I clarify for the information of Members that in regard to these questions any Member present can ask a supplementary question subject to the time limits that apply and the rulings of the Chair.
Other Questions
School Staffing
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:12 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason, with redundancies in the primary sector and the prohibition on permanent appointments in the primary sector, he has not facilitated a teachers’ panel for Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge while facilitating panels for other patronages; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14450/11]
Over half of the gaelscoileanna are under Catholic patronage and redeployment from these schools is through the relevant diocesan panels. An Foras Pátrúnachta is seeking a separate panel for gaelscoileanna under its patronage. A key issue for my Department is how best to facilitate this request in a manner that avoids the inherent inefficiencies of a separate panel for a relatively small number of schools out of the 3,200.
Given our budgetary situation we need to have sufficient flexibility in the redeployment arrangements to ensure that surplus permanent teachers in all schools regardless of patronage type can be redeployed to vacancies wherever they exist.
A separate panel for An Foras Pátrúnachta will be considered in the context of ongoing discussions with the relevant education partners in regard to the additional arrangements that are now necessary to achieve the redeployment of all surplus permanent teachers, including those in gaelscoileanna under the patronage of An Foras Pátrúnachta.
The Government's 20-year strategy for the Irish language cited research showing that Irish was taught to a very good standard in only half of primary schools, in one third of the classes Irish was taught through the medium of English and pupils in just over half of lessons inspected were able to express themselves satisfactorily in Irish.
The key concern for many in the gaelscoileanna sector is that there will be a reduction in standards and quality in terms of many of these teachers coming forward. Should An Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna LánGhaeilge not have the right to insist teachers on it panel have a required level of Irish that will allow them to teach in a gaelscoil? The reality is that the Irish of many teachers is at best rusty and not of a high enough standard to teach children solely through the medium of Ireland. That is the key concern. Those in the sector are worried that the quality of Irish teaching and service provided for the pupils concerned will be reduced by many of the teachers coming through the system.
There are two issues involved, the first is the current employment control framework which is part and parcel of the IMF troika deal under which we cannot hire new teachers or make permanent contracts for existing teachers temporarily employed until such time as all supernumerary teachers on panels are redeployed into classrooms where they are required.
Therefore, our hands are tied.
I will put the second question back to the Deputy. It is a requirement for students leaving our second level system — they started their leaving certificate examinations today — that, if they wish to apply to one of the five teaching colleges across the country, they need honours Irish. Otherwise, they will not be accepted. An Foras Pátrúnachta and the other groups within the gaelscoileanna movement will need to address the issue. Is the Deputy saying that a young person entering the training system with an honours Irish qualification in his or her leaving certificate does not have the standard of Irish required to teach in a gaelscoil upon coming out of the college three years later?
What I am saying is that some people will be rusty and not everyone will have a competency in the Irish language. This is the key concern among gaelscoileanna, which are worried about the quality of Irish among those entering the system. The gaelscoileanna are unique and many of their teachers are driven where the Irish language is concerned, which is reflected in the quality of teaching. The concern is that, if new teachers are not up to the required standard and are rusty, it will be reflected within the gaelscoileanna system.
We can explore this matter further. We need to find a system whereby reserve panels comprising teachers who have become supernumerary can be integrated. We have 29 or 33 — I am unsure, as I am going by memory — panels of employment within the Roman Catholic Church ethos. We should have regional panels in Munster, Leinster or Connacht or something else that relates to reasonable travel distances. This system would be extended to all primary school patrons. We need to find a way of efficiently and quickly redeploying teachers who are supernumerary in their current locations while addressing the Deputy's issue, that is, whether teachers being redeployed from one ethos to another, including a language ethos, should undertake refresher courses, given that they qualified with honours Irish to get into the teaching colleges in the first instance.
If Deputy Crowe has a further question, he should keep it short.
It depends on the length of time a person has been out. He or she might not have been using the language. Anyone who views the situation objectively would agree that the level and quality of Irish held by the teacher entering the school would be affected and the language within the school would be dumbed down, which no one, including a new teacher, wants to see. Teachers are concerned about getting jobs. There is an argument to consider the matter in terms of the schools in question. While people claim they are committed to the roll-out of the Irish language and so on, we can make a difference where matters such as this are concerned. There is no large cost factor. If we get our act together, the quality of teaching will bear fruit in terms of the outcomes for children passing through those schools.
State Examinations
Billy Kelleher
Question:13 Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to introduce bonus points in respect of mathematics for related third level courses. [14516/11]
Higher education institutions have collectively agreed to operate a bonus points scheme for higher level mathematics for a four-year trial period from 2012 to 2015, inclusive, with a review in 2014. A bonus of 25 points will be allocated to students who achieve a grade D3 or above in leaving certificate higher level mathematics. This pilot scheme has been specifically designed with the objective of maximising the numbers of leaving certificate students who study for and sit the higher level maths examinations and should compensate for the perceived additional workload associated with that subject. In particular, it should incentivise the 20% of students who currently move to ordinary level having studied higher level for most of their senior cycle. As Deputy Smith knows, some students change their minds on the day of the mathematics examination. I have also asked higher education institutions to examine the scope for reform of the CAO points system to overcome some of its negative backwash effects on senior cycle students' learning.
On this, the first day of the State examinations, every Deputy joins with the Minister in wishing all students undertaking the junior and leaving certificate examinations every success. Am I correct in believing that the State Examination Commission published figures during the week showing that this year will see the lowest number of students ever to undertake higher level maths? This is a cause of concern, as it is even lower than the previous low recorded in 2007. The programme for Government commits to introducing a bonus points system for maths linked with specific maths or science courses to encourage participation in courses where skills shortages exist. Has the Minister made progress in this regard?
To answer the Deputy's first question and to the best of my knowledge, he is correct. The information published in the media yesterday was accurate and no one has brought any inaccuracy to my attention. The new 25 points bonus will not kick in until next year's leaving certificate examination. The Deputy's predecessor in the Cabinet's education portfolio was aware of the issue, since she was the one who suggested an increase in the points system to incentivise maths.
Young people act fairly rationally in these regards. The level of effort required for higher maths, commensurate with the points currently awarded, is higher than it should be and could be utilised to get extra points in other subjects across the spectrum. We are trying to reverse this situation. To answer the Deputy's second question, I have not been in a position to explore the matter further, but I intend to do so.
I thank the Minister. The initiative announced and implemented by the previous Minister was a good and important one, given the requisite to provide people with the necessary skills and expertise to avail of emerging job opportunities. The technology area holds significant potential and Ireland remains an attractive location for investment.
I am informed by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, that the national centre of excellence in University of Limerick is developing programmes to up-skill the education and the delivery of education in the mathematics area and the other science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, subjects. This problem must be addressed. The previous Government also recognised it as a problem and we will build on the work done to date.
Teaching Qualifications
Peadar Tóibín
Question:14 Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason the Professional Development Service for Teachers trainers do not have adequate Irish language skills to support school planning and in-school mentoring in Gaelscoileanna; and the reason, unless training is undertaken in English, that it is impossible for a Gaelscoil to have a mentor in the classroom. [14447/11]
The PDST has personnel with the necessary Irish language skills to support gaelscoileanna in terms of school planning and teacher mentoring. The level of resources provided to the PDST has fallen in recent times in accordance with overall budgetary constraints. Identified needs are responded to within the resources provided as quickly as possible. The service may augment its numbers through the engagement of advisers on a part-time basis in areas where there are identified deficits in provision. My Department is not aware of any case where a school did not receive support in the areas identified through the medium of Irish where this was requested.
Does the Minister not agree that a serious lack of resources allocated to teacher training and Irish language skills to support school planning and in-school mentoring in gaelscoileanna is having a detrimental effect on how the Irish language is being taught? My understanding is that adequate numbers of teachers are available to instruct in maths, science and Irish, the three subjects covered by the trainers, whereas the other subjects are experiencing a shortage. This relates to our discussion of a few minutes ago. Many people are working in the sector and Irish language activists feel strongly about the language, but we do not have personnel to train teachers adequately. They are asking where is the equality in the system. It is a question of resources and the issue was probably one under previous Ministers as well, but many of those involved in the gaelscoileanna feel strongly about the matter. If——
The Deputy's time is up.
According to the replies provided to me by the Department, we are not aware of a shortfall or lack of support through the medium of Irish in any of the areas sought by the schools in question. If the Deputy has specific details, please bring them to my attention.
Post-Leaving Certification Courses
Michael Colreavy
Question:15 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will consider the implications of charging €200 for potential students accessing PLC courses; and his views that this will deter many persons from re-entering the education system. [14458/11]
I am aware that having to pay this €200 per annum charge presents a challenge for some learners wishing to participate in post leaving certificate courses. However, I would point out that the charge is modest and will be met by the Exchequer in respect of an estimated 50% of students who can claim an exemption from it. The following categories of learners are exempt from paying the charge: full medical card holders and their dependant children, those who are eligible under the student grant scheme and those in receipt of the back to education allowance or vocational training opportunities scheme allowances. These exemptions should ensure that those who are less well off will continue to access post leaving certificate courses.
The Minister of State said that €200 is a modest amount. It is only modest relative to the amount of money one has in one's pocket. Like many teachers in this sector I am concerned that the people who do not have this €200 will not be able to upskill. While €200 may be a modest amount to some people it is quite a lot to others, bearing in mind cuts in people's salaries and so on. I am concerned that this charge will discourage rather than encourage people to upskill. I accept we are in a crisis in terms of resources. However, this charge does not send out the right signal to the people in this sector and does nothing to assist in encouraging the knowledge economy. People who participate in these courses also incur costs in terms of transport and so on. A €200 per annum fee is a big stake for those wishing to upskill. I believe this is a negative step in regard to educating and upskilling people. Also, it contradicts what the Government is trying to do in terms of its jobs strategy.
In an ideal world, Members on both sides of the House would seek to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the biting winds of recession. However, it is not possible to exempt any sector, including the education sector, from the painful adjustments that are necessary. There are in place provisions to allow the State pay this charge on behalf of the most vulnerable.
I do not believe that a person for whom education is a priority would consider €200 per annum an obstacle to gaining that education or upskilling which could provide him or her an with an opportunity get back into the workforce. While PLC learners are generally from the lower socioeconomic categories than are those in higher education, students from less well off families are being protected. That is the ambition of this scheme. I believe that this contribution should be seen in the context of the more significant levies applying to higher education.
Like in many other areas, there is a grey area here. Anyone who has dealt with social welfare issues will be aware of those people who because they are a little above the threshold do not qualify for exemption. These are the people who will be heavily affected by this charge. I accept what the Minister of State said in regard to people on lower incomes. However, it is the people in the grey area who will lose out. While I accept the Government's hands may be tied on this matter, this charge is a contradiction in terms of what it is trying to do in the educational sector. Those who will not qualify for exemption have been already hit in so many other ways. While they will want to upskill and get a job, they will not be able to afford this charge and will not qualify for exemption. I do not know how the system could be changed to accommodate these people. The people required to pay this €200 per annum charge are the same people who have been hit in so many other ways.
The Minister of State will be aware that participation on PLC courses has grown incrementally over the past number of years giving rise to huge demand for places. The recently announced jobs initiative provides for additional places on PLC courses, which I welcome. Given the high level of unemployment here and the need for people currently out of the labour market to upskill, there will be increasing demand again this autumn for places on PLC courses. PLC and other further education courses have been extremely important as a conduit in the area of progression to third level education. I know from constituents whose children are the first in their families to go on to further education of the importance of these courses in terms of access to third level education.
I ask the Minister to, if at all possible, provide additional resources again this September for the further education sector. It is a worthwhile investment which benefits individuals, society and the economy.
As we are over time on this question, I ask the Minister of State to be brief.
There is no denying that the courses delivered through the PLC programme seek to restore people's dignity and to provide them with an opportunity to get back into the workforce. As mentioned by Deputies, the jobs initiative provides for an additional 1,000 PLC places this year. We will shortly make a decision in regard to the allocation of those places. In making that decision, I am aware that nationally, the number of PLC places are more often than not over-subscribed and that demand far exceeds what we are capable of providing. In the context of the difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves we had to limit the additional PLC places to 1,000. They will be allocated to areas where demographically it can be shown that unemployment is a major issue and in areas where in the past demand has substantially exceeded provision. These areas will be prioritised. The additional places will be allocated in the near future.
We are over time. I will allow a brief question.
The Minister of State, in making those decisions, should also take into account the geographic ingredient. Counties like mine do not have ready access to institutes of technology. The Minister of State will be aware that geographically we are some distance from the nearest institute while other counties have the benefit of institutes of technology or higher level colleges.
I understand that there is excess teaching capacity in some of our institutes of technology. If so, can that additional capacity not be given to the PLC sector under the Croke Park Agreement?
I regret that we are over time and I cannot allow a response to that question.
School Transport
Sandra McLellan
Question:16 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will reconsider implementing proposals that will increase the minimum number of students required to justify a bus service from seven to ten and which will result in a cut to many rural routes. [14455/11]
Dessie Ellis
Question:20 Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will reconsider implementing the proposed changes to primary school transport as outlined in budget 2011 in view of the fact that this will result in a €50 charge from September which will further impoverish families who are currently struggling to meet the costs of educating their children. [14452/11]
Michael Colreavy
Question:30 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will agree not to cut concessionary travel for children travelling under the two mile limit particularly when there is no additional cost involved on buses already travelling on a particular route to a school. [14457/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 20 and 30 together.
Changes to aspects of the school transport service were announced in the 2011 budget by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government and derive from recommendations in the 2010 Value for Money Review of the scheme. The wider context is that the budget for school transport increased from some €50 million to nearly €180 million between 1997 and this year. This massive increase, while heavily influenced by factors such as safety and the transport provision for children with special educational needs, is significantly greater than the inflation rate or the rate of increase in the overall education budget during the same period.
There is a requirement under the four year recovery plan to deliver savings of €17 million on school transport and these measures are a necessary part of achieving it. Given the circumstances of the country, the stark reality is that there is simply no scope for reversing these measures. With regard to the three specific aspects of the changes raised by the Deputy, I would like to make the following points. The Value For Money review identified that in 2008 the unit cost per primary pupil for the provision of school transport was more than €1,000 per annum. The charge of €50, representing as it does some 5% recoupment of this cost, must be seen in context. It is also important to stress that eligible pupils holding medical cards will be exempt from paying the charge and that the charge is capped at a maximum of €110 per family with eligible primary pupils only.
The increase from seven to ten in the number of eligible pupils residing in a distinct locality and who are required to establish or retain a school transport service broadly represents a reversal back to 2002 levels. Again, it is important to stress that families of eligible pupils for whom there is no school transport service available may apply for a grant towards the cost of making private transport arrangements.
I assume the Deputy's final question relates to the decision to apply the distance eligibility requirement to all pupils travelling under the primary transport scheme, including those pupils who have previously availed of free transport under the closed-central schools rule. This means that only primary pupils who reside 3.2 km or more from the nearest school will be eligible for transport. In a time of such serious economic difficulties, I am sure the Deputy will accept it is not unreasonable to restrict transport eligibility to those living more than two miles from their school. There is no change in the position whereby ineligible pupils may apply for concessionary transport in accordance with the terms of that scheme.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I missed his point on how much the saving will amount to, so he might repeat that. There is very little public transport in many rural communities and we need to know how many students this measure will affect. When the planners were introducing this change, did they know the effect it would have? Does the Minister agree that these cuts, if implemented, will radically alter the social fabric of many communities in rural Ireland? Again, it comes back to a point I made in regard to a recent question, namely, for those outside the system it is seen as another stealth tax on families in rural Ireland. How much will we actually save and what effect will it have in regard to the social fabric, schools and families in these areas?
The saving we are required to make, and have no option but to make under the four-year recovery agreement, is €17 million. In the context of spending €180 million per annum, that is quite a small saving. Given the actual per capita cost to the State of supplying the service is €1,020 per annum, a €50 charge is not unreasonable, particularly when one takes into consideration that all families who are holders of medical cards are exempt from the charge.
I am primarily concerned about the disproportionate impact these proposals will have on smaller schools in rural areas. While I accept we have to live within the budget that has been prescribed for the school transport service, I believe that where there is a will, there is a way. We can minimise the harshest impact of these proposals if we can have a constructive approach to alternative proposals. I would like the Minister to consider a phased implementation of the numbers required, contingent on the level of enrolment or perhaps on the number of teachers in smaller schools. It is unfair to ask a two-teacher school with perhaps 30 or 40 pupils to be obliged to have ten pupils on a school transport route when it previously only had to have seven. We could perhaps have a phased approach or allow those which already have a service for seven pupils to retain it at that level while moving to a level of ten pupils for new services. We can live within the budget.
The closed school rule gave children an entitlement to transport due to the arrangements entered into when the previous school closed. Where only one pupil had an automatic entitlement to transport, does that closed school rule take precedence over the requirement to have ten pupils? As I understand it, the closed school rule will only come into force in September 2012.
I attended a small, two-teacher rural school for eight years and that school continues to function perfectly well to this day without any school transport. All of the children attending that school either walk, cycle or are driven to and from school by their parents or grandparents or other family members.
The value for money report carried out by the previous Government and the changes suggested in it were part of a budgetary decision taken in October 2010. The value for money report, in assessing the likely impact of these changes on school-going children, carried out, I would argue, a sketchy assessment of the likely implications of these changes. I have asked Bus Éireann to carry out a full and forensic analysis now of the impact of these changes, and the result of that analysis will be available to me towards the end of this month. I intend to use that information to assess the likely negative effects. If it proves that they will be prohibitive and will actually discourage children from attending small rural schools, I undertake to reconsider the review. However, I must at all times do so in the context of having to make the €17 million saving. There can be no flexibility whatsoever in that matter.
Third Level Funding
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:17 Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Education and Skills the way in which the higher education authority study into the sustainability of third level funding will differ to that which was produced in the national strategy for higher education published earlier this year. [14508/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:18 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he intends to re-introduce third level fees, increase registration fees and other student charges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14540/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 18 together.
Future demand for participation growth in higher education needs to be reconciled with limitations on public resources and a need to protect and enhance core quality. Although the nature of these difficult trade-offs is described in the national strategy for higher education to 2030, the strategy also identifies the need for more detailed analysis. In this regard, I have asked the Higher Education Authority to undertake further work on the sustainability of the existing funding framework over the course of this year. This work will inform consideration by Government of policy options in regard to future funding of the sector.
As the Deputy will be aware, the previous Government introduced a new student contribution charge of €2,000 with effect from the 2011-12 academic year to replace the existing student services charge of €1,500. This increased charge will come into effect this autumn.
The Minister previously spoke about capital utilisation in higher education. Is he referring to a 12-month academic year and a constant use of resources? As we all know, plant and facilities are very expensive to put in place and maintain. Is this what he has in mind, given his particular phraseology?
Am I correct that the Deputy attended the talk I gave?
No, but I read the Minister's speech.
I was not sure as I did not see him there, but I would certainly have acknowledged him had he been there. Over 250 people from the academic side in all of the third level sectors were in attendance.
While the Hunt report is not perfect, it is the only report we have and I will not pause to have a new report written or to get a new roadmap. Some aspects of the report are very good and others, frankly, are not all that good. It is up to the academic community and the third level sector in its entirety to see how it can get better value for the resources that are currently available, for example, in terms of the utilisation of capital resources or the combining of the provision of courses. I said earlier that it had recently been brought to my attention that there are more than 40 courses in education and teacher training being delivered in 21 separate institutions across the country. This came as a big surprise to many people who ought to know better. We need to see how we can combine those courses and spread them out over a longer period of time. There is intense use of the capital infrastructure in the university sector but not to the same degree everywhere, and there is quite a variation in the intensity of use of the capital infrastructure in the institutes of technology.
To answer the Deputy's specific question, at the end of the day this will not be dictated from Marlborough Street or from the Higher Education Authority. We have invited the participants and partners, against the background of a reality which they too must confront, to come forward with innovative ideas because it is those on the ground who have a better knowledge of the way to do business than anybody else.
The failure of the Government to reverse the €500 increase in the student service charge is already a significant betrayal of the promises the Labour Party made before the election. I believe "fighting to defend free education tooth and nail" was the expression used. In that context, I must express great concern as, I suspect, many students do, about recent comments by the Minister, who stated there was no such thing as free education and that he would look seriously at how third level education would be funded. That, along with the review he mentioned, leads me to believe that people, students in particular, should be very much afraid about plans to abandon yet another promise made before the election to defend free education and the extreme likelihood that fees are to be reintroduced in some shape or form.
I wish to hear an assurance that this will not happen. There are more important people than me who wish to hear this, namely students. In addition, they wish to have an assurance in regard to the already unacceptable €500 increase in the service charge and the reductions in grants. The pay many students receive for weekend work may now come under attack via the attack, or review, of the joint labour committees, JLCs and the registered employment agreements, REAs. They need to know they do not face yet another attack in the form of student fees.
The Minister knows, and if it were six months ago he would be saying what I say, that the introduction of fees would be a major disincentive to enter third level education, particularly for the less well-off in our society. It would make a mockery of any proposals to develop a knowledge economy to aid economic recovery. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that no tuition fees will be introduced, in any shape or form?
The Deputy must recognise that we do not live in the world in which he would like to live but in one where this republic has lost its economic sovereignty. We have lost control of our cheque book. Every fortnight, the Governor of the Central Bank must report to Frankfurt to state that our fortnightly returns in terms of revenue and cost reductions are meeting targets. Otherwise, the money that pays the Deputy's and my salaries and those of everybody who works in this building will not come out of the ATM. That is where we are. Michael Collins, the first Minister for Finance of this State, had more room to manoeuvre than his successor as Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, has today.
That we have lost our economic sovereignty is a reality I do not like. I will not go into the history of how it came about. However, I wish to regain it as quickly as possible.
Hear, hear.
The only way we can do so is by trading and balancing our way out of the deficit of €9 billion. The Deputy could close down the entire expenditure of the Department of Education and Skills in the morning and we would still have a deficit of €1 billion. I will engage in debate with him if he will discuss reality on a platform of reality.
Concerning fees, every public service has a cost. The real issue is access to that service and whether a cost barrier exists by way of a charge at point of entry. There is no charge at point of entry for primary or secondary school. It was the Labour Party in Government in the 1990s which removed existing anomalies and abolished fees for undergraduate courses. It is not desirable that a new barrier should exist to prevent the socioeconomic groups we are trying to get into the third level sector from participating. I asked the Higher Education Authority to find ways in which we can look at the funding of the third level sector in order to avoid that possibility. I have not changed my values or attitudes in regard to access to third level education.
The Minister referred to multiple provision of similar courses in our third level institutions. If a university or an institute of technology proposes to introduce a new course must it get approval from the HEA or other governing authority in order to avoid unnecessary duplication?
I am not entirely sure of the answer to that question. Like the Deputy, I would have thought some form of vetting would be required and I presume such is the case in a number of areas. However, it was a member of the HEA who was surprised when the multiplicity of courses was brought to his attention. We must look at this situation because that kind of duplication is not justified now, if ever it was.
There were two aspects to the Minister's response but not much time to examine them. I merely point out that it is a political decision to effectively hand over the education budget of this country as interest repayments to bondholders. We do not have to make this decision. Does the Minister find it interesting that Greek students, among others, are on the streets now and because of their resistance to the austerity programme Europe is reconsidering restructuring the Greek debt and allowing the country more time to pay it? Would we not be better off taking that sort of action rather than accepting these unacceptable restraints which are strangling our education system and forcing us towards unpalatable measures such as the introduction of fees?
Given the restraints the Minister is under and given that his fellow Minister stated only minutes ago it was not possible to exempt any sector from pain, there is also a choice to be made in that regard, in terms of funding our services, education included. Instead of service charges which are inevitably regressive and hit the lowest earners, we might consider putting taxes on the wealthy. If we taxed the wealthy, which group this Government and the last one exempted from the pain, we could get the money elsewhere to fund our services. However, that option never seems to be considered. It is always about how we will squeeze more and more money out of people who cannot afford it. If any further financial obstacles are put in front of people entering third level education this will be devastating for our prospects for economic recovery.
It is not my intention to put further financial barriers on access to higher education, particularly for those groups that can least afford it and from families which, historically, did not go to third level education. The strategic objective initiated by the previous Government, which the Labour Party in Opposition shared and will now implement in Government, is to get participation rates to over 70% because that is the way forward for the economy.
This is a very unequal society. The Deputy and I share that view. However, brains and talent are equally distributed across the population and I want to ensure that those brains and talent which previously could not get into third level education because of financial and family backgrounds are liberated and can participate. I will do everything I possibly can to ensure that happens.
I praise the Minister for his refreshing remarks. If one were to pursue the ideology of Deputy Boyd Barrett the cuts in education would be much more regressive and there would no opportunity. The Minister is right——
What if we made those who can pay tax? Give me a break.
If the Deputy would listen he might learn. He does not know everything over on that side.
Deputy Buttimer should ask a question.
The Minister is right. There is an opportunity for all children, all adults and those who return to education. The Minister should be commended for that. Rather than oppose him——
Can we have a question?
The Minister mentioned the HEA and funding——
Deputy Buttimer's question is for me.
When does the Minister hope the HEA will report back to him? The Minister is correct in that we must allow opportunity for all our citizens, from all demographic sectors and social classes, to access third level education. The Minister's agenda is a reforming one and if people would support it we would see continued access and more people going into education at third level. That is what the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government in the 1990s did, which Deputy Boyd Barrett opposed.
Shall I answer that?
The Deputy would need some 80 colleagues more before he can do that.
A Deputy
Eighty years more, too.
I hope the HEA will come back to me before the end of this calendar year. We will not discover new crocks of gold and much of the data has been gathered but we must get hard information and look at the implications. It is a mixture of extra resources going into the system and economies being found within it. I am not the specialist to do that; we will ask the HEA and the participating colleges to do it. Again, what must be outlined at this level are a bottom-up approach and a strategic policy acting in partnership.
Irish Language
Gerry Adams
Question:19 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to co-operate with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in the North; and if resources can be developed and put in place to ensure further improvements around languages and Irish medium education. [14465/11]
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, has a long-standing arrangement with the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, CCEA, whereby joint meetings of the two bodies are held periodically. One of the NCCA's strategic goals is the promotion of links with the CCEA. No joint initiatives are under way at present. The two councils previously engaged in joint work on the use of mobile telephones to support the teaching of Irish and on guidelines for schools in supporting exceptionally able students. My Department funds An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta, COGG, to co-ordinate the provision of teaching resources for Irish-medium schools. COGG works in partnership with the CCEA to jointly plan the development of resources, where appropriate. COGG has recently agreed to invite the CCEA to appoint a representative to its board to further develop this partnership. Three bodies — COGG, the CCEA and An tÁisaonad in St. Mary's University College in Belfast — have developed a database of all resources available for Irish-medium education on the island of Ireland. An early literacy programme is being developed by the three organisations. The first stage of the programme will be available in September of this year. COGG and the CCEA share all teaching resources.
We will have to do something about all these acronyms. I am sure the Minister accepts that it makes sense — socially, politically and economically — for the relevant interests on this small island to work together on many of these issues. He said that "no joint initiatives are under way at present". I assume he appreciates that such initiatives represent the way forward. I welcome the fact that he met Conor Murphy to discuss cross-Border co-operation. Does he not agree that such co-operation makes economic sense in these tough economic times? We discussed the price of school books earlier this afternoon. Perhaps that problem can be examined in this context. People want these efforts to be rolled out across this small island, particularly in Border areas. Surely a spatial strategy should be used to work out where kids should go to school or to draw up common sense transport routes. My main question relates to whether the Minister intends to build on the co-operation that existed in the past. Does he think there is greater potential for much of this to be rolled out?
The Deputy will be aware that a new Minister has been appointed to the Northern Ireland Department of Education, which is responsible for primary and secondary education in Northern Ireland. I had the pleasure of meeting the new Minister, John O'Dowd, in Dublin last Friday. We had made contact with each other after President Obama's visit. I was impressed by my meeting with Mr. O'Dowd. We have a similar attitude to common sense, practical co-operation. As the SDLP has said on numerous occasions, North-South help and co-operation makes sense. We should do it together without getting tied up in the fears and aspirations that have surrounded these issues for 60 or 80 years.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.