Vol. 865 No. 1
118. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if she has received the report from a person (details supplied) following the consultation process with stakeholders in Waterford IT and Carlow IT; and if she will provide an update on her plans to establish a technological university in the south east. [3352/15]
Has the Minister received the report from Mr. Kelly on the consultation process to reinvigorate the proposed technological university and the merger between Waterford Institute of Technology and Carlow Institute of Technology?
As the Deputy knows, Mr. Michael Kelly is leading a process of consultation with regional stakeholders, the governing bodies, staff and students in Waterford Institute of Technology and Carlow Institute of Technology in order to develop a shared vision for a technological university in the south east. I am pleased to report that Mr. Kelly has met with the governing bodies of both institutions and a series of meetings with a variety of stakeholders has been scheduled for the coming weeks. Mr. Kelly has not yet submitted a report but I expect to receive this report before the end of this quarter.
I wish Mr. Kelly the best. He is a former chairman of the Higher Education Authority, so is highly qualified to chair this process. One of the criticisms in regard to the proposed merger was the terms of reference. Some people have questioned whether Mr. Kelly has adequate terms of reference to examine possibly all of the obstacles which have led to where we are now. Is it an open process? Is he confined to looking at a particular area? Will the Minister give us some information on exactly what his role will be? Will the recommendations be down to him or is he limited in what he can look at in terms of the proposed merger?
The terms of reference are not designed to limit what he might believe would be helpful. They are primarily designed to guide him in terms of what we want him to do. For example, we gave him a timescale in which to report back and we indicated that he should consult widely, not just within the institutions but within the region as well. It has not come back to me that there are problems with the terms of reference. I do know if there is something specific or if he needs some leeway, to use that term. What I want to achieve is to make sure we get the process back on track and that the south east does not lose out in this very important area where there has long been a wish and an intention to have a university. My entire purpose is to ensure we get that process moving as quickly as possible.
I was not raising the terms of reference that are being given to Mr. Kelly. The criticisms related to the terms of reference being used to establish technological universities. There were some discussions to the effect that those terms of reference were restrictive, and one of the institutions felt they would have hindered its growth if they had a merger. Is Mr. Kelly open to coming back with recommendations to change the original terms of reference in terms of the establishment of technological universities or is he looking solely at this particular project? Is it possible that he may report back that it is a non-runner? Will the Minister give us more information on that?
I am sorry; I misunderstood. The terms of reference relating to the establishment of a technological university were set very carefully with outside expert advice on what would be required to be sure that we can stand over the quality and so on. Mr. Kelly does not have any leeway in that regard. There are very good reasons for those terms of reference. They are about ensuring that people can have confidence in the final outcome. They are not changeable by Mr. Kelly, but we will certainly engage with him regarding any other obstacles he may come up against.
I am not sure which elements of the terms of reference the Deputy is referring to, but there are requirements with regard to amounts of research and numbers of students.
There are many requirements but they are carefully balanced to ensure we end up with an institution that is worthy of the title "technological university".
On the amount of money that has been spent on the proposed merger, the figure given to the Committee of Public Accounts, PAC, was €400,000. The answer was that that money could be saved through efficiencies and other sources, but what those other sources would be was not quite clear. There was mention of looking at other possible mergers and money being saved on those. I understand the Minister might not have the answer in front of her, but if she can she might revert to me on how the €400,000 that has been spent will be recouped.
I will probably have to come back to Deputy O'Brien on that.
That is okay.
119. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills her views on establishing a forum on school enrolment in north Kildare considering the major obstacles which have arisen in recent years; her views on whether such a forum is useful in establishing a full appreciation of parental choice in the area; if it will assist in achieving greater diversity, particularly with regard to Gaelscoil provision; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3370/15]
This question has a local focus. I am sure north Kildare is not exclusive in terms of the types of problem that have presented in my area every year for as long as I have been involved in politics. I dread it when they open the lists and parents find that their children will not get into the primary or secondary schools they would prefer. Too often, parents feel excluded from the process. They are included in some respects, but the focus of it is very narrow. We need to have a wider forum, and north Kildare might be the place to do a pilot under which the relationship between schools and parental choice could be explored to allow us to work towards eliminating this problem on an ongoing basis.
Between 2012 and 2015, five new schools will have been established to meet demographic needs in the north Kildare area. This includes the establishment of a Gaelscoil and an all-Irish aonad in a new post-primary school to enhance provision though the medium of Irish in the area. The patronage of all these new schools was determined by an open process in which the level of parental demand for each type of school was a key factor. In addition, parents in Celbridge were surveyed under the patronage divesting process to determine their views on alternative patronage choices in their area. Therefore, I have no plans to establish a forum on school enrolment in north Kildare. A recent nationwide demographic review carried out in my Department concluded that there is no additional primary educational infrastructural needs in the north Kildare area beyond that recently delivered or already planned and in train to meet the area's needs. An equivalent review at post-primary level is under way.
As the Minister and the Acting Chairman, Deputy Keating, will be aware, seven primary schools in the north Kildare area, including some on the periphery of that area, feed into the second level Gaelcholáiste in Lucan. In 2015, not one single solitary student from those schools will be accommodated in Lucan because there is simply no space at the school there. The aonad that is being provided as a substitute for the Gaelcholáiste option that was available before now is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of people. Not one single solitary place will be available to the children who will come out of the seven sixth classes in these schools in September and want to go on and study entirely through Irish. Such an option has been available up to now. The aonad is a complete insult to people. The Minister really needs to stop listening to the officials in her Department on this issue and start listening to people in north Kildare. I do not know where she is getting her numbers from. The open process that took place in the case of the post-primary school in Maynooth was a very limited process.
People want to see diversity in primary school education. That diversity should include cultural diversity. I have surveyed all the north Kildare schools and Gaelscoileanna. The provision in those schools is totally inadequate. I know they have to exist side by side with the other schools. A sustainable solution must be found. The numbers being collected by the Department are wrong. We are going to put parents through unnecessary hardship as they worry about where their children will go to school. The Department will have to find a solution at the 11th hour. A much more comprehensive approach is needed. This area has one of the largest young populations in the country. That is why this is such a pivotal issue. The Minister is going to be inundated with correspondence from parents. She already is. I know I am. It is only the first school that has opened up. Essentially, all this argy-bargy will be going on. I believe the solution that will ultimately be found will include a third stream in Kilcock, for example. It will be resisted until the last minute. The forum is absolutely essential if we are to get any kind of understanding, rather than presuming everything is in place. The aonad is just an insult to parents who used to have a choice. The choice is being taken away and they are being told an aonad is the replacement. It is not good enough.
I assure the Deputy that the situation remains under continual review. Obviously, what she has said today will be brought back to the Department. The post-primary review is under way. The Deputy raised the post-primary issue. I can come back to the Deputy on how that review is progressing, etc. It is under way. I acknowledge that County Kildare is very much a growing demographic area. When I served as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, that was a huge issue in the county as well. This issue is under constant review. One of the commitments my predecessor made, and I make as well, is that we want a place for every child. We do not want any child not to have a place. Obviously, that is our obligation. I will go back again after the Deputy has raised this issue today specifically in relation to County Kildare.
There have been public meetings of hundreds of people who want a choice for their children. I attended one such meeting in Kilcock last week. The point is being made about having a place for every child, but parents do not want just any place. They want a choice in education. For example, there are 160 applications for 52 places. It would have been 83 or 84 places with the three streams, as was the case last year. It is not that there is a shortage of children.
When it comes to cultural diversity and Irish being the country's first language, it is extraordinary that so many children will be denied their first-choice places next year, 100 years after the Easter Rising. I do not understand the Department's resistance. From my experience with my children in the early 1980s when Irish schools started to become established in north Kildare, the schools were fought all the way by the Department in terms of recognition and buildings. Now, parents are queuing to get their children into successful schools, but they are not being given the choice. This issue must be taken seriously. It is not just a question of denominational choice, but of cultural choice.
The intention is to give people those choices. The Deputy described what happened in the past, but Gaelscoileanna and Gaelcholáistí around the country have been recognised, have their own patron bodies and are well established. There is no unwillingness on the part of the Government or the Department to support that choice.
The Deputy's point is that there are not enough places in the schools that parents wish their children to attend. The Department must update its data on this issue constantly and respond to it as quickly as we can. Generally, we are responding well to demographic changes and we are replacing prefabs. This is the Department's policy, but if growing numbers in a particular area are causing a problem, we want to deal with it. We have a great deal of data in terms of younger children and the likely demands in particular areas.
The Deputy has raised a serious issue. It is under ongoing review, so I will ensure that we are providing for the young people of north Kildare and Kildare in general.
120. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills the up-to-date position with regard to approval for a new school for an area (details supplied) in County Donegal; if she will meet a delegation from the school to discuss progress towards a new school building as well as issues with regard to inadequate existing accommodation and road safety concerns; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3358/15]
This relates to a building project for St. Mary's national school in Stranorlar in County Donegal.
As the Deputy is aware, a building project for the school is being progressed within my Department's architectural planning process. I understand that the school's design team and school authority are working on the stage 2(a) report. A stage 2(a) stakeholders meeting will be arranged when the report is finalised. In these circumstances, I do not consider that convening a meeting as proposed would be beneficial at this time.
As the Deputy will also be aware, the school in question is one of a number of schools that it was not possible to include in the five-year construction programme. However, the school project is being progressed to the final planning stages so that it will be well placed for further progression in anticipation of additional funds being available to the Department.
I thank the Minister for her response. I am disappointed that she will not agree to meet the school to discuss the project's future or to ensure that she is up to speed regarding the school's current facilities and its need for a new building. Unfortunately, approximately half of the school's classrooms consist of prefabs and the permanent classrooms have been in place for so long that they are small and still use school desks with ink wells. That should emphasise the need for an agreement on a new building.
This project was included in the previous school buildings programme.
When former Minister Mary Coughlan was in office it was approved but the former Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, removed it. On that basis, it is all the more important that the current Minister should agree to meet a delegation from the school. I know that the school's representatives have written to the Minister specifically requesting such a meeting. I have already tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister to agree to meet the delegation. The representatives deserve that and it would also be useful for the Minister to meet with them. I know the school representatives are engaging constructively with departmental officials as well as with the design team working on the site, which has already been secured, to develop it towards planning.
It needs to go back into the schools buildings programme, however, so that funding will be there once planning permission is obtained. That is why it is important to meet the school representatives face to face, particularly as the school has been removed from the list. The Minister should discuss their concerns and the problems they are facing at the moment, with a view to ensuring that the school is placed in a new schools capital programme.
I fully endorse what Deputy McConalogue has said. He has cited an example of the real issues that parents and teachers are facing whereby a school that was in the programme is no longer included. There can be various reasons for that, including planning issues, objections or the length of time involved. As I have said before, the idea of a five-year planning programme needs to be examined. We should also be developing ten and 15-year programmes so that schools know where they stand.
One of the biggest issues concerning a school building programme is that when a number of sites have been identified, it goes to planning stage and then objections are lodged, which delay matters. Sometimes it goes to An Bord Pleanála but these issues need to be dealt with. I recall that at a previous committee meeting, the Minister said that planning laws were being examined with a view to fast-tracking such proposals, without obviously compromising the planning system. Does the Minister have any further updates on that?
On the Donegal school, I understand that the design team is finalising the stage two report. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to meet the school representatives until they have finalised that and given it to the Department. There will certainly be stakeholders' meetings but at this stage I do not think there is any point in me meeting them because the ball is in their court in terms of coming back on the design.
On the more general issue, I was opposition spokesperson on education in the past when the former Minister, Noel Dempsey, was in office. There was a long list of various stages that schools had reached and they could spend years in the early stages before moving up. It is felt that was less clear than what is in place at the moment. Currently, there is a five-year programme and schools know whether they are in it. Therefore, they have more certainty about how quickly they will proceed.
We are now working on the next five-year programme which is due to commence next year. In that context, we could have a discussion on whether we should give more information than what is in the five-year programme. However, we can only commit in terms of the capital envelope which we only get for five years. I do not want to mislead schools by putting them into a list which does not indicate that anything will happen.
As regards the planning issue, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, is responsible for that area. I have engaged with him concerning it. We want to keep the planning process absolutely transparent, as it should be. However, there is a case for avoiding unnecessary delays in the case of schools which are in the public interest. Those discussions are ongoing.
The Minister mentioned giving certainty to school building plans. Unfortunately, however, the uncertainty facing St. Mary's national school in Stranorlar is that it is not on the current five-year building programme which runs until the end of the year. As the Minister rightly indicated, the Department will be examining the following five-year programme. That is why it is important for the Minister to meet the schools' representatives directly, particularly in light of the fact that they were on the previous programme but have been dropped from the current one. They deserve to have such a meeting, although I know they have already had meetings with departmental officials.
In addition, the meetings which normally occur to progress matters will also take place over the coming period. I am not asking the Minister to become involved in the architectural process or to make an input in respect of the plans but I am of the view that it would be entirely appropriate for her to meet the people involved directly. The principal at the school, Mr. Fintan Keating, his staff and the board of management have done great work in the context of the facilities there. Understandably, however, there has been much disappointment with regard to the fact that there is not much certainty regarding this matter at present. There are concerns with regard to whether, once the planning process has been completed and the project approved, the necessary funding will be available.
Other school building projects are far less advanced in the context of the planning and design processes than that to which I refer. However, the school in question is not included in the schools building programme. It is in that context that those involved with the school would like to meet the Minister. The school is located on the main arterial route between north and south Donegal and, in light of traffic volumes, parents have very real concerns about their children getting to school safely each morning. It is important that the Minister should recognise that fact. She and her Department will be putting the new schools building programme together and it is in that context that I ask her to reconsider her decision and meet a delegation from the school. I assure the Minister that I will continue to work with her on this matter and that I will also continue to raise it. The school in question needs a new building and I am of the view that it must be given top priority when the new building programme is drawn up.
I reiterate that it would not be appropriate for me to meet a delegation while the design process is still in train. I am sure Deputy McConalogue will raise the matter again when that process has been completed.
The next school building programme is to commence in 2016. We are working on drawing up that programme at present. There are some schools with building projects that are ready to proceed. If we obtain funding in advance of the allocation for the new five-year programme, we will certainly consider the possibility of allowing such projects to proceed even if the schools involved are not included in the programme. If these projects are ready to proceed and if we have funding available which is not required for projects that are included in the current programme, I do not see any reason the former should not move ahead.
As Deputy Coppinger is not present, Question No. 121 in her name cannot be taken.
122. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Education and Skills if the threshold relating to the third level grants scheme will be raised to accommodate the children of working persons, including teachers, who can no longer afford to pay for third level education due to the imposition of pension levies and the universal social charge; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3338/15]
The purpose of this question is to ask whether the threshold for the third level grants scheme will be raised to accommodate the children of working people in middle Ireland who can no longer afford to pay third level fees as a result of the imposition of pension levies, the universal social charge, etc. Statistics I received in the past week indicate that 8% of people who work in the public service are in receipt of family income supplement, which is rather alarming. In the past, someone working as a teacher in my neck of the woods would have been seen as being comfortable financially. The sad reality now, however, is that these people cannot afford to pay their mortgages and so on.
The Deputy can raise those points when the Minister of State has replied. The point of a Member's first contribution in respect of a question is to make some introductory remarks.
The rates of grant and the income thresholds for the student grant scheme are announced annually as part of the budget process. No changes to the rates or thresholds were included in budget 2015.
The means test arrangements relating to the student grant scheme are applied nationally. In the case of both employed and self-employed applicants, gross income before deduction of income tax or universal social charge is assessed with certain specified social welfare and health service executive payments excluded. Therefore, all income is assessed from the same starting point, eliminating any distortion which might arise from different spending decisions.
Contributions to pension schemes and pension or retirement products, within the limits allowed by the Revenue Commissioners, are deducted in determining the reckonable income of an applicant as set out under the student grant scheme 2014. The reckonable income for the student grant at the standard rate generally observes the percentage changes in average industrial earnings for specified reference periods as provided for by the Central Statistics Office, CSO. The latter provides data to the Department on an annual basis in respect of the dataset of estimates of earnings per week by industrial sector. Analysis of the quarterly data identifies any change to the income thresholds, which are subject to approval by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
What I am trying to say is that changes are based on evidence and research. There probably has not been a change in the past year or two.
The Deputy referred specifically to teachers and nurses. Naturally, the funding of education, especially third level education, is an issue for everybody, no matter what his job. Certainly in the past six or seven years, most people in this country have been affected by the changes across the board. We acknowledge that and accept that this is a difficult time. As I always say, we are trying to do our best to stretch the education budget, which includes the grant, as far as we can.
The question of further and future funding of colleges is being considered. A study is being carried out at present, and Mr. Peter Cassells is in charge of it. It will allow for the discussion we need to have on the future of education at higher level. The Deputy is correct to state that everybody is under pressure, including parents and the students going to college. Likewise, colleges and universities are under pressure trying to fund everything, yet we all have big plans for the future. We really must have a conversation in this House on how it will all happen. The study by Mr. Cassells will feed into that and will help us in this area. It is a major area. With so many predicted to go to college and university in the future, this is necessary. There are many pressures exerted on institutions owing to supply and demand, and this is a matter we must monitor for the future. There was no change in budget 2014; the last change was in budget 2013.
I am not talking specifically about teachers but about all the people working who may have large mortgages. These include young families who find the going tough as a result of the various cuts down through the years. It is a sad day if those going out to work every day are now being put in circumstances in which they cannot afford to send their youngsters to college. I have seen this happen. It is coming down the tracks for us next September and we need to do something to address it.
We are not oblivious to that fact, and we share the Deputy's concern. That is why a priority for us on coming into government was to try to ensure the working person would not always be hit with increased charges. The Deputy will have noted that in the first three or four austerity budgets, for whatever reason the majority of changes in respect of charges and taxes affected income tax, which affects the working person. The Deputy specifically raised the issue of the working person. We have tried over the past three or four years to address this. It was not the plan originally agreed, so I am not discovering or taking credit for this, but the overall concept of trying to broaden taxes across the board so as not to hit the working person constantly was an objective. Not everyone likes that. Not everyone likes to have water, property or other charges, but having them means one is not constantly increasing income tax. It has to be always worth one's while to go to work, but that has not always been the case in this country. The Government is trying to ensure it is worth one's while at all times, and that means not always raising income tax and, if the opportunity arises, reducing it to try to create more jobs. It is a question of not increasing the rate always. I hope the Deputy understands what we are trying to do in that regard.
The overall funding of universities and higher education is being considered. We will all have to make decisions on that. It will not be a matter for one particular party; each one needs to have a strong position on it.
The Deputy asked about pensions. Contributions to pension schemes and pension or retirement products, within the limits allowed by the Revenue Commissioners, are deducted in determining the reckonable income of an applicant. Similarly, a deduction for the public service pension levy is also allowed where it has not already been reflected in the pay figure shown on the person's P60. Pension contributions by means of a personal retirement savings account, PRSA, retirement annuity contract, RAC, or additional voluntary contributions qualifying for tax relief, appearing on a P21 or notice of assessment on the panel showing tax credits, can be deducted when calculating the reckonable income for student grant scheme purposes.
I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for tabling this very relevant question. The Minister referred to not increasing income taxes but, of course, the Government did choose to increase the registration fee for those who do not receive a grant, as stated in the question. The registration fee is to increase from what the party of the Minister, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, promised would be €2,000 to €3,000 this coming September. That charge is being placed directly on families, particularly working families, who are trying to send young people to college. This is making it increasingly difficult. It is now impossible for many of them, particularly if they wish to send more than one child at a time. Many families are facing the question of whether they will be able to send one or more children to college.
I ask the Minister of State to comment on access to postgraduate courses. How exactly does the Government expect postgraduate students to be able to fund their way through college in light of the fact that the Minister removed the postgraduate grant during the time of this Government, meaning that one cannot undertake a postgraduate course unless one can afford to do so?
This is one of those areas where we need to have a serious conversation, not only during Question Time. The Cassells report will look at the overall funding of higher education but we need to look at some of the policy decisions, and not only of this and the previous Governments. Let us do so on a non-political basis, if at all possible, because we are talking about education.
One of the factors with which nobody can argue is that if somebody coming out of post-primary education is unable to access higher education, whether due to economic reasons or whatever barrier is in place, the chances of that individual going back to education later in life decreases. That is something we need to rectify. The reality is that we are preventing people from accessing further and higher education based on their ability to pay. That is not a political point but a general education point. We all need to look at this issue seriously.
The Deputies covered a couple of issues. I am glad Deputy O'Brien mentioned not only higher education, but also further education. We must get the message out that further education and training is just as important in some cases to one's access to a job or career as education through the higher education institutions. As most will agree, much work is going on in that area. Hopefully, we will get the message across that there is a choice and there is another route to a career or job with further education as well.
I agree with Deputy O'Brien, as I stated earlier, that we must have a grown-up conversation in this House about how we will fund, and guarantee access to, education in the future. The key, in my opinion, is guaranteed access to third level, further education or training for whatever it is one wants to do. Some countries have a range of such models and here it is very much based on one's ability to pay or to access grant income. There is little access to student loans, if one wants to go that route, and in some cases it is difficult for a student to have that option. It will need a non-political conversation around that.
The current system entrenches inequality.
I did not design the current system. That is what I am saying. I agree with Deputy O'Brien that we must have a look at this. The Cassells report will be part of that. It will give us something to focus on regarding the figures.
I stress it must be a grown-up conversation. The parents of this country expect that and need to be told the truth, and we need to have a clear conversation on how this can happen. All of us here want people to get the education they desire and it is a matter of how that can happen.
As for any cuts in education, as Deputy McConalogue will be aware, when one is faced with a situation where the country has €30 billion less in taxes, and I will not say how it happened, one is left with €30 billion less in one's budgets and there will be changes in all Departments. I wish it did not happen.
What about the promises that were made?
I am merely clarifying, I am not even picking anybody here.
The Minister of State is passing the time.
I am not even going there. I am merely saying let us face reality here. There was €30 billion missing, but matters are improving and there are more taxes coming in. This will give us the opportunity to do more in education as we want to do, but we must face facts. The funding was not there to continue what we would have liked to have done and that was why there were changes.
That is not what the Minister of State said at the last election.
The next question in the name of a Deputy present is Deputy Clare Daly's Question, No. 126.
I did not expect it would be that quick.
Sometimes timing is everything.
126. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of the resignation of the board of a school (details supplied) in County Limerick in June 2011, the previous and subsequent problems in the school relating to the alleged obstructive behaviour of a teacher at the school and the circumstances whereby Canon Law was invoked by the Limerick Catholic diocese to reject the decisions of the school board to dismiss the teacher concerned, the agreement between her Department and the patron of the school in relation to monitoring the behaviour of the teacher concerned; the number of agreed inspections which have taken place; if these inspections reported satisfactory progress; and if any child protection issues arise. [3359/15]
This question relates to issues of child welfare and, at its essence, religious control of schools and who controls our schools. In light of a particular circumstance that I believe the Minister is aware of in Limerick where the board of management resigned on a number of occasions in relation to the behaviour of an obstructive teacher, it was deemed that the local parish priest had more influence than the board of management.
In accordance with the Education Act 1998, teachers are employed by the school management authority of each individual school. In the case referred to by the Deputy, in 2009 the school management sought to dismiss the teacher concerned.
The Maynooth statute provided that "a clerical manager shall not dismiss a teacher or assistant, male or female, or give notice of dismissal, until the Bishop be notified, so that the teacher if she/he will, may be heard in her/his own defence by the Bishop", and this statute was initiated in this case.
The school was subsequently advised by the patron that permission to dismiss the teacher concerned was refused. Subsequently the bishops agreed to abrogate the Maynooth statute, section 264, section 2, at a general meeting in December 2010 and this was approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education on 29 March 2011 with effect from September 2011. There is no agreement between the patron and the Department in relation to monitoring the behaviour of the teacher concerned.
My Department is not aware of any child protection concerns regarding this school and should the Deputy have any such concerns, these should be reported to the Child and Family Agency. As there is ongoing litigation in this case I do not wish to comment further until this action is concluded.
My understanding is that the litigation has completed and that the former principal has been exonerated in terms of her very responsible role in this situation where she sought in the best interests of her student to have an obstructive teacher removed. That stance was unanimously supported by the board of management in the school, but as the Minister indicated, it was not agreed by the archdiocese. The school board made an intervention to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, but it was cited that he could not intervene due to canon law. That gets to the heart of a subject that has been very much in the news of late, namely, the erosion of a constitutional right to a secular education system whereby the Catholic Church should not have a right to impose its rules over various schools. The law is clear. The board of management is supposed to decide on the running of a school, but in this case the board of management resigned twice. The case ended up in the courts. The school lost and the principal was vindicated. At the root of the problem was the intervention of the church in the background, which is a completely inappropriate place for the church to be in education.
Will the Minister clarify the point about ongoing inspections? My understanding is that an agreement had been reached, and given that the teacher would not be dismissed, his behaviour would be monitored and the Department undertook that would be the case.
There is ongoing litigation between the teacher concerned and the Minister for Education and Skills and, accordingly, I am not in a position to comment. The Department of Education and Skills lodged its amended statement of defence on 4 September 2014.
The Department carries out regular inspections but inspections can also be undertaken in specific circumstances. As part of its annual inspection programme, the Department conducted an incidental inspection in the school concerned on 5 June 2014. I do not know whether Deputy Daly has different information from mine on the legal proceedings, but the information I have is that the legal proceedings are ongoing.
Will the Minister follow up the situation as I believe there have been developments since September and that while perhaps a hearing did not take place, an arrangement was reached outside of the courts? The position can be checked. The point is that the board of management, which is supposed to be the organisation that runs schools, twice decided that the teacher should be dismissed. The Department of Education and Skills did not uphold the lawful decision of the board and instead bowed to interference by the Catholic Church and the parish priest in the area who intervened, despite the resignation of two boards of management. My clear understanding is that seeing as the teacher was not dismissed, the Department gave an undertaking that his behaviour would be monitored. I accept that there have been follow-up inspections but the teacher's behaviour has not been monitored. I wish to put on record that we are not talking about sexual abuse. It is obstructive and inappropriate behaviour but not of that character.
I am not unsympathetic to the general philosophy behind the matter raised by Deputy Daly, but because there is ongoing legal action on the specific case, I cannot comment on it. In general, if concerns arise about behaviour in schools, the Department inspects and monitors the situation and will give undertakings, when necessary, in such cases.
Deputy Coppinger has arrived. I call Question No. 121 in her name.
I wish to raise a point of order. Is it not true under Standing Orders that a question falls if the Deputy asking the question is not present in the Chamber? Is it not the case that the question cannot be revisited?
I had checked that point with the clerk.
I will allow the next question to be taken.
It is my understanding that the question does not fall and therefore, it can be taken.
I do not intend to take the question.
The next question is No. 125 from Deputy Paul Murphy.
125. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills the measures taken by her Department to ensure that subcontractors used on school construction programmes are compliant with legislation and agreements in place covering pay and conditions in the sector, and that RCT1 contracts are not abused to undermine workers' pay and conditions; her views on the strike taking place at a college among workers employed by a company (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3373/15]
I apologise for missing my slot. I wish to ask the Minister about the measures taken by her Department to ensure that subcontractors used on school construction sites are in compliance with the law and agreements concerning pay and conditions, in particular the use of so-called bogus subcontracting to enable minimum wage and other legislation to be subverted, and that RCT1 contracts are not being abused to undermine wages and conditions. In particular, I ask for her view on the strike in Lucan involving the JJ Rhatigan company.
All school building projects which are funded from public moneys, are required to use the forms of contract provided under the capital works management framework which includes a suite of public works contracts, standard conditions of engagement, model forms, suitability assessment questionnaires and guidance notes published by the Office of Government Procurement, OGP.
As the Deputy is aware, my Department appointed Contractors Administration Services, CAS, to conduct random audits on school building projects. CAS has been requested to carry out a full monitoring service for the duration of the contract at the school in question. Should irregularities be uncovered in terms of non-compliance with relevant employment law, enforcement and prosecution falls under the remit of the National Employment Rights Authority, to which my Department will report any discrepancies found. If the audit uncovers any other matters of concern regarding tax compliance or social welfare fraud, such matters will be referred to either the Revenue Commissioners and-or the Department of Social Protection, as appropriate.
I met all unions representing construction workers involved in the delivery of my Department's school building programme, including officials from Unite, late last year.
How long will this investigation take? The strike has been going on for almost four and a half months. The JJ Rhatigan company is not a minor company. It won about half of all the school building projects awarded in the previous phase. It is one of the top 100 companies in Ireland and one of the top builders in the country. We have evidence to suggest that workers on that site are being paid €5 an hour and they have been on strike for four and a half months. Is a Labour Party Minister going to stand over that situation? Is it not her responsibility to ensure that where State contracts are involved, at the very minimum the minimum wage legislation is enforced?
I have engaged in discussions with Unite on that specific issue of the workers' rate of pay. The Deputy has provided a slightly simplistic way of describing it. In respect of the ongoing dispute at the site referred to by the Deputy, I understand that both parties have attended a Labour Court hearing, a construction industry disputes tribunal hearing and also a Labour Relations Commission hearing. I have written to both parties and I urge them to engage meaningfully in talks with a view to reaching a resolution. The parties are using the State apparatus for disputes resolution and that is the appropriate way to address the issue.
How long will the investigation take? On the point about the rate of pay, it is a simple matter of adding up the hours they have worked and the rate of pay and working it out in a simple mathematical equation, which gives the answer of €5 an hour. This is massive exploitation. Fourteen workers have been on strike for four and a half months in very difficult circumstances. This company is not paying its taxes as a result of this kind of fraud. When the next round of building projects come up, will the company be eligible to apply again? Will we see the same circumstances again? Can we expect the Minister's Department to have rigorous enforcement to ensure that anyone working on school construction sites or any State building projects is properly paid according to the law?
That is absolutely the determination of my Department and the reason we report anything untoward to the various relevant authorities. On a point of clarification, the CAS audit is being continued. It is a full monitoring service for the duration of the contract. On the question of the pay rate of €5 an hour, I wish to clarify that this is not straightforward, direct employment, whereby people are paid by the hour.
