Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 7 May 2009

Education Funding: Discussion.

Apologies have been received from Deputy John O'Mahony. Rather than going into private business I propose that we get straight down to discussion with the Minister and Minister of State. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, and the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Haughey, as well as departmental officials. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that we should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Having said that, I ask the Minister to begin his short presentation on an issue which has been discussed by this committee over the past couple of months, namely, his proposals on the future funding of third level education. We will then broaden the discussion to take in the effects on the education sector of proposals relating to education expenditure contained in the supplementary budget of 7 April. Members will then be in a position to ask questions.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to come before the committee and have a debate on the third level sector in particular, as well as other aspects of the education budget. The scale of the challenges we face and the speed with which the economic environment has changed made the supplementary budget one of the most critical in the history of this country.

Savings had to be found and the burden of these adjustments has been spread across Departments. An adjustment of €81 million has been made to the education Vote. This is made up of a reduction of €27 million in current expenditure across a number of programme areas and a €54 million reduction in capital expenditure. This adjustment brings the gross allocation for the education Vote in 2009 to €9.49 billion. This represents a total reduction of €134 million on the allocation in the October budget. The difference between the overall reduction of €134 million and the adjustment of €81 million in the latest budget is largely due to the transfer of funding for youth services to the Department of Health and Children, and adjustments for general savings agreed by the Government in February.

The revised allocation still represents an increase of just over 2.5% on the 2008 outturn. The details of the €27 million reduction in current expenditure are set out in the executive summary provided to the committee. I do not intend to go into detail on every element of the reductions, but I am happy to deal with these in the discussion afterwards.

Turning to capital expenditure, my overall capital allocation for 2009 is being reduced by €54 million to €850 million, compared to a total expenditure of €830 million in 2008. The capital allocation for schools has been reduced by €30 million. The allocation now in place for the 2009 school capital programme is €613.8 million, which is almost 5% greater than the allocation available at the beginning of the 2008 financial year. The reduction of €30 million will be applied to large-scale school building projects. I am pleased to say that all the school projects I have already announced will go to tender this year will proceed. The capital available for investment in the higher education sector this year amounts to €200 million, which equates to a reduction of €24 million. The impact of the reductions on my capital budget will be mitigated, primarily, because of the keen tender prices available in the construction market. This substantial allocation will also sustain employment in the construction sector.

To achieve long-term reductions in the public sector pay bill, the Government has introduced a series of measures aimed at reducing the number of people employed in the public sector. This includes a ban on recruitment and promotion. The Government decided that the employment of teachers and special needs assistants, SNAs, should be governed by a ceiling that will be determined this autumn, rather than an embargo on filling individual vacancies as in other parts of the public sector. The allocation of teacher and SNA resources to schools and VECs will be governed by this ceiling. This applies to teachers or teacher equivalents who are directly providing tuition to pupils in schools, special programmes or adult and further education settings. The Government also decided on a moratorium on promotions, which applies across schools, special programmes and adult and further education settings. An exception is being made in respect of the positions of principal or deputy principal. A concession also applies to the first allocation of post of responsibility allowances for new schools. These arrangements illustrate the Government's commitment to maintaining front-line services in schools.

A priority for the Government is to support those who have lost their jobs through retraining and further education. A range of measures are now being targeted at keeping people in employment, teaching new skills and facilitating better access to allowances. The higher and further education sectors have a key role to play in providing the type of skills improvement that will help unemployed people develop their workforce skills and avail of more sustainable employment opportunities as the economy recovers. As part of the budget measures, almost 7,000 additional education places are being made available for unemployed people.

From September 2009, an additional 1,500 post-leaving certificate places will be made available nationwide. This will bring the total number of PLC places to nearly 32,000. In the higher education sector, it is expected that at least 2,000 unemployed will be accommodated on full-time third level courses starting this autumn. A number of institutes of technology are providing unemployed people with the opportunity for direct entry on to newly developed accelerated level 6 certificate programmes. Under this initiative, participants will be able to complete the first year of a standard two-year programme in an accelerated manner so that they can move to the second year of the programme in September 2009. Just under 300 places have been provided under this pilot initiative, which started in February. Institutes of technology across the country are also utilising spare capacity to provide more than 900 places on a range of newly developed part-time transition programmes. It is hoped that having undertaken these courses, a significant number of participants will be encouraged to apply on a direct entry basis for a range of third level certificate and degree programmes commencing in September 2009. Participation in the accelerated programmes and the third level transition courses is free of charge and participants continue to be eligible for social welfare payments.

A total of 1,500 places will be provided to enable persons who are unemployed or on short-time working to pursue third level certificate or degree programmes on a part-time basis. The institutes of technology have been working closely with FÁS to ensure that apprentices are given every opportunity to complete their apprenticeships. Extra classes are being provided for apprentices who must re-sit exams, and a number of additional term blocks will be provided throughout the summer to facilitate more than 300 apprentices in completing the education phases of their apprenticeship. In addition, a new 11-week certified education programme has been developed specifically for redundant apprentices. The programme, which will be delivered by the institutes of technology, will commence in September 2009 and will cater for up to 700 redundant apprentices per annum. The programme will focus on developing core skills in maths, ICT and business in order to facilitate students progressing to other higher education programmes or completing their apprenticeships at a later stage.

The reductions in current and capital expenditure in education and across all Departments are necessary as part of the Government's efforts to reduce overall public expenditure and stabilise the public finances. Our overall goal is to return Ireland to sustainable economic growth, and this would not be possible without corrective action now. These necessary adjustments will secure the long-term viability of funding public services, including education.

I now turn to the issue of future funding for higher education. In contributing to the achievement of national policy goals for social and economic development, continuing significant resource needs can be anticipated for the sector. However, I wish to ensure that existing levels of funding for higher education and research are being targeted effectively and efficiently. That is why I have sought to make progress in examining the use of existing resources. The strategy group on higher education is examining the overall operational, governance and resourcing framework in the sector. The group will also consider the need for reorganisation and reconfiguration of roles within the system, including rationalisation. I have also requested the HEA to lead an urgent and comprehensive efficiency drive across the higher education sector. Work has already commenced in this regard. Areas such as shared procurement, shared services and greater efficiencies in course provision will be considered.

With regard to funding in the future, the sector relies disproportionately on Exchequer sources of funding and it is appropriate to look to wider means of meeting future additional resource requirements, having particular regard to the difficult budgetary and economic climate that is in prospect in the medium term. Individual higher education institutions have done some commendable work in raising funding through philanthropy. This is an area I wish to support, and I have asked the strategy group to examine how this might be achieved. Leading higher education systems internationally are characterised by wide revenue sources which in many cases include a form of direct student contribution. Higher education confers a clear lifetime earnings advantage on those who complete it. There are strong equity-based arguments, therefore, that those who benefit from higher education and who can afford to contribute to the costs of their higher education should be asked to do so.

There are many complex and competing considerations when considering the issue of student contributions, including institutional funding, family affordability, equity, participation and value for money for the taxpayer. However, it is an issue that merits consideration at this important juncture in the development of higher education and also given the current economic circumstances. My officials are finalising a technical report on the various options available. This will examine available models, drawing on experience of those that have operated internationally. It will assess the potential policy, cost and revenue impact of various available approaches in an Irish context. As a Government, we want to continue to increase opportunities for everyone to participate in higher education. To do that, we need to ensure access is available on an equitable and affordable basis and that funding of the sector itself is put on a sustainable footing. These objectives will be at the forefront of any consideration of the options available. I will provide the completed technical report to my Cabinet colleagues for consideration in the near future.

I welcome the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials to our humble surroundings in the basement of Leinster House and thank the Minister for his presentation. I have some questions with regard to higher education, although I may return later to some of the other issues of capital and current funding of schools.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. He stated that his officials are finalising a technical report on the various options available in respect of student contribution. I am not sure what planet the Minister is on but on the one I inhabited before Easter this report was done and dusted and making its way to Cabinet. It contained all the options and it was then to be simply a political issue to be addressed by the Minister's Cabinet colleagues.

We are now told that the technical report has not yet been completed. It is a bit like the story of the boy who cries "Wolf!" The spinning operation behind this in recent months was to the effect that the Cabinet would make a decision and we would have a brave new world. However, we are nowhere nearer such a decision. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that we are in the middle of an election campaign——

That is an outrageous charge.

——and that on 7 June the Minister will suddenly be guided by a new evangelical approach and the Cabinet will have to take a rapid look at the issue again.

This is new information. The impression put about by the Minister or those close to him was that this was all done and dusted and was a matter for the Cabinet to sign off. That is not now the case, judging from the statement the Minister has put on the record of the committee today. The longer this goes on the less credible the Minister's position will be in this regard.

I agree with the Minister on the general principle that the current financial situation for higher education is unsustainable and I am on the record as having said that. On behalf of my party I put forward some constructive proposals concerning a graduate contribution scheme which would be paid when students are working and can afford to pay. If we are to get this right it requires the Minister and his Cabinet to engage with people and ensure that the proposal that emerges is one that does not create new barriers on entry to college. I am fundamentally opposed to the suggestion of the reintroduction of fees because that is a barrier on entry to college. The reason we have 64% participation in higher education now compared to 45% when Deputy Quinn was Minister for Finance 15 or 16 years ago was because we abolished fees. In my view, the greatest barrier to participation in higher education is the reintroduction of fees and I will not support that. I am prepared to consider with the Minister how we can put forward a student contribution scheme whereby people can pay at a time when they can afford contributions.

However, the Minister must put a number of simple facts on record for the committee today. First, will he give students who are entering the system in September and October of this year a categorical assurance they are entering the system as it currently stands and will not be lumbered with any additional fees? At the very least they deserve an assurance on that. I suggest to the Minister that before he publishes any view on the question of funding, or before the Cabinet comes to an opinion on the matter, he should wait until later this year when the expert review group will have published its report. If we are to ask young people to make a contribution towards higher education we must also be able to show to them a totally new system where quality assurance is at the heart of their courses and colleges. The Minister would be in a much stronger position if he waited to see exactly what proposals his own group were to produce later this year. That would be a sensible way to proceed.

Even though the Minister said late last year that the Comptroller and Auditor General was about to unveil his view about what is going on in higher education we now know it will be 18 months before what has been termed a "forensic audit" is produced. I agree with the Minister on accountability for the €2.2 billion we are spending on higher education this year. The Minister is right to ask questions but again we are a long way from the forensic audit he promised last year.

I have two final questions and appreciate the Chairman's indulgence. There is a moratorium on appointment and recruitment in the higher education sector at present. I have come across cases where legitimate courses which bring in revenue because of the international students they attract cannot now proceed because additional appointments cannot be made. Would it not be more sensible for the HEA to turn to all the 15 institutes of technology and the seven universities and tell them what their budget is for the year? They should be told they must live within it and if they wish to make additional appointments in the different faculties and colleges that is a matter for them rather than for Big Brother in the form of the Department or the HEA.

I make this suggestion to the Minister because the ability of certain colleges to bring in extra revenue from international students of other EU options is being stymied. Will the Minister inform the committee where stands the proposed amalgamation of the three bodies in higher education, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, and the National Council for Vocational Awards? I agree with and commend the Minister on this proposal. We must make a radical attack on the empire building that began before the Minister's time in the Department of Education and Science. Every problem was solved by creating a new agency and additional administrators, leaving less funding for front line staff. We need to get on with this task and I am interested to learn what is going on in that area.

For the benefit of some members of the committee who may not have been present at the time, we forwarded a letter to the Minister asking him to defer making any decision, based on a number of factors. Perhaps the Minister might elaborate on this in his response later. I now propose to allow the Minister answer the substantial number of questions tabled by Deputy Hayes, to be followed by the contribution of Deputy Quinn, as the other lead Opposition spokesperson. We will then take a grouping of questions.

I thank Deputy Hayes for his questions, in particular for his position with regard to student commitment in third level. I am pleased that at least in one aspect — two, given amalgamation — we agree on a way forward concerning student commitment. However, I cannot understand the juxtaposition adopted by the Deputy. On the one hand, he asked me why I was not putting the question of third level fees into the public domain, while, on the other, he asked me to wait until the autumn.

The Deputy asked me to put this issue to the strategy group on higher education.

The Minister said in the run-up to Easter that this would be published. That is what I put on the record.

If I might just deal with the issues. Electorally, it would be far better if I could put this issue in the public domain now because there is a certain amount of misinformation abroad with regard to fees and loans. People have fears that ordinary families will be affected. It would be much better if we had clarity on the issue from my own party's electoral point of view.

We must look at our position. We have had a supplementary budget which will impact on the standard of living of people within this society, on their finances, their ability to pay and to contribute. I believe it would be very wrong of me not to take these fears into account and the impact such a decision would have. In effect I am doing some remodelling on the various options that exist in order to take account of what appeared in that budget. My concern is to ensure that as far as possible I can family-proof the implications of these measures. That is very much to the forefront of my thinking in remodelling some of the issues that will arise within the report.

I also wish to ensure that when I submit it to Cabinet my Cabinet colleagues are as fully informed as they can be. The Deputy asked me about delays and including this in the strategy group's work. However, the Cabinet has charged me to produce this report. I was also asked to make a recommendation. Effectively, I wish to remodel this in line with the supplementary budget, present it to the members of the Cabinet such that they can make observations and, following that to make a final recommendation to Cabinet. It is taking longer than I had anticipated but it is the correct mechanism and the way to proceed.

I was also asked about the forensic audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am still very much in favour of ensuring that the money we allocate to the third level sector is well spent. In the past four years a 33.3% increase in funding has taken place. I had only taken up my appointment as Minister when the various university presidents told me that they were cash-starved. This was despite the 33.3% increase in funding over a four year period. I decided it was time to examine exactly how they were spending their money.

Various reports from economists suggest we invest in the order of €11,000 per student but, perhaps, only a fraction of that amount actually reaches the student. There is an onus on me to examine how the universities spend the money they receive. I very much welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. I cannot interfere in any way with the Comptroller and Auditor General, I cannot ask him to expedite it and I will not, but I understand from members of the Committee of Public Accounts that a scoping study is being carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General this summer. I further understand that he will examine this matter in the autumn.

Apart from that I indicated to the Higher Education Authority that I believed it was dealing with the third level sector with a light hand. I asked it to examine in particular how money is spent within the third level sector, including the institutes of technology and the universities. That is being done and discussions are ongoing between both sides.

However, I have not rested on my laurels and I have also taken another initiative. I was approached by another private company which indicated that it would be prepared, on a pro bono publico basis, to examine everyday spending within the third level sector. It informed me that it carried out an examination within one of the institutes of technology and on payroll it had effected savings of €2 million per annum, a significant sum.

The Deputy will be pleased to know that yesterday I called to Dublin all the presidents and financial controllers of the institutes of technology. It was outlined to them in clear terms how savings of €2 million were effected in one institute of technology. There was a sharing of views. In fairness to the institutes of technology they have already carried out much work, whether in respect of HEAnet or the CEIM programme, and initiatives have taken place involving good collaboration between the institutes of technology. However, yesterday they all met, examined how €2 million savings were effected in one institute and shared observations.

Which institute was it?

The institute concerned was the Cork Institute of Technology. As a result I am also arranging for the presidents and the financial controllers of the universities to appear at a further workshop so that we can examine how we can effect further changes and savings within that sector. I trust that gives a fair idea of how I am attempting to ensure efficiencies and effectiveness of spending.

In respect of the question on HETAC, FETAC and NQAI, the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, I provided an answer to a parliamentary question on the matter recently. I will submit a memorandum to the Government on this issue within the next two weeks and I will hold a public consultation in respect of the amalgamation of the three bodies.

When will it take place?

Legislation is involved and my understanding is that we will have the heads of the Bill by the end of the year.

What is the position on the question of the HEA and the moratorium on appointments within the institutes of technology and the universities?

I understand an employment control framework has been agreed. The Department of Education and Science was treated differently from others by the Department of Finance. At the time we indicated to it that the mechanism being put in place throughout the public sector would not suit the education sector. We reached agreement over and above everyone else that we would take account of the particular circumstances of the higher education sector. It was agreed that an employment control framework would be put in place to provide for the application of the moratorium on third level institutions subject to the continued oversight of the Department of Finance and the Department of Education and Science, and also subject to any legal provisions which might apply. In other words, we have taken account of any concerns expressed by the Deputy in respect of the control mechanism in place. The Department of Finance has agreed to discuss any impediments there may be. However, we will base the cap on the September 2009 figures.

I apologise to Deputy Quinn, but I seek clarity on this matter. Can universities make those appointments on the basis of their existing budgets?

I am prepared to take on board and to examine the concerns expressed by the Deputy and the difficulties that might pertain. For example, we are trying to encourage international students to come here. Enterprise Ireland is marketing the internationalisation of students abroad. We are very keen to make a serious impact in terms of creating places and attracting foreign students to the country and I keep that very much in mind in respect of any impediments that may be in place.

There are a load of impediments.

I will be very brief with my questions and I hope the Minister will reciprocate because otherwise we will be voting in approximately 15 minutes and the thread of this dialogue will end very quickly. I wish to concentrate first of all on higher education fees and later on in the Estimates we can range into other matters. Does the Minister not accept that the student services fee of €1,500 that undergraduates currently must pay in the universities is well in excess of existing fee levels throughout several continental countries in the European Union, against which the Minister has benchmarked himself? In fact, students are paying fees.

I accept education is not free. There is a cost for the parents, families and for the students themselves. There is a cost in terms of the work they must do and there are maintenance and travel costs. If students are not living in the same place as the third level college they have accommodation costs also.

I also accept that the current level of funding for the university sector has not kept scale with inflation. My successor bar two, Mr. McCreevy, systematically refused to index link the amount of money that the fees contribution made to the third level sector from 1999 or 2000. I accept, therefore, that there is a funding problem in the universities. I accept that there is a core funding problem in respect of the increases in research grants. There are issues apart from fees concerning the funding of the third level sector which must be addressed between the Minister's Department and the Department of Finance.

However, the Union of Students of Ireland and parents of students contemplating third level education have specific concerns in this area. The target is to reach 70% and it is already at 64%. If they pay fees for college in any shape, size or form, will it be net additional money to the university sector or will the Department of Finance commend the Minister for getting the money from another source and reduce the allocation to the Department of Education on a pro rata basis? If this entire exercise will result in that outcome, we are all fooling ourselves. My question specifically concerns that. The Minister is determined to bring in some form of fee in some shape or other. Will it be net additionality or simply be displaced by a further reduction in the core grant to the university sector?

The Cabinet will decide what exactly will happen. It is fair to say I want to be absolutely certain the money we are putting into the third level sector is being used efficiently and effectively. That is why I have charged the group looking at a strategy for education to look at management structures, organisation and the way they spend their money to see how it is being spent on the students who are making a contribution.

It is very important to get that right and I am very anxious that would happen. It is also fair to say any new regime that would be brought in would have to incorporate the current student support charge in place. Fee levels and other charges vary considerably internationally and depend on what the course is, its impact and the particular course the students themselves choose.

I see the registration charge as being incorporated in any new element——

Would the Minister accept the current charge of €1,500 is well in excess of what are regarded as university fees across a range of continental European Union member states?

It depends on the course one is talking about. There is no doubt €1,500 is quite a serious charge. I accept that. I wish the cut off level was higher. If the circumstances allowed, I would have a higher cut off point than the current one. Unfortunately, given the financial circumstances that pertain, I am not in a position to do that at present.

May I ask a separate question, as we have gone as far as we can go on this? The Minister announced he would investigate this area before September last year. Why has it taken his Department so long to finalise the options by conducting a comparison with other countries? Does he have a comparison internationally of what current practice is, namely, a factual survey? He would then make recommendations based on it. I presume he has not yet finalised those recommendations, but the technical study is complete.

The technical study is complete.

If it is complete, and since it is factual information and the Minister has used the resources of his Department to gather it, could he not publish it, let the informed debate which has to proceed from it happen and look at what the practice is in other countries?

No. We have collated all the material regarding the various student commitments internationally. We looked at those and how we could then tailor it to the Irish situation. It would have come before the Cabinet before now, but for the supplementary budget, because I felt we would have to do some remodelling as a result of it. That process is under way. When it is complete, I will give it to the Cabinet for observation because that is what it has asked me to do.

This country does not have the luxury of extended time. We are in a general macro-economic crisis, heading towards a depression. To get popular and public understanding of the scale and extent of it, surely publishing facts that prevail elsewhere, without making specific recommendations at this point in time, which is the preserve of Cabinet, would help to inform the public. Currently, parents and students are frightened because they simply do not know how the announced fees will hit them.

The Minister's officials have done the work. It is a set of facts which the rest of us could compile if we had his resources. We do not and it would be a waste of our resources to try and duplicate that. Why does the Minister not publish what he has found and say what the practice is in the rest of the world?

Deputy Quinn is a former Minister for Finance and has served in government. He knows when the Cabinet asks one to do a job of work and report back to it, that is exactly what one does and is exactly what I will do. The Cabinet has charged me with preparing a report, tailoring it——

With due respect, the Minister has proposals. I am asking him to publish facts. They are quite separate.

It has asked me to bring back a report. In the first instance, I carried out my survey of the various different options internationally. We have tailored them to the Irish situation. We are now remodelling them on the basis of the supplementary budget. We are taking account of the ability to pay.

I accept the answer. The information is not capable of being published separately. I do not want to be rude but will move on with another question.

I am very conscious of the fears and misinformation out there. I have always indicated quite clearly that it is not my intention to further punish families who could ill afford to pay.

I will move on to a separate question regarding the third level sector. Why have a dog and bark oneself? Why establish the HEA, have it well resourced and well informed on what is happening in the third level sector, and then appoint the strategic group to investigate it? What is the fundamental distrust between the Minister's Department or the Minister? I understand the strategic group was announced prior to the Minister coming into office. Is that correct?

The Minister inherited the announcement of the strategic review group, which most people informally thought was a way of kicking into touch the issue of a university for Waterford. The general consensus in the education sector was that the demands to give university status to Waterford Institute of Technology, which would trigger another round of comparative demands, could be solved by looking at the sector and burying the Waterford institute and university issue. The Minister has now given new terms of reference to this body. Why has he sidelined the HEA which, with all due respect, knows far more about what is happening in the educational sector than the esteemed members and chairperson of the strategic review group?

I have an outstanding working relationship with the CEO and chairman of the HEA. I have met and addressed them and we have an excellent working relationship. It should be pointed out that rather than sidelining the HEA, I have included it as part of the strategic group. It is part and parcel of it. It is providing a joint secretariat to the group itself.

The members are in the group. The strategy group allows for outside inputs to be put in place. I have three applications from institutes of technology for university status, including not just Waterford but Cork and Dublin. If I put a strategic group in place to look at a strategy for third level education into the future, it would be strange of me to make a decision at this stage on upgrading Waterford, Cork and Dublin institutes of technology to university status without hearing exactly what the strategy group has to say. I asked it to reconfigure and to look at how we can reconfigure the third level sector into the future.

It is important to allow that group to produce its report and see what its recommendations are. The Government will then be in a position to make well informed decisions on a third level strategy for the next 20 years. That report will be finalised towards the end of the year, which is not a significant or undue delay. Any reasonably-minded person would see it makes good sense that if the strategy group is in place looking at reconfiguration within the sector, it is appropriate it is given an opportunity to say where exactly it sees these structures going into the future.

The Minister stated earlier he met the chairperson and CEO of the HEA and has a very good relationship with them. Does he think the same applies to his Department in Marlborough Street?

Is there the same level of trust between the HEA and the Department as the Minister apparently has with the chairperson and chief executive?

I have been in office for 12 months. There is an outstanding interaction between the Department of Education and Science and the HEA.

Is it a two-way or one-way interaction?

It is two-way. There is regular contact and there are regular meetings. It has been an extremely busy 12 months because of the funding issues that arose and the strategy. The HEA was very helpful about the strategy and what it wanted to achieve.

Other countries have separated the third level sector from the school sector because of the relationship between enterprise and employment and research and development. Many in the education sector to whom I have spoken in the past year regard Marlboro Street as the Department for schools, primary and secondary, and the VEC. They believe there is a disconnect and inequality in the relationship because of the role of the HEA. Is there merit in integrating the three in order to have a proper working Department of Education and Science, or should there be a complete separation to take the HEA out of the remit of the Department of Education and Science and move it to that of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as happened, for example, with Science Foundation Ireland? There seems to be a schizophrenic relationship between the Department of Education and Science and the third level sector, as evidenced by the Minister's manifest distrust of the value for money that the university sector provides.

My experience is that the Department of Education and Science is all-embracing. It is important to have a continuum in education from primary through secondary into third level. The three should be integrated. I see good integration throughout the sector. I am quite satisfied that the Department is all-embracing in respect of the third level sector. It is important that the education sector was put in place and I am satisfied that it carries out its remit effectively.

We could discuss the wider issues of control and examine the Universities Act for the level of control the universities have over appointments, and their autonomy. Questions would arise about whether to take autonomy from the universities, or squeeze it, by bringing it back into the Department. We could have another day's debate on that issue. I want the universities to be as autonomous as they can but at the same time I want to make sure that the control mechanisms are in place to ensure that they spend whatever money they get from the Exchequer efficiently and effectively. That is why I have asked the HEA to examine how the money is being spent. I want to make sure that it is satisfied the money it is dispensing on behalf of the Department and the Government is well spent.

I thank the Minister. I now propose to take a group of four questioners from the Government and Opposition parties. I remind members that we must consider the wider education implications of the mini budget and ask them to limit themselves to a minute and a half. They will have a chance to speak again.

I will do my best to keep to a minute and a half after being here for 45 minutes. The Minister is welcome and he was very welcome recently in Donegal where we saw the success of the building programme throughout the country. That is not said often enough.

I am interested in four issues. We have had our review of the SNAs in Inishowen because there was a terrible dispute about our declining figures when the national increase took place. We have maintained much of what we had because the case was proved. Is the spirit of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act active enough between the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children to ensure that the special needs supports are not all thrown onto the Department of Education and Science? I thought that the special education councils should have been the guardian angels of the children with special needs, yet the discussion seems to assume that while the children are in school they are the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and when they are not in school they are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children. This affects the Minister's resources because if the Department of Education and Science must fund the physiotherapy, the occupational and speech therapy, and everybody else and there is no tie-up between the two Departments, then we are not delivering as good a service as would be possible if there was better cross-departmental work.

The Minister saw in Donegal that people who received lump sums built new buildings rather than buying prefabricated ones. Secondary schools have proved that they could deliver this. Perhaps the Minister needs to continue to endorse the fact that the communities will deliver good projects if they receive the grants.

Is the Minister in touch with the authorities in the North which have had third level fees and are evaluating the difficulties associated with the fee structure and whom it may have kept out of the system? Are we learning from their mistakes because they have already been around the garden on this issue?

While I welcome the places available on post-leaving certificate courses and acknowledge the innovative ways in which the institutes of technology bring more people into the system, I ask the Minister not to forget the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, courses and the step-up programmes. I am told that they could absorb more numbers in their classes and not cost the Department more. They do exceptionally good work for people who do not have a leaving certificate. People are getting the confidence to go back into education and are doing exceptionally well in my region.

I welcome the Minister to the meeting. I will focus on the third level sector. Can parents expect to pay fees for third level education in September 2010? Will the Minister clarify that, as parents need time to plan ahead? The Minister has spoken about family affordability and family proofing and families need that time. He said that the technical report has been prepared. Has the Minister quantified the cost, for example, of an arts degree, a degree in medicine, a commerce degree? Does he have that information here? He spoke about international comparators but we are not on a level playing field. What parents can afford in Germany is not necessarily what they can afford in Ireland.

Has the Minister asked the universities to consider national consolidation? Has he told them that we need centres of excellence and specialisation rather than a duplication of courses? Parents have asked me about the possibility of offering four year degree courses in three years. One said to me recently that if his child was not attending college near home he would not know that she has only one hour of lectures on a Thursday. She has only 12 hours of lectures in a week. He had discovered that she could be doing the same course in a different university in three years instead of four. While cost comes into question now I want to guard the provision of quality. Is the Minister telling universities that they must consider quality and time?

The teacher education colleges addressed a recent meeting of this committee. Since early 2000 when I lectured in one of those colleges, they have spoken about moving the Bachelor of Education, B.Ed., degree from three to four years. A total of 1,200 people will graduate with this degree this year, most of whom will be jobless because of the Minister's cuts in the pupil-teacher ratio. There will be more primary teachers unemployed. This committee recommended that the Minister consider introducing a four year B.Ed. to reduce the number of unemployed teachers. The only hope for young teachers is in the massive retirements at the other end of the scale, as people fear will happen.

Visa impediments pose a problem for international students. I tabled a matter on the Adjournment recently on this issue. If we are to gain the revenue available for English language training here the Minister needs to examine these impediments. Our revenue is €500 million. The UK's is €12 billion, Australia's is €6 billion and New Zealand's is €4 billion. The processing of visas to get into this country takes from four weeks to 14 months. We are losing a huge amount of revenue. Will the Minister address that with his opposite number in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

Since 2000, the Government has invested more than €1 billion in research, particularly through Science Foundation Ireland. Does the Minister have a measurement of the outcomes per euro spent? I contend that we get more outcomes from applied research. Does the Minister have information for the committee to show the money is well spent? I am seriously concerned about whether the TCD-UCD alliance provides value for money. Huge numbers of jobs were mentioned, such as 40,000. How can the Minister reassure us about that?

It is good to meet the Minister and hear from him again today. Like him, unfortunately, I am now only a visitor to this committee, but I certainly welcome the opportunity——

Deputy Behan is an esteemed former member of the committee and we have indicated he is always welcome.

I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and make a few points. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I fundamentally disagree with some of the decisions he has made, but nonetheless I accept that he is doing what he considers correct. I have just one comment on third level fees. Donogh O'Malley was one of the greatest Ministers of Education in the history of this country. In the 1960s, after a very depressing time for Ireland in the 1950s, he made the brave decision to propose the universal provision of free second level education. That led to fantastic improvements and developments. The Minister for Education and Science has rolled back significantly on his initial comments on third level fees. I ask him to roll back the rest of the way and consider the matter from a strategic point of view. It is education and an educated workforce that will get us out of the current crisis. The Minister has the capacity to have the vision to look at this anew. I appeal to him, on behalf of the many people who are anxiously waiting for a decision, to rethink and prioritise the universal provision of third level education. He will be remembered forever if he has the courage to do that.

It is unfortunate and a great pity that the Opposition education spokesman, Deputy Brian Hayes, has given the Minister the political cover to introduce third level fees if he wishes. In fact, Deputy Hayes has gone one step further. He is saying that for the first time in the State's history, students will have to carry the burden of paying for education. That is wrong and regressive. I regret that he has given the Minister an opportunity to press ahead with the proposal. I ask him to reconsider and hope he will do so.

I have three specific points to make on the specifics of the budget.

Will the Deputy leave them until later? We are dealing with higher education.

Yes. Can I come back in later?

The Deputy certainly can. It is as if he never left the committee.

I have one point to add on higher education. The USI has called for the strategy group to be more inclusive, to include parents, many of whom will foot the bill for students. That is a good reason for parking the issue until proper, full consultation has been taken on board. On Deputy Quinn's comments, the HEA should not be the only organisation dealing with the matter, which is why I welcome the fact it has been widened out. The HEA obviously has an input, and I am glad that relations are hunky dory between it and the Department, but——

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

Absolutely. Never a truer word was said. I ask the Minister to clarify whether there will be further consultation with all interested stakeholders on whatever form of financial imposition will be forthcoming?

I ask the Chairman to repeat the final question.

The Minister has said repeatedly in statements that some form of additional funding will have to come from students and parents. Will the strategy group be widened to include all the stakeholders? Will it include the parents associations, for example, and increased student representation? Those groups have a valuable role to play. Perhaps they should have some positive input to the final fee structure that emerges.

I thank the committee for those questions. I will deal with Senator Keaveney's questions first. There are more than 10,000 special needs assistants in the system and about 8,440 are in the primary sector. We are carrying out a value-for-money audit, which we hope will be complete before the end of the year. I have asked the National Council for Special Education to review the allocation of special needs assistants. I am not changing the criteria in any way, but I want to ensure it is being adhered to, that the appointments are justified and that they meet the need. The review has commenced and the initial samplings of schools highlighted that some SNAs are retained when the pupil with special needs leaves the school. I will correct that.

Senator Keaveney can be certain that the criteria are the same as previously. We just want to ensure that the provision of SNAs in the system is correct. I was even asked by one school from which a special needs child had moved on whether the school could keep the SNA as a special helper in the office or a general factotum, because they were so useful to the school. That is happening in many schools. Schools should adhere to the criteria that SNAs are appointed to deal with the needs of a particular pupil. That is the message I want to send out.

There is now close co-operation between the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science on special needs. As the committee knows, the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, is now responsible for that, and the office of the Minister for Health and Children has the capacity to raise cross-departmental issues. I am happy that section is being——

I am sorry to interrupt, but Deputy Hayes wants to give an apology.

I understand that the debate on our Private Members' motion will resume shortly in the House, so I have to leave. I apologise to the Minister and members that I cannot stay for the rest of the committee meeting.

Deputy Hayes might apologise to the House for me. I cannot be in two places at one time, much as I would like to be.

I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. In Inishowen, our evaluation has already happened and we have learned a lot of lessons from it. Looking at the statistics on who is in place throughout the country, I think provision could be made in a more collective manner. We should consider whether outside support is in place for the child as well as whether the child is physically in the school. The review could be more embracing of whether the child's needs are being met. It is going around the garden once to find out whether the children are still there and whether they fulfil the criteria, and it does a good evaluation of what needs to happen, but it then has to return and do the same again to put the structures in place. We learned a lot from the evaluation that took place in the past 18 months. It was tough and hard going for many schools, but the lessons learned can be used in rolling out the evaluation throughout the country.

Whatever lessons were learned in Inishowen will be applied across the board. We will let those responsible for the review get on with the job and see how they report back. As I said, the important thing is to ensure and say publicly that the criteria have not changed, will not change and will be applied to people in need.

We are supposed to be dealing with higher education.

I have given some leeway. Senator Healy Eames can come back in later and be the lead spokesperson on the issue for her party.

We have looked at international experience and are examining its applicability to Irish circumstances. The report looks at the relative cost of courses.

Such as an arts degree in Britain compared with one here.

Yes; we have looked at that aspect. I have also asked the strategy group to look at consolidation. Questions relating to programme costs and the potential to deliver courses differently were part of the exercise with Deloitte which carried out the independent research.

Was the notion of colleges having specialist areas included?

That will form a core part of the strategy group's deliberations.

The Chairman asked about the USI. I received a request from the USI for a role for it to play. I appointed its president to the strategy group because I thought it should be informed by student thinking. I also made it clear that the strategy group was open to submissions from any member of the public or group of individuals.

Is there a wider composition within the strategy group?

It must be accepted that there are parents in the strategy group. I want a coherent group. I could appoint 25 members but doubt whether it would be as effective. I am satisfied with the level and diversity of the group in place. All of the organisations will have an opportunity to be part of the process. I made it clear to the strategy group that I wanted the consultation process to be as open as possible.

Are there parents in the strategy group who are genuinely concerned about the cost of third level fees for their children, perhaps preventing them from attending third level? When does the Minister plan to begin the payment of fees at third level? Will they start in September 2010?

The Cabinet will decide if there will be fees, loans or a continuation of the current system. I have been charged with making a report to the Cabinet. I have indicated clearly that nothing will happen for September-October 2009 — no one will be affected then by any changes that might be made. It will be a question for the Cabinet to decide where we go from there.

Given the concerns that the strategy group should be inclusive and take on board all submissions made, adding to the timescale, will the Minister give an indication of when his report will go before the Cabinet?

When we have made the modifications we want, I will send it to the Cabinet. The committee must understand there are four previous Ministers for Education and Science in the Cabinet and I would like to hear their opinions.

I do not envy the Minister that task.

It will be very interesting. I am open to consultation and want it to be as transparent as possible. I am interested in hearing their observations and will then make my own recommendation to the Cabinet.

Are there any North-South Ministerial Council meetings that could look at the experience in the North?

We have taken that issue into account. I have regular meetings with my counterpart in the North. I met her at the INTO conference.

She does not represent the third level sector which falls within the remit of Reg Empey in the Department of Employment and Learning.

We had a joint meeting and I think he was present at it.

He obviously made a great impression.

The Minister mentioned asking the universities to look at consolidation. Does this include consolidating courses in shorter timeframes to address affordability?

All of those matters will be looked at by the strategy group.

What about the bachelor of education course?

Will it be changed from a three to a four year course?

That is a separate issue and I do not know if the strategy group will be examining it in great detail. I have not looked at it.

Is the Minister aware that this committee recommended that it be looked at?

The Minister responded to the committee.

I asked about funding for Science Foundation Ireland, the value for money obtained and the outcomes.

Research investment is long-term. The research and development budget amounted to €420 million in 2008. The IDA and Enterprise Ireland are part of the overall strategy and well informed about what PRTLI projects are accepted. On this occasion, when I announced the figure of €300 million, I asked the third level sector to collaborate to a greater extent. That is why when fears were expressed about collaboration between Trinity College and UCD, I welcomed it. It is a progressive step and I laud both presidents and universities for taking it in the right direction.

I have no difficulty with that but does the Minister know what we will get for it?

Instead of expressing fears people should be looking within themselves to see how they could collaborate more.

We are agreed about collaboration but can the Minister provide the committee with an assessment of the outcomes we are achieving for the investment in research? I am a proponent of research but want to see value for money returns.

We have gone through a number of issues in the committee's work programme and will have a specific session on this issue.

Yes, but we should get an answer from the Minister now because it is rare that he appears here.

While I do not have the detail, I know 1,000 jobs were created as a result of research and development in 2008. I will obtain a more comprehensive reply.

I would appreciate an answer that outlines the outcomes since 2000.

We have emphasised as part of cycle 5 of PRTLI that we want the universities and institutes of technology to look particularly at product development.

My final question relates to the visa impediments to international education.

Consultation is taking place between us and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There may even be a joint submission to the Government shortly on the issue.

In his response to the question on Science Foundation Ireland the Minister might give an indication as to whether the Department prefers applied research rather than pure research. Is the purpose of the foundation to generate employment and build a knowledge economy rather than the establishment of a centre of excellence for pure research? The job outturn from applied research is higher; therefore, it would be good to see a policy position that clarifies the Minister's priorities for a budget over which he has little control.

The primary purpose of this meeting was to ask questions on higher education. Given that the Minister is present we tend to ask other questions as well but we can do that in the Estimates. A major institution in the third level sector is the DIT to which the Minister referred. Prior to last year it sent to the Minister a revised report, a strategic draft plan and a budget, under the Grangegorman Development Agency Act, the GDA authority, for his consideration. The proposal to transfer the DIT from its 30 individual sites across the city to the campus in Grangegorman has been in his Department for some time. The Minister has indicated that the formal proposal on which he has to sign off will be brought to Cabinet because of the budgetary element.

The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, indicated, that he wished to contribute on this or a separate issue——-

In respect of Grangegorman, I met Dr. Norton yesterday in the DIT and we have arranged that I visit the Grangegorman site. I appreciate that Deputy Quinn and Deputy Rabbitte have visited the site and I am very anxious to be well acquainted with it. I am also bringing a memorandum to Government in the near future on the issue.

I offer this for the Minister's consideration. This is not a green field site operation. Already the DIT and its 30 separate locations has to spend money. It is inefficiently spent. The Minister is looking for an audit for efficiency. No doubt Dr. Norton explained the complexities of having so many different sites to manage. There is already an existing cost on the capital side because of the poor quality of many of the buildings and the fact that if one does not move, between rent, maintenance and upgrading, one is committed to spending. It is not as if this was a whole new project that had no existing life elsewhere. I urge the Minister to look at the details that, no doubt, have been submitted to him and the time spread over 15 to 20 years and the revitalisation process in that part of Dublin city. If the Minister has a look at it, within two hours he could get the whole presentation and it would help him to answer questions that would arise at the Cabinet debate.

I want to be as informed as I possibly can. That was the reason I agreed to visit the site and I will do that within the next couple of weeks.

Senator Keaveney raised the issue of further education and FETAC courses generally. Employment activation is of concern to the Government, particularly at the present time. As the Senator correctly stated some announcements were made in regard to the supplementary budget, for example, the 23,435 places in higher and further education and, in particular, the 1,500 post leaving certificate places. Deputy Quinn appreciates that the VECs have a major role to play in regard to unemployment. We have a tight budget and are managing it as best we can. We were successful in getting the extra 1,500 plc places. In regard to the adult literacy service, VTOS, the back to education initiative, senior Traveller training centres, Youthreach and so on, we are attempting to maintain the maximum number of places in those particular sectors. I wish to inform the committee that the extra plc places will be allocated shortly. The applications have come in from the VECs and we will keep the committee posted on that issue.

I thank the Minister of State. On a related issue, given the increasing imperative to be cost-effective within every aspect of the Department's operations, would a full-scale review of how the VECs operate be timely, because they are operated on a county-by-county basis and linked tenuously to local authorities? There are many positions on each VEC and there may be a case for streamling and making them more cost effective. Has the Minister any plans for such a review of the VECs and how they operate in the 21st century?

I am looking at the cost-effectiveness of the operation and, in particular, at the cost per student in the various VECs and the variation in terms of that student cost. My understanding is that shared services are looking at the VECs also. I understand an bord snip nua has looked at the VECs. Those two reports are coming on stream. I will look at the variations in cost within the VECs.

I thank the Minister. On the general budgetary ramifications on behalf of Fine Gael, I call Senator Healy Eames.

I wish to ask a number of questions. Following on from what Senator Keaveney asked about the special needs assistants, I am concerned at the type of feedback I have received from some SNAs and schools as late as last night. I was advised that this mandate has been given to the SENOs, the special educational needs officers, in schools and that if schools do not make the cut the Department will do it. The word in a circular to them is that there will be a 25% to 50% cut in special needs assistants in schools and if the SENO does not identify where those cuts are to be made the Department will do it.

The Minister said there are 8,440 special needs assistants in primary schools and 1,600 in second level schools. Does he realise that all those children with special needs assistants have psychological assessments showing that they need that special needs assistant? How will he make inclusion work in primary schools if he takes away their SNAs? I am not talking about those who do not need SNAs. The information is that the Minister plans to make a 25% to 50% cut in SNAs, that is up to 5,000 posts. That would seriously affect the mainstreaming of children with learning difficulties. He is already planning to mainstream children with mild learning difficulties who are in special classes.

I have spoken out against this on the basis that I do not believe the system is able to cope. I have also shown in one case where the Department will lose €50,000 in Scoil Caitríona, Renmore, by mainstreaming the children with special needs because they will need so much support in the mainstream class. May I move on to another question?

This question relates to the Minister's reneging on the commitment he gave to this committee that he would look at every school with English language teachers on a case by case basis, where there were excessive and large numbers of foreign national pupils. However, he is not doing that. Scoil Mhuire, Oranmore, has 154 foreign national pupils for two teachers. That is not workable. At a ratio of 77:1, the school currently has four English language teachers but the number will be reduced to two. It is appalling that the Minister will lower education standards for Irish children.

Is the Senator outlining the facts?

Has the appeals system been rolled out?

I have just been informed by the principal within the past week.

Perhaps I can deal with the Senator's two questions because the information she is disseminating is erroneous.

The Senator has had her say. May I first deal with the SNAs.

I am speaking facts.

I will explain the facts. No missive went out from my Department stating that there should be a percentage cut in SNAs. The information the Senator is trying to put across at this committee is incorrect.

That is the information coming from the IPPN into schools.

May I deal with the question? The facts are that the SNA review is based on criteria, a psychological assessment of the needs of the child. An SNA is given to that child on the basis of that need. The review is looking at the appropriateness of SNAs within schools. In other words, it must be asked if the SNAs actually dealing with the needs of each individual child. The Senator hardly expects me, given that my party is seeking financial rectitude, to allow SNAs to be employed in schools where there are no special needs pupils. Does the Senator expect me to continue that system? There is no target in terms of a percentage. It never existed. My only preoccupation is that the needs of the child——

I am glad to hear it.

——are met in each school on the basis of the psychological assessment that has been carried out.

Senator Healy Eames said her source came from the Irish Primary Principals Network.

May I deal with the question of language support?

Yes, but I put this information to the Minister because it came to me via SNAs and teachers in the classroom. The source of that information was the Irish Primary Principals Network. The Minister has clarified on the record that he does not plan a 25% to 50% cut in the number of SNAs. That is fine. I simply wanted clarity for the record.

In fact, 300 extra SNAs have been appointed since the start of the current school year.

Great. I want to move on to the question of English language teachers. I gave the Minister facts on these teachers.

I will deal with English language support. We said we would cut it back to two, which was the position some years ago. I said at the time that I would have regard to those schools that were integrating properly and that had a high concentration of non-national children who had a language difficulties. I hold by that but the reason I changed it was that I was being accused of allowing schools to get extra language support teachers for political reasons. I wanted to ensure there could be no charge made against me on that basis so we decided in the Department to clearly set out the criteria as to when a school can get in excess of two language support teachers. That circular has issued to every school in the country. Every school now knows whether it is entitled to six, five, four, three or two teachers.

Can the Minister share that criteria with this committee because I contend that a school with 38% of its population in this category, 154 children, is excessive. They are now qualifying for two——

We do not have time to deal with that now.

I want to hear the criteria.

It is a public document.

Standing Orders state that when the Chair speaks, no one else should be in a position to speak. For clarification, Senator, and I have given you a good deal of leeway——

I can get the circular reference number for the Senator.

Yes, can the Minister forward the circular to the committee?

Yes. It is a public document.

The Minister mentioned VEC schools earlier. The home-school liaison teacher is important in all schools, particularly in terms of retaining children at risk of dropping out of school. The removal of home-school liaison teachers is particularly felt in VEC schools. Can the Minister give a commitment to this committee that he will reconsider that for the sake of keeping children at school? It remains the case that one in six of our children in poorer areas are dropping out of school before doing their leaving certificate. These are particularly disadvantaged schools. They are not the DEIS schools. They are the non-DEIS schools that were making gains. My concern is that the Minister will erode all of that gain for apparent financial gain now but it will result in financial loss into the future. Many of those children are so at risk they end up in prison, which is costing the State €100,000 per year. That is a study we are currently doing. It is an appalling waste of human resources, educational resources and financial resources. I ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing the home-school liaison teachers to remain.

Will the Minister examine that issue seriously?

To clarify, DEIS 1 schools are not affected in any way. Furthermore, there are a broad number of agencies considering school retention and we will be informed by the report that emanates from that. In the interim period we have the welfare board and the home-school liaison teachers. They are examining the impact and effectiveness of that in particular. I will be informed by that report.

The Minister is cutting approximately 60 home-school liaison posts in areas that are very vulnerable.

The Senator will be aware that they were due to be phased out.

I know but the point is that it is not working. We are threatening children who still need the support, and threatening homes.

The Senator's point has been clearly made. I do not intend to continue with this line of question. It will be in the Official Report. There is a time constraint before we move on to the Estimates. I call Deputy Quinn.

I want to return to the higher education sector. I thank the Minister for his contribution on the Estimates. We will deal with some other matters.

Two points have been referred to previously. The Minister stated in the Dáil, and I welcomed it, that Enterprise Ireland would be given the task of promoting the marketing of third level places abroad, and we have a unique opportunity to do that. I fully support the policy initiative. Every Deputy in this House and every official in every other Department knows that trying to deal with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is, generally speaking, a nightmare relative to dealing with other Departments.

In his dialogue with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which has an understandable fear of the abuse of student visas by so-called colleges, and they disappear into the system, I suggest that Enterprise Ireland, the Minister's Department and the third level colleges responsible for marketing these courses should take responsibility for monitoring the student when he or she arrives here and put in place an instant reporting system back to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the relevant authorities. If somebody abuses a system — pays the fees up-front to get into Ireland to mar dhea study and then disappears into the system — there would be a reporting mechanism in place to deal with that.

In fairness to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, its fears are understandable because it has sole responsibility in this area. If we do not reassure the Department in that area we will find a degree of resistance. The figures cited are staggering — €12 billion for the United Kingdom and €4 billion for New Zealand. It is a market we should go after. That is my first point. The Minister may want to either respond later to it or in writing as the Minister sees fit.

I will respond to it here.

Regarding the Student Support Bill and the role it will play on the grant system — this has nothing to do with fees per se but the existing grant system — and the future role of the VECs, it is my understanding that the VECs, through the Irish Vocational Education Association, have come forward with a proposal to administer the processing of applications for grants from the City of Dublin VEC, CDVEC. For example, a Roscommon based student would file his or her application for a grant with the Roscommon VEC. The front desk person would ensure that the application was properly completed and so on and it then would be sent to the VEC designated, in this case the CDVEC.

Is there not a role in the Minister's view for an efficiency across the VEC sector, which is uneven, and for the pooling of services? For example, one VEC would be the resource VEC to deliver, say, human resources or school maintenance services in a region. The VECs could deliver that type of HR service to the voluntary secondary school sector which is woefully under-resourced when it comes to management, school building maintenance and HR problems. The alternative of trying to either reduce the number of or abolish the VECs is simply setting up a second or third front that neither the Minister nor the country needs. Value for money can be got from the VEC sector by delivering support services to the schools in the area, irrespective of the nature of the patronage or the level of the school, be it primary or secondary. If the Minister is considering that, I invite him to examine it in those terms.

I will respond to the last point first, namely, the idea of shared services. The Secretary General met with the VECs yesterday to examine the area of shared services and indicated to them clearly that we felt there was great opportunity for them to become involved in that area. I spoke at the VECs conference last year at which I mentioned payroll costs could be such an area for consideration in this context. I indicated that I believed we should move in that direction. In line with the general policy on shared services, they have been requested formally to report to us, having examined what they can do in terms of consolidation and shared services. We await that report.

I am delighted to have the Deputy's support for Enterprise Ireland. When I went on a trade mission to China it became apparent that we must ensure we have a quality mark in regard to the education of international students. On my return from that trade mission, I asked the Secretary General to ask the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland to examine putting in place a quality mark, regulations and standards that would apply to all international schools. We have derived a poor reputation in certain instances in this respect in the past. I do not want that to arise in the future. I am very determined to put in place standards, regulations and quality as a trade mark for Irish international studies.

Bogus universities should be closed.

Absolutely. If we had a quality mark in place, all students would have to attain that standard. That would be monitored on a regular basis to ensure students attain the standards required by the new body that would emerge. In the interim period I have asked the NQAI, even though it is in the period of transition, to make sure it puts a quality mark in place and that we set standards for all the schools, universities and institutes operating in this area. That is critical to maintaining our reputation in this area internationally.

I welcome that. I seek clarification on an earlier dialogue, the Minister's reply to which I did not hear, if he gave one. Am I correct in understanding it is the Minister's policy intention that the reintroduction of fees, in whatever, shape, size or form that might take, subject to a Cabinet decision, would result, from the point of the view of the Department of Education and Science, in net additionality in the funding of the third level sector?

First, I want to be satisfied that the money we are putting into that sector is being well spent.

I agree with that point.

That will inform decisions into the future. If we reach the target of 70%, the Exchequer will experience the impact of that in terms of financing into the future. There are two issues involved. We should seriously examine the benefit to be gained by access programmes, having regard to their success, and how we might improve access for people from disadvantaged areas. The percentage of third level students from those areas is still quite low. Whatever additional funding would be put in place, I would examine the provision of an access programme to improve access to third level for people from disadvantaged areas. I would be informed when the review is completed as to how the third level sector is spending the money it is allocated. If one group can save €2 million on payroll costs in terms of a short-term review of its operation, it suggests a far more comprehensive study should be carried out.

Can I phrase my question another way? There possibly are savings in that respect. A view could be expressed that if a particular institution, say CIT, received a grant allocation that enabled it in turn to make savings of €2 million, somebody made a classic mistake at the outset by giving it too high a grant allocation. I was not party to the dialogue as to how it found those savings.

We are a society committed to education, and family values across the entire social spectrum by and large are committed to education. Parents are now looking at what is coming down the tracks. This will all be for nought if what they have to pay into the system on behalf of their young adult children will be simply taken out at the far end by the Department of Finance. Surely the Minister can indicate, in principle, the policy objective of his initiative. If he is going to go to all this grief and if the net result is that the chancellor, president or bursar is left with the same amount of cash, what is the purpose of it all?

That is a fair question. I want to ensure that the third level sector is adequately funded. If I am going down this road, it is to ensure that we have adequate funding for that sector, but I am also conscious of the need to ensure that people from disadvantaged areas are given every opportunity to gain access to third level. I am putting an emphasis on that aspect as well. I would not at this stage envisage the money going back to the Department of Finance. If we are bringing in new roles, it is on the basis of how we can properly fund the third level sector to ensure the benefits that will manifest from such funding will result in the smart economy we all desire and hope will be achieved.

I wish to raise a few issues but do not want to cover issues that have already been raised. Given the scale of unemployment, is the Minister satisfied that the 7,000 additional places being made available for unemployed people will be sufficient? Did he arrange for any survey or take soundings on that? My initial reaction is that 7,000 places may not be enough to deal with the serious situation that has emerged.

Nearly 400,000 people are unemployed.

Yes.

We have dealt with issues concerning FÁS which have received much comment. While the Minister is not directly responsible for that agency, an issue has arisen regarding courses, the duration of which, I understand, was 18 weeks. Now it is running the same number of courses, the duration of which is six weeks. People who are delivering FÁS courses are beginning to wonder is this arrangement simply to present figures and show that something is being done. I do not believe that six weeks is a sufficient period within which to upskill people. I make that observation, while appreciating that the Minister is not directly responsible for this agency.

Are the school projects for Ballinamore and Strokestown included among the list of school building projects the Minister announced will go to tender this year and will proceed?

The school project for Ballinamore is a PPP, is it not?

Was that not in the last bundle of school projects that was announced?

Funding is in place for that. As for the school project in Strokestown, I announced more than 70,0000 projects in the schools building programme. Funding is in place for all those projects. I announced them on the basis that work can proceed on site in 2009. I am satisfied all those projects will go ahead.

I thank the Minister for his response.

I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, to reply to the Deputy's other question.

I will put Deputy Feighan's question in context. The national skills strategy is in place, the objective of which is to upskill 500,000 people by one point on the national framework of qualifications by 2020. An implementation plan for that will be published shortly. I chair an interdepartmental committee comprising representatives of the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Education and Science and Finance, which is reaching a conclusion on an implementation plan for the national skills strategy. That puts the Deputy's question in context.

There is also an upskilling co-ordination group, comprising a number of relevant stakeholders, including the Departments of Enterprise Trade and Employment, and Education and Science, to bring about co-operation on education and training. Our work has been given a new impetus because of the emerging serious unemployment situation.

An employment activation package was announced in the supplementary budget, which will involve the input of three Departments in that context, the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Education and Science, and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Changes to the back to education initiative and the back to work allowance will bring about an extra 1,400 claims for support.

As the Deputy mentioned, an additional 16,525 places will be provided by FÁS, on top of what has already been announced and is being provided by it. As I said in regard to the Department of Education and Science, an additional 23,435 places will be provided. It is a start.

Everybody accepts that unemployment is serious. We need to do much more to upskill and reskill people and in regard to employment activation generally. I mentioned 1,500 post leaving certificate courses places. The position is being monitored on an ongoing basis. If anybody has any new ideas about what FÁS or further education providers should do, I would be delighted to take them on board.

I seek clarification from the Minister on three specific areas. First, on page 3 of his executive summary, on the question of the moratorium he said the Government has decided that teachers and SNAs should be governed by a ceiling that will be determined this autumn rather than an embargo on filling individual posts. Can the Minister explain how that ceiling will be handled and what he actually means by that? I take it that it means the overall number of teachers will not increase even if pupil numbers increase. Does that effectively mean that there could well be an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio? Does it also mean that the Minister may yet have to come back to readdress his welcome statement that the criteria for SNAs will not be changed, but that they may have to be changed in light of rising numbers?

Second, the suppression of 130 or so special classes in primary schools is a wrong decision. It should be pointed out, as the public may not be aware, that these children are described by an educational psychological term as having "mild, general learning disability". Lay people may well think that is just a mild problem, and will say "Sure, what's the problem? They are going back into the classes". In fact, however, children with mild, general learning disability are those with the most serious special needs in the school. In the past, these children were often accommodated in special schools. I welcome the fact that they are now accommodated in mainstream schools, but many schools operate a special class on an integrated basis.

According to media reports, the Minister said there are 40 appeals against that decision. Those schools in particular would be anxious to know when they will get the answer to that appeal. In the case of schools, such as my own, with two special classes, one special class is being suppressed. For the sake of two children the second class would also be entitled to continue. How are schools to prioritise and say which children are to remain in a special class and which ones are to leave it? Many of these special classes do fantastic work, both within the special class because they have specially trained teachers, but also back in the mainstream as well. It is a complex issue. These children are the weakest and most vulnerable ones in our system. They do not have a voice at places such as this.

As regards the 40 schools that have appealed, I ask the Minister to consider those individual children. He said he will look at the merits on an educational basis. Any school that has appealed this decision has gone into it in great detail and knows there is educational merit in maintaining those special classes. On behalf of those voiceless children who are extremely vulnerable, I appeal to the Minister to consider positively the appeals made to him.

Third, I refer to the moratorium on posts of responsibility. The fashionable name for that is in-school management, which is a whole management structure going from the principal to the deputy principal, assistant principal and special duties teacher. The Minister has effectively taken a sledge-hammer to that system. People on the outside may say "That's only teachers complaining about their promotion. We're not going to worry about that", but the issue is the management of the entire school. By his decision, the Minister has effectively said that if a post becomes vacant it is not to be filled. What does the word "moratorium" mean? Is the Minister saying that, as posts become available, he is dismantling the in-school management system so that we will finally be left just with a principal and deputy principal? Or is he saying that there is a time limit on this and that as posts become available they will be put in a queue and will be considered? That is a fundamental issue that has not really caught the public's attention, but it has huge implications for how schools will be run in future.

Before calling the Minister to reply, I will take a brief supplementary question from Senator Healy Eames.

The Minister mentioned a few times his wish to see more pupils from disadvantaged areas go into third level education. He also said he would re-examine the merits of the access programme in that regard. Has the Minister considered that earlier intervention is needed in the lives of these children at risk? Many of them will not even get as far as considering third level education. The children we are interviewing now through the Oireachtas under-achievement study are dropping out of school at or before the junior certificate. I am talking about 18% of the population. We are interviewing them and they are telling us what is happening. We are talking about all the groups at risk. I wonder therefore what the Minister can tell us about his earlier intervention plans.

I will deal with that point first. I am conscious of that situation. There is a pilot project in Cork with Barnados, UCC and my Department. A philanthropist has provided money for that study, which I welcome. The former vice president of UCC is chairing the strategy group which I hope will inform our thinking on early intervention. I met them before we set up this pilot project and I am obviously anxious to see how it is being monitored.

Will the Minister consider rolling something like that out nationally?

First of all, I want to see how this pilot study progresses. We will see how successful it is and will then examine it in terms of having a model.

It will probably confirm all the other results from all the other studies.

It is no different.

We want to ensure that we have a successful model. In fairness to Barnados, they came forward with UCC.

They are good partners.

It is a good partnership and I would like to see how it rolls out.

To come back to Deputy Behan, what was his first question?

It concerned the overall ceiling for teachers and SNAs.

Yes. When all the appeals have been done and when we know the exact number of teachers and SNAs required for the system — which we will know probably know in September or October 2009 — that is the ceiling that will then apply. Any changes will be made in consultation between me and the Minister for Finance. Obviously I will make the case to him, as the Deputy does, that the demographics are changing. They will change and we will see a significant increase in the number of pupils entering primary level, so we will have to take account of that. There is no question at this stage of increasing the pupil-teacher ratio. It is a fact of life that the demographics are in an upward curve and will continue thus. It will be significant over the next ten years and we will have to deal with it. The Minister for Finance is fully informed of that.

I suggest the Deputy should look at my speech of last night concerning special classes. In some of these classes autistic children were inappropriately placed together with children with mild general learning disability. We also found that children with moderate and severe learning disability were in classes with children who had mild general learning disability. They were also inappropriately placed. I care as much as anyone else, and maybe more, for the needs of those children. I am concerned that those children have been inappropriately placed in special classes over the years and that their needs were not being met. I want to ensure that those needs are met. For instance, eight classes had no mild general learning disability child in the class.

What did they have?

They had moderate, severe and profound learning disabilities.

Where are they supposed to go, Minister?

If they had moderate learning disabilities, the pupil-teacher ratio would be 5:1.

What other choice had the principal in that respect?

I am trying to get to grips with this now to ensure that we have a fair deal for all children with special needs. It is an 11:1 pupil-teacher ratio for children with mild learning disability. It is 5:1 or 6:1 for a child who has a moderate learning disability. There are special classes for other categories of special needs. I am trying to reach out to those children who have particular needs so that we can make proper provision for them. Therefore, when people say that we are making cuts, in actual fact we are trying to rectify the total situation to ensure that appropriate measures are there. It is important I clarify this.

I refer to it becoming good practice to mix the different levels of disability in the school in one class.

Let me clarify this. I have pointed out what is happening in some classes.

It is happening in some classes but not everywhere.

It is not happening everywhere.

It is not happening in the majority of classes.

The special class came into being many moons ago while in 2005, the general allocation model came into being. Internationally, it was accepted that these children should be mainstreamed, they should not be isolated and should not be in a special class but that they should interact with their friends on a daily basis and that they would benefit from the interaction with their friends in school and that the children in that school would benefit from interaction with these children as well. There was a double benefit. The third issue was to ensure proper supports were in place. There would be the main classroom teacher and one would assess the needs of the child within that setting.

There are 3,000 schools in this country looking after children with mild general learning disabilities. The INTO has indicated it is quite satisfied that it is successful. If members read my speech from Private Members' business last night, I quote exactly what it said. It expressed concern in four of the cases in regard to the special classes with which I will deal.

The results of the appeals will be out probably early next week, if not tomorrow. I am concerned that parents and schools know exactly what the position is. I wish to emphasise that my concern is for the needs of those children, that those needs are properly met and that children with special needs, irrespective of the disability they have, are appropriately placed. My information is that some are not appropriately placed at present.

Deputy Behan had a question on the moratorium on school management posts.

The general moratorium across the public sector has been very difficult. I have had long discussions at Cabinet and with the Minister for Finance. I succeeded in persuading Cabinet that schools should be treated differently from the other categories of employees. The Cabinet accepted that and that is why the ceiling will be set at 2009 levels. The Minister for Finance and I will be able to enter into negotiations on other needs.

The vacancies for principals and deputy principals will be filled. That exemption has been achieved. Assistant principal and special duty teacher posts cannot be filled. That is a Government decision. As with everything else in schools, difficulties will arise along the way. Schools have the capacity to review and revise duties within the school.

Did the Minister say for how long the filling of those posts would be suspended?

The filling of those posts will be suspended until the end of 2010. That is the Government decision.

On the position of adult education officers, the Department is in discussion with the Department of Finance to seek clarification on those positions. Senator Healy Eames raised the position of children not reaching third level education. The National Educational Welfare Board, the school completion programme and the home-school-community liaison programme are being reviewed to see if they are as effective as they should be and possibly to eliminate duplication. I will make an announcement in that regard shortly.

I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their detailed contributions. The joint committee will go into private session for the remainder of this meeting. The select committee will meet the Minister at 12.15 p.m. to consider the Revised Estimate and Annual Output Statement. I remind members that we will need a separate quorum for that meeting.

I thank members for their co-operation.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.05 p.m. and adjourned at 12.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 May 2009.
Top
Share