Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Nov 2013

Vol. 820 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Single Payment Scheme Administration

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter. I understand that before the vote there was a discussion on Dáil reform. One of the issues was that a Topical Issue could be deferred so the Minister is present to reply. I am grateful that the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, can attend as I know he was unavoidably absent last Thursday.

In recent weeks I have been contacted by a large number of farmers in County Galway and throughout the country who received letters from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine concerning so-called over-claims on their area aid applications. They are incensed that they may be retrospectively billed for past years. These farmers applied on the area of land that appeared on maps supplied by the Department and in some cases on the area of land as measured by the Department's own inspectors following farm inspections. I was contacted by one farmer who had an area aid inspection about five years ago and when he received the new altered maps he believed he had his duty done. However, he found that the new aerial photograph has resulted in him being penalised by another 0.5 of a hectare for the smallest of deductions ranging from 0.01 to 0.2 of a hectare spread out over the farm, including the lawn in front of his house. This farmer is under the 3% penalty clause, or two hectares, but is now dreading another letter in the post in a few weeks demanding payment of whatever the so-called recovery of the single farm payment might be.

All the farmers who spoke to me said they only wished to claim on eligible land and if there were some adjustments to be made following the aerial surveillance, they would accept this. However, there should be no retrospection for past years, given that it was the Department's maps which were used in this process. It is important that this message is conveyed to Europe. A strong message should be sent that this is an unfair penalty on farmers who, at all times, were only supplying the information that was supplied to them by the Department. Much of this problem is emanating from Europe and it is at European level that it must be tackled. Individual farmers cannot effect massive change within the system and for that reason I believe the Government must take this issue up at the highest levels in Europe and press for a fair resolution for Irish farmers. Penalising farmers retrospectively for something that is beyond their control, because they placed their faith in the figures supplied by the Department, will simply crush all credibility in the current system and will have a severely negative impact on the attitude of farmers to farm schemes in the future.

Another issue which is related to the issue under discussion is the length of time that the review process is taking. For a start, many farmers will not appeal the over-claim as they should, believing they are taking on the might of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I will be urging all farmers to appeal all aspects of the over-claim that they feel are unfair. Second, for those who do appeal, the process is taking far too long. The timeframe for decisions must be made clearer and every effort must be made to ensure that the appeals are processed without delay.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to take up this issue at the highest level in Europe and to make the strongest case possible for the farmers of Ireland, who are being treated in a most unfair way and who fear incurring penalties for something that is beyond their control at a time when they, like all people in the community, are under huge financial pressure.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Tom Hayes)

I thank Deputy Connaughton for raising this issue. It might help to bring clarification to it. Last Thursday, when this was due to be discussed, I was attending another function and could not be present, so my apologies for that.

As the House will be aware, my Department carries out a range of inspections on farms under the single payment scheme and other area-related schemes, covering such issues as the eligibility of land and cross compliance. This inspection activity relates to delivery of the significant supports paid to farmers under various EU and nationally funded schemes, as well as ensuring that requirements relating to public and animal health are being met. In carrying out these responsibilities, which must be done to a standard which meets EU audit requirements to protect the draw-down of the significant funding involved, every effort is made to take account of the realities of farming and particularly of the effects of the bad weather experienced in recent years.

By way of context, I will restate for the House the significance of the direct payment schemes to the farmers who receive these payments and also to the wider rural and national economy. In annual terms, these payments amount to some €1.7 billion. Under the single farm payment scheme alone, total payments since 2005 have reached almost €10 billion. In terms of the 2013 single payment scheme, over €582 million has already been paid to more than 115,000 farmers. These payments have provided farmers, and will continue to provide them under the reformed Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, with a stable guaranteed level of income during very challenging economic times and, as such, they underpin the future development of our farming sector, particularly in the context of the ambitious Food Harvest 2020 programme.

I will now give the House an overview of the nature of the cross compliance regime. All applicants under the single payment scheme and other area-based schemes are obliged to comply with the requirements of the cross compliance regime. Cross compliance involves two key elements: a requirement for farmers to comply with 18 statutory management requirements, SMRs, set down in EU legislation in the areas of public, animal and plant health, environment and animal welfare; a requirement to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition. My Department is required to carry out annual inspections to ensure compliance with the EU regulatory requirements of cross compliance. These inspections are mandatory and there are certain minimum numbers and types of inspections that must take place annually.

The rate of inspections for cross-compliance is 1% of applicants to whom the SMRs and good agricultural environmental condition, GAEC, apply. However, 3% of farmers must be inspected under the bovine identification and registration requirements, while 3% of sheep and-or goat farmers must be inspected covering 5% of the flock. It is a recognised principle of the direct aid regime that it serves broader public good objectives and contributes to the maintenance of the rural environment. These inspections are thus necessary to verify that these objectives are being met.

In addition, EU regulations governing the cross-compliance regime require relevant competent authorities to cross-report to my Department details of cases where non-compliance with the regulatory requirements is identified as a result of an inspection undertaken by that authority to establish if a penalty should be applied under the single farm payment scheme and other area-based schemes.

EU regulations governing the cross-compliance regime prescribe a range of penalties to be applied where non-compliance with the relevant legislative provisions has been identified. Where the non-compliance is due to negligence, the penalty is 3%, which can be reduced to 1% or increased to 5% depending on the extent, severity and permanence of the non-compliance. Where the non-compliance is determined as intentional, the standard reduction is 20%, but this can be reduced to 15% or increased to 100% depending on extent, severity and permanence. Where a non-compliance is deemed to be minor in nature, tolerance may be applied with the applicant advised to remedy the problem. Where the minor non-compliance is not remedied within a certain period, a penalty of at least 1% is applied. There are also penalty provisions where repeated non-compliance is determined.

Inspections under the 2013 single payment scheme are ongoing. Therefore, I am not in a position to identify penalty levels for this scheme year. However, under the 2012 scheme, a total of 2,472 cross-compliance penalties were applied in respect of non-compliances identified as a result of all categories of inspections undertaken by my Department and from cross-reports received therein. The value of these penalties was €2.4 million, equating to 0.2% of the total €1.2 billion paid under the 2012 scheme.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Appropriate appeal mechanisms are in place to protect the interests of farmers who have difficulties with decisions made in respect of their single farm payment applications. Under this process, a farmer may initially seek to have a cross-compliance penalty decision reviewed internally by a more senior officer. Where the farmer remains dissatisfied, the decision can then be appealed to the independent agriculture appeal office and, ultimately, to the Office of the Ombudsman, which brings an entirely external and visibly independent dimension to the process.

My Department has also established a farm advisory service operated by Teagasc under the single payment scheme and I recommend that any applicant with cross-compliance inspection or penalty concerns should avail of this service to allay any such concern.

In closing, let me emphasise that, in implementing the requirements of the cross-compliance regime, including the required inspection programme, my Department takes the maximum possible account of the realities of farming. Inspecting officers are regularly trained on how to conduct these inspections. Each inspected case will, therefore, have all factors, including poor weather, taken into account when any decision on the outcome of an inspection is reached.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have no issue with farm inspections. They play a role in the Irish brand and we want to maintain current levels, which farmers understand. More than any other issue, I wish to raise that of payments being sought in respect of 2008 to 2011, inclusive. I understand that a new mapping service is being used, one that is extremely detailed and only became available to the Department this year. Any farmer with whom I have spoken or dealt wants to apply for the eligible land only. That is not an issue. Rather, those farmers have an issue with the retrospective fines that are being applied, given the fact that they used the maps that were available at the time. The information was also supplied by the Department.

In terms of audits, I understand that Europe wants to ensure that the money is spent exactly as it is supposed to be and that fines and penalties can arise. However, Europe is being slightly unfair, in that backdating these payments now is difficult when farmers used all of the information available to them at the time to submit their applications for the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, or the single farm payment. Will the Minister of State or the Minister, Deputy Coveney, have an opportunity within the coming weeks to take a message to Europe to the effect that every Irish farmer wants to stay within the law and only get paid for what he or she is able to do? It is unfair that backdating is being applied to payments when farmers had no hand, act or part in the making of this situation, given that they were only using the Department's information.

Deputy Tom Hayes

The last thing that the Department or anyone wants to do is be unfair to people. A process is in place whereby, if people are unhappy with the letters being sent by the Department, they can appeal. No one should experience hardship as regards this matter. This is the first point that needs to be clarified. An entire appeals section is available. If cases are causing hardship, either the Minister or I will deal with them individually.

It is important to stress the reason for these checks. When we fought a hard battle some months ago in Brussels to protect the single farm payment schemes, Ireland benefited. We should be the first to stand up and assert that we will run the schemes well and efficiently, but we do not want there to be hardships. I guarantee the Deputy that we will do everything we can to be fair to people, but we must live within the rules and regulations if we are to protect the scheme as we go forward.

Unfinished Housing Developments

Deputy Sean Fleming

I welcome the opportunity to raise the question of the financial bonds issued by the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, in respect of various building developments, particularly housing estates, throughout the country. Some of the estates in question are unfinished. A difficulty has arisen, in that, as a result of the emergency legislation passed by the Oireachtas earlier this year, IBRC has been put into special liquidation. We are only now learning of the legislation's impact on housing estates that have been left unfinished by developers who have gone to the wall.

Developers take out financial bonds to ensure that housing estates can be finished if they go out of business before the job is completed. Many insurance companies issue these bonds. All of the major companies have been involved. Some might have provided loans to developers or underwritten bonds. The difficulty lies in the fact that the bonds issued by the liquidated IBRC are not being paid. Instead, they have been placed at the bottom of the list.

Some local authorities face the impossible choice of leaving estates unfinished or taking money from other services to pay for finishing roads, footpaths, drainage, sewerage and street lighting in certain estates. The Minister was aware of this choice when introducing the legislation. I am aware of four housing estates in County Laois that have not been finished. In the normal course of events, the financial bond is called in when a builder is gone. I will cite a practical comparison from a few years ago when Quinn Insurance went into liquidation, that of large estates in County Laois, called Barrowvale and the Vale, in Graiguecullen near the Carlow boundary. Several hundred thousand euro was paid by the administrator on foot of that bond. Now that IBRC is in liquidation, however, it is telling local authorities to get lost and to join the bottom of the list of unsecured creditors.

The bonds issued by IBRC in respect of four estates in County Laois - Foxborough in Portlaoise, Graigavern in Ballybrittas, the Village in Ballylynan, which I am sure the Acting Chairman is aware of, and Radharc na Sleibhte in Mountrath - range from €87,000 to €354,000 in value. The works needed to complete those estates might not require the full bonds or might require more, but access to those bonds is necessary.

This situation is arising all over Ireland, as the Minister and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government know. More importantly, the Minister was aware of it when he drafted the legislation at this time last year. KPMG had been on site since last November. While the legislation sat in the Minister's top drawer last December waiting to be produced early this year, the Government introduced a local property tax. The Minister knew that the tax would be applied to certain housing estates in respect of which bonds would not be honoured as a result of an action he was about to take by liquidating IBRC in a few short months' time. However, he did not make it known at the time, causing further difficulty.

Will the Minister arrange for his Department and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to supply a list of all of the estates affected by this issue on a county-by-county basis and the amount of bonds in issue so that we might have a reasonable understanding of the scale of the problem? Both Departments were aware of it, but it is only now coming to light at local level.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan)

On 7 February 2013, the Oireachtas passed the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013, appointing joint special liquidators to the IBRC with immediate effect to wind up its business and operations. Under the IBRC Act the special liquidators are obliged to independently value all the assets of the IBRC and to engage in a sales process which will maximise the return for its creditors, including the State. The matter of development bonds issued by the bank is one of a number of important issues that they must consider in exercising their statutory duties under the Act. Development bonds have traditionally been required as a condition of planning permission by local authorities. The developer must provide a bond, set out as a planning condition, which is then called upon in the event that the developer does not complete his or her development in accordance with the plans and particulars, the conditions of planning and relevant codes and regulations.

I understand that the IBRC had in the past issued such bonds to local authorities in regard to loans outstanding to the institution and I am advised that there are a number of development bonds in favour of the various county councils or local authorities which are in place with the IBRC in special liquidation. It should be noted that it is likely that any liabilities which may arise in regard to any bonds, guarantees or indemnities under these arrangements will most likely rank as unsecured claims in the special liquidation. However, it must be stressed that these bonds are contingent liabilities and therefore will only be called upon where developers breach planning conditions and are not in a position to meet any liability that arises as a result.

I am aware of the problems facing local authorities, and in particular with regard to unfinished housing estates, as a result of developers not complying with the terms of their planning permissions. Both the special liquidators and officials from my Department have, as a matter of concern, recently met with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, local authorities and the Housing Agency concerning this issue.

While it is likely that there will be some level of exposure for local authorities as a result of this issue, the Department has confirmed that they are not yet in a position to confirm what the full extent of the exposure may be. It was agreed that work currently being conducted to confirm the actual level of exposure should be continued. It was also agreed that each local authority should consider if, following a cost-benefit analysis, a claim should be submitted to the special liquidators in order to rank as an unsecured creditor for the purposes of the liquidation. It is understood that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government will consider an appropriate response for local authorities who are faced with the problem of unfinished housing estates once the full extent of that exposure is known.

Throughout the liquidation process it has been acknowledged that there are, unfortunately, unavoidable costs which are associated with the agreement in regard to the promissory notes and the subsequent liquidation of the IBRC. The Deputy has identified just one category of possible creditor that may become unsecured creditors through the liquidation process.

There are amounts owed by the IBRC to a range of creditors, including contractors, trade creditors and other service providers, many of which are unsecured. The proceeds from the disposal of the IBRC's assets will be used to repay creditors in accordance with normal Companies Acts priorities and, consequently, preferred creditors will be paid first and then the debt which NAMA will have purchased from the Central Bank will be paid. If there are proceeds available after repayment in full of the NAMA debt, these proceeds will be applied to remaining unsecured creditors.

The Government is aware of the difficulties the liquidation may cause for unsecured creditors, including local authorities. However, it is important to remember the overall benefits to the State from eliminating the cost of the annual promissory note. We have reduced the State's cash borrowing requirement by €20 billion over the next ten years; we have brought the State €1 billion closer to meeting our deficit targets; and Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide have been consigned to history.

I would advise any local authority to contact the business management team, the IBRC, Grand Parade, Dublin 6, directly in respect of any claims as they are established. It must be stressed that these bonds are contingent liabilities and therefore will only be called upon where developers breach planning conditions and are not in a position to meet any liability should it arise.

Deputy Sean Fleming

The bad news the Minister has just given will be of no comfort to people in housing estates throughout the country. The Minister should ask the liquidator to publish a list, or make it available to us, of all the estates that are potentially affected by this matter.

These planning permission conditions were granted by the local authority, which is an arm of the State. One of the conditions was that a bond should be in place. By its actions, however, the central Government has decided not to honour planning permission conditions. By removing the bond, the Government is saying that they can go to the bottom of the unsecured creditors' list when everything is transferred to NAMA.

Before the IRBC loan book is transferred to NAMA, the Minister should make provision for these bonds to be honoured. He showed a way of dealing with it himself when he said that approximately €1 billion had been saved as a result of re-financing of the promissory note. Part of that sum should be used for these purposes. I do not particularly mind whether it comes from the special liquidator, NAMA or the Department of Finance. It is not fair that people in housing estates who are paying the local property tax should be singled out to carry an additional burden by not having footpaths or public lighting installed in such estates. It is wrong for an arm of the State to undermine local authorities by taking action which will prevent councils from carrying out work in estates, which is a normal condition for a local authority.

The Minister spent months drafting this legislation and he knew it was a logical follow-on but that was not made clear to people at the time. It is only emerging now. The choice for local authorities will be simple - the work will not be done unless somebody pays for it. I am asking the Minister to come up with the balance required to complete these estates.

Deputy Michael Noonan

I thank the Deputy for bringing this matter to my attention. The liquidation will proceed in accordance with the legislation which was passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The order of creditor preference will be in accordance with what is normal under company law. Unsecured creditors will be considered for any residual resources that are available after the preferred creditors and the NAMA situation has been paid.

As I said in my reply, meetings have been taking place between officials in my Department, officials in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and the liquidator. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is now setting out to establish what is the full liability which will be suffered by local authorities around the country. When it has established what the full liability of all local authorities might be, it will then have the authority to come up with a programme to deal with this.

Prescription Charges

Deputy Ciara Conway

The second global conference on family planning was held in London last year, involving not just politicians and advocates but also philanthropic organisations. Some €2.6 billion was committed to the area of family planning, while the G8 and developing countries set goals and targets. Today in Addis Ababa, the third global conference on family planning commenced with the focus on reducing teen pregnancy and facilitating access to contraception. Nobody would argue with the idea of reducing teen pregnancies and ensuring that young women have access to contraception. With this in mind, I have tabled this Topical Issue matter.

Women can only get a three-month or six-month prescription for the contraceptive pill. This means that women will be required to bear the cost of their gender and will have to pay a prescription charge just to look after and take control of their own bodies. Last week, the Irish Medical Organisation reported that the contraceptive pill Ovranette costs 71 cent. Therefore, the prescription charge of €2.50 will be substantially more than the price of the drug. The charge far exceeds the price the State pays for that contraceptive pill. In previous parliamentary questions I have submitted to the Minister for Finance, I pointed out that oral contraceptives are subject to a 0% VAT rate. However, all non-oral contraceptives are still subject to a 13.5% VAT rate. This puts more effective methods of contraception beyond the reach of some women. I understand that the imposition of a 13.5% VAT rate on non-oral contraceptives is due to EU regulations. In the coming months I hope to work on this matter with my EU colleagues because it must be changed.

I ask the Minister to apply exclusion criteria, similar to those in the UK, whereby prescriptions for contraceptive pills would be exempt from the charge.

I have tabled a series of parliamentary questions, in respect of which I await a reply, on the proposed publication of the Government's sexual health strategy. I hope this strategy will advocate and propose the inclusion of the universal provision of free contraception.

In an age where cash is king and where Governments, and rightly so, want to ensure effective use of public moneys, I ask that the Government commission the undertaking of a study of the most cost-effective way of providing universal free contraception and universal sexually transmitted infection, STI, screening based, perhaps, on the cervical check model, which provides free sexual health care and STI screening to all female residents in Ireland. I believe the contraceptive pill should be exempted from the €2.50 prescription charge because, as I have outlined, the actual cost of the pill to the State is far less than that. I believe that this is an unfair charge levied on women because of their gender. I await the Minister of State's response.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Alex White)

The Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2010 provides that a person who is supplied with a drug, medicine or medical or surgical appliance on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner, registered dentist or registered nurse prescriber shall be charged a prescription charge per item, subject to a limit per family per month and that this charge will be recouped from payment to the pharmacist.

Since 1 January 2013, the charge per item is €1.50, subject to a maximum amount payable by a person and his or her dependants of €19.50 in any one month. Prescription charges are part of a set of reforms introduced by Government in recent years to reduce pharmaceutical prices and expenditure. These include reductions in drug prices, reductions in fees paid to pharmacists under the FEMPI legislation and the introduction of generic substitution and reference pricing.

As announced in budget 2014, it has become necessary to increase the prescription charge due to the very difficult and challenging economic environment which requires the Government to achieve additional savings in health expenditure, with €666 million in savings targeted in 2014. The increase in prescription charges will account for €43 million of this target. The Government is committed to achieving these savings while protecting front-line services to the most vulnerable to the greatest extent possible. Medical card holders will be required to pay a €2.50 charge per item for medicines and other prescription items supplied to them by community pharmacists, subject to a cap of €25 per month for each person or family. These new rates will be effective from 1 December 2013.

For the purposes of applying the charge, a spouse or a cohabiting partner, children under 16 and children aged over 16 and under 21 who are in full-time education and wholly or mainly maintained by another adult person who has full eligibility will constitute a family for the purposes of applying the charges. There are a limited number of exemptions from prescription charges. First, children who are in the care of the Health Service Executive under the Child Care Acts 1991 to 2007 are exempt. All other GMS clients will be subject to prescription charges. Second, the supply of methadone to opiate dependent clients is exempt. Methadone clients will be required to pay the charge on prescription items other than methadone. The supply of methadone for non-opiate dependent clients is not exempted. Third, as the supply of high tech medicines operates on the basis of a patient care fee, a prescription charge will not apply.

The legislation does not provide for an exemption from the prescription charges for any particular category of drugs, medicines or medical and surgical appliance. The three areas of exemption to which I referred are referable to particular categories of individuals rather than to drugs, medicines or medical or surgical appliances. There are no plans to provide for this category of exemption.

Deputy Ciara Conway

I thank the Minister of State for his response which gives me some hope. As the Minister of State rightly pointed out, the exemptions do not apply to any particular drug but to a particular cohort of people. The people who are most likely to be taking the contraceptive pill are women, who are a distinguished group in society. There is scope if the willingness exists to provide this exemption. It is unfair that women because of their gender must pay this charge. As indicated in the Minister of State's response, the exemptions to which he referred relate not to a particular drug, but to a particular cohort of people.

I believe this is something we should do. We know that when women can provide space and time between each of their children, the outcomes for those children, women and households are better. This is something with which we should be able to help and support women. We know that having effective family planning in a progressive society leads to good outcomes for children and women. In my humble opinion, it also makes them more productive and effective members of society. I believe there is scope to apply an exemption in respect of the contraceptive pill.

Deputy Alex White

I am not sure I can add a huge amount more to what I have already said, namely, that the scheme of the rules comprehends exemptions for specific individuals or categories of individuals. I understand what the Deputy is saying, including the argument made in her rejoinder. However, this would ultimately amount to an exemption with respect to a particular type of medicine or drug, which is not provided for under current rules. Even if the exemption were to be extended to a category-gender, this would still mean an exemption with regard to, presumably, contraception and not all prescription items. We have a difficulty in terms of how the current rules are applied.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue and note the compelling points made by her in terms of the importance of the sexual health strategy being brought forward in the context of screening and, in particular, sexual health issues, which issues the Deputy has previously drawn to the attention of the House. I agree with her that they are important priorities.

Schools Amalgamation

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

This is an important matter. Parents in Ballyfermot were shocked last week when they learned by way of letter from the De La Salle national school that it proposes to amalgamate with three other national schools in the area, namely, St. Raphael's national school, St. Michael's national school and St. Gabriel's national school. The original De La Salle school was built in 1952, which is around the time the new estate of Ballyfermot was built. There were three schools under the De La Salle brothers at that time, including Scoil Íosagáin, Scoil Sheosaimh and Scoil Mhuire, which over time amalgamated into one school. Two of the schools amalgamated in 1981 and the third school was amalgamated only two years ago, which then became De La Salle national school. I accept pupil numbers at the school have fallen. However, there are currently 292 pupils in the De La Salle school, almost 200 in St. Gabriel's, more than 200 in St. Raphael's and almost 300 in St. Michael's, which when combined means the new structure will have more than 1,000 pupils, which is a substantial amount of young people.

Parents are concerned at the possible loss of the school buildings owned by the De La Salle brothers and school properties, including playing fields and so on, which have served the young children of Ballyfermot since 1952. The reason given by the Diocesan authorities is that it is disinvesting from the school, which is to be welcomed. I am not opposed to that. The concern is in relation to the suddenness of the decision.

Were the Department and the Minister aware of the change that was taking place in Ballyfermot? As far as I know, Department officials had a meeting with the church authorities in February, when the disinvestment was agreed. Were concerns raised at the time about the school buildings and structures and whether this eventuality would affect the teaching in what would be left in those schools? We need to ensure there is no overcrowding at the three schools run by the Dominican order, that the pupil-teacher ratios in those schools are not affected, and that there are no job losses. The key to all of this is that the land owned by the De La Salle brothers is not sold to an outsider and at the very least, that the buildings and the land be transferred to the Dominican order. I would like to see it transferred to the State.

I urge the Minister of State to respond positively to this change to ensure people in Ballyfermot can rely on the best possible educational outcome, which means the best possible educational campus. That is available in the existing campuses and with the existing structure.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon)

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter as it provides me with the opportunity to clarify the current position in respect of the Ballyfermot national schools to which the Deputy referred. The four schools concerned are St. Raphael's national school, Dominican convent, a senior girls infant mixed school; St. Gabriel's national school, Dominican campus, a senior girls infant mixed school; De La Salle national school, a senior boys school, which is an amalgamation of Scoil Íosagáin-Mhuire and Scoil Mhuire-Seosamh; and St. Michael's national school, Dominican convent, a senior girls infant mixed school.

The decision-making authority for any amalgamation or reorganisation of schools in an area belongs to the patron of the schools, subject to the approval of the Minister for Education and Skills. My Department's role is to facilitate any such proposal or discussions between the relevant parties. The initiative for any amalgamation or reorganisation may come from a variety of sources, such as parents, staff, boards of management and patrons. Any such proposal to amalgamate schools must involve consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and follow decisions taken at local level. The financial consequences associated with amalgamations would also have to take into account the continuing requirements to manage expenditure within the context of overall educational policy and the level of budgetary provision available at the time.

My Department carried out parental surveys on primary schools patronage earlier this year, which included a survey of the areas of Palmerstown, Ballyfermot, Chapelizod and Cherry Orchard. Based on the results of the survey, where the parental demand for an alternative patron was confirmed, my Department asked the Catholic patrons to consider options for reconfiguring their schools to allow the transfer of a school to a new patron. The surveys also indicated a level of preference by parents for a re­organisation of schools to facilitate more co-educational provision. My Department understands that the patron is in ongoing discussions with the school principals and chairpersons of the boards of management of schools in the Ballyfermot area as part of its assessment as to future school accommodation needs in that regard.

I advise the Deputy that the Minister would be concerned that any proposed changes are well planned and managed in a manner that accommodates the interests of parents, teachers and local communities and contributes to an inclusive education system. I can confirm that my Department has not received any proposals from the patron or trustees on the future accommodation arrangements for the four schools referred to.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The proposal to amalgamate came as a shock to the parents, as there was no preparation done by the patron in that respect. A survey was carried out but I do not think that anybody expected, as a result of a demand for co-education, that there would be an amalgamation and the closure of one of the schools. I am in favour of co-education in the school complex, as are the parents, but I do not believe this is the best outcome.

I take on board the commitment made by the Minister of State that the Minister has the final approval, but what was presented to parents was a fait accompli. These schools suffered the consequences of child sex abuse in the past, and one of the worst offenders, Fr. Tony Walsh, who was cited in chapter 19 of the Murphy report, was one of those who went to these schools to pick out victims at random. They have suffered the consequences and we do not want a situation where the educational atmosphere is affected in any way by an amalgamation which adds to overcrowding and which increases the pupil-teacher ratio, but which also limits the scope for development in the future. I urge the Minister of State to ensure there is no sale of land involved, or at the very least, that the order is encouraged to transfer the lands and buildings into the possession of the State which can then work with the remaining three schools under the Dominican order, if they continue to be the patrons of those schools, to run successful schools, as is currently the case in Ballyfermot. I am hopeful the Minister of State and the Minister can ensure parents' fears are put at ease over the next few weeks and months as the De La Salle order withdraws from the school.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

Schools in this country are independent, autonomous entities managed by a board of management, and each board of management has a significant representation from the parent body of the school, the local community and the staff of the school as well. No decision on the future of a school can be taken without significant consultation with all those groups, nor can any decision be taken by this Department or any other entity to force schools into amalgamating if they do not wish to do so.

The Deputy's fears about any potential increase of the pupil-teacher ratio are not well founded on the basis that, irrespective of the amalgamation process and whatever new proposals that might emanate from such a process would be, the national pupil-teacher ratio would still apply and there would be no disadvantage to any children in those schools as a result. My Department has not received any information or formal proposal from any of the patrons of the aforementioned schools as to what the amalgamation process might look like, and until such time as they do, there is no point in commenting further. When that proposal is made known to us, we will be more than happy to discuss it with the Deputy.