Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 14 Feb 2008

Vol. 188 No. 12

Primary School Developments: Discussion with Department of Education and Science.

I welcome the delegation from the Department of Education and Science: Mr. Frank Wyse, assistant secretary; Mr. Kevin McCarthy, director; Mr. Jason Kearney, principal officer, school planning section; and Mr. Pat MacSitric, assistant chief inspector. I apologise for the delay arising from the committee sitting in private session. I invite Mr. Wyse to begin a short presentation on the proposed new model of primary school education and progress made in establishing the developing areas unit. Members may then ask questions.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Frank Wyse

I thank the Chairman and apologise for the absence of Ms Kellaghan, who must deal with a personal issue. She is replaced by Mr. Larry McEvoy, technical manager of the developing areas unit. With the permission of the Chairman, I would like to share the time for opening remarks with my colleague, Mr Kevin McCarthy, regarding the new patron model.

The programme for Government commits the Department of Education and Science to establishing a developing areas unit which will liaise with local authorities, identify where new schools are needed and ensure that they are delivered in the fastest possible timeframe. Initial work on establishing and assigning dedicated staff to the developing areas unit began in the latter part of 2007 and it is now fully operational. The staffing complement has been built up progressively and it consists of a technical manager, Mr Larry McEvoy, a principal officer and 28 other administrative and technical staff.

On the basis of information available to the Department and taking account of the work of the Commission on School Accommodation, we estimate that we will need about 9,000 additional primary school places in the short term, most of them in the greater Dublin area. The committee will appreciate that acquiring sites and providing this level of school accommodation in multiple locations in a short period of time is a challenging exercise requiring a high level of co-ordination and planning. Some of the work involved had already been under way prior to the establishment of the developing areas unit. However, the unit has enabled us to target our resources in a more concentrated way to greater effect.

In terms of the work programme for 2008, the developing areas unit is advancing with major school accommodation projects in the following areas: Skerries, Swords, Balbriggan, Phoenix Park, Porterstown, Lusk, Tyrellstown and Phibblestown in the Fingal County Council area; in Belmayne in the Dublin City Council area; in Clonburris, Saggart and Newcastle in the South Dublin County Council area; in Newbridge, Naas, Maynooth, Celbridge and Athy in Kildare; in Ashbourne, Duleek and Dunboyne in Meath; in Kinnegad and Mullingar in Westmeath; and in Enniscorthy and Gorey in Wexford. There are also projects in Cork, Laois, Offaly, Louth, Carlow and Wicklow.

The building projects equate to 22 permanent eight-classroom schools and 17 temporary eight-classroom schools. Included in this will be projects to provide accommodation for primary schools under the patronage of the County Dublin Vocational Education Committee, which will be covered by Mr. McCarthy. These projects, when taken with a number of other projects in developing areas involving extensions to existing schools, will provide approximately 9,000 additional school places for September 2008. The Department will also continue to provide additional and upgraded school places in other areas under the school modernisation programme.

To deliver our programme, the developing areas unit has been working closely with relevant local authorities on the acquisition of sites and on general pre-planning issues. To give one example of the level of co-operation with the local authorities, in the Fingal area we have established a joint project steering group of technical people with Fingal County Council. The purpose of this group is to co-ordinate the acquisition of sites under the Fingal school model, to resolve pre-planning issues and to ensure that the programme of school provision is on target. In view of the importance of the programme, I have attended most of the meetings of this group.

The project managers, together with architectural, engineering and quantity surveying services, were recruited from the private sector in October 2007 to prepare the planning applications, undertake the necessary surveys and oversee the delivery of the schools on each site. Sites for each of the projects have been identified and site masterplans have been developed by the technical teams.

We are required to undergo the EU tendering process and this has been completed for a drawdown contract for the permanent and temporary accommodation. The closing date was 2 January 2008 and planning applications have been lodged for all of the schools, apart from two which will be lodged by tomorrow and one further which is to be lodged shortly thereafter. The successful tenders for the construction of each individual project have been notified and at this stage the programme is on target.

Our aim, where possible, is to put permanent solutions in place on a phased basis to meet the immediate September 2008 primary school accommodation need with a second phase to follow as required. Permanent solutions are possible where a permanent site has been secured; otherwise, we must provide temporary accommodation.

The funding requirement for the developing areas programme of work in 2008 will be in the region of €180 million and this investment will be dedicated towards meeting the building and site costs involved. While substantial progress has been made on the implementation of the delivery plan, I caution that there are still hurdles and potential obstacles to be overcome. The critical factors include securing planning permission, particularly in light of potential third-party objections. We can no longer take it for granted that there will be no third party objections to schools. It is unfortunately becoming more frequent and must be dealt with.

We must achieve tight timeframes when construction begins, a matter that can be dealt with by Mr. McEvoy. Adverse site conditions and the completion of legal formalities relating to site transfer must also be considered. The ongoing involvement and co-operation of local authorities has been of major assistance to the Department in this process. We are also engaging in advance with the utility providers such as the ESB, Bord Gais and Eircom to ensure that the vital services are provided on time and that potential delays are avoided.

Looking towards our medium to long-term plans, there will be an accommodation requirement in the north Dublin area alone in the period to 2011, and beyond, of approximately 16,000 school places. We use a range of sources to determine accommodation needs, including the Central Statistics Office, local authorities and information from the schools. The investment required in north Dublin to progress the delivery of these additional places will be substantial. The recent census showed a population increase in Fingal of 22%, compared with 8% nationally, and projections for north Dublin show the population continuing to rise up to 2011 and beyond.

Other rapidly developing areas where permanent school accommodation will be required in the short to medium term include the following: east Meath, which will need 6,500 pupil places; south Louth, which will need 13,000 pupil places; west Dublin, which will be 13,000 pupil places; and Cherrywood in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, which will need 5,400 pupil places. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Substantial additional accommodation will also be needed in parts of the east midlands, south Leinster and in areas of Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick, particularly the hinterlands of these cities.

The short-term need for school accommodation is focused on primary provision. Obviously there will also be a need at post-primary level and we will proceed with plans for this in tandem with the primary school programme. Our ultimate goal will be to meet the emerging school accommodation needs of all developing areas and, by working closely with local authorities, to deliver schools at the same time as the major housing developments. A great deal of work must be done to ensure the structures are in place to adhere to this.

A key bottleneck is the acquisition of sites for schools at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. The Department purchases the sites for most new primary and all post-primary schools and it is anticipated that this acquisition role will continue to develop and expand in the coming years, reflecting a move away from the traditional approach where denominational patrons acquired land for primary schools. Effectively, this is now a thing of the past. The Department of Education and Science buys and retains ownership of a site and leases the school to the board of management as operator.

A recent feature of our site acquisition strategy has been much greater liaison and interaction with local authorities and it is our intention that this should continue and expand. The programme for Government contains a number of commitments aimed at improving the site acquisition process for schools and to advance this, the Department is in discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and representatives of the City and County Managers Association to formulate and agree more structured measures to be put in place. This afternoon, I will attend a meeting which will take a major step in advancing these issues.

I am conscious of the need to keep our opening remarks short and I will conclude. My colleague, Mr Kevin McCarthy, will provide information to the committee on the new model for patronage for primary schools.

Before Mr. McCarthy speaks I should stress that two separate issues are raised. One is the developing areas unit and the other is patronage. Rather than confusing matters we will take questions now on Mr. Wyse's presentation. Given that members normally have five minutes for contributions I will give members two and a half minutes for contributions now and two and a half minutes after Mr. McCarthy concludes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Mr. Wyse for his presentation. I am pleased to hear about plans for the developing areas unit in light of the growing population in burgeoning areas throughout the country.

I am surprised the Doughiska area of Galway is not included as I flagged it to the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Hanafin. This multinational area of 8,000 people and 36 multi-ethnic groups has no primary school. This has a major knock-on effect on primary schools such as Oranmore national school which, instead of a normal intake of 34 junior infants, has an intake of 94. Parents tell me that in Oranmore national school the teachers have their desks in corridors. To be honest, I am disgusted that a new primary school is not planned for the Doughiska area. I spoke to departmental officials about this and they are aware of it. However, the Department plans to use local feeder schools for another year. The Department must plan for this area.

Does the Department have a supply of trained primary teachers to coincide with the increased intake of 1 September? I am aware we will have a large number of retirees and the teachers' unions are concerned. What about other building projects where numbers have increased but brand new schools are not required, such as Moycullen national school? What role does the summer works scheme play in this? Will the Department allow existing schools to fall apart? I understand the Department has a pot of resources and new children to house.

I thank Mr. Wyse for his presentation and wish him and his team success. It is in all our interests that the programme described is rolled out. I congratulate the Department on its engagement with local authorities. This highlights the inadequacies of the system which existed in the past whereby a major shortcoming of the Department was its lack of active engagement with local authorities. I speak as somebody who was a member of a local authority for many years. Our attempts to engage with the Department were often fraught with difficulties.

It is also important that the Department engages with existing providers in the developing areas included in the programme. With regard to the announcement on new projects made two weeks ago, I was alarmed that some areas did not have the level of engagement they could have had with existing providers.

How will this project impact on the existing programme? I am conscious that in my constituency two schools included in the 2006 announcement were to proceed to tender and construction within 12 to 15 months. One would have anticipated they would have been included in the announcement two weeks ago, but they were not. However, another school in my constituency, for which there was no apparent demand, has been included. I have yet to discover how this came to pass.

The devolved building programme, which relates to the existing building programme, has been phenomenally successfully in County Kildare. It is one of the best initiatives the Department of Education and Science and the Minister have brought forward. It will not happen this year. Will this programme make a major contribution to solving the expansion problems of many schools in County Kildare and neighbouring constituencies?

I welcome the departmental officials. Has the Department considered that because this is an important part of the national infrastructure in education it should request that the planning process be included in the strategic infrastructure scheme? This would be important if we are serious about providing a quick response as in some instances the normal planning process will cause delays.

Traditionally, the Department's building unit has been short of architects to design schools. Has the number been increased in response to the urgent need for school accommodation? Has the design of schools responded to the difficulties and needs of the current climate? Do we have a model of school which can be replicated, not necessarily in all instances, but in most of the instances involved?

Outside the area highlighted, namely, the Pale, a need also exists for schools. The Department of Education and Science carried out extensive studies in south Galway. Needs have been identified but we have no response in this paper to how they will be accommodated. Will all of this be happening in the new, developing areas or will some building take place in areas where there is a need for the replacement of existing schools? Will there be a parallel programme within the Department of replacing schools and building extensions? Will the unit be based in Dublin or is it an extension of the Tullamore building unit?

I am getting a sense from members that they are concerned that the developing areas unit might take over the resources of the Department. Perhaps the witnesses can address that question. We may also need to have a discussion in the future with officials about new school buildings nationwide.

I remind members, with regard to their contributions, that we are discussing the developing areas unit in particular. I ask them to confine their questions to that issue, as much as possible. However, the message has been clearly relayed that members are concerned about other areas outside of this unit.

I wish to clarify that there are developing areas outside those listed here. It is not just a question of the replacement of schools. There are——

I take the Deputy's point but wish to confine the discussion to the developing areas unit as much as possible.

I welcome the remarks made by Mr. Frank Wyse. We are playing catch-up in terms of infrastructure because of a lack of development over many years and certain areas must be targeted. The fact that the assistant secretary of the Department is in attendance means that it would be unfair to confine the discussion to the developing areas unit. I have attended seven public meetings in Ballinamore and admit to being very parochial now. The assistant secretary is probably aware of the situation there. People are very concerned at the inadequacy of school provision in the area. Long-established schools that have been in existence for decades feel they are being left behind. I ask the Department officials to address that specific question.

I welcome the fact that the Department is liaising with the local authorities and vocational education committees because they have a wealth of local knowledge. I would like to see the summer works scheme being re-established. With regard to the planning of schools, given that so many people now drive people-carriers to school, is there anything in the school designs that will encourage the use of public transport? Perhaps new schools could be built in the middle of housing estates so that children can walk safely to them.

I welcome the scheme and acknowledge that the Department is playing catch-up. The sooner it catches up, the better.

I appreciate the comments made by the Chairman. I thank the Department officials for the two schools that will be provided in Inishowen, at Clonmany and Moville. The Department's reports are not always completely accurate. Members referred to areas that are not on the new development areas list and Clonmany is a classic example in that regard. When the Minister visited the school and, against everybody's advice, went into the boys' toilets, she had to come back out to get her overcoat, which indicates that improvement work was needed. It would not have been prioritised as an area under pressure from new housing developments and additional children, but it was in need of recognition on the schools building programme. I acknowledge the fact that the new school in Clonmany is ready to roll now, which is brilliant.

With regard to developing areas, my constituency would not be seen as an overtly developing area, despite the fact that almost 6,000 planning applications are submitted in Donegal every year. It is not considered by the Department to be a developing area because most of the development is taking place in the Border areas and the tiny Border villages have become big Border towns. A lot of children continue to attend schools in Derry rather than schools in the Republic. There is a genuine concern in my area that if schools in Northern Ireland refuse entry to children from the Republic because they know they are using a temporary address, we could find local schools inundated with school children. The primary school in Muff, which has a serious electrical fault at the moment, could get an influx of primary schoolchildren and the schools in Buncrana could get an influx of secondary schoolchildren. The school in Moville, which has yet to be completed, could get an influx, as could the gaelscoileanna. The Department must recognise that this could be a problem.

I know many will say that we must deal with the reality and not with the "what if" but this could become a reality very soon. I am referring to approximately 100 children who live in a small number of Border villages. I am not sure the Department has examined this issue but the situation could develop quickly. If, in July, schools in Northern Ireland decide they are not accepting children they know are from the Republic, school places will have to be provided for those children by September.

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I agree with other members who argued that there are developing areas in every county. The officials said that the Department will continue to provide additional upgraded school places in other areas as part of its ongoing school modernisation programme. People are not convinced by that and it is difficult for politicians to convince them that it is true. Our constituents are telling us that everything else is being left behind as a result of the developing areas unit.

In my constituency, 50 immigrant children turned up last August at a school in Ballyhaunis, unannounced. A new school is awaited in the area. Those children are now being bused to rural schools, although that facility would not be available to Irish children. A school in Bonniconlon, County Mayo, was told to go ahead with a new school until just before Christmas. The plans have been on the table since 1994. If health and safety inspectors went to the school in Midfield in Mayo, they would close it down. If it was a business, it would be closed down. The gaelscoil in Claremorris is bursting at the seams and the Department has been paying €70,000 per annum for prefabs for the last ten years. That money would have built a new school. It is difficult to convince people who are frustrated by the announcement of two weeks ago and what they have been told regarding their own situations.

Mr. Wyse referred to staffing and setting up the developing areas unit. He also suggested that providing additional places will be an extremely challenging exercise, requiring a high level of co-ordination and planning. Presumably, Mr. Wyse, having set up the unit, is confident that the Department can deliver those additional places or does he have concerns about whether it will be able to do so?

I live in the area between Skerries and Balbriggan, which is referred to in the Department's report. In terms of disappointment at objections to schools, one of the areas in Balbriggan has a long history of planning problems. Does the unit co-operate with the local authority to anticipate planning issues so that alternatives can be considered before problems arise?

How much consideration is given to locations within towns? The recent proposals in respect of Balbriggan are for schools in the Castlelands area to the east of the town. However, the growth area in recent times has been in the west. The distances which must be travelled to schools are increasing. I know from speaking to principals and boards of management that St. Mologa's national school, which is on the western side of the town, has the space for additional numbers and has sought funding for them for a number of years. However, it has been rejected despite the crisis that arose in Balbriggan last year.

I welcome the delegation from the Department and commend the proactive attitude now being adopted with regard to the huge challenge that faces this nation.

Mr. Wyse noted that planning applications have been lodged for all but one of the projects. In regard to two projects in Greystones, County Wicklow, where are the sites to be located? Will they be housed in permanent or temporary buildings and when will the patron be announced?

The issue of schools in developing areas is important in my constituency of Meath East. Reference was made to Duleek in County Meath, which is a rapidly expanding area. However, I was not aware of any urgent projects being implemented in the area although the bishop has been in discussions with the Department about the possibility of providing another site. No mention was made of Laytown, Bettystown or Mornington. There are seven schools between Julianstown and Mornington with varying accommodation deficits. I am surprised they are not on the list because they are top of the Department's agenda.

County Louth is mentioned briefly. The housing estate on which I live, Grangerath, has 1,300 houses but is mainly served by two schools in Drogheda, St. Mary's school for boys and Scoil Mhuire Fatima for girls. These schools, which are amalgamating, serve an area with one of the highest rates of population growth in the country. Why was that not highlighted?

When I read my local papers, I regularly see statements by certain politicians that the only schools to be built in the next few years will be in west Dublin. I would be glad if the Department could confirm that is not the case. The public needs to hear that schools are being developed in areas of need throughout the country.

We all learned lessons from the Laytown school crisis. It is not enough to reserve a site in development plans. A site was reserved in Laytown but it was not offered for sale because of complicated ownership arrangements. I encourage the Department to make a submission in regard to the guidelines being developed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These guidelines are a step in the right direction but the Meath county development plan outlines other ways of obtaining sites.

I welcome the progress made in establishing the developing areas unit, which was provided for in the programme for Government. I ask for more information on the ongoing discussions between the Departments of Education and Science and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on developing areas. How does the latter Department's guidelines impact on local area plans? Strategic development zones, such as Clonburris in my constituency, set out timescales but local area plans are not as binding. South Dublin county councillors have been proactive in opposing county management recommendations on school sites. I understand that legislative changes were to be brought in which would require developers to provide school sites and possibly buildings as part of any development. What is the current position on that issue?

In regard to Deputy Feighan's comments on safe routes to school, perhaps the developing areas unit could enter discussions with local authorities or the Dublin Transportation Office on facilitating safe routes as part of overall projects.

In the context of increasing energy costs and our dependence on imports for heating fuel, schools are under coming under pressure to minimise costs at a time of stagnating funding. Heating is a significant expense but new schools should offer opportunities for new thinking on energy. Has the developing areas unit considered the potential of geothermal heating, solar photovoltaic cells, better insulation and more efficient use of buildings? During the summer, buildings could be used and solar panels would provide heating for other projects outside the school year. There may be additional costs at construction stage but schools would save in the long term.

Mr. Frank Wyse

I will answer the general questions and my colleagues will intervene as necessary on specific issues. We are delighted to respond to the request of the committee to discuss the developing areas unit, which is one part of the overall work of the planning and building unit of the Department. The planning and building unit's normal and routine work on the modernisation programme will continue and projects are being advanced in areas outside of the developing areas unit's remit.

The developing areas unit deals with specific areas where rapid changes in population require an accelerated approach. Our first priority is ensuring adequate accommodation for children in these areas. We also have to ensure that accommodation in existing schools is brought up to an appropriate standard. We have established programmes and made funding available for that purpose. Additional resources were provided in budget 2008 for the Department specifically to address issues arising from developing areas, although we have also had to invest further moneys. We received €100 million more than the envisaged allocation. I assure members that we are by no means confining our attention to developing areas.

This is only the first part of the programme of the developing areas unit and is not a comprehensive programme. There is a misconception, as Deputy Thomas Byrne said, that the Department of Education and Science is dealing exclusively with the Dublin area. Developing areas can arise in any part of the country. Senator Healy Eames mentioned Doughiska in County Galway; we have proposals for a project for that area and we intend to proceed with it. I am familiar with the south of County Kildare from Monasterevin towards Portlaoise, which is an area of significant increase. Such areas must be catered for. Senator Healy Eames mentioned teachers. As part of the foreseen increase in demographics, we have made provision for additional teachers generally and the intention is that they would be brought on-stream in the schools we have in planning.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl mentioned the inadequacy of systems in the past. Possibly there was an inadequacy in the systems in that we tended to examine the total need in the country rather than concentrating on certain areas where need was slightly greater. The developing areas unit is intended not just to deliver the projects but to foresee what is needed. Part of the issue is the need to foresee that, for example, in two years time we will need two new primary schools in a particular area and following that we might need a post-primary school for a group of areas. There have been inadequacies and we intend to address those.

I cannot stress the pre-existing programme strongly enough. We have a programme outside the developing areas unit and intend that will continue. We do not have infinite funding but we are obliged, and intend, to maintain the budget we have been allocated. There may be slowness in other areas but that does not mean we have abandoned them or do not intend to advance them. We intend to advance those projects. We have a substantial number of them which we are moving along and we will continue to do so.

The question of design was raised and my colleague, Mr. McEvoy, the technical manager, will talk on that in more detail. We have developed generic repeat designs for eight and 16-classroom schools that can be used anywhere in the country. Some local authorities want little changes and do not like this great degree of standardisation. However, standardisation has great advantages. It means we can make considerable savings on the cost of designing schools. Builders are becoming more familiar with our generic repeat designs and the recent tenders have been below anticipated prices. Mr. McEvoy, who is a quantity surveyor by profession, will confirm this. We are getting very good value for money in the tenders.

The Chairman raised energy efficiency and airtightness testing. Those are being implemented in the repeat design schools, which are designed to a standard of energy efficiency two and half times greater than the accepted international standards. That does not mean we will implement energy efficiency only in new schools. There are low-level ways of dealing with energy efficiency in existing schools.

We have not stopped the summer works scheme forever. It is a good scheme that devolves authority to the schools to do works they feel are priorities with funding from the Department. For economic reasons, we have not been able to continue it as we would have liked this year. However, last year we gave a substantial additionality to the summer works scheme. We spent more than €120 million on the summer works scheme in 2007. Some of those works approved to be done in 2007 may continue. I passionately believe in small schemes which devolve autonomy and responsibility to the local schools. If we had to deal with the modernisation programme for the schools system without devolving to the schools, we would not have been able to achieve what we did in recent years. This is to the credit of the schools. There are issues and we do not deny that principals at times feel overburdened. We have tried to address that by allowing them to engage technical advisers and project managers. However, it is a way of getting things done quickly and we intend to continue it, albeit possibly not as quickly as we would like because of the resource issue.

Ballinamore in County Leitrim was raised and I am aware of that project. We are dealing with that as a public private partnership and I did not cover it because I could have been here all day talking about all the issues. Ballinamore is on our radar and we intend to advance it under the public private partnership system. The local authorities and VECs and liaison are crucial. As I mentioned, I am to meet again with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Mr. Kearney and I will speak on sites acquisitions. We have made considerable progress and I do not want to do into the details of legislation, but we are conscious of that being on the agenda. It is on the agenda of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Deputy O'Mahony raised the question of prefabricated accommodation. Such accommodation is a necessary evil. We do not like prefabs. We have introduced schemes such as the permanent accommodation scheme to address issues where prefabs have been provided regularly. Unfortunately, prefabs are sometimes the only way one can get quick accommodation into an area where there is a temporary bulge. Some of my colleagues will want to speak on other issues that were raised and I may speak again.

Mr. Larry McEvoy

The Chairman mentioned geothermal energy. We have tried it in one school as a research project in Tullamore and while the energy is cheap, it does not suit schools due to the low hours of occupancy and occupancy during the warmest part of the day. The system stores heat overnight and releases it into the building during the day. It is combined with under-floor heating. The building can be very warm in the mornings. If it is a sunny day, the sun heats the rooms and the windows have to be opened to let the heat out. If the heat is set too low on a cold day and the building is too cold, it takes too long to heat up. The strategy we have been using in our schools is passive design so that we orient the building to get maximum use of the sun and we maximise daylight and use natural ventilation. Natural light and ventilation have advantages for education as well as for energy efficiency. We test the buildings for airtightness and are the only public body that is doing airtightness testing on buildings. The main advantage of this is that it prevents unwanted leaking of heat. In a modern school built to our technical guidance documents, the boiler is really only on from 8 a.m. until 12 p.m. The heat does not go out of the building because of the airtightness; heat will only escape when windows are open. The hours requiring the boiler to heat are quite low. That is the reason modern school buildings are very energy efficient.

We have done research projects on solar and wind power but it is somewhat of a gimmick to have windmills in schools. It could cause trouble for a school in that more things can go wrong. Our technical guidance documents are geared at keeping the process simple and straightforward for the school manager, whose job is to teach rather than manage a heating system.

On modern and rapidly-developing schools, we are looking at rainwater recovery in all cases. These increase the capital costs, so a balance must be struck between getting a reasonable capital cost and a reasonable cost in use as well. We can put all these systems into schools but we would not be building enough, as we would spend too much on individual buildings rather than spreading the cost. Does that answer the Chairman's question?

I do not want to take up the meeting with the issue but I have a question related to wind power generation. Would it not be possible to have a site available for wind turbines in a school to be fed into the national grid? The electricity production costs for the school could be reimbursed, without the school having to manage the wind turbine.

Mr. Larry McEvoy

Who would manage the wind turbine? If a turbine is put on a school site, the school is responsible for its operation.

That is not necessarily true. We have had cases of phone masts regrettably being put on school sites. I do not want to explore the issue further now as it will take much time. I thank Mr. McEvoy for his presentation and we will consider energy efficiency in school buildings at a later meeting in any event.

Mr. Frank Wyse

Mr. Kearney may wish to come in on the site issue. Senator Keaveney raised the specific issue of the "grannying" phenomenon in some parts of the Border area. We are aware this is an issue and it has been discussed at a high level with our counterparts in the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. We will keep an eye on the requirements of school accommodation in that area and it may have to be factored in. I do not have specific information on particular areas but we are aware of the matter. We may have to factor it into our considerations.

Mr. Jason Kearney

There are several issues I will touch on, which some members have already mentioned, in the context of greater liaison with local authorities. Deputy Thomas Byrne raised the key issue of site reservation. It may be worth briefly setting the scene on how site acquisitions are done.

It is only relatively recently, within the last decade or so, that the Department has aggressively started acquiring sites for school buildings. My colleague, Mr. Wyse, touched on the issue earlier. Traditionally, we relied on patrons. We currently use a number of different mechanisms to acquire sites. We generally do so through the Office of Public Works, the VECs in certain circumstances and, increasingly, through the local authorities as we have increased our liaison with them.

This issue will form part of the discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the City and County Managers Association in the formalising of the protocol throughout the country of how we identify need and necessary sites. That touches on the issue raised by Deputy Thomas Byrne in that it is not enough to just reserve a site. We must consider who owns the site and how it can be acquired quickly. We will thrash out these issues in a protocol with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

We have a commitment from the Minister, Deputy Gormley, that this will issue as a formal planning instruction under the planning code, so it will effectively have quasi-legal backing. I hope it will be introduced some time this year.

Other Deputies will agree there should be opportunities, as far as possible, to get those sites for free. The Department has been paying for them but it is possible through zoning and local area plans to get the sites for free. The Department should be looking for that as much as possible.

That is not through zoning.

It has happened in my constituency.

Zones have sites provided but there is no legal recommendation under the current legislation for developers to provide sites for free, unless they are asked nicely. I hope forthcoming legislation will change that.

Other colleagues and I have been asking very nicely that sites be given for free if zoning for residential projects is required.

We will not start a debate on this because we must still listen to Mr. McCarthy's presentation. It has been noted that the Department is doing whatever it can within its power to get sites without the Department having to pay for them.

Mr. Jason Kearney

We will take that on board as something that must be considered in the context of any legislative changes that would form part of our dialogue with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I will touch on several other issues briefly as I am conscious that time is ticking on. The matter of our interaction with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's draft guidelines was raised and it is worth noting that the Department published for the first time last year guidelines on county development plans. As many members will be aware, local authority planning authorities are already mandated to provide for school sites. The question is how we will interact better with them in future.

With regard to the guidelines published last year, we secured the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's agreement for the first time to have our site requirements inserted. All planning authorities will know from the first day what our site requirements will be. We will deal with the draft guidelines published last week also.

Are there any brief supplementary questions?

I asked a question on Greystones.

We will ensure that is answered. I would ask that supplementaries be as brief as possible, perhaps 30 seconds.

I wish to address a question to Mr. Kearney. With regard to site acquisition and in the context of local authority development plans, I have had much experience in the past few years of zoning land for educational use. That is completely consistent with what has been said but that action does not acquire the site. When we had friendly developers willing to provide land for schools, such as in Oranmore, for example, the council would not deal on that basis as its hands were tied. It would look all wrong.

An amendment of the Planning and Development Act is critically required. I am certain it could manage the zoning and acquisition of the site. It must be done at the time of the framing of the local area plan.

The idea that the OPW had been used by the Department over the years led to untold delays. That is traditional with the way the OPW moves. Having multiple agencies helping out on a site will have an effect. Has it ever been considered that this type of planning be put into the strategic infrastructure area?

Following on the point of site acquisition, the principle of community gain has been established in many areas and, through section 47, sites can be acquired as part of the zoning process. If we need legislative change to achieve that—

That is at planning stage.

It is open to us to use that at the development plan stage. It is currently open to local authorities to use it.

With regard to the areas where we will rapidly provide new schools, the question of engagement with the existing providers in those areas has not been answered. Perhaps there will be a comment on that?

Some of the issues I raised were not addressed, particularly the schools in Laytown-Mornington and Duleek.

Deputy Behan has also asked a question about Greystones.

Mr. Tony Dalton

I will comment specifically on those. With regard to Deputy Behan, the site in question is now the Blacklion site, although the original site was the Greystones site.

Has the Department purchased land in Blacklion?

Mr. Tony Dalton

Terms have been agreed.

Is that a site for two schools?

Mr. Tony Dalton

The site is sufficiently large to cater for two primary schools and a post-primary school.

Has a planning application been lodged for two schools on that site?

Mr. Tony Dalton

I would defer to Mr. McEvoy on the specifics and status of the planning application.

Mr. Larry McEvoy

A planning application was lodged yesterday for two eight-classroom schools.

Any other information can be given after the meeting.

Mr. Tony Dalton

Deputy Byrne mentioned a range of locations including Laytown, Bettystown, Mornington and Drogheda — some of these are in east Meath — and wondered why they are not on the list. The list is simply a snapshot of what the developing areas unit is doing for September. There are other areas involved and, as Mr. Wyse mentioned, the list is not exhaustive. The region of east Meath, south Louth and north Dublin is part of an area development plan that the planning and building unit has sent to the Commission on School Accommodation so numbers can be verified. A significant number of extension projects in those locations are proceeding but are outside the remit of the developing areas unit.

What is happening in Duleek? It was mentioned but I did not know anything was happening there.

Mr. Tony Dalton

I can check my notes later in that regard.

The Commission on School Accommodation took written and oral submissions this time last year from people in east Meath, including me. There were many errors in the original report but the final report has not been published and I am anxious that this should happen as soon as possible.

Mr. Frank Wyse

We have raised the issue of critical infrastructure and it is one of the matters we are pursuing with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Many issues stand in the way of us deciding exactly what we will do and critical infrastructure is on the agenda we have with that Department.

Regarding consultations with other schools, a new schools advisory body examines applications for new schools and, as part of this process, it publishes lists in local newspapers. We do not visit individual schools to inform them that a new school is to be built in an area because when we identify a need for a school within a particular time frame we have no choice but to provide it. I am not saying we bulldoze over existing providers of education but our responsibility is to children who need education. If we perceive a school is needed we have no option but to provide it. However, the new schools adviser advertises the location of new schools and this gives existing schools the opportunity to give observations, which many do. We consider these observations and take them into account when they are valid but our overriding purpose is to provide accommodation.

Time is of the essence, so I will not allow any more questions.

I raised three issues and none of them has been addressed.

Briefly, what are the issues to be addressed?

I will reduce them to two to save time. One relates to planning objections generally and whether such issues can be anticipated by the local authority. The other is about the location within towns and distances within a town. It is specifically in relation to Balbriggan where the St. Molaga's option was declined for many years.

Mr. Frank Wyse

When we provide schools through an accelerated process we discuss the likelihood of objections with local authorities. We did that in Fingal but the difficulty is a limited number of locations are suitable for school purposes. When possible we try to locate schools in areas that will be most convenient to the majority of the population but this brings us back to the perennial issue of sites. Sometimes the site we would most like is not available or is beyond the reach of the State; the State's pocket may seem to be of unlimited depth when it comes to purchasing land but we are constrained by requirements relating to evaluations and an array of other elements. We cannot pay unlimited amounts for sites and often the ideal location for a school is simply not available.

We discuss likely planning objections with local authorities and we met objectors in a particular area to see what we could do to deal with objections. We must be careful about the approaches we take as we represent a State body but if genuine issues can be addressed we will attempt to address them.

I thank Mr. Wyse and invite Mr. Kevin McCarthy, director at the Department of Education and Science, to give a presentation on the patronage of primary schools and the new community national school model.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

In February 2007 the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Hanafin, announced her intention to devise a new model of primary school patronage, the aim being to provide capacity to cater for the wishes of parents for denominational, multi-denominational and non-denominational education within the framework of a single patron. Essentially the objective was to cater for the diversity of religious beliefs within an area served by a primary school.

Following the Minister's original announcement there was a series of consultations with each of the education partners — the other patron bodies, management, union interests and so on. Last December the Minister announced that the new State model for community national schools would be piloted this September under the patronage of the County Dublin Vocational Education Committee. The locations for two new schools, mentioned earlier as part of the list the committee heard, are the Phoenix Park and Phibblestown, both in Dublin 15. The Minister's announcement also indicated that a further school, Scoil Choilm in Diswellstown, Dublin 15, was to transition to the new community national school model after a two year period. I will say more on Scoil Choilm in a few minutes.

Historically, new primary schools have been formed through the patronage model, primarily the churches and, more recently, Educate Together and the gaelscoileanna. More than 90% of the 3,200 or more primary schools in our education system are under the patronage of the Catholic Church. The profile of demand for new school places and the profile of the communities for which schools are required, particularly in developing areas, no longer follow traditional lines. The level of diversity in communities challenges us to look beyond the traditional configuration of patron bodies to meet demand. The absence of an initiative like this to develop a new model would have led to the likelihood of immigrant communities seeking to establish their own schools and this would not be desirable from a policy perspective as it would counteract efforts to encourage integration through schools.

A core feature of the new model is that schools will aim to facilitate religious education for various denominational groups as part of the school day. This feature distinguishes this model from the Educate Together model, with which people are familiar. The general ethos is that schools will welcome and respect all faiths and will seek to provide for religious education during the allotted time for the main faiths represented in the school. Schools will also cater for parents who do not want their children to receive religious education based on any particular faith and in such cases a general, ethics-based programme will be available. The ethos of schools will be to respect these choices equally.

Complex logistical challenges surround the implementation of this model and the idea of rolling it out on a pilot basis is to allow us test approaches to the practical issues that will arise and draw lessons from them in terms of the broader roll-out of the model.

Another significant issue that arose in the consultation phase in the approach to the Minister's announcement last December related to the status and structure of the boards of management for these schools. It has been decided that the boards of management in the pilot schools will be independent of the Vocational Education Committee, VEC. They will not operate as sub-committees of the VEC as they would in the second level VEC school system. This will be more akin to the community school model at second level with which people are familiar. The board of management will also act as the direct employer of the teachers. This model is consistent with the model that operates in the primary school system generally, in that the independence of the board of management from the patron body is established. Obviously the VEC, as a statutory body, has accountability requirements and concerns, and there are arrangements in place to address these. As patron, the VEC will have representatives on the board of management. There is a standard structure for boards of management in the primary system generally. The two direct nominees of the patron — two VEC representatives — will be drawn from the executive of the VEC for the purpose of providing the line of accountability that is essential to it as a statutory body.

The new model will require amending legislation to provide for the VEC role in acting as a patron in the primary system, as the current legislation does not provide the necessary powers. This amending legislation has been included in the Government's legislative programme. Pending enactment of this legislation the Minister will act as interim patron.

In terms of the implementation arrangements, we have heard a great deal about provision of accommodation and so on, and that is in train. The other practical arrangements — recruitment of principals, agreement on admissions policy, consultation with local schools, enrolment of pupils and so on — are also in train. There is a joint Department-VEC steering group in place to oversee all of these arrangements.

To return briefly to Scoil Choilm in Diswellstown, which was the third school referred to in the Minister's announcement of December, it has been envisaged that the school would move to this new model after a two-year period. Members may remember that the school was opened in September 2007, under the temporary patronage of the Catholic archbishop, in response to an emerging need that had presented at that time. There have been more recent consultations, with the school itself, with the archbishop and with County Dublin VEC, and all are in agreement at this stage that Scoil Choilm should also come under these new pilot patronage arrangements from September 2008. It will be included in the new model also. We are keeping under review any possibility of a need for further schools to be brought in, depending on the needs identified by our colleagues in school planning for new schools in particular areas and the expressed interest from established patron bodies to open schools in those locations.

It is important to note that the approach to the model has been informed by consultations with all relevant education partners, as I mentioned earlier. It is intended that this dialogue will continue as the implementation phase proceeds. We will provide for formal consultation arrangements to allow the lessons and experience that emerge from the model to be shared more widely. The intention in rolling this out on a pilot basis is to test approaches to the practical issues that will undoubtedly arise and to draw lessons from that experience so that we can develop and refine the model in any future further roll-out. We welcome the interest of the committee in the initiative and would welcome further opportunities to discuss the experience as it unfolds when the model is rolled out.

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

The first point that must be made is that the State owes a great debt of gratitude to the management and patron bodies that have effectively run the education system for the Department of Education, latterly the Department of Education and Science, since the foundation of the State. I speak particularly of the Church bodies and, more recently, Educate Together and An Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge. It is also important to note that the Department has reiterated that this is an extra option which is not designed to replace the existing provision. It is interesting that at the recent conference of the Irish Primary Principals Network, delegates indicated by a majority vote that they were happy with the existing system and level of patronage of primary schools. It is important that we mention this here.

Have principals been appointed for these schools? How will the appointment process be conducted? Who will be represented on the interview panel and assessment board for the principals initially? Bearing in mind that these schools will accommodate pupils of a number of religions and no religion, will an assessment of a teacher's willingness to teach a particular religion be part of the selection process? In the past, the attitudes of the church bodies were important. As a primary school principal, I know that the ethos of the relevant body, whether it be Catholic or Church of Ireland, pervades the atmosphere and running of the school from the beginning. If teachers are to be required to teach a particular religion for a certain part of the day — this contradicts the policy of the churches, but we will leave that aside — I assume there will be some consideration of a teacher's willingness to teach a particular religion. Perhaps the deputy chief inspector might clarify this.

With regard to the proposed ethics-based programme for children who do not opt for a particular religious model, who will formulate this? Is it something that could be introduced in other schools in the future? It was indicated that the executives of the VEC would sit on the boards of management rather than councillors or public representatives. Has this been accepted by the IVEA? I presume the new schools advisory body will advise the Minister on the patronage of all of the new schools we heard about in the first part of the presentation. Are we in a position to know when that body will advise the Minister? When will the Minister make a decision on this?

I thank Mr. McCarthy for his presentation and echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague Deputy Behan. I wish him well with the pilot project. It is highly desirable that we see the VEC coming into the frame to augment the existing patronage systems, which have served us very well to date. The VEC has shown itself at second level to be integrationist and highly innovative in its approach to developments in education the length and breadth of the country. It should have much to bring to the primary education sector and I encourage the Department and the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure that whatever legislative changes are required to facilitate the ongoing involvement of the VECs in this sector are brought forward.

I echo the interesting point made by Deputy Behan about the Department's vision of how the boards of management will be set up. The success of the VEC sector has been based around small cohorts of administrative staff with a sharp focus on their work in conjunction with an equally committed cohort of members that are not just councillors but teachers, parents' representatives and community representatives. The VEC bodies around the country have been very effective in delivering a programme of work. I would not encourage the Minister to create a situation in which the boards of management consist exclusively of executive members, because the people who make up the bodies of the VECs have a great deal to contribute and should be encouraged and facilitated in being involved in the future.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for his presentation. This is good news in the sense that it is time we considered diversity and inclusion. I was a primary school teacher and latterly I lectured in teacher education. I worked in multi-denominational and denominational schools. The Catholic education system has served us well and there is an ongoing need for this system.

In multi-denominational schools, classes in world religions are taught within the school day for pupils of all religions and none. What is Mr. McCarthy's understanding of that?

Non-denominational patronage in VEC schools was mentioned. Which religion will be taught within the school day? How many religions is it planned to teach within the period assigned to religious instruction? In terms of teacher staffing, that could be onerous.

I wish to have verified that there are three primary schools under the patronage of the VEC primary school model. That is good but is there an openness within the Department towards extending the model across the country? There are the needs of an emerging area, for example. I point out, as a former chairperson of County Galway VEC, that Galway county and city VECs are very willing to engage. From an evaluative point of view, the pilot scheme needs to be seen working in a representative spread across the country in order that the results would be more valid. Is there a willingness to do this?

I ask for a further explanation of the format of the new boards of management planned for the VECs and how they will be made up. Mr. McCarthy said the school in Diswellstown was under the patronage of the Catholic archbishop but that in September it would transfer under the new pilot scheme. How will the board be made up? Will the Catholic archbishop still be a member of the board, or will it have Catholic representatives?

I welcome the pilot development scheme referred to and the catering for diversity. I also welcome the expansion of the Educate Together concept and the growth in that sector. However, in my work I meet many people who tell me they still want to see traditional Catholic patronage. Within the terms of providing for diversity, I seek a comment about meeting that traditional requirement. Of the latest three schools built in Balbriggan two have been Educate Together schools, while the third is a gaelscoil. There is a reduction in capacity for those seeking the traditional Catholic patronage model for their children.

I welcome the statements by the archbishop on the policy of inclusiveness in Catholic schools now looking to include children from other faiths as part of a more integrated approach. I presume that is what is being tried in the pilot study. If any particular ethos were to be pushed, even the clear majority ethos, the purpose would be defeated. I am interested in the following point in Mr. McCarthy's presentation:

In recruiting principal and teaching staff the inclusive ethos and approach of the new patron model will be emphasised. In particular it would be hoped to attract teaching staff who are committed to providing inclusive, faith-based religious education or deliver a general ethics based progamme depending on the local need arising.

Mr. McCarthy claims that lessons learned will be put into practice and monitored during the pilot phase. Future roll-out will also be informed by the pilot scheme, although nobody knows exactly what will transpire. Is the Department confident that it will be able to attract teaching staff with the required qualifications? Consider, for example, the new arrivals in Ireland. Will sufficient teachers from minority religions be found who will have language capabilities, primary teaching qualifications and the ability to teach both curriculum subjects and religion? Is there more a hope than the reality? In that context, is the Department open to bringing in purely religious instructors? There is also the option of teaching religion outside school hours as suggested in some quarters.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Deputy Behan paid tribute to the historic role played by the churches and the existing patron bodies. It is important to emphasise that there is no attempt in this model to usurp or replace the existing system. It arises from a recognition that the population profile is changing and that the current configuration, namely, the predominance of a particular patronage, is not necessarily the right fit to meet emerging needs in many developing areas. The church articulated this view in its policy document published last year.

Senator Ryan made the point that many still want to see the Catholic patronage school model. The Department very much recognises this. This model has been designed on the principle that the school will attempt to accommodate parental preference as it presents within a community. Parents may express a preference or a desire for a Catholic form of religious education in terms of, for example, sacramental preparation for First Holy Communion or Confirmation. Part of the ethos of this type of school is that it will attempt to facilitate such preparation as part of the school day. Within this ethos, the traditional wishes of parents who will continue to present within communities where these schools will be located will be met. They will be married to the other preferences that will be expressed in these areas.

Deputy Behan specifically asked how the principals would be appointed, how such positions would be advertised, who would be represented on the interview panels and about the approach that would inform the process. The posts of principal in the two new schools, Phoenix Park and Phibblestown, were advertised shortly after Christmas. Interviews for both positions are due to take place within the next week. The interview board will include a representative of the VEC as patron, a school principal and the interim school manager. As I said, the Minister will act as interim patron pending the enactment of the legislation. In practical terms, we are working very closely with the VEC because once the legislation is in place, these will be VEC schools. Therefore, we are dovetailing closely with them in addressing all practical requirements. A person has been employed to attend to them and he will also be on the interview board.

Deputy Behan touched on an important question when he raised the matter of a teacher's willingness to teach a particular religion and whether that would form part of the selection process. It is an important consideration concerning the principal and the teaching staff. The quotation the Chairman took from the presentation relates to this matter. The hope is that those attracted to apply for the post of principal and teaching staff posts will be committed to the inclusive ethos of the school. In formulating the advertisements for the posts of principal in the the two schools we were trying to communicate openly and let people know what the schools were about. The schools will attempt to accommodate a diversity of needs. This includes the facilitation of religious education during the school day and the offer of a faith formation component in religious education where that is the expressed wish of the parents. The ethos is very much to respect all of those choices equally. In attempting to accommodate them it is clear that some practical parameters must be set but the bottom line is that the schools will respect on an equal basis all of the preferences described and will attempt to accommodate them. The nature of the school ethos must be communicated in the selection process for principals and teachers. When Educate Together, gaelscoileanna or one of the church schools recruit staff, they will communicate the particular ethos of their school. They would expect people who are sympathetic to that ethos to be attracted to the school. We hope for the same, to attract people who are sympathetic and willing to work within that ethos and to make it work. A church patron has particular protection under legislation, with exemptions under equality legislation, for example, to allow the patron uphold the ethos of the school. This allows a church wishing to recruit staff to set down particular requirements that would not be acceptable to a State body like the VEC. In the context of this model, this underlines the importance of communicating properly what this school is about and what it is attempting to achieve. We hope, through the selection process, to identify people sympathetic to that approach and committed to making that approach work.

On the question of the ethics based programme and who will formulate it, there is initial planning work under way. Our inspectorate, qualifications unit, curriculum and assessment unit and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, the NCCA, have role to play. There are models that we can draw from and it is intended to have that programme in place for the junior infants classes that will present next September.

The issue of VEC representation on the board of management as patron will come up again. The question is whether the role of the VEC should be an executive or a reserved function. This will feature in the amending legislation and Deputy Ó Fearghaíl raised this point also. The Deputy asked specifically if the IVEA has given its consent or agreement to the proposed approach. There has been some discussions with the IVEA and it is aware of the thinking on this. This will feature again in the discussion on the legislation. That is as much as I can say at this stage. I might ask Mr. Jason Kearney to speak on the question of when the new schools advisory committee, NSAC, will report.

Mr. Jason Kearney

The NSAC would have processed or received a formal application by the end of January and it would tend to report to the Minister by the end of March or the middle of April, so that the Minister would then make an announcement circa the end of April. That is the normal operating procedure.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

Senator Healy Eames raised the question of what religion the schools will teach during the school day, and the question of how multi-denominational schools approach the teaching of world religions. The Deputy has touched on a particular complexity in the model. This relates to the subsequent question about the fact that we are running with three schools initially and do not want to open it out at this stage. There are complex and sensitive issues surrounding the teaching of religion. The intention is — this relates to the Chairman's question of the practicality of delivering that within the school day — to try to accommodate parental choice. What will be required will very much depend on the parental choice that presents. It is difficult at this stage to anticipate what that might be in its fullest form. We can identify the issues in a broad sense.

This will bring school to a standstill if there are ten religions required to be taught within one period in a school day.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

This will inform our approach to the development of the religious education programmes. I might ask my colleague Mr. Pat MacSitric to expand on this point. Part of our discussion with the NCCA for example will be to identify how we can develop a layered approach to the teaching of religion. There is a degree of commonality between Christian religions. The topics of general ethics, morality and the teaching of world religions and so on can be dealt with in a common way.

The logistical issues can be managed and minimised to some extent in terms of how we develop the programmes. We will be dependent on the teaching resources in the schools to deliver much of this. However, we would not rule out the possibility of inviting other inputs. If there are particular parental choices expressed that cannot be accommodated or with which the teaching staff in the school are not comfortable, it may be possible to look to the wider community to invite inputs for aspects of programmes or aspects of faith formation. Mr. MacSitric might want to expand on that. Those complexities relate to the question of whether we should widen this beyond the three schools. We would rather walk before we start running on this.

They are only Dublin based.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

They are Dublin based. The communities in which these schools are located have been selected on the basis of our desire to get a good spread and to provide a good testing ground for the kinds of issues that will come up. While there is not yet a defined time scale — for a future roll-out, we will look closely at the experience in the first year. That is all up for review in year two and beyond.

The boards of management will follow the traditional structure of the primary school system. There will be two patron representatives, two parent representatives, the school principal, a member of the teaching staff and two members drawn from the wider school community.

On the specific question about Scoil Choilm, at the moment there is a single manager there performing the functions of the board of management. The Catholic archdiocese has not put in place a board of management under its patronage at this stage. We envisage that when the school transfers across to this new model, the board of management will be put in place on the basis of the new patronage. The archdiocese will not have a role in it.

I have attempted to answer the points in terms of the potential for external input and the issues of attracting teachers and so on. Is there anything I have not addressed?

There will be some brief supplementary questions.

Mr. Pat MacSitric

On the issue of qualifications, the Teaching Council now has responsibility for teacher qualification. Teachers from outside the jurisdiction must go through a particular process. The Department has managed that and we are now in transition, handing over that responsibility to the Teaching Council. The qualification of teachers coming into the system would be a given.

On the issue of the religious education within the school day, the consultation with the various churches and other patron bodies has been very interesting. For example, we have been alerted to the distinction in some traditions between religious education, on the one hand, and religious instruction and faith formation, on the other. We must be very aware of that sensitivity. We are also aware that within Catholic religious education those two are conflated, which is important.

There are yet other views that religious education and religious formation are always within the community within which people live rather than the school. This shows quite a number of sensitivities that we must be very careful to address and to take into account. Festina lente will be our guiding principle.

We have a great deal of experience in schools at the moment. For example, we have Catholic teachers teaching in non-Catholic schools. We want to draw on that experience. We also want to draw on the experience of many of our Catholic schools that have quite a number of sub-communities within them and how religious education is addressed in those schools at the moment. We are not reinventing the wheel. We will draw on the experience which is available. We will also look carefully at the documentation that schools have. The NCCA will perhaps do this for us. Examples are the Alive-O programme in primary schools, and the Learn Together programme, which is the Educate Together one. The Church of Ireland has a programme which is very much built on the Alive-O model. There has been wonderful ecumenical working together in that area within the Christian traditions.

We are talking about the provision of a new model of primary education. In that context we need to look also at the educational services for children with autism. Last night in the Dáil the former Minister for Education, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, said there was a lingering animosity by the Civil Service to providing ABA.

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

I think that——

I have to make this point.

I will have to disallow that intervention. Officials are precluded from giving their personal opinion on those issues. It is not related to the work.

The Chairman himself spoke about this.

We had a very thorough discussion in private session about the committee's report. We agreed that the report would be consensual and that we would——

We had not agreed anything.

We had agreed that we would try to be consensual.

We agreed we would try.

It is absolutely critical——

In the context of this meeting, you are not being consensual and it has no relevance to the current discussion.

It has a relevance. We are looking at the provision of a new model of education in primary schools.

I will disallow that line of questioning. I ask the Senator to direct her comments to the issue of VECs, not to last night's debate.

My question is this. Is it fair of the former Minister for Education to blame civil servants for the blocking of ABA?

Civil servants cannot comment.

We know it is about the provision of funding.

I am directing the civil servants not to comment. They are not able to do so in any event. I apologise. I will allow the Senator another 30 seconds to ask questions relating to the discussion today.

My remarks stand and I want them noted on the record.

They have been noted.

If the officials do not wish to respond——

The officials cannot comment.

I think they can comment on ABA.

They cannot comment by way of opinion. They are certainly not going to comment on last night's debate. I have made that decision. It will not be discussed today. If you wish to write a letter of complaint, I would welcome that. Are there any supplementary questions from other members?

We are looking at a new model of primary education. We have looked at religion, at boards of management and the need for legislation, but we also need to look at the provision of education services for children with learning difficulties and children with broad spectrum difficulties such as autism. The question stands. They are allowed to comment on ABA.

Given that members cannot comment on Government policy, they may be able to comment on the sort of education provision that will be made within these new units. That is as far as we can go. I want to make my own comments.

Mr. MacSitric mentioned that Catholic teachers teach in non-Catholic schools, but I am sure they do not teach non-Catholic religion in such schools. There is a tradition that primary teachers teach religion because they are of the same faith. Mr. McCarthy outlined some issues in terms of trying to find people who would be comfortable to teach inclusively. A Catholic teacher might feel very comfortable with teaching the Islamic faith, for example, but the Islamic parents might not want Islamic religious education as opposed to doctrine being taught by a non-Muslim teacher. Do you envisage difficulties in recruiting Muslim teachers who are approved by the Teaching Council? Would it not be easier to acknowledge that there would be difficulties and prepare for religious instruction by people other than teachers?

Originally I understood that Educate Together would be very much involved in partnership with the VEC in at least one of the schools. Educate Together are experts in the field of providing broad religious education, as opposed to religious instruction. For example, they note the major religious festivals such as Christmas and Ramadan. Notwithstanding that this is a pilot model, have there been ongoing consultations with Educate Together to benefit from its expertise? There is no point in reinventing the wheel. Has that expertise in inclusivity been taken on board?

Mr. Kevin McCarthy

One question relates to a situation where a teacher is willing to provide a certain form of education but the parents do not wish it. A core part of the concept is trying to accommodate parental preference, which would be the determining factor. We do not rule out inputs if they are needed to supplement the teaching resource within the school. It is not a bridge we need to cross at this stage. Certainly the schools will need to be flexible in accommodating the parental preference that presents. We would want to identify potentially creative or flexible solutions.

We have met Educate Together representatives as part of the consultations and they have provided views on the model on the basis of their experience, which are extremely welcome, given their tradition of education provision in a multi-denominational context. We will have a further meeting with them tomorrow. As I mentioned in the presentation, we are looking as part of the implementation approach to draw on the inputs and experience of various people. Mr. MacSitric mentioned it specifically in relation to the teaching of religion and the rich experience in terms of different approaches and mixes in the system. Educate Together has been consulted and we are to meet them tomorrow. We would see them as having an important contribution to make to our knowledge and approach on this model.

Mr. Pat MacSitric

I refer to the Chairman's comment on Catholic teachers in non-Catholic schools. That is precisely the example where religious education is separated from religious instruction or faith formation. From what we know — and we will have to learn more about that nexus and how it actually works — there does not seem to be a major issue there. Because of the nature of the religious education programme which is provided within the Church of Ireland schools, for example, and the Presbyterians and Methodists as well, a teacher of the Catholic faith can work with that because it based so much on the Alive-O programme in primary schools. Obviously they will diverge at points and they are dealt with sensitively within the school situation. That is the kind of learning we need to achieve ourselves.

I thank the officials for coming before the committee and giving such a comprehensive briefing. It was literally two meetings within one.

I am not happy that I have encountered what I believe is double-speak. You are blocking a discussion on the provision of ABA within this new model. We are forming the future of education with the onset of this new model. The Chairman is blocking a discussion, yet he supported the comments of the former Minister for Education in the national media. If time constraints do not allow it today, I want this raised at a future meeting of this committee.

The issue of ABA was discussed during a debate last night. The policy of the Government and the Department of Education and Science, on which I am allowed to comment, is to favour the eclectic model. Whatever our views as individual Deputies and Senators, it is a matter for the committee to decide whether it agrees or disagrees.

You said otherwise in the national media.

It is a longstanding convention that officials are not allowed to comment on Government policy or give their personal opinion. They certainly would be too polite to say this directly to the Senator in the harshest manner — and I am protecting them in that sense. The reality is that they cannot comment. It is very unfair to ask them to comment on whether something which is not Government policy should be implemented in the new model.

These very Government officials are being blamed by a former Minister for Education.

It will not be allowed. You are engaging in the lowest form of political grandstanding, even though in private session we had an agreement that we would try to be as consensual as possible.

Your comments have been duly noted. Section 15 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities) Act 1997 refers to a witness who is a civil servant or a member of the Permanent Defence Force or the Garda Síochána. The Senator might refer to that section and come back if she believes that I have acted in the wrong.

Chairman, it is you I am addressing.

I am giving you lots of leeway becauses I think you are hanging yourself. I will let you continue to hang yourself. Keep going.

I understand that the officials' hands are tied by Government policy. I am saying to you that we are looking at the provision of primary education. In that context we need to look also at educational services for children with autism. Last night in Dáil Éireann, the former Minister, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, mentioned that ABA was being blocked by the lingering animosity of civil servants. You supported her comments today in the national media. How do you reconcile blocking the discussion here and supporting her comments in the national media?

In the first instance, you are incorrect. My comments in the Dáil last night were made before the Deputy's.

What about your comments in the national media?

I did not issue any statement to the national media. If I am quoted in the national media, it is in response to my contribution in the House. In performing my duties as Chairman, I am facilitating debate on the issues on the agenda as agreed by the committee. Those issues have been clearly outlined and I have made a ruling that we will not broaden out from that. If you want to write a letter to me as Chairman, privately or publicly, about ABA, that would be very welcome. I have indicated that I will facilitate further debate on the issues of ABA at future committee meetings where they are relevant. I do not think this is the appropriate forum.

Thank you, Chairman. The debate will have to continue——

The debate will continue.

—in the context of the new model we are looking at today.

Thank you. Once again, I thank the officials for coming before the committee and for giving such a briefing. We have had a very informative discussion. Apologies for the very long private session in advance. Thank you for your time and courtesy.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28 February 2008.
Top
Share