Vol. 752 No. 2
6Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he has taken on board the concerns of rural communities following the announcement that there will be changes to the staffing schedules for one, two, three and four teacher schools; if he has considered the impact on minority faith schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2935/12]
8Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide further details on the proposed changes to the staffing schedules in one, two, three and four teacher schools as outlined in Budget 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2914/12]
I propose to take questions 6 and 8 together.
I am of course aware of concerns that have been expressed in relation to this and other budget measures. At a time of great strain in our public finances, we have to ensure that the very valuable but limited resources available for the education system are used in the best way possible. The staffing schedule at primary level disproportionately benefits small primary schools. It is worth noting that we have 3,200 primary schools across Ireland. Over two thirds of those schools have more than 86 pupils and, as a result, have far higher average class sizes than all of the schools affected by this measure; for example, a two-teacher school with 32 pupils has an average class size of one teacher for 16 pupils. In contrast, a typical ten teacher school with 272 pupils has an average class size of 27.2 pupils.
It is important to retain a sense of perspective and balance when discussing this matter and to realise the exceptionally favourable supports my Department will continue to provide for small schools. For that reason, as part of the budget 2012 decisions, the number of pupils required to gain and retain a classroom teaching post in small primary schools will be gradually increased between September 2012 and September 2014. The phasing of these measures can provide the schools concerned with time to consider the potential for amalgamation with other schools where this is feasible. If amalgamations take place, they will be voluntary and follow decisions taken by local communities and not by the Department.
The Minister is aware of how every primary school is an integral part of the local community. Thankfully, over the past decade there has been huge investment in improving the school infrastructure through modernisation, refurbishment and providing new accommodation. All international evidence shows that outcomes from small schools are as good as those from larger schools. In fairness, it is not comparing like with like to compare the pupil-teacher ratio. In a two-teacher school there are a number of separate classes to teach, so the pupil-teacher ratio is not an exact comparison.
I have spoken to the Minister previously about my particular concern about Protestant and minority faith schools, given that I represent Cavan-Monaghan and am familiar with Donegal and other neighbouring counties where there are a number of small schools, predominantly of the Church of Ireland faith but also of other Protestant faiths. I have discovered that the immediate scheduling changes next September will affect 25% of the Church of Ireland schools. I have brought one case to the attention of the Minister previously. A school in my neighbouring parish moved into a brand new school building a few months ago. It is a three-teacher school with an enrolment of 50 pupils. It needed 49 to retain three teachers. Next September the school will have 52. However, in the new schedule proposed by the Minister it would need to have had 51 pupils on 30 September 2011. If that school loses a teacher, it loses one third of its learning support as well.
People would consider that to be a retrospective decision. Will the Minister ensure that where a school met the requirements last September it will not be affected, once it meets the ongoing enrolment requirement?
These matters will be examined. The schools can appeal through the appeals mechanism if they can demonstrate that they will be at the required number next year. We know the data; the Department has the numbers of child benefit payments in the area. This is not an assault on rural Ireland but an attempt to secure some reasonable savings at a time when we must get such savings while, at the same time, maintaining the fabric of rural areas during the second decade of the 21st century, which is totally different from what it was 40 years ago, let alone 140 years ago.
I realise funding is a major issue for the Minister. It is something on which he predicates his replies, both written and oral, to Members. However, the Government's decisions have been taken collectively and it has made the decision to proceed with these cuts in the education sector. I have a few questions that arise from the Minister's replies. Does he believe that these schools are too expensive to retain? Does he believe that various investments in capital infrastructure in these schools over the last number of years was wrong, ill-advised and a waste of money? Some of these schools have been hit with this cut in the pupil-teacher ratio, DEIS cuts, higher transport costs and cuts in back to school allowances. Is it death by a thousand cuts? Can the Minister bring forward specific proposals relating to minority faith schools? The Minister has referred to amalgamation in many of his replies on this issue. Has the Department carried out an audit of cost savings that could be achieved through rural school amalgamations throughout the country? There must be pockets of the country where this is more evident, such as in Gaeltacht areas and where there are minority faith areas such as in Cavan and Monaghan.
The Deputy asked five or seven supplementary questions. I will take note of them as I might have to reply to them in writing. There are fixed standing charges for a school, such as insurance, which take no account of the size of the school in real terms. There are other related costs, regardless of whether the school has 50 or 150 pupils. There are disproportionate costs for smaller schools, but they tend to be in rural areas where they are isolated. However, the level of isolation now, given the use of motorised transport in those communities, is different from what it was 15 or 20 years ago, notwithstanding the downturn in the economy.
When these measures are introduced across the country by the end of 2014 the pupil-teacher ratios will still be very favourably biased or skewed in favour of rural areas. They will be far different and far more beneficial for the rural community than are the current pupil-teacher ratios for urban areas. That is what we are trying to reconcile. It is essentially a cost measure.
Will the Minister respond in writing to the other questions?
I will refer back to the Deputy.
On rural schools, and particularly three-teacher schools, 49 is the current number of pupils required. In September 2012, there are four schools in my constituency that will have 51, 54 and 52 pupils respectively. That means they exceed the number. Is it not foolhardy to take a teacher out of those schools in September 2012 and have to put the teacher back in the school in 2013? That is a recipe for a mess. There is no gain in it.
Second, the school transport system is falling asunder because it has become so costly. Amalgamation is not the panacea where schools are in widely dispersed rural geographical areas. I can provide the names of schools. I have spoken privately to the Minister about Killasonna national school, Bunlahy national school and Scoil Bhríde, Glen, Edgeworthstown.
The Minister has the projections and knows these schools will not be able to fool him next September. Retrospection, an issue raised by Deputy Smith, is key. The schools should be given an opportunity to achieve the targets in September 2012. If they do so, they will then know the targets for 2013 and 2014 and will not be in a position to keen and cry. The Minister is entitled to set targets but he must give the schools concerned a chance in 2012. I have a suggestion in this regard. When people from an urban area into a rural area with an expanding population, the local school should be classified as a developing school. A submission could then be made in June that the school is developing and will have the required numbers. Now that the computer systems of the various Departments are talking to one another, officials can examine issues such as children's allowance statistics, social welfare payments and so forth. Let us take this approach because it is a fair one.
On the same theme, I was contacted by Scoil Bhríde in Glen, Edgeworthstown, County Longford, a three teacher school with 49 pupils. It informs me that, as a result of the budget, it will lose a teacher if it does not increase numbers to 51. It argues that it could meet this target by September but needs to be given some breathing space and an opportunity to do so as it will otherwise become unviable due to the loss of one teacher. This is a reasonable plea.
I disagree with all the cuts in the Department as there is no justification for any of them.
The Deputy disagrees with reality.
That is not the case. It is unconscionable to cut teacher numbers and rob our children of their education. If we cannot deal with the general issue, can we at least give the schools concerned some breathing space?
I appeal to the Minister, as Deputy Penrose did, to examine the practical option of taking a retrospective view as of 30 September as this would enable schools to exceed the required enrolment. Until the budget was introduced, learning support and resource hours could be combined to make one full-time post in a school. This is no longer the case and the scenario that has been put to me is that this could result in two teachers going to two different schools on the same day. I understand it has been suggested to the unions that this matter can be fixed through local arrangements. Will the Minister reverse this decision and deal with the issue in a practical manner by allowing learning support and resource hours to be combined if the number of hours is such that it necessitates a full-time appointment? This would reduce unnecessary waste in terms of travel and teachers' time.
Deputy Smith has raised another element, namely, resource teachers and people spending teaching time in the car travelling between schools. We are examining how we can eliminate this type of waste of everyone's time.
To return to the central point raised by Deputies Boyd Barrett and Penrose, schools in rural areas have been given a signal that the pupil-teacher ratio will be changed in the next three years. I will respond flexibly if we are given the facts. There is now an onus on schools and their patrons to look at what will be the future population of a particular area. As I indicated previously, the Department is now linked with the Department of Social Protection and every child benefit payment is geographically and electronically tracked. As a result, we know what will be the population cohort in two, three or four years when a child presents.
As Deputy Penrose noted, the developing schools model serves as an example. We do not want to get into the nonsense of removing a teacher from a school in year X only to bring the teacher back in year X plus one. That approach is not common sense. By the same token, however, we have to change and move to a position in which we retain a biased pupil-teacher ratio in favour of rural schools on the basis of the nature of the location of such schools.
7Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Education and Skills the date on which he expects the Residential Institutions Redress Statutory Fund Bill to be established; and if he will provide an update on his engagement with survivors of institutional abuse on the proposed legislation. [2955/12]
Work on the drafting of the residential institutions statutory fund Bill is at an advanced stage and I hope to be in a position to publish the Bill in the coming weeks.I had a very constructive meeting with groups representing survivors of residential institutional abuse on 22 July last when we discussed the Government’s approach to the proposed statutory fund to support the needs of victims of residential institutional abuse. Attendees at the meeting raised a number of issues regarding aspects of the proposed approach as set out in the general scheme of the residential institutions statutory fund Bill. I have also received a number of submissions on particular aspects of the proposed legislation, which are being considered as the drafting process continues.
We all agree on the need to keep victims in the loop through discussions and meaningful engagement. A difficulty arises in determining who represents victims. There is no commonality on the issue of how the resources will be spent and so forth. The main issue is to try to involve and engage victims in the process. It would be helpful to give victims a role and say on the final legislation.
The Bill is still in the process of being finalised and will be introduced in this session. The points the Deputy makes will be taken into consideration when we have the text before us.
I ask the Minister to ensure the views conveyed at a meeting of 22 July last between all the relevant groups and officials of his Department are taken into account. Some of the groups expressed concern about what they understood would be the broad scope of the work of the statutory fund. The education board has done good work supporting survivors and their children and grandchildren, particularly in the education area. I understand the membership of the board, which still has money to disburse, will fall below quorate in mid-February. It is unlikely the proposed legislation will be passed by then, although the Minister will, I am sure, have the full support of the House in that regard. I understand an amendment could be made to the legislation that established the education board to enable it to continue its work. It is important to avoid instability or uncertainty in supporting survivors and their families through education. The board has funding and is supporting many people in a worthwhile manner. It is important to ensure survivors, their children and, in some cases, grandchildren, are supported through education.
The Deputy is partially correct. The board has money available to it but also has ongoing liabilities arising from educational commitments it has made which extend beyond one year. I will get a note for the Deputy on the issue. Subject to confirmation, I am of the opinion, based on advice I have read and which I am now remembering, that the board's commitments match the funds it has on deposit. For this reason, it will not make any fresh or new allocations. It is not necessary, therefore, to extend the lifetime of the board, as the Deputy suggests. I will confirm this in writing.
When will the heads of the Bill be published? On the Magdalene-----
We have another question on that issue. In case we do not reach it, the Magdalene survivors do not qualify in that regard.
Question No. 8 answered with Question No. 6.
9Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Skills if all previously proposed cuts to DEIS schools have been abandoned; and in view of his public comments on seeking cuts elsewhere in his budget in which he is planning to make such cuts; the areas that he is examining; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2941/12]
30Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Skills if all previously proposed cuts to DEIS schools have been abandoned and in view of his public comments on seeking cuts elsewhere in his budget where is he planning to make such cuts; the areas he is looking at; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2938/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 30 together.
I am aware of the concerns of some schools which will be adversely affected by the budget measures on the withdrawal of certain posts under older disadvantage schemes. I announced in the House on 11 January that my Department is to report to me within four weeks on the impact of the withdrawal of posts under these older schemes on DEIS bands 1 and 2 primary schools. I will then consider their position in the context of the staffing allocations due to issue to all schools. However, I had to make it clear that any changes in this area will require alternative compensatory savings measures within the primary schools budget. When I receive the report I will consider what the best options are in this regard.
This issue arises in the context of a very difficult situation where the education sector, which employs one third of all public sector employees, is required to find savings and contribute to controlling the increase in public sector numbers while also catering for our rapidly growing school population. It is important to note that a key aspect of the EU-IMF programme of support and Ireland's overall budgetary strategy is a requirement to reduce the public sector payroll and remain within the new climate of fixed ceilings on teacher numbers.
I have just come from a demonstration of between 3,000 and 6,000 DEIS school students, parents and teachers from across this city and the country. They want the Minister to agree to a complete reversal on and taking off the table of all proposed cuts to resources for disadvantaged schools, whether DEIS band 1, DEIS band 2 or those with legacy posts. The Minister knows from various reports that DEIS has been a success and a lifeline to disadvantaged communities. They have already been hit by other austerity measures; they do not need these cuts.
When I met the troika this week, it made it very clear that specific austerity measures are the Government's call while it just sets the parameters for the deficit. The Government does have the choice to make cuts elsewhere. There is no economic or moral logic in cutting education, particularly that of the least well-off. Cutting back on our children's futures will mean we will pay economically and socially in the future.
The Minister has the choice to tax the people at the top who have the money instead of hitting the most disadvantaged in our society. I appeal to the Minister to give some solace to those who were demonstrating today and their children.
The Department of Education and Skills employs one third of all public sector employees. Numbers must be reduced to meet the macro targets set by the troika. Of course, it has told us to find the detail. However, the employment control framework is contained in the memorandum of understanding signed up to by the previous Government. We are obliged to follow this until we come out of the programme which still has two years to run. Having met the troika and read the memorandum of understanding, Deputy Boyd Barrett knows what the options are. If he can find other ways of reducing public sector numbers, I would be more than happy to discuss them with him.
What I gathered from the troika was that the austerity details were hammered out by the Government and that all it is concerned about is the deficit. I do not doubt it has a prejudice for privatisation and running down public sector numbers. However, it said the targets were sufficient for it while the details could be changed by the Government. Why does the Government believe it is preferable to hit at education provision and public services for the least well-off rather than tax those who can afford it, a move for which Members on this side of the House have been screaming for some time?
There has already been a considerable increase in taxation. Some people have felt it was even excessive. The universal social charge has been removed from the lowest paid workers.
The memorandum of understanding has an employment control framework. I advise the Deputy to read it and examine the areas of the public service that could be reduced that have not been.
The Minister tells us the troika insists we have to cut our public sector numbers. The troika, however, is not responsible for ensuring our children get the best possible education. It is the Minister who is responsible for this. The buck stops with him.
Who is carrying out the review and what are its terms of reference? Once he receives it, how long will it take for him to make a decision on its recommendations?
The review is being undertaken in the Department. I asked for it to be completed in four weeks — that is three and a half weeks time. When I receive it, I will make decisions on it and consult with Cabinet colleagues if necessary. Each school will be notified of its teacher allocation commencing in September 2012. Any school, be it a DEIS band 1 or band 2, rural or mainstream school, that feels its allocation is unsatisfactory has an appeals mechanism of which it can avail.
Will the review take into account the costs of the adjustments needed for smaller classrooms in some of the pre-DEIS schools?
The review will be a numbers review primarily because of the shortage of time and the necessity to inform all schools about their teacher allocations. There may well be appeals from some of the schools affected that have a qualitative component to it which I will be able to check. I would be misleading Members if I did not admit this will be a numbers exercise.
I want to check the figures of the projected job losses to post losses that some teachers have indicated to Members and what I saw in the Department. When I have reconciled them, I will then make a decision.
I am concerned we are announcing larger class sizes which is not being taking into account. It seems we are all over the place on this.
No, nobody is all over the place.
That is what is going to happen and we do not have the information on smaller schools.
I will review this in a short time. Savings will have to be made and they will have to come from the primary school budget of the Department. Until such time as I see those figures, I will not make any predictions. It will affect the majority of schools in some shape, size or form. The scale and extent of it now needs to be decided.
What criteria will the Department use in this review? If it is the same criteria used in formulating the budget, then there will be no different outcome. The Minister has taken a divide-and-conquer approach in allowing each school to make its own representations. This is unacceptable. The schools and parents are asking for no cuts to DEIS, full stop. Parents of schools who may be saved from any cuts are not going to stand idly by while the school next door gets cuts.
Any cuts to DEIS are completely unacceptable. The Government needs to get out of the trenches to fight this unacceptable attack on education and our children.
What is happening to DEIS band 2 given it is not referred to in the teacher staffing schedule for 2012-2013? Does the Minister intend to do away with DEIS band 2? Does he intend to press ahead with the cuts for learning support teachers under the general allocation model?
Some of these questions have already been answered. I will answer them again. There will be no reduction in DEIS band 1 or DEIS band 2 allocations. It was proposed that those schools that had retained support services prior to the introduction of DEIS would have them removed. Not all DEIS schools have such services.
I will remind Members, particularly Deputy O'Brien, that 60% of socially disadvantaged children attend schools with no DEIS status. I have to achieve a balance between rural, mainstream, DEIS band 1, DEIS band 2 schools and those DEIS schools lucky enough to have retained additional resources.
What criteria will be used?
Fairness.
10Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will publish the new qualifying criteria for new entrant postgraduate students seeking to receive support with their third level fees from next year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2916/12]
In the context of overall necessary difficult expenditure reduction measures announced in budget 2012, new students entering postgraduate courses from the 2012-2013 academic year onwards will not be entitled to any maintenance payment under the student grant scheme. However, those students who meet the qualifying conditions for the special rate of grant will be eligible to have their postgraduate tuition fees paid up to the maximum fee limit under the student grant scheme.
In addition, a further limited number of students who would previously have qualified under the standard grant thresholds will qualify to have a €2,000 contribution made towards the costs of their fees. However, there will be a new income threshold for this payment which will be lower than the standard grant threshold. The income threshold for this level of grant is being determined in the context of the formulation of the student grant scheme for the 2012-13 academic year.
When does the Minister of State expect the final scheme will be available and published? Will the Minister of State indicate the number of postgraduate students in receipt of fee payment or maintenance grants over the past number of years?
The answer to the second question is 9,435. Regarding the first question, I do not have a specific date but the review is ongoing.
Are 9,435 students in receipt of fees and maintenance grants?
The most up-to-date figures supplied by the 66 grant awarding authorities show that 9,435 postgraduate students were in receipt of a student grant. The distinction between the two is not specified but I can come back to Deputy Smith on that point.
Am I correct in thinking that 2,000 postgraduate students will receive a maintenance grant for the coming academic year? Will 4,000 have the fees element paid?
In a full year, 2,000 students on the lowest incomes will meet the qualifying conditions for the special rate of grant and will have their fees paid up to the maximum fee limit allowable under the student grant scheme. Another 4,000 students will receive a fee contribution of €2,000. The new arrangements will apply to two thirds of the postgraduate cohort on the lowest incomes, which is arguably a wider cohort of students.
Has the Minister of State carried out an assessment on the impact this will have on the number of young people taking up a postgraduate course? I heard the point of the Minister of State about people on low incomes but in many cases people are in a grey area, which presents a difficulty. It will make it more difficult for people to go down the road of postgraduate study. Everyone accepts that. Does the Minister of State have any idea how many people will be unable to go on to further education? Has this been taken into account in the costings of this measure? There is also a human cost in terms of how it will affect people.
It is like trying to measure how long is a piece of string. We cannot predict the impact of this in terms of exact numbers and participation rates. Participation rates at third level are determined by a myriad of factors and income is not the only criterion. Parental aspects, social and cultural factors, the level of pre-existing educational attainment, whether someone is in employment, whether someone has lost a job and a certain amount of income are other factors. One can safely assume it will have a negative impact but we do not know for certain and there is no way of measuring its impact. It is part of a package of measures the Department and the Government had to take in reducing spending. We are honest about that. We must try to ensure the student assistance fund, at the behest of individual institutions, is retained and that tax reliefs for postgraduate students are retained. Arising from these budgetary adjustments, the people who are least affected are the people who will be given the greatest chance to go to postgraduate education, namely, those who are on the lower income thresholds. We have tried to protect and preserve that.
When the Minister has a finite number of postgraduate students who will be funded, what will happen to people who meet the income criteria but will be No. 2,001 on the list? I regularly read the statements of the Minister of State in his capacity with responsibility for research and development, where he speaks in glowing terms about the success of the major investment in the past decade in research and development. That investment has proved very successful. Many of the projects the Minister of State launched today are the result of investment going back some years, which create jobs for our people. Has the Minister of State engaged with the major corporations and major indigenous companies in getting more placements for our postgraduate students? The Minister of State knows many of the firms with successful postgraduate programmes and placements. If this could be accelerated and improved, with greater impetus, it might facilitate some of the people who do not qualify for assistance with fees and maintenance from September 2012.
Is it not the case that cutting the funding to postgraduate grants is the sharp edge of the disastrous situation over which this Government has presided? This will cut the education level of attainment at the highest level, which we need if this country has any chance of recovering. The Government talks on a regular basis about how we need to make this country favourable for investment and export-led recovery but we are sending out the message that we will have fewer people qualified at the highest level. The people who will not get the chance to reach that level of educational attainment will be those who do not have money. It is always the people who do not have money who get hit.
That is a very subjective statement. There is no way of predicting the number of people who will apply for postgraduate courses, except to say that it is increasing year on year. Ironically, this increase is as a result of the loss of economic sovereignty. I take the point made by Deputy Smith in respect of interaction with industry. The research prioritisation exercise will be published and its purpose is to derive greater economic benefits from the research we are carrying out. There is a deepening collaboration between industry and academia in terms of research. I am talking to global companies that provide thousands of jobs in this country and I am talking to indigenous firms that want to move into the space of taking on board more graduates. Labour market activation measures, which will be launched shortly, will also attest to this.
In terms of the finite number, we must know the number of people who will apply for funding before we know the endgame in terms of the amount allocated. There is no doubt that the level of a person's economic resources has an impact on the level of educational attainment. We are seeking to ensure we can fund those with the lowest incomes. A number of postgraduate research based courses are funded by industry or through calls. We must also bear this in mind.
11Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for Education and Skills the progress made to date in developing a technological university in the south east; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2925/12]
In May of last year I formally asked the Higher Education Authority to provide advice to me on draft performance criteria for a process for the designation of technological universities. Draft criteria had been deployed by an international expert commissioned by my Department following the publication of what is known as the Hunt report. In developing its advice, the authority undertook a consultation process on the criteria which was completed last autumn. Following on from this, I understand the authority is at the current time finalising its advice and it is hoped to publish final criteria in the relatively near future. I am informed this will happen by the end of this month.
The criteria will set out a roadmap for the potential re-designation of institutes of technology, which can meet the performance requirements set out, as technological universities. Consolidation will be necessary as a precursor to any re-designation as a technological university. I understand Carlow and Waterford Institutes of technology have begun discussions on consolidation with a view to seeking re-designation.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome the positive thrust of what he said. If we are to take some cognisance of newspaper speculation and general observations being made in the political arena, it appears the possibility of a university in the south east, which we clearly welcome, is perhaps further down the road than the Minister is telling us today. He might elaborate on that.
I take the points he made about the Hunt report, the HEA and what might or might not happen in the process of consolidation. The Minister is familiar with Dundalk and the north east. DkIT is bound by the sea on one side and the Border on the other. Its future is important and its management are more than anxious to see a pathway set out for it. The Minister might elaborate on that.
There was a very misleading headline in a piece in The Irish Times earlier this week. No decision has been made on a technological university in the south east or anywhere else. In my formal reply I gave the Deputy the facts as they currently are. Once the criteria are published, it will then be up to institutions to decide whether they wish to collaborate with other institutions and pursue the possibility of achieving technological university status. I am advised by the education authorities that such a process will take some years, and will be determined by meeting the criteria established independently and not by any political decision.
If there is a meeting of minds by the management of DkIT and DCU, what pathway should they pursue to progress and reach the eventual synergy objectives which are clearly achievable? The Minister might advise on the dynamics needed to progress that.
The HEA published a set of criteria on collaboration, joint ventures and a host of other ways in which, in the spirit of the Hunt report, the institutions can combine. Instead of having a binary system of universities and institutes of technology, we should have an integrated third level system. It is up to the institutions to start to explore that new territory and a prescriptive political directive will not come from the Department or HEA.
If some institutions, through a realistic formula for discussion, are prepared to meet the Minister and he could set out advice for them, would he be willing to do that?
I do not want to devalue the level and quality of third level education in this country by changing names. If institutions wish to aspire to a set of criteria that would give them the designation of technological university they have to meet that criteria. There will be no political interference from my Department or me on that matter. Otherwise we will devalue the entire third level sector in this country.
A lot of the briefings on Waterford came from the Government. If change will not happen in the long term, I do not see the point. We talked about the amalgamation of schools. There is a clear need to amalgamate some ITs. The fact that most of them want to come together is positive, particularly in Dublin. Other supports need to be available.
One issue which may not be an issue for the Minister's Department but another Department is accommodation supports for foreign students. A lot of accommodation is available through NAMA. We need some joined up thinking in the sector which will enhance its consolidation and growth.
I agree with the observations made by the Deputy and I can assure him that there is joined up thinking. It will be driven by the institutions. They will be given encouragement to make sensible, collaborative associations. We do not want political interference. These decisions should be made in the best interests of the totality of the institutions and the education sector in which students at home and abroad will be attracted to participate in.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 January 2012.
