learning disability are included 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 pupils of different abilities. This policy of inclusion has widespread support within the educational community. Schools can use their resource-learning support allocation to give pupils special help if they need it. This might be done with a teacher working with a group of pupils or on a one-to-one basis for a few hours each week.

Before the general allocation model was introduced, some schools grouped pupils with a mild general learning disability into special classes. The Deputy will be aware that allocations to schools typically increase or decrease depending on pupil enrolment. In the case of special classes for pupils with a mild general learning disability, the normal pupil teacher ratio that applies is 11:1. My Department, however, allows for a small reduction in this number and permits a school to retain a teaching post where it has a minimum of nine pupils in the class. The rules also provide that a teacher would no longer be allocated where the number of pupils fell below nine.

In a number of schools in Dublin 8 and Dublin 10, the number of pupils dropped below this minimum and the schools no longer qualify for the teaching posts in these classes. This was the sole criteria for selection of schools in this regard.

In 2005, when the general allocation model was introduced, schools with additional teachers in classes for mild general learning disability were allowed to retain the teachers for these classes. Effectively, these schools received a double allocation. The number of these special classes has decreased over the years and schools have integrated the pupils into age-appropriate mainstream classes. All of the other primary schools in the country which do not have classes for pupils with mild general learning disability cater for these pupils from within the general allocation model.

As I have previously stated, the Minister is open to listening to proposals from schools where they can demonstrate that it is educationally more beneficial for the pupils involved to be in a special class of their own rather than to be integrated with their peers and supported by the mainstream classroom teacher and the learning resource teacher, as the Deputy has referred to. I understand that correspondence has been received in my Department from a number of schools in Dublin 10 in this regard. My Department will be in direct contact with these schools on this matter.

There has been unprecedented investment in providing supports for pupils with special needs in recent years. There are now approximately 19,000 adults in our schools working solely with pupils with special needs. There are over 8,000 resource and learning support teachers in our schools compared to just 2,000 in 1998. Over 1,000 other teachers support pupils in our special schools.

I take this opportunity to emphasise that priority will continue to be given to provision for pupils with special educational needs. The establishment of mild general learning disability classes pre-dates many of the developments in special education policy in recent years and we now have a system for providing schools with supports for pupils with high incidence special needs through the general allocation model.

The natural sympathy we all have for pupils with special needs and their parents makes it all the more important that we do not cloud facts with emotion. The parents of all children with mild general learning disability need to know that their children in mainstream classes are getting a quality education delivered by committed class teachers and supplemented by additional support from the resource and learning support teachers. This is happening every day in schools across the country and will continue to happen.

The Department of Education and Science has received correspondence on this matter from a number of schools in Dublin 10 and that correspondence is under consideration. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to outline the position on this matter.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 March 2009.